ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (84) 719 
 
 
 
Vol. 1984/0 259 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the open ing to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom  27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(84) 719 final  
Brussels, 14 December 1984
Report by the Commission to the Council in  
________the European Parliament
TH
E EXPERIMENTAL PHASE (1983-1984) OF THE  
ACTION TO STIMULATE THE EFFICACY OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY'S  
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL POTENTIAL
COM(84) 719 final

-1-
THE EXPERIMENTAL PHASE (1983-1984)
OF THE ACTION TO STIMULATE THE EFFICACY OF THE  
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY'S SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL POTENTIAL
EVALUATION REPORT
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
1-1 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION
On 28 June 1983 the Council decided that a two year experimental phase of  
an action to stimulate the scientific & technical potential of the  
Community should be undertaken. In this way the Council gave concrete form  
to its^ recognition, a year earlier of the value such an action could  
have in breaking down the barriers which limit the effectiveness of
Europe s RD^ & D by facilitating communication or cooperation between  
European scientists both within and between the academic and industrial  
sectors, and by promoting an increased flow of trained scientists between  
them.
The Council Decision called, in Article 4, for the Commission to arrange  
for an evaluation of the functioning of the support methods to be  
undertaken after the first year and for this to be sent to the Council and  
the Parliament.
The group requested by CODEST* to prepare this assessment of the  
effectiveness of the experimental support methods was determined to bring  
a critical attitude to bear, in the belief that this would be the most  
constructive approach and in the light of its awareness that certain  
aspects of the action would be of particular interest to outside  
observers.
One such aspect must be the extent to which the first year of the action  
reflected the objective of flexibility and speed of response. In part this  
is related to the system of assessing and selecting projects, the setting  
up of which was one of the experimental aims of the action. The issue is  
covered at length in section three (selection) and five (timetable) and in  
the annexes. Overall it is felt that despite the clear dangers that a  
complex and burdensome system might be introduced it worked remarkably  
well with a minimum of administrative support. Indeed it added a most  
important specialist dimension in a number of advanced areas where no one  
advisory scientific Committee could be expected to contain members with  
detailed knowledge.
The rapidity of the selection process was widely acknowledged and the  
timetable speaks for itself.
Another aspect which was especially carefully examined was the methods of  
support used, and the areas of science to which priority was given. These  
are covered in Section four. On the whole the success of the experimental  
phase hinged on the overwhelming demand for 'twinning' contracts.
* The Committee for the European Development of Science & Technology

-  2 -
The methods used are open to some criticism however mainly because they  
were not sufficiently clearly distinguished one from the other in the  
material available to applicants. The Commission is recommended to pay  
attention to this question in implementing the 1985-1988 plan, and to drop  
the subsidy support method, since there are better ways of achieving the  
action's objectives. The Evaluation group was aware that there might seem  
to be an inconsistency between specifying seven priority areas and  
emphasising that these were non limitative. The evidence would appear to  
support COOEST's view that its responsibility was to provide a certain  
degree of steering towards clearly advanced areas without excluding the  
possibility of breakthroughs, which the Committee could not anticipate, in  
other areas.
The Evaluation group also examined the effectiveness of the initial  
exercise to spread information about the action, concluding that a
remarkable penetration into the milieux concerned had been achieved.  
Nonetheless, analysis of proposals submitted indicates areas where more  
vigorous efforts might be made in future, notably with respect to  
industry. CODEST has always been anxious that Industry and aspects of  
applied research be involved with the Stimulation Action, which should not  
be seen as confined to Basic science. If a distinction needs to be made  
then the Evaluation Group would suggest that programmes such as ESPRIT or  
the proposed BRITE, which directly involve industry, reflect the need to  
promote 'Market Puli' research. On the other hand the Stimulation Action  
aims to promote research which will give a 'Science Push'. This is at  
least an equally valid area in which industry could be involved.
After studying certain questions related to the administration of the  
action the Evaluation group's conclusion is that the Stimulation Action is  
a most important and necessary mechanism for building up European  
Cooperation. This is demonstrated not only by the Commission's initial  
analysis but by the support received in terms of applications and by the  
affirmations of the need for science to be given an European dimension  
that have repeatedly been made by ministers, politicians, Members of  
Parliament and scientists themselves. As a means of satisfying these needs  
and expectations it is clear that the Stimulation Action is a healthy  
approach and from the methodological view a most promising one. But it is  
of the utmost importance that the impetus that has been gained should not  
be tost, that a significant number of researchers should be involved and  
that a measure of regularity and dependability in future years be acquired  
in order that sectors such as industry should be encouraged to  
participate.
1.2. CONTEXT
During the experimental phase of the Stimulation Action four methods of  
support designed to stimulate the efficacy of RD and D were tested:  
Twinnings, Operations Contracts, Research grants and Subsidies (see Annex  
1 setting out the full Council decision). These methods were applied to  
projects invited by the Commission in two calls for proposals (see Annex  
5, the Timetab!  )  which specified seven principal areas in which proposals  
could be co’S; ?red,(although it was stressed that these areas were not  
exclusive).They were:
Pharmacobiology, 'olid State Physics, Optics, Combustion, Photometry-  
Photocoustics, Climatology and Interface Phenomena.

- 3 -
The object of the evaluation, contained in this document, is to verify  
that the support methods being tested in the experimental phase are  
themselves effective in achieving the objectives of the Stimulation  
Action.
In order to provide the evaluation requested by the Council the Commission  
asked CODEST, which is made up of eminent and independent scientists from  
all the Member States, and part of whose function is to advise the  
Commission on the selection of projects for the Stimulation action, to  
nominate members of an evaluation panel. Three members of the Committee  
were nominated :
- Sir David Phillips, chairman of the National Advisory Board for the  
research Councils, in the United Kingdom
Dr. Niels Busch, Director of the RISO National Laboratory in Denmark
- Mr. Bernhard Schmidt, Formerly Chairman of the Board of Dornier GMBH in  
Germany
The Evaluation report prepared by them on the basis of experience over the  
first year in which projects have been operating and on the data set out  
in annex 6 has been considered and adopted by the Committee for the  
European Development of Science and Technology.
SECTION TWO: INFORMATION  
2.1. BACKGROUND
Following the Council decision on 28 June 1983, calls for proposals were  
made in the normal way in the Official Journal C/182 of 8 July 1983 and  
again in C/29/5 of 4 February 1984 for the two parts of the experimental  
phase. In addition to this the Commission employed various other means of  
making the existence of possibilities for support under the action known  
in the appropriate scientific circles.
- official means: apart from the Official Journal, the information was
published in the News letter produced by Directorate General XIII  
(Information Market and Innovation), it was formally notified to Members  
of the Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST) and was taken  
up in press releases and information bulletins produced by the  
Commission's Press and Information bureaux in each of the Member States.
-direct means: commencing with a press conference in Brussels given by
Vice-President Davignon and the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of CODEST  
(Messrs Colombo, Curien and Prigogine), press releases and advertisements  
were prepared for use in the specialised scientific press (such as  
Nature, la Recherche, la Scientia, Die Umschau and New Scientist) as well  
as the non specialised press. In addition, in some of the Member States*  
the material published by the Commission was taken up and disseminated  
directly to interested parties by the appropriate national administrations  
or by national scientific associations.
Certain of these also took the initiative in publicising the action by  
indirect means such as interviews.
* United Kingdom, France, Italy, Denmark, Ireland, Greece.

- 4 -
- meetings: gatherings of scientists Likely to be interested in the action 
were held following both the calls for proposals. In fact since it was 
apparent after the first part of the experimental phase that wider 
publicity in certain Member States (eg. Greece and Ireland) might be 
desirable a special effort was made to hold meetings and increase the 
level of awareness about the action.
2.2. COMMENTARY
The effectiveness of the publicity can be judged both by the number of 
requests for information received (more than 5000 altogether) and by the 
number of suitable proposals finally made (see Annex 6). This response was 
forthcoming in a rather limited time and in the context of what was always 
clearly stated to be an experimental phase.
Further analysis of the applications made, for example in comparison with 
the amount spent on civilian research by each Member State; reveals that 
some, such as Germany, appear to be underrepresented, as is the industrial 
sector overall. In the former case it could be suggested that there is for 
the moment Less perceived need for collaboration (and this is borne out by 
the preliminary results of a current study, commissioned by CODEST and 
carried out by the European Science Foundation). However the 
recommendation which must arise from the observation is that an especially 
vigorous and effective campaign to publicise both the opportunities 
available, and the benefits of participating in the action should be 
undertaken, aimed at areas where any uneveness is apparent.
So far as industry itself is concerned the Evaluation group found that the 
number of firms likely to be involved in long lead time, or "Science Push" 
research of the sort which the action particularly aims to encourage is 
probably rather limited in any case.
- the level of funds available are probably not sufficiently great to 
change a company's attitude to the importance of undertaking the work. 
Here it is a question of persuading companies involved in both long lead 
time and short lead time research that there are long term benefits in 
taking an initiative, and participating in the action.
-another and perhaps even more fruitful direction might be to encourage 
academics to take the initiative in cooperating with, or offering 
collaborative projects with industry rather than vice versa. One of the 
obstacles cited in the justifications for the Stimulation Action is 
precisely that between University and Industry, and it could be overcome 
by boosting the flow of scientists and projects from the academic sector 
to the industrial.
- whilst industry possesses, and requires, a certain stability and 
continuity in its operations and its long range planning it must be said 
that the image nf the competitive programmes often used as the basis for 
fund distribut 'n by governments and by the Community is of short term 
enthusiasm 'airly rapid change. To win the confidence of industry 
programmes need be seen to be stable, continuous and regular.(This is 
especially true m countries where legislation tends to give permanence to 
staff taken on for temporary projects). The Community's current budget 
problems in general, and the question mark over the scale of the main

- 5 -
phase of the Stimulation Plan in particular may well have caused industry 
to hold back, and might also be a damping factor so far as the Academic 
Sector is concerned. Here too stability in long term planning is sought.
SECTION THREE: SELECTION
3.1. BACKGROUND
In accordance with the procedure laid out in the annex to the Council 
Decision the selection of proposals was carried out by the Commission on 
the basis of opinions expressed by CODEST following a twofold examination:
an examination of the quality and the value of each proposition by 
anonymous external scientific referees and by the Members of CODEST.
a careful examination of proposals by the Commission with a view 
particularly to assessing their coherence with programmed activities.
Since the external referee system took some time to set up it was in fact 
only possible to make full use of it during the second part of the 
experimental phase. In the first part Members of CODEST relied upon their 
own expertise and made their recommendation to the Commission upon the 218 
projects which had to be assessed with help from Commission staff.
In the second phase, as the network of external referees was established, 
202 scientists were consulted. Taking account of opinions gained from 
other sources, each proposal where a scientific opinion was requested 
received an average of 1.8 assessments.
It should be noted that in those cases where the referees did not include 
a "specialist" in the field of a given project (this affected 10 of them) 
or where the referee was for various reasons slow to respond or felt he 
could not do so (which affected 48 proposals), CODEST had to base its 
judgement on the opinion of its own members alone. However it is 
interesting to note that in all cases where an external opinion was 
subsequently received it confirmed CODEST's judgement.
In all some 95% of those referees who agreed to help the Commission in 
this way responded w^th an opinion on the proposals (approximately two each) sent to them.
3.2. COMMENTARY
The evaluation panel felt on the whole that the selection system worked 
satisfactorily and the response time achieved was exceptionally rapid. It 
is clear that a wider selection of referees and the greater use of 
computers in handling the documentation would contribute greatly to making 
the procedure operate more smoothly, and more time would always be useful.
whilst the effort and time involved were considerable in comparison with 
the amount actually disbursed in grants during the experimental phase it 
is generally considered important to undertake the selection of projects 
in this objective and systematic manner.
The group particularly wished to verify that the speed, the flexibility 
and above all the openness to unusual ideas which characterise the 
Stimulation Action were not compromised by extending the selection system. 
Clearly a system which uses a conventional mechanism, elaborate or

-  6 -
otherwise, of referees, runs the risk of never supporting anything other 
than evidently 'safe' projects, as well as becoming unwieldy. The 
existence of CODEST is important in this respect, as a group of 
independently minded scientists with a clear view of the aims of the 
action and the confidence sometimes to override referees views and inject 
an element of risk into selections. In the Evaluation group's view this is 
something that only major bodies such as the Community (or IBM, for 
example) can now do, and is the only way to ensure that new ideas can 
quickly be tested to see if they will become the basis for tomorrow's 
'safe' programmes.
The Evaluation group was equally of the opinion that the involvement of 
the numbers of highly specialised scientists made necessary by the peer 
review system was a helpful element for the future in terms both of the 
action's reputation and the spread of information about it.
It was considered that the anonymity of the system, the involvement of 
CODEST and the geographical distribution of the specialists involved had 
been well handled in general and made a most important contribution to the 
overal fairness of the system.
It was suggested that in assessing the scientific value of the results 
obtained the same network of referees could be employed to assess the 
final reports, in the light of their original comments on the proposals. 
In many cases these comments had been most constructive, contributing in 
some cases to the ideas in the proposal. As the Action progresses the 
referees might well also be able to assist in suggesting partnerships and 
collaboration, as has already begun to happen.
The Evaluation group was conscious of the opportunity represented by the 
referee network and the number of applicants, in building up the data base 
of opportunities for collaboration which CODEST and the Commission wish to 
institute soon, and which seems to be universally supported as a 
principle. In fact the basis for such a network of information has already 
been laid by and during the experimental phase.
The referees could also be asked, in future, to help with the more 
problematical task of assessing the extent to which Europe's long term 
scientific and technical competitiveness and autonomy have been 
beneficially influenced by the Stimulation Action.
SECTION FOUR: METHODOLOGY
4.1. BACKGROUND
Four methods of support were tested in the experimental phase, namely:
Twinning contracts where the aim is to help groups of researchers and/or 
engineers in various countries to get together in cases where they are 
working in parallel, or in areas which complement each other so that they 
can, together, develop a higher level of creativity or effectiveness.
By thus combining in a form of "laboratory without walls" via the twinning 
system it is expected that the benefits of reaching 'critical mass' can be 
achieved without major reorganisation or relocation. Contracts cover the 
expenses of travelling and subsistence for research workers to meet, the 
expenses involved in joint experiments, expenses connected with the 
exchange of results and, where necessary, a contribution to the cost of 
making up shortages of human or material resources.

- 7 -
Operations contracts support similar types of expenditure but are more 
demanding of resources, the object being to support teams in different 
countries of the Community who agree to work together on a specific 
project having a practical objective, in an original or promising field, 
within a given time. This will often involve a combination of different 
forms of researchrbasic, applied or technological development (under the 
terms of the Council decision on the experimental phase only one such 
large scale operation was funded, in 1983).
Research grants aim to encourage and facilitate mobility, on the one hand 
among experienced researchers and on the other among talented young 
science graduates who might not otherwise get an opportunity to carry out 
research. Grants cover the expenses arising from the transfer of European 
scientists to a laboratory in another Member State (including travelling, 
subsistence etc..) or the costs of research undertaken by a young graduate 
or an experienced research worker already employed elsewhere joining a 
research team for a limited period (including salary and research costs). 
Subsidies are intended to go beyond traditional methods of developing 
communications links (exchange visits or conferences) by encouraging the 
multisectoral, multidisciplinary and multinational aspects of mobility. 
This could be by contributing to meetings on a 'European' scale for 
specialists from different scientific and technological background, to 
meetings on a subject of topical interest bringing
together all those interested, from fundamental to applied research 
scientists, industrialists, engineers and academics, or by contributing to 
series of short term exchanges.
Out of 609 eligible applications received over the two years, 387 were for 
twinnings, 93 for research grants, 27 for operations and 102 for 
subsidies.
4.2. COMMENTARY
Clearly twinnings are seen by the Scientific Community as they are by 
CODEST itself as a most cost effective way of promoting collaboration and 
building up a European Community of Science. This should not obscure the 
value of Operations (many excellent proposals were among those that had be 
turned down, and several of these were supported at a lower level in the 
form of twinnings). Should the stimulation plan go ahead at the level 
proposed it is clear that there will be many projects put forward of a 
calibre equivalent to the European Joint Optical Bistability project which 
was supported in 1983. In many fields this scale of multidisciplinary, 
transnational support will be necessary to make a significant follow up to 
important breakthroughs. The operation finally selected obviously called 
for a great many preliminary contacts, and this would usually be the case. 
The Evaluation group therefore envisages the possibility of granting 
twinning contracts as an early stage in the development of Operations 
Submi ssions.
Again, it is clear that research grants also meet a genuine need for a 
fellowship style of support, though here it was clear that many scientists 
found the terms of support both confusing and restrictive. This point has 
already been assimilated in the shape of the more flexible drafting of the 
methods in the proposed Stimulation Plan, viz:

-  8 -
"Research Grants make it possible to cover the costs involved in seconding 
researchers from one Community country to another, in bringing a young 
scientist into a team from a country other than his own, or in developing 
the specialisation of a young graduate scientist before he joins a 
research laboratory, whether in the university or industrial sector.
Depending on the type of researcher involved and the objective of the 
research grant, it may take various shapes:
- funding to enable a researcher to make short-stay visits (15 days to one 
month) to another country within the Community,
- funding making it possible to take on the costs involved in mobility 
(travel, accommodation, removal, etc.) in the research work and possibly 
in paying the salary of a researcher seconded to or assimilated in a 
research team from a country (within the EEC) other than his own, for a 
period of six months (minimum) to 3 years (maximum),
- funding to cover the costs associated with the mobility and research 
work of a young scientist employed by an industry, who goes to follow a 
lengthy training course (between one and 3 years) in a publicly owned 
laboratory in a different country (within the EEC); in this case the 
salary costs would be met by the industrial employer,
- flat rate sum allocated to a young graduate in another country (within 
the EECC) for a period of at least one year and at the most two in order 
to develop specialisation.
The system of Community research grants implies, and will come to be 
supported by a European network of exchange, reception and cooperation 
centres (CEACs) which will be set up over a period of time. By examining 
requests the Commission will get to know a range of research teams who 
wish to receive or exchange researchers. This core will be extended, to 
establish the European CEAC network, by including any body (institution, 
organisation, public or private sector laboratories) which declares itself 
interested in taking part in the Community action".
It should also be made clear that by emphasising young graduates in the 
wording of the text neither CODEST nor the Commission have any intention 
of excluding older scientists to whom secondments of this sort would be 
invaluable mid career training and whose maturity and experience would be 
of considerable utility to the host laboratory.
So far as subsidies were concerned, proposals tended to be angled towards 
support for conference attendance in areas or with purposes outside the 
scope of the action. It was for this reason, and not because of the 
unsatisfactory ratio of time spent assessing the projects to their 
ultimate value that the Committee voted that this method of support should 
not be pursued in 1985 onwards.
CODEST has discussed in the past, and it is worth raising here, the 
question of organising "GORDON" conferences on the American model whereby 
in depth discussions are held on specific advanced topics likely to be of 
future importance either scientifically or industrially and to which both 
high level experts and high level industrial researchers are invited. 
These detailed special conferences are an acknowledged success in the 
United States and would be a valuable aspect of future activity to 
stimulate the efficacy of European science.

- 9 -
The evaluation panel also noted that some most constructive ideas had 
been put forward in the context of subsidy applications. Notable among 
these, methodologically speaking, were proposals to enable scientists in 
countries where European collaboration had been slow to develop (for 
reasons of isolation) to travel with a view both to making themselves 
known and preparing larger scale future collaborations like twinnings.
It is believed that it should be possible to encourage this style of 
activity in the context of one of the other three methods, widened as they 
are in the proposed Stimulation plan.
The panel also turned its attention to differences in the popularity of 
the specified areas of science (see statistics in appendix 6). There is 
striking evidence of the popularity of pharmacobiology, which might be 
explained by the influence and encouragement of the now long established 
European Molecular Biology Organisation and its partnership schemes. 
Evidence of the strictness with which applications were assessed is 
provided by the fact that only 8.1% of pharmacobiology proposals (3.5% by 
value) were actually accepted as compared with 25% of solid state physics 
proposals (17.8% by value).
SECTION FIVE: TIMETABLE
5.1. BACKGROUND
The first call for proposals was made on 8 July 1983, with a closing date 
of 1 October. The selection procedure was ended by 7 November, with the 
final Commission decision following on 10 November. Between then and 28 
December all contracts were prepared and the necessary resources committed 
from the 1983 budget.
The second call for proposals came on 4 February, with a closing date for 
submissions of 1 April. CODEST completed its deliberations and sent its 
recommendation to the Commission on 9 July and the final Commission 
decision was 18 July. It is expected that contracts will be prepared and 
the resources committed by the end of November. The longer process in 1984 
is mainly due to the extra selection procedure introduced in the shape of 
the anonymous referee network.
5.2. COMMENTARY
The rapidity of the first part in particular caused problems for 
institutions in countries where information about the action was 
relatively slow to be disseminated. Many applications showed signs of 
having been hastily assembled, though some were nonetheless of high 
scientific quality and were eventually selected. The panel felt that 
whilst a little more time at each stage would be convenient, the rapid 
response was most valuable in terms of the action's aims. It is also true 
that once scientists become aware of the action and that the timetable is 
both regular and dependable then the length of the deadlines would not be 
of such great importance. Projects could be prepared at any time prior to 
the deadline if it was always on approximately the same date each year. At 
the same time however the Evaluation group were concerned that there 
should be an apparatus whereby urgent Research Grant applications could be 
considered quickly, outside the established deadline system. It was with

-  10  -
Research Grants that the opportunities for collaboration most frequently 
depended on factors such as University terms or financial years. The 
Stimulation action ought to be flexible enough to accommodate this
CODEST has always been convinced that it has an important role to play in 
guiding the Stimulation Action, albeit not in any rigid manner. Thus it 
was that the seven areas of priority that were chosen were what seemed 
potentially particularly fruitful in terms of the aims of the action. The 
Evaluation group considers that this approach is vindicated by the level 
of interest shown in the areas suggested (more than 75% of proposals fell 
into the indicative categories). The fact that 25% fell outside these 
categories is evidence of a healthy tendency on the part of the scientific 
Community to come up with interesting proposals in different or in 
unanticipated areas, proof if any were needed that innovativeness cannot 
be planned. After all the most exciting new science is taking place in 
laboratories and not in Committees.
SECTION SIX: ADMINISTRATION
6.1. BACKGROUND
6.1.1. Forms
The forms used for applications were intended to provide the scientific 
information needed to make assessments as well as the administrative 
information needed for the establishment of contracts. The information 
required differed as between the methods of support.
The assessment forms issued to referees requested views on a range of 
issues - scientific quality, quality of personnel involved, value to the 
community and value of the project overall. Referees were asked to express 
their views in numerical form:
0: for no opinion,
1:  for excellent,
2: above average,
3: average,
4: below average,
5: poor.
6.1.2. Personnel
Of the three staff C2A, 1C) which the Council decision allocated to the 
action, one secretary (IC) arrived in November 1983 whilst the two 
officials in category A arrived in February and April 1984. Thus the bulk 
of the implementation of the experimental phase and the preparation of the 
Stimulation plan 1985-1988 was undertaken by two officials in Division 
XII-A-2 in addition to their normal duties, with the assistance of a 
secretary.
6.1.3. Resources
The buoget or the action (see Annex 4) underwent some redistribution as a 
result of a; underspend in the staff and administrative budget lines 
(respectively 195,000 Ecus instead of 252,700 Ecus, and 210,000 instead of 
260,000 Ecus). The difference was added to the amount available for 
contracts making 6,594,000 instead of 6,487,000.

-  11 -
6.1.4. Contract Preparation
There were however delays subsequently caused by the sometimes slow 
administrative procedures in the applicant institutions. It was clear that 
in a twinning of, say three partners, all three contracts should be signed 
by the parties concerned before the signature of the Director General, 
giving effect to all three contracts at the same time. There were still 
certain contracts for which the signature of the applicant or their 
administration was awaited as late as June 1984, following CODEST's 
approval in October and completion of the contract documents in December 
1983.
6.1.5. Document Handling
So far as the Commission was concerned the proposals could have been dealt 
with more speedily and certain duplications avoided had the intended 
computerised system been available.
In fact, the particular requirements of the Stimulation Action went beyond 
the capabilities of the Directorate General's current equipment (both 
hardware and software). Therefore work is in hand to develop a suitable 
system to enable the Commission to handle several hundred applications at 
a time without having to involve more than a limited number of extra 
staff.
6.2. COMMENTARY
The evaluation panel appreciated the intention behind the design of the 
forms and noted that it had in fact facilitated the preparation of the 
contracts. However there had been criticism of their complexity (though 
from by no means all of the applicants) which was probably related to the 
difficulty of grasping the exact distinctions between the various forms of 
support.
There was particular criticism from the panel and from certain referees 
that the application forms did not facilitate the task of making a 
scientific judgement, and perhaps prevented applicants from making their 
best case.
So far as delays in the contract procedure are concerned the evaluation 
group noted that in the first part of the experimental phase some 88 
individual contracts relating to 34 projects were prepared by the 
contracts division in an exceptionally short time (see section 5 and 
Annex 5) and all were ready for credits to be committed by the end of 
1983. This, following a deadline for applications of 1 October is rapid by 
any standards. It also seems that the 1984 contracts will be completed in 
a similarly short time, allowing for the extra period of evaluation by the 
external referees. For those delays that occurred at a national level some 
explanations can be made:
-in some countries there is a requirement that contracts be approved by 
the University's Administrative Council, or even by the Research Ministry.
- In certain cases there was reluctance for the contract to be made out 
under Belgian law -which is the rule for all Commission contracts.
- Requests were sometimes made by applicants for arrangements which were 
not in fact legally permissible in their countries.

-  1 2  -
In general however it would seem that it would have been difficult for the 
process to be quicker or more flexible, and that a sound and satisfactory 
start was made to the Stimulation Action.

13
ANNEXES TO THE FIRST STAGE EVALUATION REPORT
ANNEX 1 COUNCIL DECISION OF 29/6/83  
ANNEX 2 COMMISSION DECISION OF 6/12/82  
ANNEX 3 LIST OF CODEST MEMBERS 1/1/84  
ANNEX 4 FINANCIAL SUMMARY  
ANNEX 5 THE TIMETABLE  
ANNEX 6 STATISTICS

ANNEX 1.
COUNCIL DECISION OF 29/6/1983

No L 181/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 7. 83
COUNCIL DECISION  
of 28 June 1983
adopting an experimental Community action to stimulate the efficacy of the  
European Economic Community’s scientific and technical potential
(83/331/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THB EUROPEAN 
CO M M U N ITIES, ;  .
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the. European 
Parliament ('),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and 
Social Committee (*), , \
Whereas Article 2 of the Treaty assigns to the 
Community the task inter alia  of promoting 
throughout the Community a harmonious develop­
ment of economic activities, a continuous and 
balanced expansion and an accelerated raising of the 
standard of living ; whereas the activity to be 
performed to this end by the Community is set out in 
Article 3 of the Treaty;
Whereas, by its resolution of 14 January 1974 on the 
coordination of national policies and the definition of 
projects of interest to the Community in the field of 
science and technology (J), the Council entnisted the 
Commission with the task of defining projects of in­
terest to the Community and selecting the appropriate 
ways and means for im plem enting these projects ;
Whereas the overall Community strategy comprises 
the conception and implementation of a general 
framework programme for com mon scientific and 
technical activities ; .
Whereas, amongst the fundamental goals proposed by 
the Commission for the framework programme and 
favourably received by the Council of 8 March 1982, 
that of ‘improving the Community’s scientific and 
technical efficacy’  calls for special modes of action ;
Whereas on 30 June 1982 the Council recognized the 
value of a Community stimulation action to supple­
ment existing national and international activity ;
Whereas on 4 November 1982 the Council adopted a 
joint position with a view to a decision adopting aCommunity action concerning the stimulation of the 
Community’s scientific and technical potential, experi­
mental phase 1983/84;
Whereas, accordingly, it is appropriate to adopt a 
Community experimental stimulation action wnteh 
will make it possible to define explicitly the 
approaches for subsequent action, to be included in a 
general framework program m e;
Whereas the Scientific and Technical Research 
Committee (CREST) has given an opinion on this 
matter,
H A S DECIDED A S  FO LLO W S :
Article 1
A Community experimental action to stimulate the 
efficacy of the European Economic Community’s 
scientific and technical potential (hereinafter referred 
to as ‘experimental action’ ), as set out in the Annex, is 
hereby adopted for a two-year period commencing on 
1  July 1983.
The experimental action shall consist of activities with 
the purpose of testing approaches to and methods of 
stimulation in the Community, basically within the 
seven fields defined in the Annex.
Article 2
The funds estimated as necessary for the execution of 
the experimental action should be 7 million ECU, 
including expenditure on a staff of three.
, Article  J '
The Commission shall be responsible for the imple­
mentation of the experimental action, by means of 
research allocations, grants to help laboratory twin­
ning, development contracts, and grants to assist 
research teams, seminars and courses.
It shall be assisted by the Committee for the European 
Development of Science and Technology (Codest), set 
up by Decision 82/835/EEC (■* ), and by referees.(') OJ No C 16 1 , 20. 6 . 1983, p. 1 7 4 .
ffl OJ No C  90, 5 . 4. 1983, p. 5 .
(’ ) OJ No C 7 , 29. 1 . 1974, p. 2 . ( < )  OJ No L  350, 1 0 . 1 2 . 1982, p. 45.

6.7.  83' Official· Journal of the European Communities No L 181/21
Article 4
At the end of the first year of the period referred to in 
Article 1, the Commission shall undertake a methodo­
logical evaluation of the experimental action. It shall 
forward a report on this evaluation to the Council and 
to the European Parliament.
Article 5
The results of implementation of the experimental 
action shall be disseminated pursuant to CouncilRegulation (BEC) No 2380/74 of 17 September 1974 
adopting provisions for the dissemination of informa­
tion relating to research programmes for the European 
Economic CommunityC). , ..;·
Done at Luxembourg, 28 June 1983.
For. the Council  
.  The Pruident  
H/ RIBSBNHUBBR
p, '
O OJ No L 233, 20. 9. 1974, p.' l;

No L 181/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 7. 83
A N N E X
Experimental Community action to stimulate the efficacy of the European Economic 
Community's scientific and technical potential
The experimental action will relate to activities of a multi: or interdisciplinary nature for which joint 
working at multinational level is necessary or preferable.
The plan of action it set but as follows;
) l. Three kinds of activity are to be given priority support.
— activities for which the joining up (whether mono· or pluridisciplinary) of research teams is 
beneficial or indispensable.
Monodisciplinary union would be an attempt to bring together teams working within the same 
discipline in different Member States. Such collaboration should, in certain cases, make it 
possible to attain the critical mass which is needed in order for the creativity of each team to 
take off.I .  ·
Pluridisciplinary union would seek to link teams working within different disciplines, often 
located in different Member States.•
Both types of union aim to exploit the richness of methods and results now dispersed 
throughout Europe,
— activities enabling the promotion of high-quality tearrjs which, because of the novel nature of 
their work, do not yet benefit from the support which their worth, and the potential value of
■ >  their work, would seem to justify,
— activities leading to a strengthening of the communication and diffusion of information within 
the scientific and technical systemv
These activities concern, in jhe pain, the following seven areas,.which are to be the subject of
. discussions with the Codest: Committee :
1
— pharma cobio logy:  application of new developments in cellular and molecular biology,
— solid-state physics;  structure phenomena and processes of fabricating composite'materials,
— optics:  application of modern techniques of mathematical analyses to various problems in the
field of optics, 1
— combustion:  approach to ignition phenomena (behaviour of material under combustion condi­
tions), .
— pbotomttry/pbotoacoustia:  application to the field of non-destructive analysis,
— climatology:  transitory phenomena,
t r
— interface phenomena. >
2. In the fields referred to in point 1  different kinds of illustrative stimulation activities are to be tried 
out: research allocations, laboratory twinning, researcher mobility and subsidies for research teams. 
On the other hand, a specific project of a pluridisciplinary nature will be started up, to enable joint 
.working by teams in different Member States to bring it to successful conclusion.
.3. The choice of stimulation activities and the scientific and technical teams involved will be made as 
follows: ·
— the Commission will inform the national scientific and technical communities of opportuni­
ties for Community action in the selected fields; it will await offers,
— the selection of tenders will be made by the Commission which, with the assistance of Codest, 
will make use of a ‘peer review' system to judge the scientific and technical merit of the activi­
ties proposed and the quality of the teams putting them forward. The intervention chosen will

6. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 181/23
be of a  multinational nature Jmobility of researchers frojn one M em ber State to another; team s 
m ade up of researchers from  various M em ber States; projects carried out jointly by various .  
team s in various M ember S lates) and w ill involve activities of the type set out In point 1  ;  the 
activities w ill be complementary to, and coherent with, Community scientific and technical 
activities 'carried out elsew here.
4. A  group of studies, consultations, surveys and sem inars, carried out in collaboration rdih national 
scientific cud technical communities w ill m ake it possible to analyze and evaluate the scientific , 
and technical needs and opportunities w ith a view  to specifying the content'of the subsequent 
annua! stimulation plans to be incorporated in the fram ew ork program m e. ,

ANNEX 2
COMMISSION DECISION OF 6/12/1982

10. 12. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 350/45
COMMISSION DECISION 
of 6 December 1982
on the creation of the Committee for the European Development of Science and
Technology
(82/835/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community,
Whereas the implementation of a common strategy in 
the field of science and technology and the establish­
ment of a  genera! framework programme for the 
corresponding activities in these fields make it neces­
sary that the Commission should be kept informed, on 
a permanent basis, of the scientific and technical 
needs and opportunities which exist within the 
Community ;
Whereas science and technology within the Commu­
nity will not be able to benefit from the best condi­
tions for progress unless efforts to stimulate them at 
national and Community level are reinforced and 
unless full advantage is taken of the Community 
dimension ;
Whereas, in order that this can be done, the Commis­
sion must possess the capacity to analyze and evaluate 
the potential of research and development in the 
Community, and to assess and estimate the worth of 
scientific and technical opportunities in the short, 
medium and long term ;
Whereas such an analysis of the Community’ s scien­
tific and technical potential and the identification of 
its various possibilities also call, if they are to be 
.undertaken by consulting the competent national 
authorities, for close collaboration with the European 
scientific and technical community in the framework 
of a  regular dialogue with highly qualified specialists 
in these fields,of its policy in regard to the stimulation of the 
Community’ s scientific and technical potential ; in 
particular, it shall contribute to the systematic analysis 
of the Community’s scientific and technical needs and 
opportunities ;  the Committee shall also assist the 
Commission in defining the common research and 
development strategy. It shall provide the Commission 
with elements for consideration and appraisal during 
the preparation of the overall framework programme 
for Community scientific and technical activities.
2. In order to perform the tasks set out in paragraph 
1 , the Committee shall:
— take part, at the Commission’ s request, in the 
qualitative analysis of the Community’ s scientific 
and technical potential, carried out by the 
Commission with the help of the consultative 
committees on research and development,
— conduct an exchange of information with the 
Commission on actions undertaken or to be under­
taken at Community level, and, where applicable, 
on what further work should be undertaken,
— give opinions or make reports to the Commission 
in the framewôrk of the common strategy for 
research and development, especially on the 
analysis of scientific and technical, needs and 
opportunities within the Community, ' and the 
evaluation of requests for intervention made to the 
Commission with a view to carrying out Commu­
nity activities to stimulate the scientific and tech­
nical potential of the Community.
3. The arrangements for' disseminating the 
Committee’s opinions and its reports shall be decided 
in agreement with the Commission.
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
Article 1
A Committee for the European Development of 
Science and Technology, hereinafter referred to as ‘ the 
Committee’ , is hereby set up within the Commission.
Article 2
1 . The Committee’ s basic task shall be to assist the 
Commission in the preparation and implementationArticle 3
1 . The Committee shall consist of 21 members.
2. It shall be made up of eminent persons of recog­
nized standing in European scientific, technological 
and industrial circles, active in national research and 
development systems and conversant with national 
science and technology policies.
3. Committee members shall be appointed in a 
personal capacity by the Commission, which shall 
ensure that the necessary contacts are made with 
Member States for this purpose.

No L  350/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 12. 82
4. The Committee shall contain at least one 
member from each Member State, with a maximum of 
four.
5. A list of Committee members shall be published 
by the Commission in the Official Jo u rn a l o f the  
European Communities.
Article 4
The term of office for a Committee member shall be 
four years. Members of the Committee shall remain in 
office until such time as they are replaced or until 
their appointment is renewed.
Arrangements for renewing the Committee shall be 
established as part of its rules of procedure.
The functions which are exercised shall not be subject 
to remuneration ; travel and living expenses relating to 
Committee meetings shall be covered by the Commis­
sion pursuant to the administrative provisions 
currently in force.
Article 5
The Committee shall elect a chairman from among its 
members. The chairman shall be elected by a two- 
thirds majority of members present, a minimum of 1 0  
favourable votes being required.
Two vice-chairmen shall be elected, with the same 
requirements as to majority and under the same condi­
tions. They shall deputize for the chairman in case of 
absence.
The chairman and vice-chairmen, with the assistance 
of two other Committee members elected under the 
same conditions, shall constitute the Committee’ s 
officers and be its permanent representatives to the 
Commission.
Their term of office shall be established as part of the 
Committee's rules of procedure.The organization of the Committee’ s work and its 
secretarial arrangements shall be the responsibility of 
the Commission, working closely with the chairman.
Article 6
1 . The Committee shall normally meet at the place 
where the Commission has its seat and upon being 
convened by the Commission. There shall be a 
minimum of four meetings per year.
2. Representatives of the Commission shall have 
the right to take part in meetings of the Committee 
and the working groups which it may set up among its 
members.
Article 7
The Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure. 
Article 8
Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 214 of 
the Treaty, members of the Committee are required 
not to disclose any. information which comes to their 
attention through the work of the Committee or its 
working groups, where the Commission informs them 
that an opinion or a topic bears upon a question of a 
confidential nature.
In such cases, only members of the Committee and 
representatives of the Commission may take part in 
meetings.
Article 9
This Decision shall- apply with effect from 6 
December 1982.
Done at Brussels, 6 December 1982.
For the Commission  
Étienne DAVIGNON 
Vice-President

ANNEX 3
LIST OF CODEST MEMBERS 1/1/1984

- MEMBERS OF CODEST -
by function  
at 1/1/1984
BUREAU :
DR. U. COLOMBO - Chairman -  
President of ENEA - Rome
Prof. I. PRIGOGINE - Vice-Chairman -  
Prof, at the Free University -Brussels
Mr. H. CURIEN - Vice-Chairman -  
President CNES -Paris
Sir David PHILLIPS  
Prof, at Oxford University
Chairman of the Advisory Board for Research Councils  
Dr. B. HESS
Vice-President of the Max Planck Institute
MEMBERS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER
Sir Geoffrey ALLEN
Director of Research at Uni Lever-
Prof. A. BOEVER
Prof. Honoraire Cours Universitaires -  
Dr. H. BÖHM
Director of Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe -  
Dr. N.E. BUSCH
Director General of RISO National Lab. - '<
Ing. U. BUSINARO
Director of the FIAT delegation to Europe -;s  
Dr. E.F. de HAAN
Former Director of Research & Development at PHILIPS
Prof. Dr. H. de WAARD
prof, at the University of Groningen
President of FOM -
Prof. E.N. EC0N0M0U
Prof, at the University of Crète -

Mr. C. FREJACQUES  
President of thè C.N.R.S. - '
Prof. J. LIONS
Prof. College of France - .
Or. G. PAHL
Vice-Chairman, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft-  
Prof. U. RATTI
Prof, at thè University of Rome -  
Or. P. RYAN
Director of An Foras taluntais -  
Dr. B. SCHMIDT
Management of DORNIER Gmbh -
Sir Peter SWINNERTON-DYER
Prof, at Cambridge University
Chairman of thè University Grants Committee -

ANNEX 4
FINANCIAL SUMMARY

Allocation of funds.
The planned allocation of the 7 million ECU granted for the 
experimental action was initially as follows :
Projects (stimulation contracts) :  6.487.300 ECU
Staff :  252.700 ECU
Administrative costs 260.000 ECU
(technical support, missions, meetings of C0DEST, etc..).
The management costs (staff, administrative costs) were actually lower 
than expected and the allocation of the available funds should in fact 
be as follows (end 1984) :
Projects 6. 594.200 ECU
Staff 195.000 ECU'
Administrative costs 210.000 ECU

ANNEX 5 
THE TIMETABLE

Timetable
ACTION
Call for proposals 
Final date for submission 
Completion of the evalua­
tion of applications 
Decision to grant support 
Completion of preparation 
of contracts and commitment 
of expenditureFirst phase 
(1983)
8 July 
1 October
7 November 
10 November
28 DecemberSecond phase 
(1984)
4 February 
1  April
9 July 
18 July
December
(estimated)

ANNEX 6 
STATISTICS

APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 1983/84  
NUMBER AND TOTAL AMOUNT BY FIELD AND METHOD OF SUPPORT
FIELD
PharmacobiologyTwinnings Research grants Subsidies
Number Cost Number Cost Number CostOpérations
/
Number CostProposals(Total)  
Number Cost
160 18.078.271 32 1.190.628 30 370.542 n  3.977.100 233 23.616.541
Solid State Physics ^  6.069.869 17 494.500 7 27.400 2 238.700 94 6.830.469
Optics
Combustion
Photometry/
Photoacoustics
Climatology
Interface
Phenomena
Others23 2.417.781 12 291.000 5
18 3.862.068 2 134.400 8
8 786.011
14 1.034.786 9 464.850 1341.750 1 1.929.000 41 4.679.531
143.840 5
1 28.800
711.100872.200 33 5.012.508
9 814.811
36 2.210.736
48 4.787.537 7 315.700 10 142.000
48 5.822.056 22 1.385.107 27 1.256.0994
4488.800
1.950.50069
1015.734.037
10.413.762
TOTAL 387 42.858. 379 101 4.276.185 101 2.271.531 27 9.456.300 616 59.312.395

TRANSNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE LINKS REQUESTED IN APPLICATIONS 
UNDER THE STIMULATION ACTION
(*) Norm calculated by dividing 
total links by total civil 
expenditure on R & D

APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED 1983/84 
NUMBER AND TOTAL AMOUNT BY FIELD AND METHOD OF SUPPORT
Twinnings Research grants Subsidies Operations Proposals (Total)
FIELD
Number Cost Number Cost Number Cost Number Cost Number Cost
Pharmacobiology 15 788.127 1 24.673 3 15.608 19 828.408
Solid State Physics 17 1.198.609 3 74.420 2 82.465 22 1.355.494
Optics 4 335.224 1 1.800.000 5 2.135.224
Combustion 3 169.996 3 169.996
Photometry/
Photoacoustics3 247.007 1 3.316 4 250.323
Climatology 5 322.788. 5 322.788
Interface
Phenomena12 785.842 1 4.500 13 790.342
Others 5 511.614 5 511.614
TOTAL 64 4.359.207 4 99.093 7 105.889 1 1.800.000 76 6.364.189
* indu "Muon"

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
The Referee System
1) Setting up a portfolio of referees
.  Experts contacted by the Commission
.  Experts who did not^respond to the Commission's request
.  Experts who were unable to agree to evaluate 
proposals for support
.  Experts available
FIELD NUMBER OF EXPERTS
Biology 103
Climatology 10
Combustion 14
Optics 10
Solid State Physics 30
Photometry-Photoaccoustics 5
Interface Phenomena 24
Autres 19
2) Operation of the network of referees
.  Time taken to respond :  6 weeks average 21/2 months maximum 
.  Response rate :  around 95%
.  Proportion of comments made :  89%
3) Results of the scientific evaluation of proposals (ie over and above 
the examination undertaken by the Commission's own experts)
.  37% of proposals received one opinion 
.  29% of proposals received two opinions 
.  15% of proposals received three opinions 
.  3.5% of proposals received four opinions 
.  1% of proposals received five opinions
The remaining 14.5% were evaluated by CODEST itself.372
102
55
215