Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards a European research area'
Date: 2000-05-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU research policy, applied research, innovation, new technology, research and development, scientific research

C 204/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions — Towards a European research area’

(2000/C 204/16)

On 18 January 2000 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee
(ESC), under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 May 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Wolf.

At its 373rd plenary session (meeting of 24 May 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 61 votes to two, with one abstention.

The opinion is divided into the following chapters:

1. Executive summary

2.

Introduction

3. Research and development in Europe — the foundation

and driving force of prosperity and social progress

4. The purpose of research and development

5. Research and society

6. Human capital

7. Research and technological innovation

8. Staff exchanges between research centres and industry

9. The European dimension: subsidiarity, concentration and

diversity, competition and order

10. Procedures and evaluation

11. Conclusions and recommendations

1. Executive summary

1.1.
The ESC emphasises the crucial importance of R&D
for prosperity, social progress, ensuring competitiveness and
safeguarding our future. It appeals to governments, industry,
the Council and the European Parliament to step up their
support for R&D, to strengthen scientific/technical education
and training at school and university level, and to make career
prospects in this field rewarding enough to attract the most
talented people.

1.2.
The measures proposed in the Commission communi-
cation provide important means of realising this goal. Net-
working Centres of Excellence, pooling expertise and facilities
and developing the necessary infrastructure at European level
will provide the basis for tackling these tasks and building the

critical mass that cannot be provided by the Member States
on their own, in perfect accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity.

1.3.
However, to fully harness these possibilities and estab-
lish a structure that encourages initiative, creativity and
innovation, it is important to have an initial trial period during
which the measures will be implemented, the best candidates
identified, effective fully-fledged systems of self-organisation
and self-management set up and responsibility clearly del-
egated. Administrative, application, approval, reporting and
other procedures must also be simplified and standardised
among the institutions involved so that total costs are kept
within acceptable limits.

1.4. Many obstacles must be removed in order to improve
and strengthen the interplay between basic research and
product- and process-oriented development that is crucial to
innovation. More effective incentives must be provided in
order to promote mobility of scientists and engineers between
industry (including SMEs), (technical) universities and other
research centres, which is a prerequisite for achieving this goal.
Intellectual property rights must be distributed evenly and
results-oriented basic research must be adequately promoted
as the source of new discoveries, ideas and methods.

1.5.
Given SMEs’ potential for innovation, even greater
incentives should be provided for setting them up and their
operating conditions should be improved. Private investment
in R&D must be encouraged by economic measures. Business
for its part must possess or develop enough scientific and
technical competence to be shrewd and adaptable. Know-how
can only be transmitted if it is available, recognised and
understood.

The ESC opinion analyses these issues closely and

1.6.
makes detailed recommendations.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/71

2.

Introduction

The ideas and proposals contained in the Commission
2.1.
communication ‘Towards a European research area’ are motiv-
ated by the following observation:

a number of particular actions of importance for the creation
of a European research area. The Committee welcomes this
rapid reaction from the European Council, which will acceler-
ate the process for the establishment of a research area.

‘In Europe, however, the situation concerning research is
worrying. Without concerted action to rectify this the current
trend could lead to a loss of growth and competitiveness in an
increasingly global economy. The leeway to be made up on
the other technological powers in the world will grow still
further. And Europe might not successfully achieve the
transition to a knowledge-based economy.’

The ESC believes that the Commission communication
2.6.
contains essential advances and opportunities to strengthen
and structure Europe’s research programme. It supports the
specific measures proposed, while noting that their effective-
ness will depend on the availability of adequate material
resources and on the precise way they are elaborated and
implemented.

In view of this situation, the Commission communi-
2.2.
cation sets out a series of targeted measures that can be
summarised as ‘a stock of material resources and facilities
optimised at the European level’. In this context the communi-
cation can thus also be seen as a statement of principles for
further preparation of the Sixth Framework Programme.

The following specific categories of measures and

2.3.
initiatives are proposed by the Commission:

— A stock of material resources and facilities optimised at

the European level;

— More coherent use of public instruments and resources;

— More dynamic private investment;

— A common system of scientific and technical reference for

policy implementation;

— More abundant and more mobile human resources;

— A dynamic European landscape, open and attractive to

researchers and investment;

— An area of shared values.

2.4.
The ESC considers this Commission communication
to be a crucial and welcome initiative; this also applies to the
proposed measures and the implicit importance of research
and development for Europe’s prosperity, competitiveness and
culture. The ESC is pleased to note that
ideas from its
opinion of 25 October 1995 (1) (‘Coordination of research and
technological development policies’) have been taken on
board.

The Committee has taken note of the decision by the
2.5.
Lisbon European Council to endorse the objectives set out in
the Commission paper on a European research area. The
Council, in the conclusions of the Presidency, has also selected

(1) OJ C 18, 22.1.1996.

2.7.
It is particularly important to consider in what environ-
ment creative ideas, new findings and significant developments
can best flourish, or be achieved and evaluated. Essentially, a
balance must be struck between breadth and focus, between
guiding researchers and giving them the freedom to take their
own decisions, between a federal and centralised approach,
and between basic research, problem-oriented research and
product- and process-oriented development.

2.8.
The ESC will give its views on these matters in
this opinion. To further increase public awareness of the
importance of research and development, and of the prerequi-
sites and processes they involve, the opinion first sets out
certain key facts and underlying viewpoints.

3. Research and development in Europe — the foun-
dation and driving force of prosperity and social
progress

3.1.
The Renaissance and the Enlightenment marked the
beginning of a new type of cultural process in Europe, one
which has changed and improved the lives of the people and
regions participating in it to an extent unprecedented in the
history of mankind. The subsequent technological, medical,
cultural and social achievements have produced and character-
ise the dynamic affluent/information society.

3.1.1.
Essential to this process at the beginning was the
development of improved documentation and communication
tools and energy-producing
techniques (printing), and of
machines that increasingly freed people from the burden of
sheer physical labour, increased productivity to a previously
unimaginable degree and allowed substantial mobility and
information. It was only this that created the opportunity
— until then available only to a small, privileged class of
people — to develop a broad, diverse cultural capability.

C 204/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

3.1.2.
Over the past 200 years average per capita real
income in Europe (i.e. income available for food, clothing,
accommodation, health, education, travel and entertainment)
has increased by about a factor of twelve (1). During the
past 120 years alone average life expectancy has more than
doubled (2). Education systems that are now accessible to all
sectors of the population have been developed to such an
extent that today the average age of a person on joining the
active workforce is the same as average life expectancy was
400 years ago.

3.7.
The ESC thus supports the Commission’s commitment
to substantially promote and strengthen research and develop-
ment in Europe. It calls on the Council and the European
Parliament to provide vigorous support for these efforts. It
also calls on the governments and parliaments of the Member
States, to take on this task of promoting and strengthening
R&D at national level, in order to effectively complement and
underpin the measures proposed by the Commission.

The countries of the European Union have demo-
3.1.3.
cratic systems of government and legal certainty, social security
and personal freedom have reached unprecedented levels.

3.8.
As the Commission’s report indicates, most research
and development is conducted and largely financed by indus-
try. The ESC therefore calls on European industry to make a
big effort to step up research and development.

3.2.
Cultural, social, medical and technological progress are
closely interlinked. A crucial impulse behind this development
is the empirical scientific methodology developed here in
Europe and systematically applied in research and develop-
ment.

3.2.1.
This scientific methodology, and the results it has
produced, have had a direct cultural impact, broadening and
enriching our knowledge of
life in a
revolutionary way. It offers protection against fundamentalist
ideologies, which are bred by ignorance or bogus knowledge
(false knowledge).

the world and of

3.3.
The essence of science is to produce findings and
insights that themselves raise further questions, problems and
debates about scientific laws, which in turn lead to new and
deeper knowledge but also to fresh applications of
the
knowledge gained.

The degree of prosperity attained in certain countries
3.4.
or regions — measured by gross domestic product, employ-
ment and other indicators — is clearly related to the current
level of research and development. Not just economic competi-
tiveness, but also the cultural and political standing of countries
and peoples, are dependent on scientific and technological
performance.

Research and development are the source of future
3.5.
peace and prosperity. Since it may take many decades for work
to bear fruit, there is a risk that lack of investment will be
noticed too late and will then have particularly harmful
consequences.

3.6.
The ESC therefore echoes the Commission’s concern
about Europe’s future performance if research and develop-
ment are not sufficiently and effectively fostered and strength-
ened: ‘And Europe might not successfully achieve the transition
to a knowledge-based economy.’

(1) Great Britain.
(2) Germany.

4. The purpose of research and development

The basic incentive for research and development is
4.1.
the desire to acquire knowledge and skills, to seek connections
behind phenomena and then fit these together to form a
coherent picture of the whole. The aim is also to develop our
technical knowledge on this basis and to benefit by applying
what we have learned.

4.2.
However, despite the enormous progress made — and
partly also because of it — there are still questions and
problems relating to people, society and nature that need to
be analysed and resolved. These relate to our own identity as
human beings and our place on planet earth (e.g. hole in the
ozone layer, greenhouse effect), and to the realisation that
excess and immoderation can develop at the opposite end of
the scale from need and poverty.

4.2.1.
problems and proposed ways of solving them.

It was usually science itself that first identified such

4.2.2.
One reason that these problems arise is that our
values, and our political and economic ideas, are not yet in
line with all aspects of current science and knowledge:
the effects of our modern lifestyle on society, work, the
environment, racial harmony and the availability of essential
resources, especially energy and water supply, must be better
understood and reflected in our actions.

4.3.
The problems have also arisen because some countries
that were not properly involved in this whole development
and evolutionary process, and which are now applying some
of the new technologies and achievements, still have to adapt
and assimilate the appropriate social and cultural conditions.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/73

4.4.
There is also a risk of political, social and cultural
dilemmas: the main dangers are probably demographic, which
includes the population explosion that has by no means been
brought under control, and the migration problem which may
result from this, as well as the availability of weapons of mass
destruction.

4.5.
In view of this situation research and development
must be used to analyse the problems identified, to stimulate
the intellectual and political debate and to develop problem-
solving concepts or technologies.

4.6.
It is equally important, however, that we continue
extending and deepening our knowledge in the future, that we
discover new things, improve and protect the foundations of
our life and civilisation, and maintain the momentum of
cultural, social and technological development in Europe and
keep the process on course.

4.7.
The European Commission can play a very important
role in this process, and its concept of a European research
area is a substantial contribution.

5. Research and society

Scientific and technological developments are generally
5.1.
regarded and applied as a matter of course, but it is not
unusual for their potential or assumed effects to trigger fears
and concerns. People’s response to a new technology is often
ambivalent or inconsistent, depending on whether they are
afraid of unknown risks (as in the case of genetically modified
foods, for example) or whether there is an expectation that the
technology will relieve some kind of suffering (e.g. gene
therapy). Here the ESC endorses the efforts mentioned by the
Commission in its communication to develop ‘a shared vision
of the ethical issues of science and technology’.

These contradictions are due in part to the rapid
5.2.
accumulation of new knowledge and new technologies, and
also to the difficulty of explaining, or understanding and
wanting to understand, facts and very complex issues. Both
the scientific community and society must therefore constantly
strive to maintain a dialogue, to clarify facts, take well-founded
concerns into consideration and avoid misunderstandings.
Schools in particular have a very important educating role and
the media a communicating role in this context.

The ESC therefore explicitly endorses

5.3.
the Com-
mission’s objective of ‘giving the young a taste for research
and careers in science’. However, it would also recommend
that the Council, Parliament and Commission urge media
organisations to provide more information, and objective

information, about science, research and modern technologies,
while trying gradually to introduce people to the often very
complex issues involved (from an objective point of view,
avoiding a sensational polarised presentation).

Reproducibility and universal validity of findings are
5.4.
crucial features of scientific discovery, but the limits of known
scientific laws must always be tested.

5.4.1.
Because reproducibility has to be proven, parallel
and repeat studies carried out by other research groups (or
‘duplicate research’), generally using modified techniques or
procedures, is not a waste of personal and financial resources,
but an essential component of scientific methodology and
scientific progress. Firstly, it avoids errors or even falsifications.
It also permits the crucial competition between different
research groups (to produce the latest and most important
findings)
is necessary to stimulate performance and
improve quality (but see 9.3 below).

that

5.4.2.
Another hallmark of scientific research — that its
methods and the related scientific terminology are the same in
all countries and languages — is consistent with this. Thus
there is a single scientific ‘global culture’ and a single scientific
‘technical language’, and associated common values. (Science
can obviously still be spoken about in many languages, but
English has become the undisputed international medium for
understanding and disseminating scientific findings.) Only this
allows a global
international exchange of knowledge and
worldwide cooperation. This is also a good basis for the
Commission’s efforts to promote an ‘area of shared values’ in
Europe.

5.4.3.
culture, sometimes even across ideological divides.

Science thus helps to unite peoples and to shape

6. Human capital

6.1.
The ESC supports the Commission’s initiative of ‘giving
the young a taste for research and careers in science’, also in
order to foster interest in ‘research and development’ careers.
Such careers must be made attractive enough to draw the most
talented people, persuade them to go through a costly, high-
quality — and certainly challenging — training with the
prospect of appropriate employment. The Commission’s pro-
posed initiative aiming to broaden teaching of science subjects
at all levels across the EU is also consistent with this objective.

C 204/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

6.1.1.
The Commission has presented statistics indicating
that the European Union as a whole is lagging behind the
United States and Japan in the number of researchers per
1 000 employed. Various reports from within the Union give
the same picture, indicating that there is an overall shortage of
research-trained staff, both in the private and public sectors of
the economies. The ESC would welcome if the Commission,
in its future measures to establish a European research area,
could give very high priority to actions, in cooperation with
Member States, to increase substantially the training of new
researchers. Since this training takes considerable time, actions
are all the more urgent.

6.2.
Society must handle its valuable and limited fund of
‘human capital’ and the potential for creative achievement
with care and economy. It must endeavour to recruit the best-
quality academic teachers to train new scientists. To achieve
this it is also necessary to get (younger) scientists from non-
university research bodies and from industry more involved in
academic teaching, to remove obstacles to this and to reward
commitment (see 6.3).

6.2.1.
Here too the ESC supports the Commission’s initiat-
ive to achieve ‘greater mobility of researchers in Europe’, but
it explicitly recommends that reciprocal mobility between
universities, non-university research centres and above all
industry also be promoted.

6.3.
In addition, the ESC suggests that we should consider
whether (and in what form: central, virtual, scientific/technical,
post-graduate level only) a European university — supported
and run by European centres of excellence (see 9.8) — could
be founded as a useful additional means of supporting these
objectives.

6.3.1.
The ideal system of research and training could thus
also be achieved at European level with the best research
centres in Europe both competing and cooperating with each
other. Decentralised involvement of many research centres,
industrial laboratories and universities would also develop a
stimulating human environment, both among teachers and
also in terms of study-related research opportunities.

The ESC believes that a European university could
6.3.2.
not just introduce new standards for developing closer cultural
ties in Europe, but also further the following objectives of the
‘introduction of a European dimension into
Commission:
scientific careers’,
‘making Europe attractive to researchers
from the rest of the world’. A key factor here could be
preferential use of English as a lingua franca. Various estab-
lished institutions (e.g. the European University in Florence,
the Viadrina European University and newer projects e.g.
transnational cooperation in biotechnology) could provide
useful experience. The same goes for other international
‘summer schools’ or ‘summer academies’.

6.3.3.
Under the objective ‘integration of the scientific
communities of western and eastern Europe’, a European
university could also help to provide the most talented students
from the future member states with a top-quality education
which for instance would enable them subsequently to help
develop research centres in their own countries assisted
through the PHARE programme or the Structural Funds.

6.4.
In order to acquire competence, skills or a top position
in a given scientific field, the people and groups involved must
work hard to become familiar with the new tasks. Often it is
also necessary first to develop high-quality technical facilities
and provide a stimulating environment, i.e. research structures.

6.4.1.
Although it is important for research programmes to
be sufficiently flexible, and persisting with a given line of
research may also be seen as a sign of rigidity, changing
direction too suddenly or too often can lead to wastage of
human capital. Ideas for exploring new, more productive
avenues are provided by — often unexpected — research
findings and usually come from researchers themselves.

6.5.
Interaction between the scientific community and
society — generally represented by politicians, civil servants
or representatives of funding bodies — mostly concerns the
type and extent of research funding, agreement about research
objectives and subjects and the evaluation of findings, and the
people involved in research.

6.5.1.
This calls for the experience and knowledge of the
very best and most successful scientists. At the same time,
however, these people are diverted from active research by the
associated procedures, e.g. grants, applications, meetings, etc.
funding systems be
The ESC therefore recommends that
designed and procedures optimised and coordinated in such a
way that
is acceptable and modest (see
points 9.8 ff.).

the overall cost

Human capital

6.6.
is the most sensitive and the most
valuable resource for research and development. The ESC
therefore supports the Commission’s efforts to enhance human
resources.

7. Research and technological innovation

Research and development basically form a system
7.1.
embracing different research categories and thus also stages of
scientific development of potential new technologies: basic
research,
‘encyclopaedic’
research (e.g. to complete our knowledge about substance
properties, new substances, active substances, etc.), technologi-
cal development and product and process development.

application-oriented

research,

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/75

7.1.1.
The distinction between these research categories is
sometimes an artificial one, and innovation results from
interaction and cross-fertilisation between them. A European
innovation area can thus develop from a European research
area.

generated through immediate interaction within the scien-
tific community,
in particular where a large number
of laboratories are cooperating in a joint research and
development programme.

However a goal-directed, planned approach can only
7.1.2.
be adopted when the objective has been defined and the
direction is sufficiently clear. A single innovative idea can
trigger a wave of innovations and have an impact on many
technological fields. The most recent examples are computer
and communications technology, and also gene technology.
Their highly positive impact on the economy and the labour
market can be seen in a number of countries.

— Government must generally also insist on publication of
findings from research it has funded in order to ensure a
level playing field.

— On the other hand it is generally in a company’s interests
— in view of the competition situation — that the findings
from its product development remain confidential at least
until a new product is ready for the market.

7.1.3.
That there are synergies between different research
fields is clear for example from the fact that even basic
research constantly requires new tools and resources, whose
development often involves going beyond the current state-of-
the-art, and which often generate completely innovative
products that may even be unrelated to the original application
(see for example point 9.6.2).

7.3.
These differences in organisation and objectives, etc.
are preventing more integration between the different branches
of research and development, which would be beneficial and
is necessary for the full economic potential of research and
development to be realised. There are problems in cooperation
between the publicly funded universities and research bodies
and development departments in industry.

This synergy is also evident from the high-level
7.1.4.
basic research conducted by many companies — e.g.
in
the chemicals, pharmaceuticals, electrical engineering and
information technology sectors — in addition to their applied
and product-oriented research and development, often at their
own expense.

7.2.
Despite the similarities between the above-mentioned
branches of research, basic research — which of course must
always be susceptible to possible applications — is nevertheless
as a rule chiefly carried out by universities and publicly
funded research bodies, whereas most companies have now
concentrated mainly on product- and process-oriented devel-
opment, owing also to cost constraints and global competition.

7.2.1.
For a number of reasons this distinction also reflects
the way research funding tends to be divided between the
public and private sectors:

— It is not possible to predict for which economic sectors the
findings of basic research will be relevant. This means that
the full economic return on basic research emerges only in
the wider social context.

— The timescales within which economically viable findings
can be expected, or are needed, are different for basic
research and product-oriented development.

7.3.1.
This also raises issues of intellectual property and
patent law in general. The ESC supports the Commission’s
efforts here to develop ‘effective tools to protect intellectual
property’.

For instance, cooperation may be impeded if rights
7.3.1.1.
to research results are all passed on to the contracting
companies.

7.3.2.
There is also the fact that the organisational struc-
tures — including employment conditions (salaries, pensions,
etc.) — of publicly funded research bodies and universities on
the one hand and private development laboratories on the
other are not usually in line, even within a given Member
State.

7.4.
Reproduction rights organisations or technology trans-
fer centres can nevertheless manage to a certain extent to
ensure that application-relevant know-how acquired in pub-
licly funded research bodies is used for developing products in
industry. Joint conferences, technology fairs, databases, etc. can
also play a role here. And task-sharing forms of institutional
cooperation (e.g. contracting or subcontracting) have certainly
also proved valuable, despite the problems mentioned.

— Basic research, and indeed any longer-term research and
development, thrives on early publication of findings so
that other research groups have the chance to conduct
control studies. It is also necessary to harness the synergies

7.4.1.
The following proposal in the Communication can
also contribute here: ‘Initiatives to bring scientists, industrialists
and financiers’ at all levels into contact need to be stepped up.
This could be achieved in conjunction with the national and

C 204/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

European research programmes, preferably on a combined
basis. Promising experiments have been completed along these
lines, like the ‘Investment Forum’ in the field of information
technology and communications and the creation of the
‘Biotechnology and Finance Forum’.

products to the market and also to create jobs. The ESC feels
there is room for further improvement here, and it will also
draft an opinion on the issue (see point 7.8).

7.5. The importance of small and medium-sized companies (SMEs)

for innovation

7.5.1.
Small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) take on
an important task, in order to take new ideas on board and to
develop them. Indeed small companies are often founded for
this specific purpose. But their economic viability, or chances
of survival, depend not just on ‘know-how transfer’ but rather
on the general economic environment, and on whether they
have adequate initial equipment, financing arrangements and
business experience.

Thus the main issue is not promoting research and
7.5.2.
development as such, but improving the competitiveness of
new companies.

7.5.3.
As Europe lags behind in private R&D investment,
an ongoing improvement in the conditions for private research
investment is required. Basically the use of indirect support
— e.g. tax concessions — is the most effective way of boosting
R&D investment, especially by SMEs. In the individual EU
Member States there are already various, sometimes quite
different,
indirect aid instruments for stimulating research.
This is not only confusing, but also leads to an imbalance in
support for research within the EU. Many indirect support
measures at both European and national and regional level
have, however, proved their worth as an incentive for boosting
research. The Committee therefore agrees with the Com-
mission when it states in this connection that: ‘User-friendly
information systems need to be developed on existing mechan-
isms. The exchange and spread of good practices should also
be encouraged in order to stimulate private investment in
research, particularly among SMEs, and innovation... Where
the measures employed have an element of State aid about
them, Community rules on State aid should always be
respected. (chapter 3.1)’.

Appropriate measures

7.5.4.
(including funding pro-
grammes) and favourable competition policy (cf. ESC opinion
of December 1999 (1)) for small and medium-sized companies
— particularly new companies — that are trying to develop
innovative products, can thus do a lot to help bring new

7.5.5. Measures to promote innovation should be one of
the main planks of research policy in order (a) to boost the
impact of Community research on industry and in particular
on SMEs which are set to generate the majority of new jobs in
the next
the innovation
potential of SMEs (2). To this end national and regional
networks for the transfer of research findings and technological
information should be opened up for the European research
area.

two decades, and (b) to exploit

7.5.6.
The ESC also points out that SMEs may have less
opportunity than large companies to benefit from European
funding programmes. Whereas large companies can set up
their own liaison departments which collect the necessary
information and develop systems for submitting application
procedures, etc., small companies — and this also applies to
small research institutes — find the formalities of applying,
drawing up contracts and administering projects are so
onerous that they are often discouraged from taking the
initiative. This is even more likely to be the case if previous
applications have been rejected, if only on formal grounds.

7.6.
The consequent disappointment also leads to disil-
lusionment with European research policy, and often even
with the European institutions in general. While fully appreci-
ating the Commission’s efforts to provide clear guidelines,
information and support to applicants, the ESC recommends
that other solutions be sought, in view of the high rejection
rate inherent in the system. The ESC believes that a more
integrated and less fragmented approach, as advocated in the
Commission communication ‘Towards a European research
area’, would also point the way to solutions here.

7.7.
However, there are two basic prerequisites for every
type of ‘know-how creation’ and ‘know-how transfer’: long-
term research of sufficient breadth and depth is necessary,
because this is the only way of generating new ideas from
which targeted and product-oriented development planning
can evolve; at the same time companies that are interested in
developing new products must acquire enough scientific and
technological expertise of their own to ensure that they are
clear-sighted and adaptable. Know-how can only be transferred
or bought if it is available, known and understood.

(1) ‘XXVIIIth Report on Competition Policy (1998)’, OJ C 51,

23.2.2000, p. 1.

(2) Own-initiative opinion of the Economic and Social Committee
on the impact on SMEs of the steady, widespread reduction in
funds allocated to research and technological development in the
EU (at Community and national level), OJ C 355, 21.11.1997,
p. 31.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/77

7.8.
Thus measures which (1) promote and encourage
exchanges of staff between companies and publicly funded
research centres, and (2) improve the competitiveness of newer
companies, provide an important interface between basic
research and product development, cultivating progress, tech-
nological innovation and economic growth. The Commission’s
‘encouragement of the creation of companies and risk capital
investment’, which was already mentioned in a previous
communication (Risk capital: A key to job creation in the
European Union, April 1998(1) is particularly important here.

forms that this might take, should also be readily encouraged
and developed. This is one of the best ways of improving
cooperation between universities [ESC note: “and non-univer-
sity research centres”] and industry. Information, training and
familiarisation projects for researchers and the administrative
managers of research organisations should, moreover, be
undertaken in tandem by the Member States and the Com-
mission. In the longer term the possibility should be looked at
of improving, on a co-ordinated basis, for the bodies con-
cerned, certain internal regulatory and administrative pro-
visions.’

7.9.
The ESC reiterates its recommendation that the pro-
cedures required to establish and operate a European patent
system be made simpler, shorter and cheaper. This would have
an enormous economic impact. A critical factor in achieving
this goal is the use of English as a common second language,
which it tends anyway to be in the sphere of science and
technology; this would also make communication with patent
authorities in the United States much easier. The idea of a prior
publication period, which does not jeopardise the novelty of
the patent, should also be discussed again.

8. Staff exchanges between research centres and industry

8.1.
By far the most effective ‘know-how transfer’ takes
place through people who were themselves involved in
acquiring a given knowledge and who then take it to the place
of product development, or who are working in product
development and then become involved in searching for
sources of new procedures and technologies in (technical)
universities and publicly funded research centres. These people
are the human link between basic research, application-
oriented research and product development.

8.2.
However, this can only be achieved if there is an
intensive exchange of staff between industry and publicly
funded research centres. Owing to differences in terms of
employment — even at national level — and a plethora of
extra costs that restrict mobility, and to the different career
paths and career criteria, such exchanges take place too rarely.
In the case of cross-border mobility, additional obstacles are
created by inadequate harmonisation of national social welfare
systems, but also by the frequent lack of reciprocal recognition
of academic degrees and periods of study or training under-
taken abroad. Instead of mobility receiving incentives, it often
actually entails penalties.

8.2.1.
The ESC therefore welcomes the Commission’s
observations on mobility: ‘The mobility of researchers between
the academic world and the business world, in the different

8.2.2.
In this connection the ESC specifically recommends
that the existing mobility programme (‘industry host fellow-
ships’) be modified and stepped up, in such a way as not just
to remove the social obstacles and associated risks for the
people concerned, but also to provide definite incentives for
the required mobility, making sufficiently long exchange
periods attractive. It should also be made possible for the
organisations providing staff to replace them (temporarily) and
if necessary reinstate them at the end of the exchange period.
The same applies, with certain provisos, to companies set up
by people who take with them their expertise from publicly
funded research centres. Such options could be used to help
SMEs in particular to develop their research capabilities.

However,

8.2.3.
there are other, serious, obstacles to
mobility in addition to the administrative, legal and cultural
obstacles mentioned in the Commission communication. A
key consideration whenever it comes to mobility of scientists
and engineers is the effect on their family and its cohesion of
moving to a new place and country. In addition to the need
for appropriate schools (‘European schools’), there is above all
the question of adequate employment for the spouse or
partner. In other words,
in order to transfer or attract a
scientist or engineer to another location or country, either
an attractive employment prospect must be found for the
spouse/partner or the lack of employment must be offset by
other, much more attractive, incentives and opportunities (2).

There should also be discussion about how unfavour-
8.3.
able (e.g. for career choice) free-market employment cycles can
be adequately offset by government ‘anticyclical’ programmes
so as to protect ‘human capital’. One reason for the current
lack of new recruits in science and technology is that a few
years ago a very large number of young scientists — even
those with excellent qualifications — were unemployed. A
shortage of new recruits leads not just to a shortage of human
capital but also to distortion of the age pyramid.

(1) SEC(1998) 552 final, 31.3.1998.

(2) ESC opinion on the ‘Green Paper on education, training and
research — the obstacles to transnational mobility’, OJ C 133,
28.4.1997, p. 42.

C 204/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

9. The European dimension: subsidiarity, concentration

and diversity, competition and order

9.1.
It is obviously very difficult to anticipate and plan
which people or groups will make really innovative and critical
discoveries, at which location, using what methods and in
what area of research. There are two aspects to this problem:
the processes of before and after evaluation (see point 10) and
the degree of diversity and variety of topics and structures that
is necessary and useful.

9.4.2.
One explanation for these achievements is the incen-
tive to combine and pool resources that arose from a clearly
defined joint objective that cannot be realised in any other
way. They can also be attributed to cautious and rational
management of the research programmes and projects con-
cerned, in which scientists and their ‘parent organisations’ are
fully involved in the whole development process, and in which
a middle course is steered between focusing on the most
successful concepts and being open to new ideas and
approaches.

9.2.
It is therefore necessary to permit and to cultivate a
diversity of research methods and structures in order to
encourage competition for the best ideas and findings from
them. The most productive environment for achieving this is
one where there is a balance between, and adequate variety of,
competing ideas, concepts and education structures.

9.5.
This type of initiative is supported by scientific associ-
ations such as the European Physical Society (EPS), whose
conferences and publications provide a forum for exchanging
findings and ideas, for critical dialogue, organising cooperation
(including international cooperation), quality evaluation and
opinion-forming on further measures. Quality and innovation
are acknowledged in ‘invited papers’ at specialist conferences.

9.3.
However, this ideal is stymied not just by the restriction
on resources available for research and development, but also
by the ‘critical mass’, costly infrastructures and large-scale
equipment required for many research areas, which demand a
substantial concentration of resources. This is a fundamental
dilemma affecting all research assistance.

9.5.1.
Another initiative of the scientific community that is
becoming increasingly important is the European Science
Foundation (ESF), whose role and involvement the ESC also
explicitly recommends should be strengthened. The COST
initiative should also be stepped up in this context.

9.3.1.
Individual Member States are often unable or not
prepared to finance the development of ‘critical mass’ and the
creation and maintenance of infrastructures and large-scale
equipment, and to fully capitalise on these.

9.5.2.
There are also international organisations such as the
International Energy Agency (IEA), which promotes and
coordinates research and development programmes relating
to energy in the framework of the OECD.

9.4. World-renowned and extremely successful
inter-
national or European centres — such as CERN, ILL, ESRF,
ESO, EMBO and EMBL (1) — have therefore been set up,
mainly on the initiative of the scientific community, and these
have been run and used by scientists themselves. Another
example is the European Space Agency, with which European
efforts to develop a successful space programme have pro-
duced impressive results. Certain Member States already have
large facilities that are used on a multilateral or bilateral basis.

9.4.1.
The Commission too has integrated and very success-
fully implemented joint European research and development
programmes requiring large-scale equipment and infrastruc-
ture, e.g. the European Fusion Programme, which has helped
Europe become a world leader in fusion research.

(1) CERN = European Organisation for Nuclear Research; ILL =
Institut Laue-Langevin; ESRF = European Synchroton Radiation
Facility; EMBO = European Molecular Biology Organisation;
EMBL = European Molecular Biology Laboratory.

In this context the Commission proposes ‘a stock of

9.6.
material resources and facilities at the European level’.

9.6.1.
The Commission wants these goals to be achieved
through a series of specific measures, especially ‘networking of
centres of excellence and creation of virtual centres’, ‘defining
a European approach to research infrastructures’, ‘more coordi-
nated implementation of national and European research
programmes’ and ‘closer relations between European organis-
ations for scientific and technological cooperation’.

9.6.2.
As a specific means to this end, the Commission also
wants to broaden and promote the use of electronic networks
in the various research areas. The potential importance of
electronic networks for the economy as a whole is evident
from the regrettably little-known fact that ‘the World Wide
Web, which was developed by a CERN researcher to cover the
needs of physicists, is now used by tens of millions of people’.
These efforts of the Commission are explicitly supported by
the ESC, also because of their direct economic implications.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/79

9.7.
On principle, the ESC welcomes the objectives of the
Commission as a promising means of strengthening Europe’s
performance in research and development and of harmonising
national and international research programmes.

and approval procedures — particularly if they are unsuccess-
ful — deprive research of input from the people it needs. This
is particularly the case given that there are many funding
instruments and evaluation procedures, which often overlap,
for a given project.

The ESC sees these objectives as the right way,
9.7.1.
striking a balance between diversification and concentration,
for the Commission to assume responsibility for coordinating
programmes and projects that require concentration of sub-
stantial resources and where resources must therefore be
pooled primarily at European level, while leaving the Member
States with responsibility for ensuring adequate breadth of
assistance.

9.7.2.
The Commission should also become involved in
projects involving intercontinental cooperation and their
supervision. Such intercontinental cooperation is particularly
important where internal competition (and the chances of
independently reproducing findings) within Europe is necess-
arily reduced owing to the one-off nature of certain labora-
tories. In such situations, the global competition environment
is more significant.

9.7.3.
The ESC also expects the Commission to succeed
here in its efforts to establish ‘the conditions for political
consultation between these organisations. This could be
achieved by way of a council of their senior officials meeting
at regular intervals. This would also give Europeans and
outside observers a more coherent image of the Europe of
science and technology’.

However, this only applies if the main aim really is,
9.8.
and remains, to improve quality and efficiency, and if the total
cost
for researchers and research centres of the relevant
coordination and unavoidable ‘bureaucratic’ procedures is
consequently reduced and harmonised, and on no account
further increased.

about

Complaints

inordinate bureaucracy and
9.8.1.
excessive application and approval procedures have already
become endemic in scientific circles and in many cases
unfortunately are therefore no longer taken seriously. Precisely
because of this we would point out that whereas there is no
question of the need for cooperation, agreement, coordination,
communication, etc., science and research also require periods
of withdrawal, of introversion, so that individuals — and
groups — can think, concentrate and write.

If the balance between introvert and extrovert work-
9.8.3.
ing styles is upset,
there is a risk that activity will be
unproductive and the same papers produced again and again.
Recognising this requires an understanding of the nature of
research and development.

9.8.4.
For this reason and many others it is important that
the officials in the Commission with responsibility for these
matters should be successful scientists with research expertise
who have leadership qualities and good judgement, and are
therefore accepted as members of the scientific community.
To retain this in future, respected scientific organisations in
Europe should contribute their experience in recruitment to
such posts, and should also be prepared to provide top-notch
candidates.

The ESC also recommends that

9.8.5.
the plethora of
application, monitoring and evaluation procedures, which
often overlap with each other, be harmonised and integrated
at institutional, national and European level.

‘net-
The Commission proposes a new instrument:
9.9.
working of centres of excellence and creation of virtual
centres’. The aim of this new instrument is to pool research
expertise in appropriate fields at the highest level in Europe,
using existing facilities, for a specified time period. Various
types of measures are conceivable under this general heading.

9.9.1.
The ESC basically welcomes this new approach. It
this instrument should be
believes that a key aspect of
delegating responsibility to centres of excellence being oper-
ated by self-organisation for a specific purpose.

9.9.2.
Responsibilities must be clearly defined, with respect
to both technical coordination of all the research strands and
to budgetary powers, so that the synergistic effects of these
centres of excellence can be harnessed. It must be considered
to what extent their budget should include structural aid in
addition to the actual research spending, in order to adequately
promote the objective of strengthening the European research
area with the help of this instrument.

9.8.2.
Consequently any successful scientist has only a
limited capacity for interaction — and a limited period of time
— available to use and interpret contacts with other people,
groups, bodies, committees, etc. without reducing his or her
scientific productivity. Too many and too costly application

9.9.3.
However, before setting up such a centre of excel-
lence it is necessary to check carefully whether the field of
research really justifies the extra cost of establishing the centre
of excellence, i.e. whether added value can really be expected.

C 204/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

9.9.4.
This should generally be the case where large labora-
tories are jointly built and used, and priority should therefore
be given to such projects.

9.9.5.
It is more difficult to take a decision in cases that do
not involve central facilities, but rather a pooling of labour. In
this case the main purpose is to produce a ‘critical mass’ of
research capacity to effectively address a key problem. It is
important to take this into consideration with respect to
setting up and running databases and service facilities needed
in Europe, e.g. genetic archives, biomedical databases or
genome research.

9.9.6.
Such centres of excellence should therefore be selec-
ted and set up on a competitive basis with the aim of achieving
high quality. Their number should be limited, at least during a
preliminary pilot phase, and initially they should only be
funded for a well-defined period to prevent them automatically
becoming a permanent institution.

9.9.7.
The Commission proposes that ‘measures should be
taken at national and European level to encourage the return
to European laboratories of researchers who have left to
complete their training or pursue their careers in the United
States’. Under such a ‘brain-gain initiative’ the possibility could
also be considered of providing a system of return grants in
these centres of excellence for young scientists who want to
work in Europe again after employment in a third country
such as the United States.

9.9.8.
Experience with such centres of excellence should
open up new possibilities for the way formal promotion of
research by the EU develops. The procedural and institutional
experiences gained through the European Fusion Programme
should also be considered in this context: the results of the
European evaluation procedure here have become a quality
standard which the Member States also use as a benchmark
when granting their own share of assistance.

Another interesting point in connection with setting
9.9.9.
up centres of excellence is their potential
influence and
catalytic effect on new research activities and programmes in
the future EU Member States. The Commission’s proposal of
creating a ‘greater role of the regions in the European research
effort’ through ‘combined use of the Structural Funds and the
European research programmes’, if acted upon, is likely to
produce a similar, potentially valuable effect.

level.’ The ESC sees this as an important objective for Europe
that is worth supporting. However, it notes that when putting
this plan into effect it should first be carefully considered
whether existing national reference centres — pooled in task-
sharing, if necessary — could perform this task for Europe,
possibly in collaboration with the JRC.

10. Procedures and evaluation

So that scientists and engineers can have access to the
10.1.
resources they want or need, it is necessary to evaluate the
pertinence of the proposed research programme, its chances
of success, the justified cost and the personal and institutional
capabilities of the applicant.

10.2.
Only highly qualified specialists are able to assess the
above factors, and such people must therefore be asked to act
as evaluators (peer review). The history of science shows that
even in this case it is difficult, especially with innovative and
therefore inevitably speculative proposals, to always make a
correct a priori assessment.

10.2.1.
However, there is no procedure better than peer
review. Choosing suitable evaluators who can give a balanced
assessment is a critical and difficult task that is generally best
done by experienced scientific organisations, companies and
associations. However, some critics object that this procedure
could lead to these organisations themselves receiving prefer-
ential treatment.

Partly as a response to this objection, the Com-
10.2.2.
mission has started to select the evaluators itself for various
programmes, under a system whereby evaluators themselves
apply. Since problems cannot be excluded here either (e.g.
eminent scientists not applying), some of the evaluators could
be selected under the Commission’s current procedure, while
others should be recommended by research bodies and
companies with particular expertise in the field concerned or
the relevant scientific/technological associations. In conjunc-
tion with the effort to simplify procedures in the Commission
and increase involvement of the organisations concerned, such
a combined procedure should be the best way of avoiding any
bias.

9.10.
In its communication the Commission addresses
another factor relating to European integration: ‘By aligning
methods, harmonising procedures and comparing results, a
common system of reference needs to be established at Union

10.2.3.
However, to ensure the necessary transparency it is
also important that evaluators — and their responsibility for a
given field — are known to the potential applicants, without
it being possible to know whether they have decided for or
against a given project application.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/81

10.3.
It is also recommended that some criteria — e.g.
socio-economic factors like months to market launch, impact
on jobs — should be applied more flexibly in assessing projects
submitted, in order to avoid the impression created in some
cases of unrealistic and confusing requirements.

projects and objectives for which an individual Member State
cannot provide the necessary input for cost reasons, meaning
critical mass and the added value needed by Europe can only
be achieved through a joint effort.

As explained in previous sections, it is also important
10.4.
not to place more demands on evaluators — and applicants
— than absolutely necessary. Again, one important step in this
direction would be to harmonise evaluation procedures at
local, national, European and other levels, as recommended.

It is essential to ensure that this does not lead to a
11.5.
restriction or even reduction in basic research in Europe. Basic
research is the source of new knowledge and skills. Innovation
is achieved through competition, but also by combining rival
ideas, concepts and methods.

10.5.
Another way of achieving this would be to organise
programmes due for evaluation clearly and not divide them
into too small units. The ESC also recommends that the
evaluation process for well-defined parts of programmes be
delegated to national or European bodies on a trial basis, as
part of a decentralisation effort and in the framework of
specific pilot projects.

10.5.1.
This suggestion is consistent with the ESC’s rec-
ommendation that EU assistance be targeted at large projects,
i.e. projects or tasks that cannot be properly carried out at
national level, as is consistent with the subsidiarity principle.

11.6.
The Commission also proposes a common European
reference system, an idea which should be supported. This is
very important, for example, in terms of achieving the key
objective of a certification system valid across the EU. However,
such a system should preferably be established on the basis of
existing national institutions and the JRC which — through
task-sharing — can provide a joint EU reference system on
behalf of Europe.

11.7.
The ESC wishes to make the following recommen-
dations on aspects and details of the research programme and
its design.

11. Conclusions and recommendations

11.1.
The ESC considers the Commission communication
to contain important and valuable strategic ideas and measures,
which already provide for approaches to integrate the new
Member States after EU enlargement.

11.2.
The ESC welcomes and supports the Commission’s
commitment to substantially strengthen research and develop-
ment in Europe. It calls on the governments and parliaments
of the Member States, and on industry, to effectively underpin
and complement these efforts at national level and in industry.

Existing organisations and scientific associations,
11.7.1.
especially bodies with experience and success in international
cooperation, should be extensively used and involved.

11.7.2.
Evaluation processes should continue to be based
more on the principle of peer review, i.e. with more involve-
ment of experts recommended by experienced research centres
and industrial laboratories. These processes should also be
simplified, transparent and, in selected areas (e.g. where there
are a large number of smaller ‘projects’), delegated to Member
State institutions that have experience in this field on a trial
basis.

11.3.
European performance in research and development
resource pooling.

An essential and welcome system for strengthening
is

11.7.3.
The economic environment and competitiveness of
small businesses (SMEs) should be enhanced in order to
promote innovation and employment.

11.4.
centres of excellence.

A promising new idea for achieving this is to set up

11.4.1.
However, it is necessary to ensure that the necessary
coordination and networking measures — including the
consequent use of research staff — in all cases really yield
added value.

For this reason only a few centres of excellence
11.4.2.
should be set up initially, on a trial basis and for a limited
period. The fields and work chosen should be restricted to

11.7.4.
The procedures for a European patent must be
made simpler, cheaper and shorter. English should be the
second common language for the patent. A prior publication
period should be considered which does not jeopardise the
novelty of the patent.

11.7.5.
To increase mobility between research bodies, uni-
versities and industry (especially SMEs), adequate incentives
and conditions should be created for the scientists and
engineers concerned — and also for contributing and benefit-
ing institutions.

C 204/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

11.7.6.
School and university courses must be made more
comparable and brought closer together as a prerequisite for
scientific integration in Europe and improved mobility of
people working in science.

11.7.7.
There should be assessment of the pros and cons of
setting up a virtual European university — as another instru-

ment and symbol of European scientific integration — in
which the centres of excellence in particular could participate.

The principal Commission officials dealing with
11.7.8.
research and development matters should in future also
increasingly be successful and highly qualified scientists,
and European research organisations should contribute their
experience to these appointments.

Brussels, 24 May 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on certain Community
measures to combat discrimination’,

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in

employment and occupation’,

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between

persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community Action Programme to combat

discrimination 2001-2006’

(2000/C 204/17)

On 19 January and 4 February 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication and proposals.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs, and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 May 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Sharma.

At its 373rd plenary session of 24 and 25 May 2000 (meeting of 25 May 2000), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes in favour and 6 votes against, with 6 abstentions.

1. Legal basis, content and scope of the proposal

the Community with specific powers to take action to combat
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

1.1.
The Commission in its communication on certain
Community measures to combat discrimination is proposing
two new equal treatment Directives together with a Com-
munity Action Programme to support these initiatives.

1.2.
The legal basis for this initiative derives from Article 13
of the Treaty of Amsterdam which for the first time provides

1.3.
The application of the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality as set out in the Protocol on the Treaty, require
‘produce clear benefits by
that action at Community level
reason of its scale or effect compared to action at the level of
the Member States’.