Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 12
2
International Cooperation in
Engineering Research
For reasons of industrial competitiveness and national security, there
will always be a need for thoughtful judgments on whether engineering is
a suitable arena for cooperative research, and each opportunity must be
examined carefully to assess potential gains versus possible losses. How-
ever, programs for cooperation in engineering research are substantially less
numerous than they could be and, in the committee's view, should be.
The practice of engineering may be viewed as a spectrum extending
from research at the one end, through development and testing, to process-
ing, production, and operations at the other. In the abstract, engineering
research activities may be considered separable from other portions of the
spectrum. In practice, however, various components of the engineering spec-
trum are often conducted simultaneously within the group of people working
on a project. Similarly, although it is often proposed that cooperative en-
gineering work, whether between entities in the United States or between
groups in the United States and abroad, should focus on areas in the "pre-
competitive" stage, it is difficult to obtain agreement on the definition of this
stage. One might propose an arbitrary time famine, for example, five years
before production, but the rates of development in different technologies
are neither uniform nor predictable enough to rely on such a definition. In
microelectronics, for example, the time from the recognition of a good idea
to the marketing of a new product has been reduced in some entrepreneurial
companies to two to three years. And for the development or improvement
of an engineering process the definition of "precompetitive" is particularly
fuzzy.
Nevertheless, the committee believes that areas for international coop-
eration in engineering can be selected, with appropriate concern for issues of
12
OCR for page 13
13
market competition, national security, and self-esteem. The following guide-
lines would help ensure that programs on the whole will be effective and
beneficial:
.
.
The effort must be focused on a genuinely significant problem or
product.
The outcome must be beneficial to both participants.
A high level of trust and mutual respect (a sense of "equality") must
exist between participants.
The program should be as symmetrical as possible in levels of effort
and in anticipated deliverables.
A commitment to make the joint endeavor succeed must be made
explicit by both partners.
Goals, roles, gates, and dates must be established at the outset, to
avoid later misunderstandings.
Issues of intellectual property rights should be agreed upon in ad-
vance.
Realistic assessments must be made at the outset of the time required
to realize significant benefits (frequently, 5-10 years).
The program must involve direct interaction between peers (engineer-
to-engineer).
Sufficient financial support must be provided at the "interface" to
permit necessary travel, communication, and relocation.
Specifically, it is suggested that efforts of three general, partly overlap-
ping kinds should be considered:
1. Basic engineering research, characterized by its performers as non-
competitive or precompetitive and focused on "enabling" technologies, such
as materials development. This would include the kind of research that typ-
ically is carried out at universities. Even if performed in firms or national
.
laboratories, such work should face few constraints to easy cooperation.
However, a clear and up-front agreement on procedures for determining
intellectual property rights is very important.
In this context, the committee recommends that NSF and other groups
develop opportunities for expanded international cooperation in areas where
there is comparable or superior technology abroad. The objective should be
to maintain, in a cost-effective way, the position of the U.S. knowledge base
at the leading edge. Areas for such cooperation include the following:
Artificial intelligence (France, Israel, Japan, United Kingdom)
Biochemical engineering (Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, the
Netherlands, United Kingdom)
Civil engineering
building construction technology (Federal Republic of Germany,
Japan, Switzerland, USSR)
tunneling technology (Japan)
OCR for page 14
14
.
Industrial, manufacturing, and operational systems
- man-machine interface (Federal Republic of Germany, Japan,
Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom)
systems engineering and control (Belgium, Canada, Federal Re-
public of Germany, France, Japan, Korea, Poland, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom)
production processes (Federal Republic of Germany, Italy,
Japan)
Materials
.
cementitious materials (Denmark and USSR) and synthesis of
fine-grained solids (USSR)
composite materials (Japan, United Kingdom, USSR)
electronic and structural ceramics (Federal Republic of Ger-
many, Japan, Spain, United Kingdom)
optoelectronic materials (Japan, France, United Kingdom)
rare earths (Japan, People's Republic of China, USSR)
synthetic fibers (Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan,
United Kingdom)
Mechanical engineering
. ~ . ~ · . . .
computational nuns dynamics (Federal Republic of Germany,
France, Japan, United Kingdom)
solid and structural mechanics (Denmark, Federal Republic of
Germany, France, Sweden, United Kingdom)
tribology (Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, United King-
dom)
This and other lists in this report are intended to be illustrative rather
than comprehensive. It is recognized that centers of excellence exist in many
countries, and so the countries named are essentially either self-evident or,
in some cases, unexpected.
2. Applied engineering research, characterized by its performers as hav-
ing identifiable competitive and proprietary concerns; carried out in industry
or by groups under fairly restrictive contract to industry; time-sensitive, as
there may only be ~windows" of opportunity for such work to be feasi-
ble or useful; facing numerous contraints, including economic ones, so that
cooperation is recognizably more prescribed.
Given a clear definition of the partner's proprietary interests, coopers
tion of this type is not necessarily more difficult than cooperation in basic
research. In fact, there are numerous examples of successful cooperation,
especially in the private sector, one being that between the General Elec-
tric Company of the United States and Societe Nationale d'Etude et de
Construction cle Moteurs d'Aviation (SNECMA) of France on propulsion
systems.
Many possible areas for continuing and future cooperation in applied
engineering research can be identified. The central question is whether
the parties can cooperate on a truly quid pro quo basis, that is, with
OCR for page 15
15
demonstrably symmetrical contributions and consequences. Clearly, this is
an issue only the participants can decide. Possible areas of interest are
Combustion and engine technology (Austria, Federal Republic of
Germany, France, Japan,)
Energy conservation (Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Japan,
Sweden, United Kingdom)
Electronic device development (Federal Republic of Germany, France,
Japan) ,
Engineering management (Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy,
Japan)
Manufacturing technology (Czechoslovakia, Federal Republic of Ger-
many, Hungary, Japan, United Kingdom)
Mechanical transmissions (Federal Republic of Germany, Japan,
NetherIands)
Telecommunications system development (Canada, Federal Republic
of Germany, France, Japan, Sweden)
3. Cooperation ~ areas of public good. Across the entire technology
spectrum from invention to use there are possibilities for cooperation in
areas such as environmental protection, and air, road, and nuclear safety.
Although certain proprietary, economic, and other competitive constraints
exist, they tend to be less severe or overridden by general public interest,
regardless of nationality. Opportunities for cooperation in areas of public
good are clear-cut and frequently are candidates for bilateral agreements
between governments, especially in areas such as the following:
.
.
Transportation systems
auto safety (Europe, especially Sweden)
high-speed rail (Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan)
traffic control and highway safety (Australia, Israel, the Nether-
lands, United Kingdom)
Geophysical engineering
earthquake engineering (China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand)
groundwater hydrology (France, Netherlands, United Kingdom,
Venezuela)
. Noise control (Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, France,
Japan, Sweden, United Kingdom)
Nuclear engineering
nuclear plant design and safety (Canada, Federal Republic of
Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, United Kingdom)
radioactive waste disposal (Federal Republic of Germany, France
Sweden, Taiwan, United Kingdom, USSR)
Risk assessment and management (Federal Republic of Germany,
France, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom)
Space exploration and astronaut safety (USSR)
Trauma research and biomechanics (Sweden)
OCR for page 16
16
Mechanisms for NSF to Promote Cooperation in
Areas of Basic Engineering Research
The committee recommends that NSF take the following actions to
increase the level of international cooperation in engineering research.
NSF should announce and increase its level of funding for U.S. participa-
tion in international collaloorative engineering research. In particular, NSF
should expand its traditional international role of providing funding to fa-
cilitate interactions between groups whose base funding is already provided
(that is, interface funding). The key is development of complementary teams
capable of interacting synergistically. More explicit acknowledgment by NSF
directorates that funds for development and conduct of research programs
can be applied to engineering research involving international collaborators
would be useful.
NSF should modify its proposal formatts) to ensure demonstrated aware-
ness by U.S. researchers of engineering knowledge abroad. NSF should require
in engineering proposals the inclusion of evidence of awareness of foreign en-
gineering literature and practice and, for NSF programs funded at more
than $100,000 per year or so, plans to ensure effective foreign interaction
as appropriate to the conduct of the research. NSF review guidelines for
engineering should include an assessment of the sensitivity of all proposals
to relevant work being conducted outside the United States.
NSF should work with industry to d evelop and fund op portunities for
young and midcareer individual researchers to spend an extended period over-
seas. These researchers should be able to spend several weeks to a year
at centers of excellence in suitable host institutions (for example, foreign
national and industrial laboratories and universities).
NSF should publicize in both industry and academic circles successful
examples of international collaborative research in engineering and technology
with an analysis of the reasons for success, and recommendations for further
improvements that might be transferable.
Mechanisms for Promoting Cooperation in
Applied Engineering and Research Development
Cooperation in applied engineering research and development takes place
between various combinations of private firms and government agencies.
Opportunities exist for cooperation through purely governmental cooper
tive efforts, such as Apollo-Soyuz, and also agreements between both gov-
ernment agencies and private firms, for example, the European EUREKA
progra~ns.7~8
Research cooperation in the private sector may employ a range of mech-
anisms, depending on the size of the participating firms, the nature of the
problems addressed, and other considerations. Among the most significant
private sector mechanisms to obtain technology are joint ventures, purchase
OCR for page 17
17
of licenses and patents, research consortia, contract research, hiring of con-
sultants, and establishment of branch laboratories. To various degrees and
at various costs, these mechanisms have all been used internationally. The
availability and productivity of these mechanisms to U.S. firms may vary
greatly, depending on the firm.
One outcome of an early lead in the research and development of a spe-
cific technology may be an enduring geographic concentration of industrial
capability in industries related to the technology. A center of research can
evolve if other conditions are right into an agglomeration of economic
activities downstream from research and development. The U.S. sern~con-
ductor industry developed largely around the technical excellence in the San
Francisco Bay area; the electronic systems industry developed largely along
Route 128 in Massachusetts in proximity to the concentration of engineering
research and education in Cambridge. Such factors make it imperative that
U.S. corporations, on an ongoing basis, review their foreign technical contacts
and develop closer working relationships with foreign universities, research
institutes, and companies that are technologically advanced in relevant fields.
The committee recommends that U.S. firms involved in engineering and tech-
nology develop positive and visible strategies for connecting to engineering
progress abroad. For example, "strategic alliances" between industrial cor-
porations based in different countries and having complementary technical
expertise should be carefully considered.20
NSF probably will have a secondary role in facilitating the development
of such connections. The executive departments of Commerce, Defense, and
State can do much in this regard, however, most of all by announcing their
positive encouragement of such activities, by setting guidelines for their
establishment, and by identifying staff in Washington, D.C., and embassies
abroad with expertise for expediting international cooperation in engineering
research. Most important will be an evidently supportive attitude.
NSF could, however, enhance the international aspects of existing
university-industry research programs in engineering and technology. Pros
grams such as the Engineering Research Centers and the proposed Science
and Technology Centers would be increased in value if they were encouraged
to regard themselves as centers for the collection of the u~orId's knowledge
in their fields of expertise, and for dissemination to industry of perspectives
and analyses of important developments abroad through timely publications
(briefings) and seminars. NSF should consider augmenting the mission of its
research centers in this respect. Care must be taken, of course, that the added
responsibilities of such centers strengthen rather than dilute their ability to
pursue their basic mission.
Attention to foreign technological advances could be vital to the future
of many small business ventures. The problem is finding a cost-effective
way of making appropriate information available in a convenient form and
assimilating this information by the small business. If realistic plans can be
developed, efforts such as the Small Business Innovation Research programs
administered by the Department of Commerce and NSF should be expanded
OCR for page 18
18
to help small businesses achieve familiarity and involvement with critical
engineering research outside the United States.
Unique Facilities and International Centers
Important issues arise in relation to the manner in which the United
States participates in the development and use of unique facilities located
abroad, and our willingness to establish such facilities here. In several fields
of science and technology there are facilities abroad superior to any available
in the United States. If some of these are at present underutilized, they may
provide opportunities for mutually beneficial programs.
Construction research facilities in Japan offer an example. Among
unique facilities are the reaction walls and earthquake shake tables at
the Building Research Institute and Public Works Research Institute in
Tsukuba, Japan. It should be noted, however, that a characteristic of major
building and construction companies in Japan, for example, Kajima, is that
they have significant in-house research staffs and facilities. No comparable
capability exists in most major U.S. construction companies.
One way to help meet the challenge of Japan's superior governmen-
tal laboratory facilities and in-house company capabilities in construction
technology would be to organize a research consortium of U.S. companies,
universities, and government agencies. Such a consortium, catalyzed by
NSF, could propose and fund projects to be undertaken using Japanese
facilities. In this way, U.S. engineers would be able to share in and to con-
tribute to forefront developments of new technologies in construction and
building fields. If such an outreach effort is not made, U.S. companies and
researchers will become increasingly dependent on Japanese experimental
data, whose bases they may not understand well, and the arrival of which
may be delayed in the United States. Such dependence could be complete
in earthquake engineering by the end of the next decade, with evident Negro
tive impact on the ability of U.S. major construction companies to compete
abroad, and eventually, even at home.
Centers of Excellence Abroad
For all the kinds of research cooperation proposed here, a system for
identifying and evaluating centers of excellence abroad is an essential precur-
sor to the development of valuable and symmetrical international exchanges
in engineering. NSF and other agencies with technology-related missions (for
example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the de-
partments of Energy, Commerce, Defense, and Transportation) should fund
studies, and organize workshops or meetings incorporating reviews, of the
state of the technology in countries where engineering excellence exists, with
the objective of identifying and setting priorities for future research coopera-
tion.
The agencies of the U.S. government operate or fund a broad range
OCR for page 19
19
of programs in international science and technology.39 Some 20 agencies
are involved in bilateral exchanges with a total of more than 80 countries.
However, many if not most cooperative programs in science and technology
are oriented toward local economic development assistance. The Agency for
International Development of the Department of State, for example, has been
an active promoter of transferring technical skill to less developed countries
to help in their economic modernization, often assisted in this endeavor by
the National Research Council. Bilateral scientific and technical exchange
and development programs are an important aspect of U.S. international
diplomacy, often established in the wake of larger political agreements. These
programs provide or could provide important opportunities in the long run
for expanding markets for U.S. technology products. Such programs are also
one of the best ways to build bridges between peoples.
Traditionally, therefore, U.S. government policies and programs in in-
ternational engineering and technology have been designed in response to
requests and suggestions from other nations. Less often they have been
developed from the point of view of nurturing the health of the U.S. en-
gineering and technology enterprise. This, in a world in which technology
increasingly is developed and exploited overseas, U.S. government technical
agencies need to become much more active in directing resources toward
international cooperation with organizations and individuals with excellence
not replicated in the United States. The committee urges each federal agency
with significant international needs, opportunities, or programs in engineering
and technology to evaluate these from the point of view of achieving ~oeneficiat
connections with centers of excellence abroad. It is not unlikely that a variety
of acceptable programs can be developed that are mutually beneficial and
cost-eflSective to the United States given the guiding principles of symmetry,
quality, patience, and trust.
In some cases, technology centers at the state level may be particularly
effective in achieving productive associations overseas because of compara-
bility of size and jurisdiction.
For all types of organizations the identification of centers of excellence
abroad is a task that must be performed by experts in each field with con-
siderations of relevance, audiences, costs, the natural evolution of disciplines
and fields, and other factors in mind. No single committee could possibly
put together a catalog of such centers of excellence in technology. And even
if it could, the findings would most likely lie dormant and unused unless
the context of the work were carefully considered. Moreover, listings and
rankings of institutional excellence are sensitive matters that could actually
jeopardize the possibilities of future cooperation. In short, a simple catalog
is not possible or useful.
The committee does not propose a centralized function or office to iden-
tify areas of excellence in engineering and technology worldwide. Rather,
organizations, in connection with their missions, should design specific mech-
anisms with appropriate expertise to meet this function. Nevertheless, it is
recommended that such organizations as NSF, Office of Naval Research,
OCR for page 20
20
the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and the Patent Office
expand their activities and, especially, their outreach to inform concerned
groups in the United; States of relevant engineering and technologies abroad.
The National Research Council has itself been playing an increasingly sig-
nificant role in identifying centers of excellence abroad, as evidenced by
such reports as High Technology Ceramics in Japan (1984) and Advanced
Processing of Electronic Materials in the United States and Japan (1986~.
Establishing ad hoc groups of engineers and scientists from academia and
industry to examine and report on specific technical areas of interest is an
effective way of identifying areas of excellence in a timely fashion.
In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that the inherent value
of research projects will almost certainly provide the greatest impetus to
successful international cooperation in engineering, as in other fields. It is
the opportunities for the application of engineering knowledge to human
needs and economic growth in the United States and worldwide that will
lead to lasting and productive joint efforts.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
international cooperation
