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 R1
Technology
Transfer Systems
i n the U n ited States
and Germany
Lessons and Perspectives
H. NORMAN ABRAMSON, JOSE ENCARNA~CAO,
PROCTOR P. REID, AND ULRICH SCHMOCH, EDITORS
Binationa/ Pane/ on Technology Transfer
Systems in the United States and Germany
FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS
AND INNOVATION RESEARCH
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1 997
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW · Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous
in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sci-
ences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering
also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and re-
search, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the
National Academy of Engineering.
The Fraunhofer Society was established in 1949 and obtained its present semipublic status of a
federal research institution with the mission of applied research in 1973. Most of its nearly 50 insti-
tutes conduct research in various areas of technology. A considerable share of this work is contract
research for industry. The Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, which is re-
sponsible for this study, is active in the interdisciplinary field of technology, economy, and politics. It
often works for the German government as an advisory body. Professor Dr.-Ing. H.-J. Warnecke is
president of the Fraunhofer Society.
This report is the result of work conducted by an independent panel appointed by the Council of the
National Academy of Engineering and the President of the Fraunhofer Society. The panel members
responsible for the report were chosen for their expertise, with regard for appropriate balance.
Parts I and II of this publication have been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to
procedures approved by a National Academy of Engineering report review process. Parts I and III
have been reviewed by various external experts and internally by the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems
and Innovation Research.
Funding for this effort was provided by the German-American Academic Council Foundation.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
International Standard Book Number 0-309-5530-X
Copyright ~ 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences
No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic procedure, or
in the form of a phonographic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or
otherwise copied for public or private use, without written permission from the publishers, except for
the purpose of official use by the United States government.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
BINATIONAL PANEL ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMS
IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY
German Panel
PROF. DR. JOSE ENCARNA~CAO, Chair, Director, Fraunhofer-Institut fur
Graphische, Datenverarbeitung, Darmstadt
PROF. DR. OTTO H. SCHIELE, Former President, Arbeitsgemeinschaft
industrieller, Forschungseinrichtungen (AiF), Koln
DR. GERHARD SELMAYR, Chancellor, Universitat Karlsruhe
DR. SIGMAR KLOSE, Senior Vice President, Program Management New
Systems Technologies, Boehringer Mannheim GmbH
DR. KNUT MERTEN, Former President and CEO, Siemens Corporate
Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey; Director and Head of Department,
Siemens AG, Central Department "Technology", Munchen
PROF. DR. PETER C. LOCKEMANN, Director, Forschungszentrum
Informatik, Karlsruhe
..
PROF. DR. BERND HOFFLINGER, Director, Institut fur Mikroelektronik
(IMS), Stuttgart
PROF. DR. PETER H. HOFSCHNEIDER, Director, Max-Planck-Institut fur
Biochemie, Martinsried
DR.-ING. HERBERT GASSERT, Member of Science Council
(Wissenschaftsrat), Koln; Former Executive President of BBC and Member
of the Supervisory Board of ABB, Mannheim; President of German
Federation of Technical-Scientific Associations (DVT)
U.S. Panel
DR. H. NORMAN ABRAMSON, Chair, Retired Executive Vice President,
Southwest Research Institute
DR. ALEXANDER H. FLAX, Former Senior Fellow, National Academy of
~ · .
~nglneenng
DR. ROBERT C. FORNEY, Retired Executive Vice President, E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Company
DR. DAVID A. HODGES, Daniel M. Tellep Distinguished Professor of
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
DR. ARTHUR E. HUMPHREY, Professor of Chemical Engineering, The
Pennsylvania State University
DR. WILLIAM F. MILLER, Herbert Hoover Professor of Public and Private
Management and Professor of Computer Science Emeritus, Stanford
University
DR. ALBERT NARATH, President, Energy and Environment Sector,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
DR. WALTER L. ROBB, President, Vantage Management, Inc.
DR. WILLIAM J. SPENCER, Chairman and CEO, SEMATECH
. . .
OCR for page R4
Staff of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research,
Karlsruhe (FhG-ISI)
DR. ULRICH SCHMOCH, Study Director, Senior Scientist
RAINER BIERHALS, Senior Scientist
VIOLA PETER, Scientist
RENATE KLEIN, Administrative Assistant
Staff of the National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. (NAE)
DR. PROCTOR P. REID, Study Director, Associate Director, NAE Program Office
PENELOPE J. GIBBS, Administrative Assistant
SIMON GLYNN, Research Associate
GREG PEARSON, Editor
V
OCR for page R5
Preface
Increasingly, the value of science and engineering research to society is mea-
sured by how readily research results are translated into useful products and ser-
vices. Fundamental to this process is technology transfer, which has been the
subject of growing public discourse since the early 1980s and is now more than
ever a focal point of policy interest. This renewed attention to technology trans-
fer is occurring at a time when expanding international markets, global competi-
tion, and other pressures are forcing companies to rationalize or reengineer their
operations, often in the face of increasingly constrained resources.
The following consensus study, prepared by a binational panel of Ger-
man and American experts, documents the significance of effective technology
transfer to industrial competitiveness in a global economy. The study's findings
make clear that it is no longer appropriate to view technology transfer as a simple
one-way transfer from research performer to technology user of processed
knowledge and finished concepts. Rather, technology transfer should be under-
stood as a mutual, multidirectional exchange comprising many different forms
and mechanisms within and between nonindustrial research institutions and
industry.
This comparison of the origins framing conditions
. i]
---rat ---I----, ----------I, - ---~_-____, nstruments, and re-
cent development of the German and American technology transfer systems re-
veals strengths and weaknesses in both countries. It also offers a starting point
from which each nation can pursue new paths toward strengthening economic
and technological performance, as well as cultivate more intensive, mutually
advantageous international collaboration in technology transfer. The binational
study panel, comprising experts from 18 scientific and technological institutions
and enterprises in Germany and the United States, has articulated important,
v
OCR for page R6
v!
PREFACE
well-founded recommendations for improving and further developing the Ger-
man and American technology transfer systems. I am confident that these rec-
ommendations will be given serious consideration by scientific, economic, and
public policy communities on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the study
speaks to several interesting possibilities for further dialogue between experts in
both countries.
On behalf of the German-American Academic Council, I would like to thank
the cochairmen, H. Norman Abramson and Jose Encarna~cao, and their colleagues
on the binational panel for their considerable efforts on this project. I would also
like to thank the staff of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and the Ger-
man Fraunhofer Institute for Systems Innovation Research who worked on the
project, in particular the co-directors for the study, Proctor P. Reid and Ulrich
Schmoch.
PROF. DR. HEINZ RIESENHUBER
President, German-American Academic
Council Foundation
OCR for page R7
Acknowledgments
This study has three parts: an overview and comparative report (Part I), a
U.S. country report (Part II), and a German country report (Part III). These three
reports were prepared by staff of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering
(NAE) and the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
(FhG-ISI) based on contributions of members of the binational panel, commis-
sioned papers, and staff research. The findings and joint recommendations in
Part I represent the consensus of the full binational panel. Part I also includes
country-specific recommendations for which each of the respective national del-
egations to the binational panel is solely responsible. Each national delegation
was responsible for developing, reviewing, and finalizing its country report. Each
delegation's review of its national technology transfer system was greatly en-
riched by the insightful questions and comments of members of its counterpart
delegation.
The editors would like to thank all members of the binational panel for their
considerable efforts on this study. They would also like to thank FhG-ISI re-
search staff members Rainer Bierhals and Viola Peter, and NAE researcher Simon
Glynn for their valuable contributions to the two country reports. Renate Klein
and Penelope Gibbs provided critical administrative and logistical support. Greg
Pearson, the NAE editor, greatly improved the style and logical structure of the
report and helped prepare it for publication.
Finally, the editors would like to express their appreciation to the German-
American Academic Council for its generous financial support of the project.
vii
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Contents
PART I:
OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON
1
INTRODUCTION
Understanding Technology Transfer, 2
Factors Shaping National Technology Transfer Systems, 3
THE GERMAN AND U.S. R&D SYSTEMS
Major Similarities, 4
Major Differences, 5
COMPARISON OF MAJOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER INSTITUTIONS 9
Functional Similarities: An Overview, 9
Technology Transfer from Higher Education Institutions, 11
Technology Transfer from Government Laboratories, 20
Technology Transfer from Contract Research Institutes, 25
Technology Transfer by Industrial R&D Consortia, 27
SELECTED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ISSUES IN A
COMPARATIVE CONTEXT
Role of Start-Up Companies in Technology Transfer, 29
Technology Transfer to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
in Technologically Mature Industries, 30
Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer to Industry, 32
International R&D Collaboration and Technology Transfer, 34
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Conclusions and Challenges, 35
Recommendations, 41
Joint German-U.S. Recommendations for Fostering Transatlantic
Collaboration in R&D and Technology Transfer, 48
Ax
2
3
29
35
OCR for page R10
x
Annex I:
Suggestions for Transatlantic/International Collaborative Projects
TRANSATLANTIC COOPERATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS
OVER GLOBAL NETWORKS
SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSATLANTIC NETWORK
OF INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTERS
COLLABORATION AMONG GERMAN AND U.S. INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH ASSOCIATIONS
PART II:
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE UNITED STATES
INTRODUCTION
THE R&D ENTERPRISE
R&D Funders and Performers, 63
Distribution of Publicly Funded R&D, 70
The Industrial R&D Enterprise, 79
Technology Transfer to U.S. Industry in Context, 90
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM HIGHER EDUCATION
TO INDUSTRY
Distinguishing Characteristics of the Enterprise, 91
History of University-Industry Relations, 96
Technology Transfer by Research Universities and Colleges, 99
U.S. FEDERAL LABORATORIES AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
TO INDUSTRY
Overview, 124
Federal Laboratories by Major Mission Area, 126
Federal Laboratories and Technology Transfer: History and Legislation, 133
The Federal Laboratories and Technology Transfer: Mechanisms, 135
Measuring the Performance of Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, 144
The Future of Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, 147
Conclusions, 149
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BY PRIVATELY HELD, NONACADEMIC
ORGANIZATIONS
Overview, 151
Organizations That Create and Transfer Technology, 152
Organizations That Transfer or Facilitate the Transfer of
Technology Created by Others, 162
Conclusion, 174
Annex II:
Case Studies in Technology Transfer
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Simon Glynn and Arthur E. Humphrey
CONTENTS
53
53
54
55
61
62
62
91
124
151
177
177
OCR for page R11
CONTENTS
THE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING
AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES TO U.S. COMPANIES
Robert K Carr
MICROELECTRONICS
Simon Glynn and William J. Spencer
SOFTWARE
Simon Glynn
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE: THE BOILER
TUBE FAILURE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Jim Oggerino
PART III:
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN GERMANY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
THE GERMAN R&D ENTERPRISE
General Structures, 246
Industrial R&D Structures, 250
Impact of European Research, 263
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM UNIVERSITIES
Universities, 272
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM PUBLIC INTERMEDIATE
R&D INSTITUTIONS
Max Planck Society, 302
Helmholtz Centers, 312
Blue List Institutes and Departmental Research Institutes, 319
Fraunhofer Society, 320
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BY INDUSTRIAL R&D CONSORTIA
Federation of Industrial Research Associations, 332
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN SELECTED AREAS
Technology Transfer in Information Technology, 341
Technology Transfer in Microelectronics, 342
Technology Transfer in Biotechnology, 343
Technology Transfer in Production Technology, 345
CONCLUSION: AN ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER IN GERMANY
Annex III:
Examples of Technology Transfer in Germany
GTS-GRAL: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FROM UNIVERSITY
TO A NEW TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRM
G.E. Pfaff
CO2 DYEING PROCESS: INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
Eckhard Schollmeyer
x~
194
214
225
238
241
242
245
246
272
302
332
341
346
349
349
351
OCR for page R12
xt!
PRODUCTION AUTOMATION: TRANSFER FROM A FRAUNHOFER
INSTITUTE TO INDUSTRY
M. Hagele
MEDIGENE: ESTABLISHMENT OF A START-UP COMPANY IN
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Peter Heinrich
TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BUREAU (TLB) OF THE HIGHER
EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN BADEN-WUR1Y7EMBERG
Thomas Ge ring
APPENDIXES
Notes
References
Biographical Information for the Binational Panel
Index
CONTENTS
352
353
354
361
363
381
400
409
OCR for page R13
Figures and Tables
FIGURES
German and U.S. industry R&D expenditures, percentage by industrial
sector, 1973, 1983, 1993, 7
2.1 International total R&D expenditures, 1994, 63
2.2 Total and nondefense R&D spending as a percentage of GDP, by
country, 64
2.3 National R&D expenditures, by performing sector and sources of funds, 65
2.4 National R&D expenditures, by performing sector, sector of funds, and
character of work, 1995, 68
2.5 Federal obligations, by agency and type of activity, 1995, 74
2.6 Federal obligations for basic and applied research, by field, 75
2.7 U.S. industrial R&D spending, by sector, 1973, 1983, and 1993, 81
2.8 Number of new strategic technology alliances, by industry and region, 83
2.9 R&D spending by U.S. affiliates of foreign-owned firms as a percentage
of all privately funded U.S. R&D, 1982-1994, 85
2.10 Distribution of U.S. scientific and technical articles, by sector, 1993, 100
2.11 University patents by broad fields, 108
2.12 All U.S. patents by broad fields, 109
2.13 UIRC foundings by decade, 1880-1989, for UIRCs existing in 1990, 111
2.14 Federal R&D funds by selected categories of performers, estimated
values for fiscal year 1994, 126
2.15 Federal laboratory licensing activity, 1987-1994, 136
2.16 Active CRADAs at federal laboratories, 1987-1994, 137
2.17 New research joint venture announcements, 160
A-1 Allocation of R&D funds for different industries: product vs. process
development, fiscal year 1994, 197
. . .
x~
OCR for page R14
xlv
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
FIGURES AND TABLES
MEP appropriations, including 1995 recision and 1996 continuing
resolution, 208
Equivalent availability loss due to boiler tube failure, 1985-1992, 240
Organization chart of the German R&D system, 247
Main it&D-performing institutions in Germany, expenditures in billion
1995 DM, 249
Specialization index of European Patent Office (EPO) patents of German
origin in relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the period
1989 to 1991, 251
Specialization index of European Patent Office (EPO) patents of U.S.
Origin in relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the period
1989 to 1991, 253
Partners of SMEs in R&D and technology-related activities, by percent, 255
Participation structure in the Second Framework Program, by country,
1987-1991, 265
R&D expenditures of Germany (1992-1993) and the EU by sections of
the Third Framework Program, 266
Number of participants in the Second Framework Program, by country,
1987-1991, 267
Volume of research conducted in areas of technology, as a percentage of
total EUREKA financing, status as of 1995, 268
3.10 Number of EUREKA projects, including those with German
participation, according to technology, status as of 1995, 269
3.11 Involvement of EUREKA participants by major organization type, status
as of 1995, 269
3.12 Financing sources for JESSI, 1989-1996, 270
3.13 Program structures of JESSI, 271
3.14 Research funds of German universities in constant 1980 DM, 275
3.15 Distribution of research funds at universities, according to major areas,
1993, 277
3.16 External research funds of universities, according to major sources, 1980,
1985, 1990, 278
3.17 Relation of external, related infrastructure, and institutional base R&D
funds of universities in selected areas in 1990 in current DM, 281
3.18 External funds from industry at the University of Karlsruhe, for selected
areas, 1980 and 1990, in constant 1980 DM, 282
3.19 Patent applications to the German Patent Office by German university
professors, 301
3.20 Specialization of German Patent Office patents of German university
professors, in relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the
period 1989 to 1992, 303
3.21 Max Planck institutes' expenditures in main supported areas, percent of
total, 305
OCR for page R15
FIGURES AND TABLES
Budget structure of 30 consolidated Fraunhofer institutes in West
Germany, 323
3.23 Industry-oriented activities of 30 consolidated Fraunhofer institutes in
West Germany, 1994, 324
3.24 Budget structure of 30 consolidated Fraunhofer institutes in West
Germany, by research area, in 1994, 325
3.25 Typical division of labor between Fraunhofer institutes and industry, 326
3.26 Share of FhG industrial contracts, according to research area, 327
3.27 Specialization of German Patent Office patents held by the FhG in
relation to the average distribution at the EPO for the period 1989
tol992, 331
3.28 Evaluation steps for publicly funded projects involving industrial
cooperative research, 336
3.29 Public andindustrial funds for cooperative research, 1986-1993, in
constant 1980 DM, 337
3.30 Volume of public funds and industrial funds spent on cooperative
research, 339
xv
TABLES
1.3
1.5
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
German and U.S. R&D Expenditures, Percentage by Source of Funds
and Performing Sector, 1994, 4
The Relative Scale of the German and U.S. Technology Transfer
Systems in Context, 5
Distribution of Government R&D Budget Appropriations in the United
States and Germany, by Socioeconomic Objective, 1994, 8
Functional Similarities Between Research Institutions in the United
States and Germany, 11
Support for German and U.S. Academic R&D, Percentage Share by
Contributing Sector, 1994, 13
Research Expenditures at Universities in the United States and
Germany, Percentage by Disciplinary Field, 1993, 14
2.1 U.S. Expenditures, by Performing Sector and Source of Funds, 1995, 66
2.2 Support for U.S. Academic R&D, Percent Shares by Sector, 69
2.3 U.S. Defense-Related R&D, Various Comparisons, 71
2.4 Distribution of Government R&D Appropriations by Socioeconomic
Objective in the United States, 1987 and 1994, 73
Federal and State Government Investment in Cooperative Technology
Activities, by Type of Program, Fiscal Year 1994, 78
High-Tech Companies Formed in the United States, 1960-1994, 86
Top 20 Most-Emphasized U.S. Patent Classes for Inventors from the
United States and Germany, 1993, 89
Industry-Sponsored Research as a Share of Total Academic Research
Expenditures at the Top 20 Research Universities, Fiscal Year 1994, 93
OCR for page R16
xvi
FIGURES AND TABLES
2.9 R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, by Science and
Engineering Field, Fiscal Year 1994 (dollars in thousands), 94
2.10 R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, Percent Share by
Major Science and Engineering Field, Fiscal Year 1994, 96
2.11 UIRC Research by Discipline, 1990, 114
2.12 UIRC Research by Technology Area, 1990, 115
2.13 UIRC Research by Industry, 1990, 116
2.14 Distribution of UIRCs by Importance of Selected Goals, 117
2.15 Output per UIRC, 1990, 118
2.16 Active CRADAs by Federal Agencies and Laboratories, 1987-1994,
138
2.17 Distribution of 85 Large Independent R&D Institutes by Research
Focus, 1994, 153
2.18 The Six Largest Independent, Nonprofit, Applied R&D Institutes in the
United States, 154
2.19 Distribution of 35 Large Affiliated R&D Institutes by Research Focus,
199,4, 155
2.20 Primary Technical Areas of Joint Research Ventures (JRVs), 1985
1995, 161
Biotechnology Drugs in Development, 1989-1993, 178
Biotechnology Medicines or Vaccines Approved for Use by the Food
and Drug Administration as of 1993, 179
A-3 Selected Nonmedical Uses of Biotechnology, 181
A-4 Use of New Technology in Manufacturing, Japan and the United States,
1988, 202
Revenue Trends and Forecasts, Customized Software and Services
(dollars in billions), 1991-1997, 226
A-6 Global Spending for Prepackaged Software, 1991-1997 (dollars in
millions), 227
Federal Funding for Computer Science and Engineering Research and
All Science and Engineering Research, Fiscal Year 1991, 228
A-8 Agency Budgets by HPCC Program Components, Fiscal Year 1994, 230
3.1 Types of Knowledge Transfer from Academia to Industry, 256
3.2 Research Funds of German Universities (billions of DM), 276
3.3 Size and Response Rate of Survey Sent to German Universities, 290
3.4 Percent Share of University External Funds in Four Focal Areas,
1995, 291
3.5 Orientation of University R&D Activities, by Percent, 1995, 292
3.6 Channels of University Technology Transfer by Percent and Mean
Score, 293
3.7 Benefits to University Researchers from Contacts with Industry, by
Percent and Mean Score (percent total sample), 1995, 294
3.8 Barriers to Industry Contacts, by Percent and Mean Score, 1995, 294
OCR for page R17
FIGURES AND TABLES
3.9 Reasons for Industry Interest in University Research, by Percent and
Mean Score, 1995, 295
3.10 Average Mean Scores in Major Question Groups, 295
3.11 Responses to the Survey of UIRCs, 1990, 296
3.12 Industrial Contributions to UIRCs, Percent Share by Area, 1990, 297
3.13 Orientation of R&D Activities at UIRCs, Percent Share, 1990, 298
3.14 Channels of U.S. UIRC and German University Technology Transfer,
Mean Score in the Four Focal Areas, 299
3.15 Benefits of Industry Contacts at UIRCs, by Percent, and at German
Universities, by Mean Score, 299
3.16 Average Number of Permanent Staff and Scientists at Max Planck
Institutes, Main Sections, 1993, 305
3.17 Areas of Research at Max Planck Institutes, Percent by Expenditures
and Scientists, 1994, 306
3.18 Budget Structure of the MPG, 1994, 308
3.19 Structure of Project Funds, 1993, 308
3.20 Spending, Percent Share of Total Budget, and Trend for Major
Research Areas of the Helmholtz Centers, 1993, 314
3.21 Budgets and Staffing of Selected Helmholtz Centers That Emphasize
Industrially Relevant Research, 1993, 316
Structure of the Food and Beverages Sector and Its Member Research
Associations, 334
3.23 Importance of Cooperative Research in Different Industry Sectors in
Germany, 1989, 338
xv
OCR for page R18
