Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 92000E0861

**WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Problems arising in multinational research programmes funded by the European Union.** 
  
*Official Journal 046 E , 13/02/2001 P. 0065 - 0066*

  

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Problems arising in multinational research programmes funded by the European Union

One of the institutions participating in a fisheries research project (FAIR CT-97-3508) claimed sole credit for a joint research idea, research plan and preliminary results obtained jointly, and published them under its own name. It had previously been agreed with each institute that the findings were not yet to be published because they were still preliminary and moreover because, from the point of view of the further use to be made of them, it was important to consider carefully when would be the best time to publish them. The EU coordinator informed the management of the institute concerned of this by letter.

The institute concerned acted so secretively that it was not until about a year later that the other EU partners discovered what had happened to the joint plan and findings. The institute's actions caused both economic and scientific damage to the EU, other institutes and the world scientific community, as well as to many businesses cooperating on the project. The extent of the damage cannot yet be assessed. It did prove possible to continue the project, as its basis was very strong, it was well planned, and the institutes participating in it were leaders in their field.

The EU does not have an assessment system, for example a supranational ethics committee, which would act swiftly in such circumstances to ensure that research projects did not suffer on account of delays. Such a committee, which would be well versed in scientific research, would not be a court but could give advice, make recommendations and, as the funding body, could if necessary institute special monitoring of a participant which was evidently selfish and out of control. The mere existence of a supranational body would be likely to discourage scientific dishonesty.

If, in spite of everything, a case did come before the courts, an international opinion would be helpful to the local court in considering the non-material issues at stake, and the committee could help to protect the rights of all.

A system based on complex agreements and a judicial institution would be quite alien to the world of science and would, moreover, be slow. The basis for effective scientific cooperation should remain mutual trust and awareness of one's own know-how, i.e. certain ethical standards, which fortunately are second nature to the vast majority of scientists.

In order nonetheless to be able to deal with such problems more swiftly in future, I would ask the Commission:

1. What attitude will it adopt towards such breaches of contract?

2. What will it do to ensure that breaches do not recur? How will the EU investigate such cases?

3. Will the Commission take steps to found a scientific ethics committee or alternatively will the Commission propose a model of its own for solving such problems by means of some other appropriate procedure?

4. How can the non-material rights of researchers be guaranteed throughout the lifetime of a project?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the project Fish cysteine proteinase inhibitors and infectious diseases (contract FAIR 5-CT97-3508) supported under the 4th Research and technological development (RTD) framework programme. It will end on 30 November 2000 and promises to produce significant scientific results.

1. Under the standard contract applicable for the 4th RTD framework programme, the Commission can terminate the contract or the participation of any contractor (i) when the project is substantially affected by major technical or economic reasons or if the exploitation potential of the results of the contract significantly diminishes or (ii) when no remedial action has been taken to rectify non-performance or breach of the contractual obligations by the consortium or a contractor. Such possibilities might be used by the Commission in the case of premature publication of project research results by a contractor without the consent of the other participants.

In the case to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission has been informed that a PhD student published prematurely some background information generated before the commencement of the project. This did not affect the progress of the project. As soon as the Commission was informed of the problems, it reminded the partners of their contractual rights and obligations as well as of potential remedy measures. None of the contractors asked for such measures to be taken yet. Since the project as such was not affected, it was not for the Commission to take further action.

2. According to the standard contracts for the 4th and 5th RTD framework programmes, the results of the project (foreground results) are owned by the contractors generating them. The actions to be taken for the protection of such results are normally laid down in a consortium agreement concluded between the participants to which the Commission is not a party. Such consortium agreement, concluded for the implementation of the project, complements the contract and also determines the applicable national law.

In the 5th RTD framework programme standard contract, the protection of the partners against premature publication of results arising from the project has been reinforced through provisions on the protection of knowledge, technology implementation plan, publicity and communications concerning the project and knowledge and confidentiality.

3. The Commission believes that the contractual provisions, together with appropriate consortium agreements, are sufficient to deal with such cases. In the case of any dispute among the members of the consortium, it is up to them to take the necessary measures in order to protect their intellectual property rights, normally on the basis of a consortium agreement. The Commission has always drawn the attention of the partners to the importance of concluding consortium agreements on intellectual property rights and strongly recommended this in projects even if the contract does not foresee such an obligation. This legal framework appears more appropriate to settle disputes about intellectual property rights than the establishment of a committee, which could only give non-binding recommendations and could not rectify possible infringements.

4. The rules relating to intellectual property rights (including ownership and access rights) are valid for the entire duration of the contract. Furthermore, according to the standard contract applicable for the 5th RTD framework programme, all contractual provisions relating to intellectual property rights continue to apply after the end or termination of the contract.

[Top](#document1)