No C 337/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
However, the Committee thinks that the subject of 
summertime should not be linked to possible changes 
in the standard time in some Member States (viz. the 
United Kingdom and Ireland), especially as consul­
tations in these countries have not yet been concluded. 
In addition, in view of the complexity of the problem 
and the differences within and between Member States 
it is not likely that the study launched by the Com­
mission into the effects of summertime will produce 
clear results which will be equally applicable in all 
Member States. On the other hand, if summertime were to end on 
the same day throughout the Community, transport 
operators, travellers and other branches of the economy 
would be spared the considerable—and in some cases 
costly—difficulties caused by the different dates on 
which the clocks are changed. 
The Committee therefore urges that not only the begin­
ning but also the ending of summertime be standardized 
as soon as possible. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific programme for the 
dissemination and utilization of results from scientific and technological research, 1988-1992 
(88/C 337/06) 
On 16 June 1988, the Council of the European Communities decided to ask the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article 130 Q of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The section for energy, nuclear questions and research, which was responsible for the 
preparatory work on this matter, adopted its Opinion on 7 October 1988. Mr Proenca was 
rapporteur. 
At its 259th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 1988), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The present Commission communication and 
proposal for a decision are part of action line 8.4 of the 
framework programme for Community research and 
technological development (RTD), 1987-1991. 
The proposed programme includes two sub-pro­
grammes, which correspond to two of the three areas 
of research covered by this action line: 
— the dissemination and utilization of results from 
Community RTD, and 
— communications networks. The third area covers the development of computerized 
translation systems and concerns the continuation of 
the EUROTRA programme adopted at the end of 1982. 
1.2. As well as providing information on Community 
RTD programmes and projects, the first sub-pro­
gramme aims to see that findings are used effectively 
so that the scientific and technological foundations of 
European industry are strengthened: this would be done 
through: 
— the dissemination of information on RTD, 
— the identification, characterization and screening of 
results, 
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/13 
— the legal protection of results, 
— the dissemination of results, and 
— the exploitation of results. 
1.3. The second sub-programme seeks to improve 
the efficiency of R & D activities throughout Europe 
by promoting a common computer communications 
infrastructure; this would be done through: 
— helping the functioning of the RARE association, 
— participating in the EUREKA COSINE project, and 
— work on requirements for confidentiality and the 
integrity of Community RTD information. 
2. General comments 
2.1. We are glad that the present programme is to 
be implemented, in accordance with our Opinion on 
the framework programme (1), in which we said: 
'Slow and ineffective translation of results of RTD 
into commercial products is a serious deficiency 
in EC industrial competitiveness. The Community 
must endeavour to reduce the period of time it takes 
to promote the utilization of the results of research.' 
2.2. We approve the programme's aims, but more 
clarity is needed on some questions, especially on the 
way the programme is to be put into effect. 
2.3. The programme will have to make a direct and 
effective contribution towards; 
— multiplying the economic and social effects of the 
framework programme and other EEC action on 
RTD, 
— supporting an RTD strategy coordinated at Com­
munity level, 
— strengthening internal cohesion, particularly 
through support for less-developed EEC regions, 
and 
— strengthening the technological base of smaller EEC 
firms. 
Although the Commission refers to these aims in its 
introductory statements, it must go further and set 
concrete targets. 
(') OJ No C 333, 29. 12. 1986. 2.4. We hope the Commission will operate the pro­
gramme in such a way that it has a real impact 
throughout the EEC's geographical area and the various 
economic and social groups which might be interested. 
2.5. The framework Programme's main task is to 
support pre-competitive research in certain areas of 
advanced technology where international competition 
is at its fiercest. 
If the results of research are to be commercially ex­
ploited more rapidly, there must be close links between 
this programme and the other programmes affecting the 
development of the Community's technological base. 
2.6. EEC-funded research represents 2 to 3 % of the 
total research carried out in the Member States because 
it is felt that this programme should create conditions 
for an EEC-coordinated effort in the future to use RTD 
findings, especially through close cooperation with 
national agencies for utilizing research findings and 
with other agents who are active in this area at local, 
regional or national level. 
2.7. At present, Community RTD programmes are 
not very well publicized; industry, especially smaller 
firms, the scientific community and the general public 
are largely unaware of the opportunities they offer and 
of how one can take part in them. 
The experiences of some Member States (Denmark and 
Ireland) which took specific action to publicize such 
programmes and support participation in them are 
indicative of the possibilities there are for wider involve­
ment. 
The dissemination of programmes is so important that 
it must be carried out in close liaison with the Member 
States and with economic and social interests, especially 
regional groupings and institutions. 
2.8. Various ESC Opinions have expressed the con­
cern that the action to be taken in the field of RTD 
should directly benefit and strengthen smaller firms in 
the EEC. 
Such positions have been expressed in the information 
report on the importance of research and technological 
development to small and medium-sized firms, in which 
specific recommendations were made for promoting 
technology in smaller EEC firms. 
No C 337/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 88 
Particular attention should be given to making the 
results of Community research and its commercial 
exploitation available to small firms, in line with the 
ESC Opinion on the framework programme mentioned 
earlier (J), which states that: 
'Research should be carried out as to how to make 
research results, already available on data bases, 
more available to SMEs (small and medium-sized 
enterprises). 
There should also be research into the needs of 
SMEs, if they too are to share fully in the exploi­
tation of the results of Community RTD.' 
Large firms generally follow Community RTD pro­
grammes, so we think this programme should pay spe­
cial attention to small firms. 
2.9. We must avoid building Europe at two different 
speeds; special support must be provided for setting up 
a solid and competitive technological foundation in the 
less-developed regions (LDR). 
We understand this will be a specific aim of the STRIDE 
programme. 
Without prejudicing STRIDE initiatives, there will have 
to be a study into the best ways of publicizing the aims 
and opportunities resulting from EEC programmes in 
the LDRs, so as to create greater awareness of the 
programmes and help firms benefit from Community 
RTD programmes. 
2.10. The proposal financing of 38 million ECU 
seems adequate, as it can be reviewed in the light of 
the first two years' experience and of the proposals put 
forward in the review. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
As 1 July 1988 has been and gone, the date set for the 
entry into force of the programme should be reviewed. 
3.2. Article 2 — Sub-programme I 
Dissemination of information and 
results 
3.2.1. The way in which sub-programme I is defined 
is too restrictive, and does not include action 1.1 pro­
vided for in Annex I. The sub-programme's title is 
'Dissemination and utilization of the results of Com­
munity RTD activites'. But it is not only the results 
but also the programmes themselves which are to be 
disseminated. 
(*) OJ No C 333, 29. 12. 1986. The title of sub-programme I should therefore be 'Dis­
semination of Community RTD projects and pro­
grammes and the results of Community RTD activities'. 
We think it essential that this action be carried out, as it 
would lead to the setting-up of an information network 
through the participation of local agents, who would 
screen the information to be disseminated. 
3.2.2. We think a data base should be set up to 
systematize information about programmes, their 
implementation and their results; it should include the 
safeguards necessary to comply with any requests from 
firms or other participants that the information they 
give be treated as confidential. 
Identification, characterization and 
screening of results, and the legal pro­
tection of results 
3.2.3. We consider that the Commission' action as 
regards actions 1.2 and 1.3 in Annex I must be 
additional to the obligations incumbent on the contract­
ing parties in connection with contractual research 
financed by the Community. 
3.2.4. The necessary precautions must be taken to 
prevent work which has had interesting results from 
being placed under an embargo by researchers or their 
respective institutions, so that there is no immediate 
commercial exploitation, or if there is, it is done outside 
the Member States, thus harming EEC interests. 
3.2.5. Moreover, it is essential to clarify and safe­
guard the scientific copyright of workers involved in 
research programmes, and of their respective firms or 
institutions. 
Rules must be framed at Community level which defend 
and motivate scientific workers, and thus beef up the 
commercial exploitation of results. 
Exploitation of results 
3.2.6. If results are to be exploited, and if the whole 
programme is to be assessed fully and the most appro­
priate action taken, one must first be acquainted with 
the regulation governing the programme's implemen­
tation. 
This regulation will have to ensure clearly equality of 
opportunity for all EEC economic agents, in particular 
through: 
— putting up exploitation rights for open competitive 
bidding, and 
— giving prior notice of the selection criteria to be 
used for dealing with the various firms interested. 
31. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 337/15 
3.2.7. Community funding, whatever its type, should 
not generally be open-ended; it should be completely 
repaid if commercial exploitation results by means of 
a percentage of the sales of the product or process 
which has been supported. 
3.2.8. When supporting prototypes, pilot projects or 
demonstration projects, it should not be compulsory 
for there to be partners from at least two Member 
States; this should be more of a criterion for selection. 
3.2.9. When exploiting results, the Commission will 
have to assess their impact on firms' competitiveness 
and the respective economic and social consequences. 
3.3. Article 2 — Sub-programme H 
In general, we endorse sub-programme II and feel it 
can help towards the development of joint RTD pro­
grammes, but it must be made clear how much both 
the Community and the various Member States are 
to participate directly in the financing of the RARE 
association and the EUREKA COSINE project. 
Done at Brussels, 27 October 1988. 3.4. Article 3 
We cannot take a position on the proposed figure of 
20 temporary staff. We do wonder if the tasks involved 
are not of a continuous nature. 
As results have to be disseminated, especially in the 
less-developed regions, one should study the possibility 
of some staff being located in the Member States, or 
working in close liaison with local programmes such 
as integrated Mediterranean programmes (IMP). 
3.5. Article 7 
3.5.1. Article 7 provides for a re-examination of the 
programme at the end of two years and the presentation 
of a report and, if necessary, proposals to the Council 
and the European Parliament; the Economic and Social 
Committee is not mentioned. 
It is requested once more that this lamentable omission 
be put right and the Economic and Social Committee 
included. 
3.5.2. The same position is expressed as regards the 
final report on the evaluation of the results achieved, 
provided for in Article 7 (2). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE