No C 207/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
delayed, which might require an additional extension 
beyond the 18 months initially proposed. The Committee 
therefore asks the Council to take a decision rapidly on the 
extension of the Eurotra programme. 
3.5. The Committee would also like the Commission to 
look into the possible repercussions of the present situation 
on the programme, which it felt, if everything went 
smoothly, could begin in autumn 1986. (The Commission 
felt that at least six to nine months would be required to set 
up the necessary machinery for implementing the programe 
in Spain and Portugal). 
3.6. The Committee supports the Commission's call for 
increased funding, in view of the cost of the measures to be 
carried out and the work involved. 
3.7. The Committee would stress that the Commission 
has an essential management and guidance role to play in 
view of the decentralized nature of the Eurotra programme. 
Successful implementation of the programme as a whole 
depends on the resources available to the Commission for 
carrying out its duties. The Commission's requests for 
additional staff are justified by the inclusion of two extra 
languages in the programme and the involvement of two 
new Member States in its implementation. 
3.8. The Committee wishes to draw attention to the 
social repercussions of developing a machine translation 
system. It would refer here to the information report on the 
new technologies - Community research and development prepared by the Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions 
(16 January 1985), which states that the concept of a 
technology-oriented society would only be socially ac­
ceptable if specific assurances were given that attention 
would be paid to the consequences of technological 
development for workers and the population as a whole. 
This means in particular that information, consultation 
and negotiation procedures should be put into effect before 
any machine translation system is introduced. 
3.9. The Committee considers that the development of 
machine translation should not lead to a fall in the number 
of translators needed because each translation, whether 
done by machine or not, will have to be revised afterwards, 
and the use of machines should lead to increased demand 
for translations. But the nature of translation work could 
be permanently changed, as has already been pointed out in 
the ESC opinion of 25 February 1981. The Committee 
therefore regrets that there has still been no examination of 
any measures to ensure the necessary adaptation of 
translation work to the development of machine trans­
lation, and insists that such an examination be carried out 
as soon as possible. 
3.10. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the use 
of machine translation should not, under any circum­
stances, lead to language teaching being discouraged or 
hampered, because, if the peoples of the European 
Community are to be brought closer together, it is essential 
that language teaching be continued and developed. 
Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the EC shared-cost research, development and demonstration programmes 
(86/C 207/07) 
On 19 December 1985 the Bureau of the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth 
paragraph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to prepare an own-initiative opinion on 
the abovementioned programmes (l) 
(') Shared-cost contract research is research in which the Commission shares the cost of the programme with 
the contractor or contractors involved. Such research is also called 'indirect action' or 'cost-sharing'. In this 
area the Commission uses three types of research contract: — shared-cost contracts: Commission share 
maximum 50%: — marginal cost contracts: restricted to universities and higher educational 
establishments where the Commission share can rise to 100 % of the additional costs arising from the 
research: — contract of association : examples are the Jet, Fusion and Radiological protection programmes. 
18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/15 
The Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 30 April 1986, in the light of the report by 
Mr de Normann. 
On 21 May 1986, during its 237th plenary session, the Economic and Social Committee adopted the 
following opinion unanimously. 
1. Introductory Remarks 
1.1. The Committee has based its opinion upon the 
information report which its Section for Energy and 
Nuclear Questions drew up in 1985 on the EC shared-cost 
research, development and demonstration programmes. 
That information report was discussed in the Committee's 
plenary session on 31 October 1985, and the Committee 
voted to forward it to the Institutions together with the 
Record of Proceedings. 
1.2. The report provided the Commission with an 
independent view on the latter's system of Community 
shared-cost research. Members of the Section involved had 
visited a number of contractors to solicit their views on the 
subject. 
1.3. The Section believed then, and the Committee 
endorses the view that it is important not only that the 
Commission should take account of contractors' views — 
and it is apparent that they have done that — but also that 
improvements the Commission makes to the shared-cost 
system are fed back to contractors and to the scientific 
community in general. If this happens the considerable 
effort and money expended by the Economic and Social 
Committee on the original report and, later, on this 
opinion, will have been justified. 
1.4. In this opinion the Committee reiterates the main 
conclusions reached by the Section in its recent report on 
Community shared-cost research. 
It comments on the progress made by the Commission in 
the area of shared-cost research since the report was first 
undertaken. 
Finally, the Committee makes further recommendations 
for the future. 
2. Community shared-cost research 
2.1. General comments 
The Committee agrees with those contractors interviewed 
who considered that shared-cost research programmes 
gave the best value for effort and money of the various 
major methods used by the Commission to promote 
research and development. 
It welcomes the fact that contractors who have participated 
in shared-cost contracts are generally keen to continue. It 
notes however that some organizations do not participate 
in Commission-initiated shared-cost programmes, for fear of bureaucracy, financial stringency or simply from lack of 
knowledge concerning the possibility of participation. 
The Commission services, in collaboration with Member 
States, are continually evolving the techniques employed to 
obtain the optimum value for money from the use of 
European Community funds. The Committee considers 
that the Commission should be urged to continue this 
process in the light of the experience gained in the 
programmes such as Biotechnology, Esprit, BRITE, and 
RACE. 
2.2. Criteria for selection of shared-cost programmes 
The Section in its report has identified eight main criteria 
for the Commission to apply when selecting shared-cost 
research programmes, to produce optimum value for effort 
and money: 
— programmes with industrial objectives should be 
limited to areas defined by the Commission as 'pre-
competitive', 
— this does not apply where the results of a given research 
project are designed to contribute to health, welfare and 
safety, 
— the results of the research must be of potential use to 
more than one Member State, 
— the benefits arising from each research programme 
should, if successful, be greater than the sum of the 
benefits Member States could have achieved individu­
ally with their own research organizations, 
— research projects that attract Community funds must be 
clearly ones that are best planned and carried out at 
Community level and hence provide 'additionally', 
— the size of each individual project should exceed the 
'critical mass' i.e. the minimum needed for the project 
results to provide the promise of subsequent appli­
cation. This criterion should not be sacrificed for 
reasons of juste retour or budget restriction, 
— shared-cost research should entail the sharing of risk 
between the Commission and the contractor. The 
Commission's share of project cost and accompanying 
risk must not be less than 50 %, 
— the research programmes must entail participation by 
more than one Member State, thus promoting 'trans­
frontier cross-fertilization', 
No C 207/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
the research programmes must entail participation by 
more than one of the various layers of research 
operations (e.g. academic, research institution, indus­
trial) thus promoting 'trans-layer cross-fertilization'. 
2.3. Commission procedures 
The Committee agrees with those contractors interviewed 
who considered that Commission procedures for contract 
management and reporting were generally good and that 
Commission staff contributed considerably to making the 
procedures work. 
The Committee recommends that improvements can 
however be made, such as: 
— ensuring greater uniformity in drawing up and im­
plementing the procedures for shared-cost research, 
development and demonstration programmes, 
— designating a central group within the Commission 
responsible for ensuring a common approach to shared-
cost work administration, 
— extending procedural modifications that were intro­
duced with the Esprit programme, 
— retaining a percentage of reserve funding to meet 
unforeseen developments in the course of individual 
programmes, 
— reducing the relatively high cost of tender submission, 
by carrying out a preliminary vetting of initial bids, 
— reducing to a minimum of the time taken between bid 
submission and work authorization, 
— modifying financial conditions for advance payments 
and reimbursements, including reimbursement of 
overheads, 
— introducing changes in contract terms, 
— modifying the system of auditing contractors' research 
work. 
2.4. Coordination with industry 
The Committee recognizes contractors' concern that in 
many areas of research, their rewards from technology 
arising from successful research and development are 
entirely dependent upon the success of subsequent 
technical and commercial actions by 'industry' in the 
widest sense, management and employees alike. 
The Committee recommends that the Commission does all 
in its power to ensure that those involved with research on 
the one hand and those responsible for commercial and 
technical decisions in industry on the other, think and work 
together from the start. To this end the Commission should examine its procedures 
for the involvement of industry at all stages from the 
research plan, through the initial programme definition, 
the pre-contract information, the contract award, the 
contract management advice, to the post-contract utiliz­
ation plan. 
The Commission should lead the way with clearly defined 
liaison procedures between its DG XII (research and 
development), DG XIII (innovation), and DG III (industrial 
affairs). 
The Commission itself should endeavour to involve 
industrial representation in its activities and not rely solely 
on representation chosen by Member State Governments. 
2.5. Pre-contract activity by the Commission 
The Committee urges the Commission to improve the 
organization and timing of its pre-contract information to 
potential contractors. 
It should take positive steps to attract the interest of a wide 
spectrum of contractors, since the choice of the most 
appropriate and efficient contractors is vital to the success 
of shared-cost work. 
The Committee endorses suggestions made by contractors 
that the Commission should : 
— establish a complete list of research resources in the 
Community, 
— positively promote shared-cost proposals to potential 
contractors, 
— keep up-to-date its brochure on shared-cost research 
work and the mechanism by which it operates, 
— provide for potential contractors an early warning 
mechanism in the form of Commission D.G. newsletters 
and other publications, 
— provide a number of liaison officers and publicize their 
availability, 
— encourage contractors and potential contractors to 
submit their ideas for improving the system. 
2.6. Communication and Promotion 
The Committee feels that the general awareness of the 
shared-cost work of the Commission, the means by which 
it operates and the ways to learn of up-coming opportu­
nities, is not as great as it might be. 
The Commission should tackle the problem of public 
relations. 
The Committee notes that during contract work, com­
munication with contractors is usually good. The organiza­
tion of symposia and exchanges of experience are generally 
well worth the cost involved. 
18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the 
The Committee regrets that the promotion by the 
Commission of the successful results of shared-cost work 
has not led to a general awareness of the value of such 
work. 
It has to be asked whether the Commission might not 
establish a 'centre of excellence' as a clearing house for 
information. This would seem to have been recognized in 
so far as in the biotechnology field the proposal has been 
made to set up a concertation unit. In the field of 
technology generally, there is a need for a central 
organization to act as a catalyst in the interchange of ideas 
and of people. This could even include a data bank. Whilst 
the Committee would urge the Commission to undertake a 
study of the essential function which would need to be met 
by such a centre, the Committee asks whether this cannot 
be provided by an outstanding faculty in an existing 
university or a renowned research institute. 
2.7. Confidentiality 
In so far as some contractors were worried about the 
confidentiality of their work and results, the Committee 
urges the Commission to publish a note on how the 
Commission understands confidentiality. This would be of 
help to contractors, especially smaller contractors. 
The Committee feels that the Commission should consider 
the advantages and disadvantages publishing extensive 
information concerning likely avenues for future research 
in that it provides an indication of strategic thinking to 
competitors. 
2.8. Subsequent utilization of results 
The Committee supports the view expressed by some 
contractors when interviewed in 1985 that there has been a 
tendency by the Commission to regard the research 
contract as an end in itself rather than the first step on the 
road to successful industrial use. 
The Committee urges that the Commission ensure that 
every R, D &t D programme has a utilization plan to 
provide for the subsequent use of successful results. This 
should be an integral part of the overall programme 
submitted to the Council for adoption. 
At the time the information report was first drawn up 
contractors understood that the utilization plan could not 
be cost-shared in the industrial sector lest it fall into the 
competitive area. The contractors felt that there were 
certain elements in the utilization plan which the 
Commission should consider for cost-sharing, such as the 
protection of the intellectual property arising from the 
investment of Community funds. The Committee supports 
this view. uropean Communities No C 207/17 
2.9. Small and medium-sized entreprises 
The Committee supports those contractors who saw the 
position of small and medium-sized enterprises as demand­
ing more study by the Commission. (See paragraph 4.3.). 
2.10. Mobility of staff 
The Committee welcomes the plan to stimulate European 
technical and scientific cooperation and interchange (1985 
to 1988) adopted by the Council on 12 March 1985'('). The 
Committee nevertheless feels that the encouragement of the 
mobility of research staff throughout the European 
Community demands further action by the Commission. It 
feels movement from one research centre to another is 
beneficial both to the research centre and to the research 
worker, resulting in cross-fertilization of ideas, and in 
closer understanding and collaboration. 
It is pleased to note the evolution of shared-cost research 
programme organization aimed at encouraging mobility. 
2.11. Social consequences and involvement of workers 
The Committee recognized that one objective of Com­
munity research policy must be to find an effective way of 
involving workers and their organizations in decisions 
concerning Community shared-cost research in so far as 
they are likely to affect the direction and dimension of the 
Community's technological effort. It urges that the 
Commission be asked to tackle this task. 
3. Progress by the Commission since the Section's initial 
report was undertaken 
The Committee notes that since the information report was 
first undertaken, the Commission has made considerable 
progress in evolving a more coherent policy and strategy for 
the development of a technological Europe. 
In particular a number of worries about policy and strategy 
expressed in the information report have been tackled. 
There are signs of dynamic evolution and a lively spirit in 
Commission thinking matched by some response from the 
Council. 
There is, too, growing awareness, spurred on by non-
Community activities such as Eureka and SDI, that the 
Commission cannot concern itself only with pre-competi-
tive research. The Committee urges that the Commission 
find ways to work with Member States to bring the results 
of its research into the market place. It must identify the 
(!) OJ No I. 83, 25.3. 1985. 
No C 207/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
major opportunities which are appropriate to Community 
action and concentrate on them, leaving lesser projects to 
Member States. 
3.1. Implementation of existing programmes 
The Committee realizes that the Commission has been fully 
stretched in working on its existing programmes and those 
recently approved by the Council, including BR1TE, non-
nuclear energy, radiation protection and stimulation. 
In February 1984 the Council adopted the European 
Programme for Research and Development in Information 
Technologies (Esprit) 84/130/EEC. The first two calls for 
tender in 1984 and 1985 received a very good response from 
industry and science, and the projects selected will require 
for their completion almost all the funding estimated for 
the first five years of the programme. 
The Commission set up an independent high-level body, 
the Esprit Review Board, to assess the progress of the 
Programme by a series of face-to-face interviews (131) and 
a mailed questionnaire to 477 participants from whom 238 
replies have been received (COM 19.11.85) . 
The Committee welcomes the main conclusions of this 
assessment which reported that Esprit has been successfully 
established and is on course to meet its original objectives. 
Certain procedural changes were recommended. Esprit and 
national programmes were regarded as being com­
plementary and no major conflicts were identified. It would 
support the recommendations of the Review Board that 
pre-competitive R & D in this area, subject to consolid­
ation and restructuring, should continue, and that 
demonstration projects should be added to the programme. 
The 1986 work programme for Esprit was proposed in a 
draft Council Decision (COM 12.11.85). Five major sectors 
as in the previous work plan were proposed and a 
distinction was drawn between Type A projects which 
were individually described in the work plan with short-
and long-term objectives and Type B projects which were 
described as covering general research topics. 
The Committee supports the Review Board in pointing out 
that even the short-term objectives might have to be 
changed in the course of the yearly revisions, in the light of 
the progress within Europe and elsewhere in the world. The 
Section has pointed out this need to provide for a change of 
course during the life of a project in its own information 
report. 
The Committee would support the Commission in 
considering that the Review Board's evaluation was 
sufficiently encouraging for the Commission to expect to recommend strengthening and enlargement of the work for 
the second five years' tranche of the 10-year plan (Esprit 2). 
The Committee was also pleased to note that in the 
programme for the basic research in industrial technologies 
(BRITE) the Commission selected 95 projects involving 432 
bodies and that 60 % of these are industrial, 21 % are 
research institutes and 19 % are universities. 24 % of the 
industrial organizations come within the Commission 
definition of SMEs. 
In March 1985 the Council adopted a plan to stimulate 
European scientific and technical cooperation and inter­
change (1985 to 1988) 85/197/EEC. 
The Committee supports the 'Stimulation' Plan to spend 60 
million ECU with a staff of 12 on research grants and 
contracts to encourage the twinning of laboratories and 
operation contracts. The range of activities will seek to 
establish a network of scientific and technical cooperation 
and exchange in all fields of science and technology. These 
measures are aimed to aid the mobility of researchers, 
communication among scientists and the development of 
cooperation. 
The plan will be reviewed during its second year (1986). 
The Economic and Social Committee asks to receive this 
review. 
3.2. Improvement, simplification and coordination of 
procedures 
The Committee regards shared-cost research as an 
accepted and a basic tool of Community-level research. It 
has already yielded worthwhile results in an efficient and 
economic way. Considerable experience gained in its 
operation so far has led the Commission to introduce a 
continuing series of improvements, simplification and 
coordination of procedures, some of which were suggested 
by contractors interviewed for the information report. 
The Committee is pleased to note that since its Section 
drew up the initial report in 1985 contract mechanisms 
have been improved, and some 1 000 contracts will be 
agreed in 1986. 
3.3. Role of public sector and institutions 
The Committee supports the Commission in the realization 
that research and development in the industrial and 
technological fields, mainly carried out by the industrial 
sector with public involvement, plays an important part in 
fulfilling the objectives of the Framework Programme. 
However it points out that there are other areas of research 
and development activities such as nuclear fusion, 
environmental health and safety, radiation protection 
which can only in the main be carried out by the public 
18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/19 
sector in university laboratories and research institutes. 
These also play a vital role in the well-being of the citizens. 
3.4. Utilization and protection of results 
The Committee would underline that the Luxembourg 
Conference supported and encouraged actions to utilize the 
results of research and to bring it to the market place. 
A new Annex 2 to the standard contract now places 
obligations on contractors to utilize the results of their 
contract work. 
3.5. Protection of results 
The Committee notes with regret that not all Member 
States have been able to sign the Luxembourg Convention 
relating to the European patent for the common market. 
3.6. Towards a technological Europe 
In the past year the Commission has been active in 
stimulating discussion on appropriate ways to bring about 
a technological Europe. 
It submitted two communications to the Milan Summit in 
June. 
The first, 'Strengthening of technical cooperation in 
Europe', defined the challenge and outlined the response in 
terms of the Community and national efforts and their 
interaction. It went on to propose actions involving the 
launching of projects and various forms of cooperation and 
their mechanisms. 
The second, 'Towards a European technology com­
munity', expanded on the first and suggested methods of 
cooperation and financing arrangements. 
It drew attention to the efficacy of shared-cost programmes 
in pre-competitive research citing the ESC information 
report. 
It also emphasized the value of concerted action program­
mes which could include non-EC countries. 
Finally it suggested that additional programmes financed 
solely by Member States wishing to take part ('variable 
geometry') should no longer be limited solely to the nuclear 
field. 
It supported the view of the ESC information report that 
the management tool used for the JET programme could 
serve as a model for other projects for the joint 
development and exploitation of major scientific facilities. The Council in Milan endorsed this paper and asked for it 
to be put into effect. The Commission published proposals 
for implementation in 'Towards a European technologicy 
community' (COM 30.09.1985). It suggested that a new 
overall scientific and technical programme for the 
Community should be drawn up and put into effect 
without delay. 
It reinforced the view of the ESC that this should be 
accompanied by measures defined in the Commission 
White Paper on completion of the internal market and 
promotion of cooperation between European industrial 
firms. 
It added that an overall strategy must be worked out to 
serve as a guide to action towards achieving a European 
scientific and technological community. 
In January 1986 the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted three information reports on 'New Technologies 
European Community R & D,' 'Innovation in the 
Community; the Corporate Environment' and on 'Social 
Aspects' which generally endorsed the Commission 
approach. 
3.7. Revision of the framework programme 
In March 1985 the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted an opinion on 'priorities for Community research 
initiatives: the next revision of the framework programme 
for Community scientific and technological activities', 
(rapporteur: Mr T. Roseingrave). 
The Committee considered that the scientific proposals for 
Europe described in the framework programme provided 
the basis for an essential European R, D & D strategy. It 
gave some suggestions for revision. 
In April 1985 the Commission published the working 
document, 'The scientific and technical strategy of the 
Community'. It described the status of implementation of 
the framework programme and considered its revision. 
The first framework programme for Community scientific 
and technical activities covered the period 1984 to 1987. To 
implement it the Council took decisions on a number of 
shared-cost programmes including Esprit, some multi-
annual programmes such as Biotechnology, BRITE, 
Stimulation and on funds for demonstration projects on 
energy. 
The Commission pointed out that these decisions showed 
the value of Community R&D and the recognition of its 
role in the implementation of new Community policies but 
that they did not always match up to the scope of, nor 
No C 207/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 8. 86 
respect the balances between the scientific and technical 
objectives approved by the Council with the adoption of 
the framework programme. 
The April 1985 working document went on to give ideas for 
the revision of the framework programme and to identify 
five major issues concerning the Community's scientific 
and technological strategy for discussion with the Member 
States. 
The review was preceded by a comparison of national and 
Community scientific policies in COPOL III in June 1985. 
The basic guidelines for the new framework programme 
1987 to 1991 have now been drawn up on the basis of the 
memoranda 'Towards a technological Community' and 
were expected to be debated by ministers in April 1986. The 
next step is for a proposal to be drawn up. 
In the light of the Luxembourg Council conclusions in 
December 1985 the framework programme will embrace: 
— setting scientific objectives, 
— outlining fundamental plans of action, 
— estimating the deemed necessary amount, 
— distribution of the amount between the different 
projects, 
— procedure for financial participation of the Community 
in the programme as a whole. 
This new framework programme will be the vehicle by 
which the Commission will promote its plan to strengthen 
technological Europe. Under the amendments to the 
Treaty, provisionally agreed at Luxembourg, the frame­
work programme will be an integral part of the overall 
approval for technological actions and their scale. It will 
require unanimous approval by the Council whereas in 
order to enhance flexibility the individual programmes will 
be agreed by a qualified majority vote. 
4. Recommendations for the future 
4.1. Continued development of shared-cost research 
The Committee believes that the Commission should 
continue to conduct research by means of shared-cost 
contracts. 
It should sophisticate procedures to increase efficiency and 
value for money, meeting the criteria given above and 
ensuring that experience gained from one series is applied 
to the next. 
The Committee urges the Commission to continue its work 
to coordinate, simplify and cheapen its shared-cost 
research procedures. It is vital to make these programmes 
attractive to all potential contractors. Some public relation work is needed by the Commission to convince the 
entrepreneur that there are positive advantages for him to 
be involved. 
The Committee urges the Commission to take positive 
steps to secure the best possible research contractors, and 
the appropriate mix in size and range of contractors. 
In particular, procedures should be developed to involve 
small and medium-sized enterprises in shared-cost research 
both as prime contractors and, where appropriate, as 
subcontractors. 
4.2. Centres of excellence 
The Committee draws attention to the memorandum 
'Towards a European technology community' (COM(85) 
350 final), in which the Commission supported the 
suggestion made in the ESC information report, to identify 
a network of centres of excellence recognized and 
supported by the Community. These centres, based upon 
areas of technology, would agree to cooperate in program­
mes with the Commission. They would facilitate tech­
nology transfer through links with both universities and 
industry; promoting the flow of information in both 
directions, developing the mobility of labour and framing 
training policies. 
The Committee asks that the Commission itself might 
consider acting as a centre of excellence in certain areas 
specifically as a data base and information exchange centre. 
4.3. Involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs) 
The Committee would like to see the Commission 
sophisticate its approach to the involvement of SMEs in 
shared-cost research especially: 
— awarding them a fair and appropriate proportion of 
shared-cost programmes, 
— transferring to them the results of research generated by 
shared-cost research. 
At the moment, with programmes such as Esprit and 
BRUT where the Commission publicizes figures of 40 % 
SME involvement, the Committee understands that this 
percentage applies to numbers of contractors rather than to 
funding. Furthermore the involvement of SMEs is de­
pendent upon the skill of the Commission management 
team in their interrelation with the advisory committees. 
The Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions is preparing 
an information report on the importance of technology to 
SMEs in which this problem will be described in detail. 
Meanwhile the Committee would like the Commission to 
consider: 
— whether techniques such as the US small business 
innovation research (SBIR) programmes could be 
adapted for Community use, 
18. 8. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 207/21 
— whether the Commission could do more to encourage 
subcontracting to SMEs in shared-cost programmes; 
— whether further work on the utilization plan by the 
Commission (DG XIII) could do more to promote the 
interests of SMEs in the subsequent technological 
development phase which if successful will end in the 
market place of the Community. 
4.4. A greater role for innovation 
The Committee emphasizes that shared-cost research 
programmes will only have been successful in terms of 
value for money if they result in subsequent successful 
innovation either in the form of new products and 
processes which the market will buy or in beneficial 
changes for health, welfare and the protection of the 
environment. 
The Committee believes that just as research strategy has 
been the subject of intense study and activity, its 
counterpart innovation should receive similar treatment; 
otherwise there is a likehood that the Community will not 
receive value for money from its research expenditure. In 
particular, the Committee urges the Council to implement 
the amendment to the EEC Treaty proposed by the 
European Council in Luxembourg in December 1985 
which explicitly defines the Community's role in the 
dissemination and exploitation of the results of Com­
munity research development and technology demonst­
ration (RDTD) activities. 4.5. Protection of intellectual property 
The Committee asks in the Commission to help contractors 
to solve their real and apparent difficulties in the protection 
of the intellectual property created in shared-cost work. 
4.6. Actions to strengthen the industry-university link 
The Committee believes that the Commission techniques to 
devise shared-cost research projects which bring together 
universities and other higher educational establishments 
with research organizations in industry and elsewhere, are 
of great value. 
The Commission is urged to continue to work in this area. 
4.7. Public relations by the Commission 
The Committee feels that the shared-cost programmes of 
the Commission are still not yet sufficiently publicized. The 
feeling among potential contractors persists that it is 
difficult to find out about them, expensive to tender for 
them, and bureaucratically complex to undertake them. 
Furthermore there are doubts in the minds of potential 
contractors about the ownership of the results. There is 
need for the Commission to undertake promotional work 
to correct these misconceptions. 
The Committee noted with approval the exhibition of new 
technology arranged by the European Parliament on the 
occasion of its new technologies symposium held in 
Strasbourg in October 1985 and felt that this might well be 
repeated elsewhere. 
Done at Brussels, 21 May 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the prevention of environmental pollution 
by asbestos (') 
(86/C 207/08) 
On 18 December 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal for a Directive. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was 
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 May 1986 
in the light of the report by Mr Bleser. 
(') OJ No C 349, 31. 12. 1985, p. 27.