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 103
Annex European Union Research Programs Professor Jorma Routti and Dr. William Cannell, DGXII, European Commission International collaboration in research, involving universities, research cen- ters, and industry, has long been supported by the European Union (EU). Orga- nized since 1984 within successive multinational framework programmer, com- munity research activities are designed to complement those of the EU member states and work toward closer integration of Europe's scientific and industrial communities. The central objectives of community research policy are to rein- force and mobilize the EU's scientific and technological capabilities in support of industry, the economy, and quality of life. The Fifth Framework Programme (1998 to 2002) breaks with tradition in targeting resources on specific socioeconomic objectives, by means of focused research actions of an integrated and interdisciplinary nature. The approach will be more selective than the science and technology-driven approach of the past and will favor partnerships and networks of research actors, public and private, which are more strongly oriented toward utilization and uptake of results. BENEFITS OF EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH Encouraging higher investment in research and technology as well as im- provements in research productivity are clear economic priorities for Europe. Levels of expenditure on research and development (R&D) tend to lag those of competitors overseas. Overall, the EU spends 1.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on civil R&D, as opposed to 2.5 percent in the United States and 2.8 percent in Japan. The EU's position on patenting technological inventions is weaker than that of the United States and Japan, and Europe's major industries 103
OCR for page 104
104 tend to have relatively low science i, university sector need reinforcement. ANNEX intensity. Also links between industry and the Action at the community level aims to promote research collaboration on a European scale that brings a number of benefits: . Bringing together the research capabilities of research actors in different member states improves the linkages between the different types of actors (public and private) at the European level, provides a deeper pool of ex- pertise to address existing as well as new and emerging problems, and provides a stimulus toward a more dynamic technological and business environment. · There is an increasing number of areas of research that can only be carried out effectively on a transnational basis. Some phenomena that need to be studied are intrinsically international (e.g., climate change, marine and terrestrial ecosystems). In other areas the research effort needed surpasses the capacity of individual countries (e.g., genome sequencing). · Large-scale research infrastructure is of crucial importance to many areas of science and technology but in view of its costs is not evenly distributed around the European Union; cross-national access can optimize its effec- tive utilization as well as the direction of further development. FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES FOR EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH Nature of Framework Programme Under the present treaties, the Framework Programme* encompasses all of the research activities carried out by the KU. It aims to strengthen the scientific and technological competitiveness of European industry and to provide support for the broad range of community policies. According to the treaty, the Frame- work Programme comprises four different "activities" each of which is imple- mented by one or more "specific programmer." . Research, technology development, and demonstration, mainly through European collaborative research networks, involving enterprises, research centers, universities, and policy organizations. This activity comprises the *There are in fact two Research Framework Programmes, provided for under the EC and Euratom treaties, respectively. Their content is complementary (the EC focusing on nonnuclear and the Euratom program on nuclear research), and their administration is harmonized; hence, they will be considered here under the generic title "Framework Programme."
OCR for page 105
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 105 majority of expenditures, amounting to about 87 percent of funds under the present (Fourth) Framework Programme. · International cooperation in research involving partners outside the EU and/or international organizations. Such cooperation supports the devel- opment of less developed countries, provides community researchers with access to new technologies in advanced countries outside the KU, and builds research networks with neighboring countries, especially with can- didates for accession to the KU. Dissemination and exploitation of research results through a variety of actions, including networks for technology transfer and innovation, sup- port for best practice in management of research and technology, and ad- visory structures. Stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers, through interna- tional fellowship schemes. . . Evolution of the Framework Programmes The first Framework Programme was established in 1984 as an umbrella for a number of research activities that had been developed earlier under the Euro- pean Community and Euratom treaties. Since then, yearly investments to com- munity research have grown by a factor of three in real terms; they now amount to 3.5 billion ecu per annum. The Framework Programme accounts for 4 percent of civil government-funded research in the union. Research also represents about 4 percent of the total community budget of some 90 billion ecu (by comparison the common agriculture policy accounts for about 50 percent and the structural funds for 32 percent). When other funding arrangements, such as EUREKA for industrial research collaboration, COST for joint research funded by 25 partici- pating countries, and those run by the European Space Agency, CERN for par- ticle physics, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and the European Sci- ence Foundation are included, the total European collaborative research effort accounted for 16 percent of government expenditures on civil research in 1996, compared with 6 percent in 1985. The majority of funding under the four Framework Programmes to date has been allocated to five broad themes: energy, life sciences, environment, industrial and materials technologies, and information and communications technologies. However, priorities have evolved over time. Energy research has diminished in relative importance; life sciences have progressively increased; and after increas- ing during the 1980s, information and communications technologies have de- clined somewhat. At the same time, a number of other research areas, such as transportation and socioeconomic research, have grown in importance, as have the horizontal activities (i.e., international cooperation, dissemination, and train- ing and mobility).
OCR for page 106
106 ANNEX Impact of Framework Programme on European Research The Framework Programme has had an impressive impact on European re- search. Multinational cooperation has become embedded in the European research system and international collaboration has become commonplace for researchers. For contracts signed in 1996 alone, the number of international linkages created by the Framework Programme amounted to over 70,000, resulting from 6,400 projects. Higher education establishments and research centers account for more than half of the total participation. Enterprises account for 38 percent of participa- tions, and there has been a noticeable increase of small- and medium-sized enter- prises. Based on aggregate data for 1995-1996, a shared-cost research project has an average EU contribution of ecu 0.8 million, an average of 5.2 partners per project, and an average of 3.4 member states per project. The framework and its specific programs are subject to comprehensive evalu- ation by outside experts. A monitoring exercise is conducted annually to provide input to improvements from year to year. A five-year retrospective assessment is required prior to the commission tabling proposals for new programs. THE FIFTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Development of the Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002) is based on wide consultation of experts in member states, research, industry, and policy- makers. The European Commission has recognized the need for community RTD within a broader strategy based on knowledge, research, innovation, education, and training. The European Union is rapidly integrating, under the impetus of a monetary union, while looking forward to future expansion and closer partnerships with its neighbors, within a wider and economically stronger Europe. There are major questions, such as employment, threats to the environment, stability of social systems, and the well-being of citizens, to be addressed alongside the issue of competitiveness in a world economy. Science and technology have become increasingly important to the fortunes of industries, nations, and regions, which are all going through major structural transitions. A strategic approach encompassing adaptations of structure, content, and management is needed for the Framework Programme to make the best of its potential. Stronger links are needed to industrial competitiveness, community policies, innovation, infrastructures, and the concerns of citizens. Selection Criteria The targeted and selective approach of the Fifth Framework Programme re- quires in addition to European added value specific criteria that assure the rel
OCR for page 107
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 107 evance ot research to the challenges facing the European Union and its member states. The criteria consist of three elements: · Criteria related to socioeconomic objectives improving the employment situation, promoting the quality of life and health, preserving the environ- ment. . Criteria related to economic development and scientific and technologi- cal prospects expanding areas with good growth prospects, fields in which activities can and must become more competitive, areas with sig- nificant technological opportunities. · Community value added and the subsidiarily principle critical mass in human and financial terms, complementary expertise, significant contri- bution to community policies, problems at the community level, standard- ization. development of the European area. For selection of research proposals the basic criteria will include, in addition to scientific and technological excellence, the innovativeness of a project, and the prospects for exploiting research results. Structure of the Fifth Framework Programme The key words for the Fifth Framework Programme are concentration and flexibility. The program is focused on more precise objectives, which are essen- tially socioeconomic rather than technological and call for integrated multidisci- plinary actions. Structures for implementation will allow more flexible allocation of resources to follow changing priorities. These changes should ensure that re search efforts undertaken are effectively translated into practical and visible re- sults. In contrast to the disciplinary structure of the Fourth Framework Programme, involving some 20 separate specific research programs, the commission has pro- posed a Fifth Framework Programme organized around seven individual pro- grams that include four thematic programs and three horizontal programs, with a budget of 16.3 billion ecu over four years. The four thematic programs cover life sciences and biotechnology, user- friendly information technologies, competitive and sustainable growth of indus- tries, and energy and environmental questions. They combine a focus on a limited number of objectives with actions to maintain and strengthen the science and technology base and consist of the following: Key actions are directed toward well-defined problems and objectives and will mobilize, through an integrated "system approach," various disci- plines and technologies needed to meet the goals. Generic research and development of technologies follow a more
OCR for page 108
OCR for page 109
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 109
OCR for page 110
OCR for page 111
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 111
OCR for page 112
2 ANNEX traditional approach to strengthen technological capabilities and ensure access to new knowledge and expertise. · Research infrastructure support optimizes the utilization and further de- velopment of infrastructure and facilities across Europe. The horizontal programs complement the thematic programs by focusing on issues of international cooperation, SMEs, dissemination and exploitation, train- ing, and mobility. They are common to all thematic programmer but also require · r. · . . specific activities. Socioeconomic Research In keeping with the treaty requirement to support the scientific and techno- logical bases of European industry, the Framework Programme has been mainly concerned with natural science and technology. However, increasing importance has been given to the social and economic aspects in successive programs. This acknowledges the substantial impact of social, behavioral, and economic factors on the development and use of science and technology. It also recognizes benefits achieved from the international linkages in these areas that would otherwise be addressed in a fragmentary manner. The Fifth Framework Programme has been designed to address socioeconomic research in several fronts. First, socioeconomic research is of importance in the thematic programs. Key actions follow an integrated interdisciplinary philosophy to optimize their economic, industrial, environmental, and social benefits. For example, in bio- technology and bioethics, transportation issues, energy and environment, and in- formation society, socioeconomic issues are of as much concern to citizens as the science and technology. Second, part of the horizontal program on "Improving Human Potential and the Socioeconomic Research Base" is dedicated to socioeconomic research as such, its focus being on the structural changes facing societies. Research will, for instance, be carried out on structural, demographic, and social trends; relation- ships between technological change, employment, and society; changing roles of European institutions, systems of governance and citizenship; and the validation of new development models. Third, research will be promoted on science and technology policy issues and related indicators to provide a basis for the development of future policies. The Joint Research Centre A proportion of funding under the Framework Programme (about 7.3 percent in the Fourth Framework Programme) is allocated to the European Community' s own research laboratory, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), through so-called direct
OCR for page 113
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 113
OCR for page 150
150 Joshua Foster National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Paul Foster Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology Robert Frederking Carnegie Mellon University Peter Fritz UFZ Umwaltforachungszentrum, Germany Bill Frymoyer Office of House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt Henry Fuchs University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Irene Gabriel Federal Ministry of Science and Transport, Austria Asa Gahne Embassy of Sweden Carmen Garcia Embassy of Spain Peter Gelbke BASE AG, Germany Rainer Gerold European Commission, DGXII Leslie A. Gerson Department of State ANNEX Richard Getzinger American Association for the Advancement of Science Anver Ghazi European Commission, DO XII John Giesy University of Michigan Joe Giglio Northeastern University Jim Glass Massachusetts Institute of Technology H. Glatz Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue Francois Govaerts European Commission, DO XII Martin Grabert KOWI, Germany Nicholas E. Graham International Research Institute Thomas Grandke Siemens Corporate Research, Inc. Jacqueline Grapin The European Institute L. Earl Gray National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Martha Graybowski Renesselear Polytechnic Institute Dan Greenberg Science & Government Report
OCR for page 151
PARTICIPANTS John Gresham DDR&E, Department of Defense Jeff Grove House Science Committee Eva Guterres Embassy of Sweden Erik Habers European Commission, DGIII Matthias Hack Bundesministerium fur Bildun und Wissenschaft, Germany Herbert Hager University of Agricultural Sciences, Austria Manuel Hallen National Science Foundation Jack Halpern University of Chicago Robert L. Hance Motorola Aaron Hand Photonics Spectra Gerald Hane Office of Science and Technology Policy Donna K. Harman National Institute of Standards and Technology Dan Hartley Sandia National Laboratories 151 Juris Hartmanis National Science Foundation Dr. Hasselman Max-Plank Institut, Germany Yvon Heckscher Heckscher Professional Group Susan Hedigan University College Dublin, Ireland Maria Hedqvist Embassy of Sweden Colin Helmer Department of State Bill Hendrickson Issues in Science and Technology Bert Herzog Computer Graphics, Inc. Thuy Hia Department of Commerce Lynette Hirschman Mitre Ron Hodge General Electric Alice Hogan Office of Science and Technology Policy Charles Holland Department of Defense Brooke Holmes Department of State
OCR for page 152
152 John B. Horrigan National Research Council John C. Horsley Department of Transportation Manfred Horvat BIT, Austria Edward Howard National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kay Howell NCOCIC Jeanne Hudson National Science Foundation Caitlin Hughes Department of Transportation Charles A. Hunnicutt Department of Transportation Sharon Hyrnkow National Institutes of Health Veijo Ilmavirta Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Marie-Christine Imbert INRIA, France Richard Jackson National Institute of Standards and Technology Said Jahanmir Department of Commerce ANNEX William James Procter and Gamble Margaret Jenny U.S. Airways James Jensen National Academy of Sciences Lynn Johnson National Academy of Science Peter Jones Transport Studies Group, UK Gary Jones Sandia National Laboratories Gilbert Kalb GMD German National Research Center for Information Technology Tom Kalil National Economic Council The White House Ray Kammer National Institute of Standards and Technology Marie-Ange Katzeff Embassy of Belgium Robert J. Kavlock National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Samuel Kavruck Washington Counseletter Martin Kayser BASE
OCR for page 153
PARTICIPANTS Keith Keen European Commission, DGVII Hannu Kemppainen Tekes, Finland Melinda L. Kimble Department of State Kelly Kirkpatrick Office of Science and Technology Policy Judith Klavans Columbia University John P. Klus University of Wisconsin-Madison Martin Koubek Department of Transportation Steve Krauwer University of Utrecht, The Netherlands John Krebs, FRS Natural Environment Research Council, UK Norman Kreisman Department of Energy Anssi Kuj ala Embassy of Finland Damian Kulash ENO Foundation Kathleen Kunzer Chemical Manufacturers Association 153 Kristina A. Kvien Department of State Patrice Laget US Delegation of the European Union Gordon John Lake European Parliament Richard Lamb ert Department of Health and Human Services Ron Larsen Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Lisbeth Lawrence United Medical & Dental Schools Graham Lawton Chemistry and Industry Magazine Carolyn Leep Chemical Manufacturers Association Hans Lehmann Kontakstelle Biomed, Germany Risto Lemmela Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Wil Lepkowski Chemical & Engineering News Josh Lerner Harvard Business School Michael Lesk National Science Foundation
OCR for page 154
154 Tore Li Royal Norwegian Embassy Helmut List Industrial Research and Development Advisory Council Ron Lorton Department of State George Lucier National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences George Luckett Shell Chemical Europe Ltd. Janet Lynch General Electric Johannes Mater Bosch Erminio Marafante Ispra Gennaro Marino University of Naples, Italy Steve Mautner National Academy Press Gail McCarthy Electric Power Research Institute Roger McClellan Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology Bill McCluskey United States Navy ANNEX Clark McFadden Dewey Ballantine Jean-Pierre Medevielle INRETS, France Joaquin Melia Universitat de Valencia, Spain Jose Amaral Mendes University of Evora, Portugal Steve Merrill National Research Council Gerard Meyer Carnegie Mellon Research Institute John C. Miles Ankerbold International Ltd. Kevin Mills Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Norman Y. Mineta Lockheed Martin IMS Ana Mirones Portugal Alfonso Molina University of Edinburgh Michael Moloney Embassy of Ireland Linda Moodie National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OCR for page 155
PARTICIPANTS Duncan T. Moore Office of Science and Technology Policy Gordon Moore Intel Corp. Bill Morin R. Wayne Sayer & Associates Grant Moser Business Publishers Kelly Jacobs Mudd Environmental Protection Agency Mort Mullins Chemical Manufacturers Association Jeremiah Murphy Siemens Corporation Antonio Navarra Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy Eric A. Nerlinger Zentrum fur Europaische Wirtschaftsforschung, Germany Mikko Niini Kvaerner Masa-Yards, Finland Stefan Noll Fraunhofer-Institut fur Graphische, Germany Robert C. North United States Coast Guard Headquarters Robert Norwood NASA Headquarters 155 W.C. Oechel San Diego State University John C. Oldfield National Research Council Scott Pace Critical Technologies Institute, RAND Hugo Paemen U.S. Delegation of the European Union Jeff Paniati Department of Transportation Ron Parsons CommerceNet Markus Pasterk Federal Ministry for Science and Transport, Austria Marcus Pattloch DFN-Verein, Germany Louis-Francois Pau Ericsson, Sweden Fabian Pease Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency John Sarborg Pedersen Embassy of Denmark Maria Luz Penacoba Spain Karin Petersen Palo Alto Research Park
OCR for page 156
156 William A. Peterson Department of Education Kees Planque Embassy of The Netherlands Gary Poehlein National Science Foundation Alan Poole DOW Europe S.A. E. Praestgaard European Science and Technology Assembly Peter Preuss Environmental Protection Agency Thomas Price American Association of Engineering Societies William E. Primosch Department of State Knud Prytz Scandlines, Denmark George Radda Medical Research Council, UK F.J. Radermacher FAW Ulm, Germany Saifur Rahman National Science Foundation Geoff Randall Zeneca, UK Brian Randell University of Newcastle, UK ANNEX Steve Rattien RAND Scott Rayder House Science Committee Ruth Reck University of California, Davis Lucy H. Richards Department of Commerce Giovanni Rinaldi Italy John Rodman RAMS-FIE Philippa Rogers Embassy of Great Britain Laura Rosato L.R. Associates Ronald Rosenfeld Carnegie Mellon Christopher Ross US Delegation of the European Union M.D.A. Rounsevell Cranfield University, UK Jorma Routti European Commission, DGXII Tom Rozzell National Research Council Roland Ruhle University of Stuttgart, Germany
OCR for page 157
PARTICIPANTS Jason Rushton Innolog Lee Sanders University of Warwick Scott Sandgathe United States Navy Margarida Santos Instituto de Cooperacao Cientifica e Tecnologica Internacional, Portugal Roger Sattler University of Maryland Claire Saundry National Institute of Standards and Technology R. Wayne Sayer R. Wayne Sayer & Associates Wendy Schacht Congressional Research Service Dr. Schacke Ministry of Transportation, Denmark Ingolf Schaedler Federal Ministry for Science and Transport, Austria Wolfgang Schlump Embassy of Germany Wolfram Schoett Embassy of Germany Christopher Schonwalder National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 157 Gregory Schuckman American Association of Engineering Societies Craig Schultz National Research Council Stuart J.D. Schwartzstein Office of Naval Research Europe Bernard Schwetz Food and Drug Administration Rob Scott Economic Policy Institute Alan Sears Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency H. Segner Center for Environmental Research, Germany Dieter Seltzer Fraunhofer Institute, Germany Lisa Shaffer University of California John Shamaly Silicon Valley Group Michael Shelby NIEHS Kenneth Shine Institute of Medicine Jagadish Shukla Institute of Global Environment and Society, Inc.
OCR for page 158
158 Susan M. Sieber Division of Cancer Epidemiology Robert Skinner Transportation Research Board Horst Soboll DaimlerBenz Technology, Germany Randall Soderquist Office of Senator Bingaman Elizabeth Sokul House Committee on Science Micheal Sollosi US Coast Guard Bill Spencer SEMATECH Scott Stafford DDR&E, Department of Defense Linda Staheli National Institutes of Health Attilio Stajano European Commission, DO III Volker Steinbiss Philips Speech Processing, Germany Robert Stern Consultant in Technology Management Carrie Stevens U.S. General Accounting Office Macol Stewart National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ANNEX Matthew Stiff Museum Documentation Association, United Kingdom Deborah Stirling Stirling Strategic Services George Strawn National Science Foundation Gary W. Strong National Science Foundation Orson Swindle Federal Trade Commission Istvan Szemenyei Embassy of the Republic of Hungary Rob Taalman CEFIC-EMSG Tyrone Taylor Federal Laboratory Consortium Alexander Tenenbaum Embassy of Italy Francois-Xavier Testard-Vaillant Embassy of France William B. Testerman, II House Science Committee Costantino Thanos CNR, Italy Richard Thayer Telecommunications & Technologies International Bonnie H. Thompson National Science Foundation
OCR for page 159
PARTICIPANTS Gavin Thomson European Economic Development Services, Lid Sandra Tirey Chemical Manufacturers Association Marja-Leena Tolonen TEKES, Finland Alan Tonelson US Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation Francoise Touraine-Moulin Embassy of France Kevin Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research Charles Trimble Trimble Navigation Robert Tuch German-American Academic Council James Turner House Science Committee Franklin Urteaga Office of Science and Technology Policy Steve Usdin Endocrine-Estrogen Newsletter Hans Uszkoreit DFKI, Germany Allie Uyehara Uyehara International Associates Inc. 159 Cecil Uyehara Uyehara International Associates Inc. Riccardo Valentini Universita della Tusscia, Italy Anja Van Dam Royal Netherlands Embassy Thierry van der Pyl European Commission, DGIII Reinder J. Van Duinen European Science and Technology Assembly G. van Oortmerssen CWI, The Netherlands Gerrit Vanderwees Embassy of the Netherlands Dave Varney Federal Information and News Dispatch Pedro Veiga FCCN, Portugal Nicholas Vonortas George Washington University J.G. Vos RIVM, The Netherlands Meredith Wadman Press Caroline Wagner Rand Shukri Wakid Department of Commerce
OCR for page 160
160 Michael Wallace University of Washington Michael Waters National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Albert Wavering National Institute of Standards and Technology Peter Webster University of Colorado Tom Weimer National Academy of Sciences Clifford Weinstein Massachusetts Institute of Technology Charles Wessner National Research Council John Westensee Aarhus School of Business, Denmark Christopher Whaley Embassy of Great Britain ANNEX Chelsea C. White University of Michigan Wendy White National Academy of Sciences Isabel Wolte Embassy of Austria David N. Wormley Pennsylvania State University William Wulf National Academy of Engineering Kenneth Wykle Department of Transportation Dr. Yelloz GEC Alsthom Signalling Antonio Zampolli Instituto di Linguistica Computazionale, Italy
Representative terms from entire chapter: