19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/25 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting the second stage (January 1984 
to March 1986) of the multiannual research and training programme for the European 
Economic Community in the field of biomolecular engineering 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 180 of 7 July 1983, page 10. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 29 June 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Tratey 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 
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows : 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request by the Council of the 
European Communities on 29 June 1983 for an opi­
nion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopt­
ing the second stage (January 1984 to March 1986) 
of the multiannual research and training programme 
for the European Economic Community in the field 
of biomolecular engineering ('), 
Having regard to its decision of 28 September 1983 
to appoint Mr Low as rapporteur-general, 
Having regard to the oral report made by Mr Low, 
Having regard to the discussions on 28 September 
1983 during the 210th plenary session held on 28 
and 29 September 1983, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a unanimous vote: 
1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes 
this proposal for a multiannual research programme 
(') OJ No C 180, 7. 7. 1983, p. 10. in the field of biomolecular engineering (January 
1984 to March 1986) which forms the second stage 
of a programme adopted by the Council of Minis­
ters in December 1981 and running since April 1982. 
The programme encompasses both research and 
training. The Committee endorses the aim of the 
research programme, which is to involve European 
science and industry in a joint effort to eliminate 
specific bottlenecks to biotechnological develop­
ments as one means of bridging the advanced tech­
nology gap with countries such as the US and 
Japan. The Committee sees the training aspect as 
essential to allow scientists to acquire the necessary 
skills for multi-disciplinary research and to facilitate 
the transfer of information between public and pri­
vate enterprises. 
The Committee can therefore give its approval to 
the proposal subject to a number of general and 
specific comments. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The programme is limited to the agriculture 
and agrofood sectors, except for the training activi­
ties which can be directed to the whole field of 
biomolecular engineering. The budget amounts to 
only 7 million ECU. The first stage of the pro­
gramme has convincingly proved the need for such 
No C 341/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12.83 
programme. However, the relatively short period of 
time that has elapsed since the first stage of the pro­
gramme was launched, and the size of the research 
effort ('critical mass'), have not, according to the 
Commission, been sufficient within any single sec­
tor to achieve the desired results. Given the limited 
means available, the Committee therefore endorses 
the approach adopted by the Commission which is 
to intensify work on projects which have already 
been launced rather than to expand into new sectors 
of biomolecular engineering. 
2.2. Biomolecular engineering is one of the areas 
to which the Community should be giving high 
priority in its research strategy. The Committee con­
siders that overall research spending should be 
increased and regrets the failure to allot larger sums 
to this area. In view of the Community's budgetary 
difficulties, however, the question should be asked 
whether more resources should not be devoted to 
biomolecular engineering by transferring resources 
away from other research programmes. The Council 
Decision of December 1981 foresaw six areas of 
research some of which are being neglected, largely 
through a lack of funds. If further funds were to be 
made available for biomolecular engineering, other 
areas, e.g. the human medecine sector, should be 
include in the programme as soon as possible. 
2.3. The Commission's proposal is based on priori­
ties established following the December 1981 Coun­
cil Decision. The Committee nevertheless recom­
mends that a list of priorities should be drawn up 
for future programmes. 
At present no evaluation of the results of the pro­
gramme by independant experts has been envis­
aged. The Committee considers that such an evalua­
tion is necessary. 
2.4. The first stage of the programme did not con­
tain any provision for flexibility (a contingency 
fund) and neither does the current proposal. All 
research proposals carried out in industry contain a 
margin of flexibility — such flexibility being neces­
sary in order to exploit new discoveries which are 
made and which had not been foreseen. The Com­
mittee considers that at least 5 % of the overall 
budget should be set aside to allow for this even­
tuality. 
2.5. The Committee welcomes the provisions for 
training in the proposed programme and could even 
recommend that the resources devoted to training be 
increased. It particularly stresses the function that 
training can fulfil as a means of improving the exchange of information between European 
research centres. 
2.6. The Committee notes that the programme 
contains only a limited number of concerted actions 
although there appears to be no fundamental reason 
for not exploiting such an approach. The Committee 
believes that in areas such as data banks or risk ana­
lysis, a federator role for Community research by 
means of concerted actions could free budgetary 
resources to allow more work to be funded under 
shared-cost programmes. An increased use of con­
certed actions should not lead to a decrease in what 
is already a very limited budget. 
2.7. The Committee notes the programme's lean­
ing to medium and long-term research. It would 
stress, however, the need for some short-term work 
— in order to improve the competitivity of Euro­
pean industry. In this context the work on vaccines 
and hormones is therefore of considerable import­
ance in order that some tangible results can be 
obtained from the programme. 
2.8. As referred to above, the declared medium 
and long-term aim of the programme is to contri­
bute to the general body of research on biomolecu­
lar engineering, and to help bridge the technological 
gap between the Community and other countries 
such as US and Japan. The Committee notes the 
present proposals lack clear indications as to how 
the results of this programme's research — financed 
by the Community — will be exploited. It would 
urge that a clear policy on patents and on licensing 
be adopted. The Committee can therefore only wel­
come the communication from the Commission on 
promoting the utilization of the results of Com­
munity-sponsored research and development on 
which the Committee will give a separate opinion. 
At this stage it would only say that a policy on 
patents and licensing should at least respond to the 
following questions: 
— Will any of the income from such patents and 
licenses become available in order to finance 
further research into this area? 
— Is it not worth considering how the Community 
can recoup the money it spends, by acquiring a 
stake in the commercial exploitation of research 
and study findings? 
— How will it be possible to ensure that EC indus­
try rather than industry from outside the EC 
benefits from the results of the programme? 
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/27 
— Will it be possible to include in the contracts 
signed with universities and research institu­
tions a clause to ensure a proper dissemination 
of research findings? 
3. Specific comments on the Annex 
Research actions 
Point 1.1 
The Committee welcomes the proposal to extend to 
pharmaceutical and fine chemicals industries 
second generation bioreactor technology. This is the 
only instance of the scientific scope of the first stage 
of the programme being extended. It has been 
included because a number of breakthroughs have 
already been made and industry has shown consi­
derable interest. The area therefore represents a logi­
cal development. Point 1.3 
The Committee believes that this point should be 
expressed in more general terms. The main aim of 
the research programme which the Community is to 
finance is to convert simple agricultural products 
into sugar and starch, even though the latter are in 
surplus in the Community. At the same time other 
higher-grade products such as oils and fats are in 
short supply and have to be imported. A programme 
should be set up for using biomolecular engineering 
to convert other crops into higher-grade products. 
Point 1.4 
The Committee notes the stress on agriculture 
throughout the programme. It emphasizes the 
importance of biomolecular engineering to industry 
as well as agriculture and would therefore add the 
words 'and industry' at the end of the first sentence. 
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a research and development 
programme in the field of non-nuclear energy (1983 to 1987) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 218 of 13 August 1983, 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 6 July 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal 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 
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: