No C 25/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 1. 85 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multiannual research action 
programme of the European Economic Community in the field of biotechnology (1985 to 
1989) (>) 
(85/C 25/07) 
On 29 May 1984, pursuant to Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multiannual research action 
programme of the European Economic Community in the field of biotechnology (1985 
to 1989). 
The Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1984, in the 
light of the Report by Mr de Normann. 
At its 221st plenary session (meeting of 21 November 1984) the Economic and Social 
Commitee adopted unanimously the following opinion. 
1. Overall assessment 
The Committee supports the proposal for a Council 
Decision adopting a multiannual research action 
programme of the European Economic Community 
in the field of Biotechnology (1985 to 1989). 
Its support however is conditional upon certain spe­
cific recommendations that follow in section 2 be­
low. Acceptance of these recommendations would in 
the Committee's view ensure that maximum value 
comes from the proposed research action pro­
gramme. The Committee urges that they be taken 
into account. 
It would ask that account be taken of some more 
general recommendations that follow in section 3. 
2. Specific recommendations 
2.1. Content of the proposal as a whole 
The Committee supports the allocation of effort in 
the proposal as a whole between the three areas: 
— contextual measures for R&D, 
— basic biotechnology research, 
— concerted activity, 
together with an associated training programme. 
The Committee considers that the training element 
and the concertation activity are of prime impor­
ts OJ NoC 182,9.7. 1984, p. 7. tance and should not be reduced pro rata to any 
reduction in funds allocated by the Council. 
The Committee further considers that the contextual 
measures are an ongoing action, the value of which 
will increase year by year and be of service to suc­
cessive research programmes. 
2.2. Staffing 
The Committee warns against understaffing of this 
programme by the Commission. It does not have 
enough detailed information to approve the staffing 
proposed but it senses that it is thinly spread for the 
work proposed, and may be insufficient to provide 
for the optimum implementation of every individual 
action. 
2.3. Contextual measures for R&D 
The Committee indentified a gap in the work pro­
posed on contextual measures involving a lack of 
published journals which collect and present techni­
cal information without commercial slant. It urges 
that the Commission be asked to consider how this 
gap should best be filled as a matter of priority. 
The Committee also heard evidence that scientists 
working in the biotechnology area are some of the 
least equipped to take their place in the electronic 
information transfer technical society. It suggests 
that the Commission be asked to consider this prob­
lem with the aim of ameliorating the situation 
through this sub-programme. In this context the 
Committee suggests that more attention be given to 
concerted action programmes. 
28. 1. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 25/15 
2.4. Content of the sub-programmes for shared-cost 
research 
The Committee did not have at its disposal adequate 
resources to form an opinion on the content of the 
sub-programme. 
The Committee understands that the Commission 
has been advised that the 'critical mass' for research 
on a narrowly-defined objective is 20 to 30 scientists. 
The Commission should be careful to plan its con­
tracts accordingly and not to spread the effort too 
thinly. 
It would be advisable for the Commission to arrange 
its research areas in an order of priority so that 
should the total money requested not be forthcom­
ing, the 'critical mass' of any closely defined subject 
area will not fall below the estimate for the best 
chance of success. 
2.5. Multi-contractor trans-national shared-cost con­
tracts 
The Committee feels that great advantages will de­
rive from shared-cost contracts which bring together 
as a single contracting group, contractors from dif­
ferent levels (e. g. one academic, one applied re­
search) and different Member States. 
The Committee urges that the Commission be asked 
to give priority to such contracts and that Article 1.2, 
second paragraph, be amended to emphasize this. 
2.6. Financial allocation for shared-cost contracts 
The Committee asks the Council to ensure that the 
Commission keep their share of each shared-cost 
contract as near 50 % as possible and do not dilute it 
either to achieve more contracts of for reasons of 
equity between Member States. 
The Committee also ask the Council to ensure that 
no regulation either by the Commission or by Mem­
ber State governments may result in an increase in 
the level of Community funding for a particular pro­
gramme leading to a decrease in the level of national 
funding or vice-versa. 
2.7. Financial flexibility 
The Committee recommends that the Commission 
allocate at least 5 % of the contracts commitment in the financial record to work which will arise during 
the programme but which cannot be foreseen at the 
start. This will give the Commission financial flexi­
bility with which to reinforce success. 
2.8. Management 
2.8.1. The Committee welcomes the Council Deci­
sion of June 1984 setting-up management and con­
sultative committees (CGCs) for research. The Com­
mittee emphasizes that the CGC which will advise 
the Commission in the execution of work on the 
Biotechnology programme: 
(a) should have a clearly-defined responsibility of a 
continuous nature without overdue emphasis on 
its merely advisory duties; 
(b) should have a field of activity narrow enough to 
permit indepth examination of the work. This 
would serve to reassure Member States about the 
initiation and implementation of programmes; 
(c) should be so constituted that one of the three 
representatives sent by Member States, work in 
the industry; 
(d) should devise and implement a mechanism to 
achieve effective consultation with employee and 
employer organizations. 
The Committee asks that Article 5 be amended to 
read 'The Commission will be advised and assisted 
in the tasks listed in Article 4 by the management 
and consultative committee working to a clear brief 
from the Commission'. 
The attention of the Council is drawn to the opinion 
on the communication from the Commission to the 
Council and to the European Parliament on promot­
ing the utilization of the results of Community-spon­
sored R&D (CES 1088/83 — OJ No C 23 of 
30 January 1984). 
2.8.2. The Committee, in supporting the concerta-
tion activity sub-programme, asked the Commission 
whether charges were proposed in the internal or­
ganization of the relevant Directorates General to 
ensure that the new Unit would be in a position to 
carry out its mandate of assuring the harmonization 
of the actions of the Commission. The Committee 
was assured that this could be done by persuasion, 
but nevertheless it asks that the Commission should 
review their organization with this in mind. 
No C 25/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 1. 85 
2.9. Time scale 
The Committee asks the Council: 
(a) to do everything possible to reduce the time scale 
of the interaction between the Council and the 
Commission to permit contractors to start work 
in the shortest possible time after they have sub­
mitted a successful tender; 
(b) to urge the Commission to take every step to 
inform potential contractors of the programme 
as early as possible and to allow as much time as 
possible for the contractors to form their group­
ing and submit their bid. 
2.10. Evaluation of results 
The Committee would like to see a precise descrip­
tion of the procedures for the evaluation of the work 
done, incorporated in the proposal. 
It considers that periodic evaluation during the life 
of a contract should be done by the Commission but 
that the final and overall assessment as set out in the 
Council resolution of 28 June 1983 (•) should be 
made independently. 
The Committee asks that Article 3 be amended ac­
cordingly and that in addition it shall provide for 
the Report to be made also to the Economic and 
Social Committee. 
2.11. Utilization of results 
The Committee considers that there is insufficient 
emphasis on utilization of research work in the 
Commission proposal. 
It urges the Council to ask the Commission to en­
sure that plans for utilization are made as an integral 
part of each research programme and sub-pro­
gramme. It asks that in the funding decision the 
Council should consider in each case the research 
programme with its utilization plan as a single 
entity. 
The attention of the Council is drawn to the opinion 
of the Committee on this subject (2). 
The Commitee further urges that the Commission be 
asked to devise and operate an evaluation pro­
gramme for the results of the utilization plan at an 
appropriate period, say two years, after completion 
of the research contract. 
(') OJ No C 213, 9. 8. 1983. 
(2) CES 1088/83 — OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1984. 2.12. International cooperation 
The Commitee notes that Article 7 covers the exten­
sion of the programme to European countries which 
are not Member States and proposes that the Com­
mission be authorized to negotiate accordingly. In 
the proposal (paragraph 1.6) the Commission states 
that it will report to the Council on this question. 
The Committee feels that the Commission should 
report to it too, in the expectation that its views 
would assist the Council. 
3. General recommendations and comments 
3.1. The position of the Community in world biotech­
nology markets 
The Committee warns against unqualified accep­
tance of the theme that Europe lags behind the USA 
and Japan. It would prefer the theme that organiza­
tion and coordination especially of economic poli­
cies, markets, legislation, standards, information 
and technology transfer must be improved if the 
greater benefit, both economic and social, is to 
accrue from effort spent on biotechnology research 
and development. 
In many areas of the science of biotechnology the 
Community leads the world and it is from this base 
that the Community is well placed for a concerted 
effort to consolidate and advance. 
3.2. Why work in biotechnology is appropriate to the 
Community as a whole 
Much of the success in USA and Japan in biotech­
nology markets can be attributed to a national will 
to succeed and to a single unfragmented market with 
common legislation, regulations and standards. 
For the Community to succeed it must adopt a simi­
lar outlook. 
It is for this reason that the Committee supports the 
proposals by the Commission to stimulate and con­
tribute to research and development in biotech­
nology on a shared basis and to the establishment 
of a market climate in which such research can 
provide the maximum social and economic benefit. 
28. 1. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 25/17 
3.3. The size of the effort proposed 
The Committee is not in a position to say whether 
the sum of 153,8 million ECU of which the Commis­
sion would fund 88,5 million ECU over the period 
1985 to 1989 is about right. 
Until the financial indications attached to the frame­
work programme have been approved by the Coun­
cil, it is not possible to say that any single ad hoc 
proposal is the right size in proportion to the 
whole. 
The Committee, however, is sure that the rewards of 
success are such that the expenditure is the mini­
mum which the EC should be spending on biotech­
nology even if the Council is not in a position to 
grant it in full, it should at least ensure that the bud­
get is sufficient to operate a worthwhile biotechno­
logy programme. 
The Committee is more concerned however that the 
initiative of the Commission and the will of Member 
State contractors to participate, should not be de­
pressed by delay from financial discussion without 
decision. It urges the Council therefore to make the 
decision in principle to proceed with whatever funds 
can be made available at its next Council meeting. 
3.4. Legal aspects 
The Committee considers that regulations affecting 
intellectual property rights including Community 
patent matters, are important areas for careful con­
sideration followed by appropriate action. 
It notes that these subjects form actions IV and V of 
the biotechnology action programme of the Com­
mission and it urges that no time be lost in bringing 
forward proposals for action. 
3.5. The partnership in biotechnology 
The Committee regards the development of the po­
tential of biotechnology in the Community as a 
partnership between employers, employees and the 
Community at large. 
3.5.1. Industry will be responsible for the develop­
ment of products and processes and their successful 
economic usage. 
Industry must therefore be involved from the begin­
ning. The Committee would like to see industry even 
more involved in research programme definition, 
through a planned programme of information to 
industrialists, through industrial involvement in contract selection, through industrial involvement in 
programme management to the final industrial in­
volvement in utilization and contextual matters. 
3.5.2. The Committee is mindful of the key role of 
small and medium-sized enterprises in the develop­
ment of advanced technology especially in the 
USA. 
It urges the Council to ensure that the Commission 
pay special attention to the involvement of SMEs in 
their shared-cost research programmes and later in 
the problem of technology transfer to SMEs at the 
utilization stage. It also considers that that part of 
the Commission organization responsible for utiliza­
tion should pay special attention to informing the 
suppliers of European venture capital on the pros­
pects for biotechnology. 
3.5.3. The Committee considers that equal atten­
tion should be given to involving employees in the 
decision-making process. 
Formal methods of communication with all relevant 
employee organizations should be sought. 
The Committee further feels that this does not just 
involve employees in the new technological indus­
tries. It involves all employees including those in 
industries which may feel threatened. 
The Committee feels that however much effort is 
involved it must recommend the Council to do all 
within its power to secure this objective as a key ele­
ment in the Commission strategy. 
3.5.4. The Committee recognizes the Community 
at large as the third partner. Its cooperation and 
support is vital to success. On this basis it proposed 
the considerations described in the two following 
paragraphs. 
3.6. Social implications 
The Committee is aware that potential developments 
in biotechnology give rise to fears that the tradi­
tional patterns of agriculture in the Community may 
be affected. Similarly some other traditional indus­
tries may feel threatened as new industries arise. 
The Committee would like to see studies of these 
and other social implications instigated by the Com­
mission. In particular they would welcome an in-
depth examination of the implication for agriculture 
including an examination of the potential for new 
crop patterns. 
The Committee feels it is of great importance to 
secure the understanding and support of the 
No C 25/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 1. 85 
European agricultural communities for the develop­
ment of the potential of biotechnology. 
3.7. Moral and ethical aspects 
The Committee wishes to emphasize to the Council 
that genetic engineering, a key element in biotech­
nology, is a powerful tool which mankind can use 
for evil as well as good. 
Since the question of acceptability of genetic engi­
neering is already being raised, the Committee urges 
the Council to: ensure that the Commission provides an effective 
communication effort to inform the public at 
large on the issues involved without vulgariza­
tion by over-simplicity, 
instigate studies into the possibilities of a control 
mechanism to consider the ethical and moral 
background to genetic research and perhaps to 
monitor it in the public interest, 
consider whether a Community body is needed 
to licence all laboratories proposing to work with 
human and animal genetic material. 
Done at Brussels, 21 November 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the: 
— proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 on the 
common organization of the market in wine 
— proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 338/79 laying 
down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions 
— proposal for a Council Regulation introducing a derogation to the scheme provided 
for in Regulation (EEC) No 456/80 on the granting of temporary and permanent 
abandonment premiums in respect of certain areas under vines and of premiums for 
the renunciation of replanting 
— proposal for a Council Regulation on the granting for the 1985/86 to 1989/90 wine 
years of permanent abandonment premiums in respect of certain areas under vines 
— amendment of the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 
337/79 on the common organization of the market in wine 
(85/C 25/08) 
On 24 September 1984 the Council, acting under Article 198 of the EEC Treaty, 
decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee on the abovementioned 
proposals. 
The Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr De Grave rapporteur-general, 
and asked him to prepare the work on the matter. It was understood that the 
Committee would evaluate the matter in more detail in a supplementary opinion to be 
submitted at a later date. 
(') OJ No C 259, 27.9. 1984, pp. 5 to 10.