8. 3.. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 59/19 
Opinion  on the common  policy  in the field  of science  and  technology 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 187  of 5 August  1977,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 14 July  1977  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  subject  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 153  rd 
plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 23 and  24 November  1977. 
The full text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community,  and  in particular  Article  198 
thereof,  and  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Atomic  Energy  Community,  and  in particular  Article 
170 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the European  Communities  on 14 July 
1977, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 27 
September  1977  instructing  the Section  for Energy  and 
Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up an opinion  and  a report 
on the matter, 
Having  regard  to its study  entitled  'objectives  and 
priorities  for  a common  research  and  development 
policy'  approved  on 25 May  1976, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section  for 
Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  at its 35 th meeting  held 
on 7 October  1977, 
Having  regard  to the report  submitted  by the rappor-
teur,  Mr Schlitt, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 153rd  plenary 
session  held  on 23 and  24 November  1977  (meeting  of 
24 November), 
Whereas  with  its recommendation  of 14 January  1974 
the Council  set in motion  the development  of a common 
policy  in the field  of science  and  technology  involving 
coordination  of national  policies  and  the  joint  im-
plementation  of projects  of interest  to the Community; Whereas  after  three  years  the time  has  come  to take 
stock  of the  Community's  research  and  development 
policy  in the light  of experience  with  the coordination 
measures  and action  programmes; 
Whereas  on the basis  of this  experience  the Commission 
must  continue  its efforts  in this  area  in the next  four 
years,  by coordinating  national  research  policies  and by 
updating  Community  research  programmes  or drawing 
up new  ones, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with three  abstentions: 
1. Comments  on the draft  Council  resolution  on the 
guidelines  for the common  policy  in the  field  of 
science  and  technology 
1.1. The  Committee  welcomes  the guidelines.  It sup-
ports  the Commission  in its intention,  as expressed  in 
the guidelines,  of assuming  also  in the next  four  years 
the task  of coordinating  national  research  policies  in the 
field  of .science  and  technology  and  implementing  or 
continuing  Community  research  programmes. 
1.2. The  Committee  considers,  however,  that  despite 
the Commission's  efforts,  the goals  are still  quite  a long 
No C 59/20 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 8. 3. 78 
way off.  The  Community  has  a considerable  research 
and development  potential  whose  efficiency  could  be 
appreciably  enhanced  if a greater  proportion  of the 
national  research  and  development  funds  were  switched 
to the Community,  a point  the Committee  has  made 
repeatedly  in the past.  The  Committee  appreciates  that 
the gradual  transfer  of funds  and  powers  to the Com-
munity  is part  of the general  process  of integration  of 
the Community.  The  slow  pace  at which  a Community 
research  and  development  policy  is materializing  is in 
the final  analysis  but a reflection  of the inadequate  in-
tegration  process  in the Community. 
1.3. The  guidelines  advocate  a pragmatic  approach  in 
the years  ahead.  The  Committee  endorses  this  ap-
proach,  particularly  since  it regards  this  as perhaps  the 
only possible  way  of gradually  achieving  a Community 
research  and  development  policy.  For  this  reason,  the 
Committee  considers  that  indirect  action  projects  and 
coordination  measures  represent  particularly  suitable 
and effective  instruments  for  gradually  achieving  a 
common  policy  in the field  of science  and technology. 
1.4. In the Committee's  view,  the success  of this  method 
depends,  however,  in large  measure  on the extent  to 
which  the Commission  succeeds  in concentrating  ini-
tially  on that  work  which  lends  itself  particularly  to 
Community  action,  bearing  in mind  the  interest  and 
urgency  of the work  and  the level  of expenditure  in-
volved.  The  Committee  considers  that  rigorous  selection 
criteria  will  have  to be applied  in view  of the mass  of 
research  and  development  work  suitable  for  Com-
munity  action  and  the very  limited  funds  at the Com-
munity's  disposal. 
1.5. The  Committee  thinks  that  Community  initiatives 
are required  if the work  is in the interests  of all Member 
States  and  beyond  the financial  resources  of the indi-
vidual  Member  States  and  if the efficiency  of work  in 
the individual  Member  States  can  be considerably  en-
hanced  thereby.  Community  action  could  be dispensed 
with where  international  organizations  are  already 
adequately  and  successfully  engaged  in promoting 
cooperation. 
1.6. The  Committee  regards  the priority  sectors  listed 
by the Commission  in the guidelines  as eminently  suit-
able for Community  action.  It has noted  in this  connec-
tion that  research  and  development  at Community  level 
must  be geared  to overall  long-term  economic  and  so-
cial objectives  by means  of Community  measures.  It 
also drew  attention  in the Study  to the importance  of 
CREST's  work  for coordination  of national  research 
and development  policies  in the interests  of a Com-
munity  research  and  development  policy.  The  Commit-
tee would  reiterate  these  comments  here  with  reference 
to the guidelines.  The  Committee  regrets,  however,  that 
the Member  States  are not  yet to the requisite  extent 
comparing,  analyzing  and  coordinating  their  national research  and  development  programmes  before  finaliza-
tion,  as provided  for in the Council  resolution  of 14 
January  1974. 
1.7. The  Committee  wonders  whether  it would  not be 
possible  soon,  on the basis  of this  Council  instrument, 
to issue  a joint  research  and  development  report  of the 
nine Member  States  dealing  at least  with  the  most 
important  areas  of interest  to the Community.  Such  a 
report  could  present  an overall  view  of the research  and 
development  scenario  and the research  and development 
potential  of the Nine  to a wider  circle  of politicians, 
scientists  and economists  in all the Member  States. 
1.8. The  Committee  also  thinks  that  the budget  dif-
ficulties  in all the Member  States  make  greater  research 
and development  cooperation  at Community  level 
imperative,  particularly  where  it is a question  of ensur-
ing the necessary  finance  for the most  important  and 
most  urgent  research  and  development  projects. 
1.9. The  Committee  has  in the past  commented  on a 
number  of occasions  on Community  research  and  de-
velopment  projects,  particularly  the  multiannual  re-
search  programme.  Most  of these  projects  and  pro-
grammes  were  concerned  primarily  with  the energy  sec-
tor. At present  this  sector  alone  accounts  for 64 % of 
Community  research  and  development  expenditure; 
it is followed  by health  with  15 to 16%  and  industry 
with 12 to 14%.  Agriculture,  life  in society  and  the 
environment  each  receive  about  2% of total  Commun-
ity funds.  In generally  approving  Community  projects 
and programmes  the Committee  recognized  the prime 
importance  of research  and  development  in the energy 
sector  and  supported  the  Commission's  initiatives  in 
this area.  The  Committee  considers,  however,  that  the 
relative  importance  of individual  research  and  develop-
ment  activities  is determined  not merely  by the share  of 
total  expenditure  but  also  by the significance  of the 
work  and  the possible  impact  of the results  on Com-
munity  policy.  Particular  research  and  development 
activities  may  receive  a small  amount  of money  but be 
of much  greater  importance  than  their  share  of total 
research  and  development  expenditure  suggests.  The 
Committee  thinks,  that,  bearing  in mind  especially  the 
differences  in overall  cost  between  the various  research 
and development  projects,  the  available  Community 
funds  have  so far been  evenly  apportioned  over  the 
main  points  of effort  which  it itself  has endorsed.  That 
does  not  mean,  however,  that  the present  apportion-
ment  of research  and development  funds  will necessarily 
be appropriate  in the future. 
1.9.1.  In this  connection  the Committee  is of the opin-
ion that  when  decisions  are being  taken  in future  on 
Community  research  and  development  projects  it will 
not be enough  to consider  merely  the relevant  public 
research  and  development  expenditure  of the individual 
Member  States.  Account  will  also  have  to be taken  of 
8. 3. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 59/21 
private-sector  research  and  development  expenditure  in 
the Community. 
1.10.  In the Committee's  view,  the Commission  should 
develop  a longer-term  concept  for the JRC  before  com-
pletion  of the current  multiannual  programme  and,  in 
particular,  make  clear  whether  the  research  and  de-
velopment  capability  of the JRC  is to be maintained  at 
the present  level  or whether  — and  this  is something  the 
Committee  would.welcome  — it intends  to advocate 
an expansion  of  direct  action  within  the  JRC 
framework.  A Community  research  and  development 
policy  and  the Community  research  and  development 
projects  necessary  for its support  must,  in the longer 
term,  be underpinned  by efficient  and  scientifically 
recognized  Community  research  centres.  In view  of the 
mass  of work  of interest  to the Community,  this  inevit-
ably means  an expansion  of direct  action.  Such  an 
expansion,  which  might  have  to be effected  in stages, 
should  be based  on a careful  selection  of additional 
research  work,  which  would  not only  have  to be of in-
terest  to the Community  but would  also  have  to be at-
tractive  to qualified  staff  in terms  of the scientific  aims 
pursued.  In this  connection,  the basic  question  whether 
Community  research  facilities  should  be accessible  to 
scientists  from  non-Member  States  would  have  to be 
examined.  The  Committee  would  be in favour  if a con-
tribution  could  be made  in this  way  to international 
cooperation,  in particular  with  the developing  countries. 
1.10.1.  Before  any  expansion  of JRC  capability,  the 
Commission  should  check  whether,  and  if so to what 
extent,  the farming  out of JRC  work  to existing  na-
tional  research  institutes  would  be a better  and  cheaper 
solution.  Integration  of national  research  institutes  in 
the JRC  should  not be ruled  out here. 
1.11.  The  Committee  thinks  that  the Commission  has 
made  a correct  choice  with  the principal  programmes 
set out in the guidelines.  The  programmes  have  largely 
been  drawn  up in accordance  with  criteria  which  the 
Committee  has  endorsed  for Community  action.  The 
Committee  found  then  that  energy,  raw  materials  and 
the environment  were  of particular  importance  and 
urgency  from  the  Community's  point  of view.  The 
, Committee  thinks  that  considerable  importance  is to be 
attached  also  to 'life  in society',  with  the following  indi-
vidual  programmes:  social  policy,  town  and  country 
planning,  medicine,  radiation  protection  and  applied 
molecular  and  cellular  biology.  Research  in the field  of 
applied  molecular  and  cellular  biology  is to complement 
the work  of the European  Science  Foundation  and  the 
European  Molecular  Biology  Organization  (EMBO). 
1.12.  The  Committee  readily  concedes  that  the existing 
contacts  between  the Community  institutions  and  the 
independent  European  organizations,  such  as the Euro-pean  Space  Agency  (ESA),  the  European  Molecular 
Biology  Organization  (EMBO)  and  the European  Sci-
ence Foundation,  seem  to be adequate  at present.  It 
would,  however,  urge  the Commission  to strengthen 
these  contacts  where  this  is necessary  in order  to do 
better  justice  to the Community  interest  in the research 
and development  conducted  by these  organizations. 
1.13.  The  Committee  considers  that  the right  approach 
has been  taken  in the measures  planned  under  the head-
ing of industrial  research,  particularly  in so far as they 
are to be adopted  within  the next  four  years.  The  prim-
ary measure  envisaged,  viz. development  of a Commun-
ity policy  for innovation,  is welcomed  by the Commit-
tee. The  Committee  has endorsed  the requirements  and 
criteria  to be applied  in assigning  industrial  research 
and development  projects.  The  requirements  and 
criteria  defined  by the Commission  in the draft  Decision 
are considered  by the Committee  to be correct  and suit-
able also  for research  and  development  projects  in the 
industrial  sector  that  do  not  involve  small  and 
medium-sized  undertakings.  The  Committee  hopes  that 
the initial  programmes  will  be expanded  on the basis  of 
the experience  acquired.  As part  of this  process  the as-
sistance  proposed  by the  Commission  should  be ex-
tended  also  to specific  sectors  where  appropriate.  In 
such cases,  the funds  should  be used  as far as possible 
for pilot  or demonstration  projects,  whose  results  would 
then be at the disposal  of the entire  sector  in question. 
In the Committees'  view,  the programme  for the promo-
tion of industrial  research  will  not,  however,  be effective 
or successful  unless  the necessary  funds  are provided. 
The funds  at present  envisaged  are at all events  suffi-
cient  to acquire  experience  with  several  selected  projects 
with a view  to a more  comprehensive  promotion  pro-
gramme  if appropriate. 
1.14.  With  regard  to the 'modalities',  finance  and pro-
cedures  of the  Community  research  and  technology 
policy,  the Committee  thinks  that,  on the basis  of a first 
tentative  impression,  the indirect  action  projects  can be 
said to have  been  successful  as well  as the direct  action 
projects.  The  Committee  considers  it important  that  the 
Community  should  have  a decisive  say in the execution 
of indirect  research  and development  projects,  for which 
the Community  provides  up to 50%  of the funds.  The 
Committee  endorses  the form  and  extent  of the finan-
cial participation  in the individual  projects  undertaken 
to date,  and  also  regards  the overall  40 : 60 apportion-
ment  of funds  between  direct  and  indirect  action  pro-
jects as balanced  and  by and large  correct.The  Commit-
tee wonders,  however,  whether  it would  not be possible, 
or even  necessary,  to provide  more  than  50%  of the 
funds  needed  for a given  indirect  action  project  where 
commercially  risky  pilot  or demonstration  work  of par-
ticular  interest  to the Community  is involved. 
1.15.  Concerted  action,  which  the  Commission  has 
recently  introduced,  is in the Committee's  view  a very 
No C 59/22 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 8. 3. 78 
promising  instrument  for the pragmatic  coordination  of 
national  research  and  development  activities.  In view  of 
the small  amount  of funds  needed  for this  coordination 
activity  of the Community  institutions,  this  instrument 
should  be applied  extensively,  at least  in all areas  where 
indirect  action  is called  for from  the Community  point 
of view  but where  such  action  is impossible  owing  to 
shortage  of funds.  Concerted  action  should  therefore  be 
gradually  introduced  in all instances  where  national 
research  and  development  programmes  are still  being 
pursued  separately  in areas  of priority  and  importance 
to the Community,  such  as energy,  raw  materials  and 
the environment.  In the Committee's  view,  the success 
of concerted  action  depends  largely  on the contribution 
made  by the relevant  steering  committees.  The  Com-
munity  institutions  should  therefore  make  every  effort/ 
to ensure  active  support  from  the steering  committees 
with a view  to Community  coordination. 
1.16.  There  has been  repeated  criticism  of the fact  that 
there  is such  a diversity  of research  and  development 
bodies  at Community  level.  The  Committee  thinks  that 
it is unavoidable  that  the Commission  should  require 
advice.  It considers,  however,  that  it is necessary  to 
analyze  the existing  advisory  bodies,  their  membership 
and their  terms  of reference.  It reserves  the right  to 
make  a separate  detailed  study  of this  question  in the 
light  of the information  obtained. 
1.17.  Community  involvement  in international  cooper-
ation  in the research  and  development  field  is consi-
dered  by the Committee  to be essential.  Cooperation 
between  Member  States  and  third  countries  should  be 
increasingly  channelled  through  the Community  in the 
case of research  and  development  programmes  of 
Community  interest.  This  need  not  have  any  adverse 
effect  on direct  relations  between  individual  Member 
States  and  partner  countries.  In this  connection,  the 
Committee  welcomes  the fact  that  the Commission  is 
participating  in the international  fuel  cycle  evaluation 
programme  agreed  in London  with  President  Carter. 
1.18.  The  Committee  thinks  that  there  is still a consid-
erable  potential  for improving  the dissemination  and 
utilization  of research  and  development  results.  A uni-
versal  system  for disseminating  and utilizing  results  will 
undoubtedly  be difficult  to apply.  A detailed  examina-
tion should  be made  of the Member  States'  experience 
with the methods  and approaches  they  have  adopted  for 
the dissemination  of information,  and  this  experience 
should  be drawn  upon  where  appropriate.  An advisory 
committee,  set up within  CREST  as proposed  in the 
guidelines,  could  provide  valuable  assistance  here. 
1.19.  It is very  important  — and  here  the Committee  is 
in full  agreement  with  the  guidelines  -— that  there should  be periodic,  systematic  evaluations  of research 
and development.  Research  and  development  which  is 
not leading  anywhere  or which  is no longer  expected  to 
yield  any  useful  findings  should  be discontinued.  The 
ever-increasing  cost  of research  and  development  and 
the limited  nature  of the funds  available  make  regular 
evaluations  of the efficiency  of research  imperative.  It is 
vital that  such  evaluations  should  indeed  take  place  and 
that they  should  be conducted  by independent,  expert 
advisers  or organizations.  The  Committee  therefore 
welcomes  the fact  that  the Commission  is to pay  par-
ticular  attention  to this  matter. 
2. Comments  on the  draft  Council  Decision  on the 
promotion  of industrial  research  projects 
2.1. The  Committee  endorses  the Commission's  pro-
posal,  subject  to the following  comments. 
2.2. The  Committee  welcomes  this  move  to promote 
industrial  research  projects.  It would  like  the main  bene-
ficiaries  to be small  and  medium-sized  enterprises,  as 
it is one  of the  Community's  aims  to preserve  and 
strengthen  such  enterprises.  Specific  individual  measures 
by the Community  to promote  research  and  develop-
ment  are justified  as a contribution  to achieving  this 
general  aim.  The  Committee  considers  the total  budget 
of 13 million  units  of account  envisaged  for the next 
three  years  to be basically  inadequate,  bearing  in mind 
the wide  range  of assistance  measures  in the  nine 
Member  States.  Since  this  is, however,  an initial  move 
on the part  of the Commission  to promote  industrial 
research  and  experience  should  first  of all be acquired 
with this  programme,  the  Committee  supports  the 
Commission  proposal  despite  the  relatively  small 
budget.  It also  gives  its support  because  it sees  the 
proposed  assistance  measures,  in so far as they  will  be 
of benefit  mainly  to small  and medium-sized  enterprises, 
as complementing  the general  measures  to strengthen 
this sector.  The  Committee  also  regards  the Commis-
sion proposal  as a first  step  towards  a more  comprehen-
sive promotion  programme,  for which  a clear  policy  has 
still to be worked  out. 
2.3. The  Committee  doubts  whether  some  of the 
criteria  laid  down  by the Commission  for the granting 
of assistance  can  be effective  for small  and  medium-
sized  enterprises.  Under  Article  1 of the draft  Decision 
financial  assistance  is to be provided  only  for undertak-
ings which  'wish  to cooperate  with  each  other  on a 
Community  basis'  or 'have  already  established  coopera-
tive links'.  Quite  apart  from  the fact  that  some  texts 
(the French,  English  and  Italian)  are less  precise  here 
8. 3. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 59/23 
than  others  (the  German,  Dutch  and  Danish),  the 
Committee  thinks  that  these  conditions  will  only  rarely 
be met  by small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (for 
which  the  assistance  is intended).  This  means  that 
promotion  of these  enterprises  could  be severely  re-
stricted.  To avoid  unnecessary  restrictions  in the grant-
ing of assistance,  which  would  also  detract  from  the 
experimental  character  of the scheme,  the Commission 
should  attach  less  importance  to cross-frontier  coopera-
tion between  undertakings  and  place  more  emphasis  on 
the results  of the research  projects  being  made  available 
under  certain  conditions  to all undertakings  in the 
Community.  This  would  not  only  maintain  the  Com-
munity  character  of the assistance  measures  but would 
also give  it more  effect. that assistance  is given  only  to those  firms  whose  capa-
bility  and  position  on Community  or international 
markets  can be improved  thereby. 
2.7. The  Committee  thinks  that  the  draft  Decision 
should  specify  in the form  of a percentage  the maximum 
extent  to which  the Commission  is prepared  to finance 
a project.  A predetermined  financial  ceiling  would  make 
it easier  for the relevant  firms  to themselves  assess  the 
eligibility  of projects  for assistance,  so that  they  could 
submit  only  those  applications  which  have  a chance  of 
being  successful. 
2.4. 'Improvement  of economic  equilibrium  between 
regions',  one  of the criteria  for the provision  of assis-
tance  set out  in Article  2, does  not  seem  to be very 
realistic  to the Committee.  The  small  amount  of funds, 
probably  spread  over  a fairly  large  number  of small  and 
medium-sized  enterprises,  is hardly  likely  to have  an 
influence  on the balance  between  regions.  The  criteria 
are also  quite  broadly  formulated.The  Committee  thinks 
that this  is appropriate  for this  programme,  because  it is 
a question  of acquiring  experience.  A sufficient  degree 
of flexibility  in implementing  the programme  is there-
fore needed  on the part  of the Commission.  The  Com-
mittee  welcomes  the  fact  that  certain  Community  re-
search  and  development  objectives  are to be pursued  at 
the same  time  in applying  the criteria.  It therefore  thinks 
that in cases  where  larger  firms  submit  research  pro-
posals  which  meet  the criteria  in question  and  are  of 
particular  interest  to the Community,  these  firms  will 
not be at an inherent  disadvantage  on account  of their 
size when  it comes  to deciding  who  is to receive  assis-
tance. 
2.5. The  Committee  would  also  point  out in this  con-
nection  that  there  are no clear-cut  criteria  for classifying 
firms  as small,  medium-sized  or large  in the individual 
countries,  regions  or sectors.  The  Committee  would  like 
the Commission  to show  some  flexibility  here. 
2.6. The  Committee  thinks  that  in the selection  of pro-
jects  special  attention  should  also  be paid  to ensuring 3. Comments  on the proposal  for a Council  Decision 
on a research  programme  on forecasting  and  as-
sessment  in the field  of science  and  technology 
3.1. The  Committee  endorses  the  Commission's  pro-
posal.  It agrees  with  the Commission  that  it would  be 
premature  at this  juncture  to set up a Community  insti-
tute for  long-term  forecasting  and  technology  assess-
ment  as recommended  in the Europe  + 30 report. 
3.2. For  the preparation  of its opinion,  the Committee 
took  note  of the  document  in which  the Commission 
comments  on the recommendations  of the Europe  + 30 
study.  The  Committee  agrees  largely  with  the Commis-
sion's  assessment.  In particular,  it considers  that  the 
Commission  needs  an institute  for long-term  forecasting 
and technology  assessment  for its Community  policy, 
especially  policy  in the research  and  development  sector. 
Consideration  should  not,  however,  be given  to setting 
up such  an institute  until  duplication  of work  is pre-
cluded  in the Community.  As integration  proceeds,  it is 
only  logical  that  the investigations  and  evaluations  in 
progress  in this  field  should  be progressively  transferred 
to the Community. 
3.3. The  funds  allocated  by the  Commission  for  the 
initial  experimental  phase  are considered  adequate  by 
the Committee.  The  same  applies  to the proposed  addi-
tional  staff  at the Commission. 
Done  at Brussels,  24 November  1977. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic 
and Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
No C 59/24 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 8. 3. 78 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  the discussions: 
Paragraph  1.2 
After  the words'whose  efficiency  could  be appreciably  enhanced',  amend  to read  as follows: 
if the Community  had  more  funds  to play  with.  But it would  not be enough  to merely  switch  a 
proportion  of national  research  and  development  funds  to the Community,  particularly  in view  of 
the fact  that  the volume  of such  funds  is not adequate  in every  individual  Member  State.  The 
Committee  would  therefore  suggest  to the Commission  that  it investigate  additional  ways  of provid-
ing finance,  such  as through  special  taxes  and/or  levies,  and possibly  through  recourse  to the capital 
market.  Article  49 of the ECSC  Treaty  and  Article  235  of the EEC  Treaty  already  allow  for such 
action.' 
Voting 
For: 17, against:  57, abstentions:  5. 
Reasons 
The opinion  recognizes  that  the present  shortage  of funds  has meant  the Community  having  to under-
utilize  its research  and  development  capability.  As sole  remedy  it proposes  switching  a proportion  of 
national  research  and  development  funds  to the Community's  budget. 
However,  this  proposed  remedy  is based  on the erroneous  assumption  that  public  research  and  de-
velopment  funds  are adequate  everywhere  and  that  the sole  problem  is one  of allocation  between  the 
Community  and  the Member  States. 
The truth  of the matter  is that  the Community  needs  more  research  and  development  funds,  but not at 
the cost  of the Member  States'  research  and  development  funds.  If Community  research  and  develop-
ment  does  not receive  more  finance,  it cannot  be expanded  to the extent  needed,  among  other  things,  to 
tackle  the problems  posed  by the energy  crisis  and the environment  and  to create  new  jobs  in advanced 
technology  industries. 
The Commission  is therefore  called  upon  to investigate  new  sources  of finance,  so that  there  are at least 
some  prospects  of finding  a solution  to these  problems.