31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/45 
c) People from all developing countries could be 
trained rather than only the few involved with 
STD projects. 
d) Relevant technology from Member States could 
be disseminated more widely and more quickly. 
e) Trainees would bring to the centres information 
on their local conditions, customs and pro­
cedures. 
f) Training centers would ensure that adequate 
attention was paid to appropriate aspects of 
economic and social research. g) Training would also be provided to enable tech­
nologists to return to their own countries, 
initiate and run local training colleges, including 
the installation and maintenance of the necess­
ary infrastructure. 
h) A wide selection of lectures, including those 
from developing countries, would be used. 
i) Industry would be involved in the teaching, the 
provision of scholarships and the supply of 
equipment. They might also be interested in the 
subsequent employment of graduates in their 
own developing country for operational 
research. 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development (R & TD) programme in the field of human capital and mobility 
(90/C 332/12) 
On 6 June 1990, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130Q(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 September 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Bordes-Pages. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
The Committee reiterates its full support for the cre­
ation of a boundary-free European research community 
and for the steps which have already been taken in this 
connection. In addition, the Committee would point out that a 
researchers' Europe cannot be confined to the academic 
sphere or restricted to training initiatives. Other meas­
ures are necessary to promote the development of the 
entire European scientific community. 
Whilst approving the proposed programme in principle, 
the Committee feels that it cannot benefit all the Mem­
ber States unless it forms part of a coherent, general 
policy which is coordinated with other existing and 
proposed Community initiatives designed to reduce the 
technological gap between the least- and most-
developed regions. The Committee also calls on the Commission and the 
Council to ensure that existing activities and training 
schemes conducted under the specific research and tech­
nological development (R&TD) programmes are con­
tinued. 
No C 332/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
Although broadly in favour of the draft Decision, the 
Committee would make the following observations and 
recommendations with regard to some of its provisions 
and implementing requirements. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The specific R&TD programme in the field of 
human capital and mobility comes under research 
strand No 6 of the framework programme for Com­
munity activities in the field of R&TD (1990-1994) (*). 
1.2. Community action in this context is designed to 
'help increase the human capital in terms of R & TD 
which the Member States will be needing in the next 
10 years and to make optimum use of their scientific and 
technical infrastructure, paving the way for a genuinely 
European scientific and technical community'. 
1.3. This objective does not, in itself, constitute a 
new departure since, in March 1985, following a two-
year experimental period, the Council adopted a plan to 
stimulate European scientific and technical cooperation 
and interchange (1985-1988) (2) aimed at the creation of 
a genuine research community in a European research 
space. 
1.4. In its Opinion of 25 October 1984 (3) on the 
corresponding Commission proposal, the Committee 
expressed the view that the time was ripe for the cre­
ation of a genuine European science area, on a scale 
comparable to the US science area. 
1.5. Whilst representing no more than a first step in 
this direction, the 1987-1991 framework programme 
gave priority to the creation of a 'research workers' 
Europe' by providing for a set of specific research 
activities relating to the stimulation, enhancement and 
the use of human resources (4). In this context, the 
Council adopted: 
— a programme-plan to stimulate the international 
cooperation and interchange needed by European 
research scientists (1988-1992) (SCIENCE) (5)— 
budget: 167 million ECU. 
— a European stimulation plan for economic science 
(1989-1992) (SPES) (6)—budget: 6 million ECU(7) 
(!) OJ No L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 28. 
(2) OJ No L 83, 25. 5. 1985, p. 13. 
(3) OJ No C 343, 24. 12. 1984, p. 12. 
(4) OJ No L 302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 1. 
(5) OJ No L 206, 30. 7. 1988, p. 34. 
(6) OJ No L 44, 13. 2. 1989, p. 43 
(7) The Commission has proposed the allocation of a supplemen­
tary budget totalling 4 million ECU for the completion of 
SPES [COM(90) 179 final]. — an experimental Community plan to support and 
facilitate access to large-scale scientific and technical 
facilities and installations of European interest (8). 
1.6. For its part, the 1990-1994 framework pro­
gramme recognized the need for a structured, and spec­
ific initiative which is based on a closer correlation 
between funds and requirements and which is designed 
'to improve the mobility and training of young 
researchers at postgraduate level' following a bottom-
up approach, around two main strands, namely the 
training and mobility of research staff and the building-
up of networks. 
1.7. This need derives from three observations outli­
ned by the Commission in its Communication of 
13 June 1989 entitled 'A framework for Community 
R&D Actions in the 90Y (9): 
— A shortage of scientists in the Community (around 
500 000) compared with the United States (825 000) 
and Japan (400 000 and rising fast). The European 
scientific community also continues to grow older 
and the renewal rate of only about 1 % per annum, 
is well below the 3 % required. 
— Insufficient mobility of research personnel; even 
though one-third of researchers have studied in a 
European country other than their own. 
— The rising cost of large-scale scientific and research 
installations and the fast pace of technological 
change make it increasingly vital for the Member 
States to share the funding of such installations. 
1.8. A fourth observation concerns the brain drain 
—within rather than outside the Community—which 
is seriously impeding the scientific and technological 
development of certain Member States and, as a result, 
their economic and social progress. In this connection, 
reference should be made to the information report 
drawn up by the Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions 
and Research on the 'training and employment of 
research workers in the European Community'(10), 
which drew attention to the failure of the Community 
and the Member States to take adequate account of 
this matter. 
1.9. The report presented in June 1989 by the 
1987-1991 'framework programme review board', also 
stresses, in particular, the need for action to attract 
(8) OJ No L 98,11. 4. 1989, p. 29. 
(9) SEC(89) 675 final. 
(10) CES 388/88 fin. of 20 December 1988—Rapporteur: Mr 
Moreland. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/47 
highly-qualified research workers to the least-favoured 
Community regions on a permanent basis. 
1.10. The specific aim of the programme, for which 
a total of 518 million ECU has been allocated, is to 
help to improve the scientific knowledge and skills of 
some 5 000 European research workers over the five 
years in question. This figure represents 1 % of the total 
number of researchers in the Community. 
1.11. Thus, young research workers will be awarded 
fellowships which will enable them to undertake post­
doctoral training, normally for two years, in high-
level research centers, specific scientific and technical 
establishments in other Member States or European 
networks of centres of excellence. 
1.12. The Joint Research Center (JRC) will also play 
a part in the programme. A total of 25 million ECU 
has been allocated for this purpose from the overall 
programme budget. 
1.13. Financial support will also be provided to 
enable access to the establishments of the host organiz­
ations and participation in research by fellowship hol­
ders. 
1.14. Back-up arrangements have also been made 
to ensure the satisfactory technical implementation, 
management and evaluation of the programme, appro­
priate dissemination and accessibility of its results and 
the promotion and improvement of mutual understand­
ing among the participants. 
1.15. Lastly, it should be noted that 4,93 million 
ECU will be used for the centralized dissemination and 
evaluation of the result of the specific and supplemen­
tary research programmes pursuant to the provisions 
of Article 4 of the Council Decision on the 1990-1994 
framework programme. 
2. General comments 
2.1. Continuation of the SCIENCE, SPES and 'large-
scale facilities' plans 
2.1.1. The measures provided for by the proposed 
programme are additional. They are not intended to 
replace current Community activities or to be an exten­
sion of or sequel to those activities, notwithstanding 
the common objectives and close links. 
2.1.2. Whilst it may still be too early to evaluate 
SPES and the 'large-scale facilities' plan, the success 
both of the SCIENCE plan and training projects 
executed under various specific research programmes 
is undeniable. Thus, the number of fellowships awarded annually by the Community has risen from 50 before 
1983 (when the experimental phase of the plan to 
stimulate the international cooperation and interchange 
needed by European research scientists was launched -
1983/84), to 350/400 at present—including scolarships 
awarded under specific programmes—in response to 
some 1 200 applications every year. 
2.1.3. Pursuant to the relevant Council decisions, 
these three plans should be completed in 1992 when the 
1990-1994 framework programme is due to be exam­
ined with a view to the presentation of a new frame­
work programme for the period 1993-1997 in accord­
ance with the principle of on-going planning. At pre­
sent, the 1990-1994 framework programme makes no 
financial provision for the continuation of these plans 
beyond 1992. 
2.1.4. This prompts the Committee to question the 
future status of the SCIENCE, SPES and 'large-scale 
facilities' plans, particularly as neither the 1990-1994 
framework programme Decision, nor the proposal 
under consideration touch on this aspect. The statement 
that 'the activities being carried out under the SCIENCE 
plan will be taken further in conjunction with the new 
activities' cannot be accepted as a guarantee in the 
absence of corresponding budgetary resources. 
2.2. Programme content 
2.2.1. In the first place, it should be pointed out that, 
by restricting training activities to the post-doctoral 
level, the Commission proposal departs from the pro­
visions of Annex II to the Decision on the 1990-1994 
framework programme which describes the measures 
to be implemented and states (point 6) that doctoral 
candidates are also eligible. Invitations to young 
researchers to apply for training fellowships must there­
fore specify the qualifications required. 
2.2.2. It should also be remembered that the duration 
of doctoral studies varies considerably from one Mem­
ber State to another and between disciplines (from 3 to 
7, 8 and even 9 years). Whilst the Commission's inten­
tion of taking account of this fact in selecting research 
scientists for the training programme is noted, the actu­
al selection procedure must nevertheless be explained 
so as to make clear that these differences will not 
adversely affect the attainment of the programme objec­
tives. 
2.2.3. According to information supplied by the 
Commission, the cost of an individual training activity 
is estimated at ECU 38 000/year. This figure covers 
the fellowship grant (approximately ECU 28 000) and 
financial assistance to the host organization (ECU 
10 000). 
2.2.4. The Committee would point out that the latter 
amount should not be regarded as an operating subsidy 
No C 332/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
or a substitute for funds previously allocated by the 
Member States. 
2.2.5. At all events, the Committee would ask the 
Commission to ensure that the contracts to which train­
ing activities give rise specify how this financial assist­
ance may be used, with particular reference to the 
category of research worker concerned and the purpose 
of the fellowship. The Commission must also ensure 
compliance with the provisions of such contracts and 
evaluate the effects of the financial assistance. 
2.3. Research sectors covered by the programme 
2.3.1. In addition to confirming its horizontal 
character, the number and size of the research sectors 
covered by the programme reveal a desire not to exclude 
any research topic a priori. This is one of the areas 
where the proposed programme breaks new ground, the 
SCIENCE plan being limited to the exact and natural 
sciences and SPES to economics. In the Committee's 
view, this open approach calls for several comments. 
2.3.2. The first concerns the inclusion of research 
sectors closely related to those covered by the fourteen 
other specific research programmes under the 
1990-1994 framework programme. 
2.3.3. On this point, the Committee is extremely 
concerned by the uncertainly as to whether the Com­
mission intends to continue to implement training 
activities under the proposed new specific programmes 
when such activities have been, and still are, executed 
within the framework of numerous current pro­
grammes, in particular with the aid of training and 
mobility grants. 
2.3.4. In this connection, it should be remembered 
that, on several occasions, the Committee has stressed 
the importance of training activities in the context of 
specific research programmes owing, in particular, to 
thier direct and valuable contribution to the goal of 
achieving economic and social cohesion within the 
Community. 
2.3.5. These activities are of crucial importance, sin­
ce they enable those Member States with less sophisti­
cated research infrastructures and fewer scientists to 
participate fully in research programmes, thereby sig­
nificantly helping to reduce development disparities 
between Member States, as the Committee has pointed 
out most recently, in it Opinion on the 1990-1994 
framework programme C1). 
2.3.6. These training activities also enable research 
staff to adapt to rapidly changing know-how and tech­
niques. 
(!) OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990, p. 34 (Rapporteur: Mr J. de Nor-
mann). 2.3.7. The Committee considers it imperative that 
these training shoul be conducted primarily with the 
framework of the specific programmes and in conform­
ity with the particular scientific and technical objectives 
and content of those programmes; consequently, it 
could not accept the effective transfer of the financial 
burden, should it be the Commission's intention to 
implement these activities exclusively under the pro­
posed programme. 
2.3.8. The Committee thinks that such a develop­
ment would, in all probability, make it more difficult 
to attain the specific objectives of that programme by 
reducing its budgetary allocation and entailing a defi­
nite transfer of responsibilities. 
2.3.9. This does not mean that the Committee is 
opposed to the inclusion in the programme of traning 
activities sectors related to those covered by the four­
teen other specific programmes. It would however, 
point out that, by giving priority to these sectors, new 
avenues of research may be denied the necessary 
funding. 
2.3.10. With regard to the inclusion of life and social 
sciences, it should be noted that this represents a 
response to a request made by the Committee in its 
1984 Opinion on the plan to stimulate European scien­
tific and technical cooperation and interchange (1985-
1988) (2) and repeated in its Opinion on the SPES plan 
in September 1988 (3). 
2.3.11. In this connection, the Committee would 
point out that, whilst the Commission is not yet in a 
position to assess post-Ph.D training requirements in 
the social and life sciences or even the number of 
research workers in this sector, implementation of this 
programme could facilitate analysis of these specific 
needs. At the same time, it seems worth noting that 
approximately half of the 60 000 Ph.D theses submitted 
each in the Community relate to the social and life 
sciences. 
2.3.12. At all events, the precise significance of the 
phrase 'Life and social sciences' must be examined since 
there is a danger that priority will be given to economics 
over other relevant disciplines, and this would be par­
ticularly detrimental to research conducted at the inter­
face between science, technology and society on such 
tropics as the quality of life and the environment. 
2.4. Implementing arrangements for the programme 
2.4.1. The implementing arrangements for the pro­
posed programme contain two constructive innovations 
(2) OJ No C 343, 24.12.1984, p. 12. 
(3) OJ No C 318,12. 12. 1988, p. 23. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/49 
compared with ongoing Community schemes to pro­
mote training of researchers: 
— firsty, participants in the training actions will be 
selected on the basis of an annual procedure aiming 
to match host organizations with researchers wish­
ing to take part, and 
— secondly, researchers will be selected by the host 
organizations under a decentralized system. 
2.4.2. Whilst welcoming these arrangements, the 
Committee would stress that their implementation 
should be closely monitored by the Commission in 
order to ensure conformity with the programme objec­
tives, with particular reference to the award of training 
fellowships having regard to the goal of increasing 
economic and social cohesion within the Community. 
2.5. Reexamination of the programme and evaluation 
of its results 
2.5.1. Article 5 of the draft Decision provides for an 
interim review of the programme in the course of 1992 
and an assessment of its results on completion. 
2.5.2. The Committee doubts whether a review con­
ducted in 1992 would serve any useful purpose since 
the programme could not be initiated before 1 January 
1991 at the earliest and time would also be required for 
the selection of host organizations and researchers and 
the conclusion of training contracts. It therefore feels 
that, to be any value, this review should be deferred 
until the third programme year. 
2.5.3. The Committee also notes that once again it is 
not explicitly listed among the recipients of the interim 
review or of the final assessment. The Commission has 
never given a proper reason for this practice which runs 
counter to EEC Treaty Article 130Q. 
2.5.4. It must be recalled that, in accordance with 
Article 130Q, the Committee must be consulted on any 
proposal to change, extend or renew research pro­
grammes. The Committee, just as much as the Council 
and the Commission, needs these reports if it is to 
evaluate Commission proposals. It therefore urges the 
Commission and the Council to amend Article 5 of the 
draft Decision. 
2.6. The programme's contribution to the goal 
strengthening economic and social cohesion 
2.6.1. The ability of Community regions to retain 
native highly-qualified research scientists, and to attract others, is undoubtedly one of the key means of enabling 
the least-favoured areas to develop their research 
capacity and, as a result, to close the technological gap 
on the most advanced regions. 
2.6.2. In this connection, the availability of research 
infrastructures is a crucial factor, which the draft largely 
ignores. Indeed, far from generating Community added 
value for the benefit of all the Member States, the 
proposed programme could merely accelerate the drain 
to the more prosperous Community regions with their 
existing advanced research infrastructures. 
2.6.3. The Committee pinpointed this danger in its 
Opinion on the 1990-1994 framework programme, in 
which it drew attention to the concentration of centres 
of excellence in the Northern Member States and 
stressed that immediate implementation of this pro­
gramme would draw large numbers of researchers to 
those centres to the detriment of others parts of the 
Community. 
2.6.4. The Commission apears to be aware of such 
a danger, since the draft states that, in particular cases, 
fellowships may be prolonged by one year to allow the 
researchers concerned to return to their home country 
and there begin to exploit their acquired skills. Whilst 
this possibility is to be welcomed, it seems unlikely to 
induce the research workers concerned to remain in 
their country of origin. 
2.6.5. More significant is the major share of the 
training programme accounted for by the establishment 
of networks of centres of excellence. In this connection, 
Annex II to the Council Decision is more explicit than 
the draft proposal with regard to the contribution of 
these networks to the attainment of the goal of econ­
omic and social cohesion, since it states that they are 
intended to facilitate the development of highly-quali­
fied scientific and technical potential in peripheral and 
backward regions in the light of special local require­
ments. 
2.6.6. Whilst the creation of a network infrastructure 
is regarded as an essential aim of this programme, the 
Committee notes that no specific measures are proposed 
with a view to its attainment. It therefore calls on the 
Commission to remedy this situation and, conse­
quently, to make the necessary budgetary resources 
available. 
2.6.7. It must therefore be said that the objective 
of the proposed programme will only be completely 
attained if it forms part of a coherent policy which is 
coordinated with other relevant Community initiat-
No C 332/50 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
ives, such as the STRIDE (*), VALUE (2) and SPRINT (3) 
programmes, essentially aimed at those regions with 
the weakest R&D capacity. This need is all the greater 
in that the initiatives taken by the Community, particu­
larly since the launch of the first framework programme 
in 1983, have so far failed to reduce the constantly 
widening technological gap between the most backward 
and most advanced Community regions. As measured 
by the official Community scale, the most backward 
region is one and the most advanced region is 12. 
2.7. Additional comments 
2.7.1. The Committee considers it necessary to recall 
the existing major differences with regard to the 
remuneration and working conditions of Community 
research scientists which were highlighted in the infor­
mation report mentioned in point 1.8 above. These 
differences constitute both an obstacle to the mobility 
of research workers and one of the reasons for the brain 
drain from individual regions and indeed from the 
Community. 
(*) STRIDE - Science and Technology for Regional Innovation 
and Development in Europa. 
(2) Specific programme for the dissemination and utilization 
of scientific and technical research results. OJ No L 200, 
13. 7. 1989, p. 23. 
(3) Strategic programme for innovation and technology transfer. 
OJ No L 112, IS. 4. 1989, p. 12. 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 2.7.2. The establisment of a genuine European scien­
tific and technical community will necessitate careful 
examination of these questions, which are directly lin­
ked to the status of research scientists. Where appropri­
ate, this should lead to the adoption of suitable measur­
es to eliminate these differences and create a favourable 
Community-wide environment for the development of 
researchers' full potential which will induce them to 
remain permanently in research. 
2.7.3. The Committee would also emphasize that, 
whilst the development of its scientific and technical 
potential may be crucial to the strengthening of the 
Community's R&TD capacity, it will not, in itself, lead 
to a long-term improvement in European industrial 
competitiveness. In addition to the ability of European 
industry to attract and retain highly-qualified 
researchers, such improved competitiveness will depend 
on measures to ensure the effective dissemination and 
utilization of R&TD results and their rapid exploitation 
in new products or processes. 
2.7.4. Lastly, the Committee would point out that 
tomorrow's researchers are today's schoolchildren, so 
that greater attention should be paid to pre-university 
training. The aforemetioned information report made 
relevant proposals in this connection, stressing the vital 
need to identify talent at an early age and to encourage 
those concerned throughout their training, to undertake 
research. These observations should be borne in mind 
in any attempt to increase the Community's human 
capital in the fields of R&TD. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE