National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Selected Bibliography
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendixes." National Research Council. 1999. New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9455.
×
Page 160

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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."

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).

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

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

108 ANNEX

EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 109

110 ANNEX

EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 111

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

EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 113

4 ANNEX

EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 115

116 ANNEX actions. The JRC's main role is to provide neutral and impartial scientific and technical support to the development of community policies and regulations. The activities of the JRC are focused on areas where its skills and equip- ment in many cases unique to Europe can provide added value, through cli- ent/supplier relationships with the commission' s policy work. JRC is participat- ing also in "indirect" actions under the Framework Programme, as partner in trans-European consortia, where it competes with other research proposers in the normal manner. CONCLUSIONS This paper describes the role and broad objectives of the Framework Programme and gives a picture of the program in the coming years. The program is both a political instrument, designed to deliver tangible results for community policies and innovation, and a funding mechanism sensitive to the demands of national participants. The program has benefited European research but never- theless needs to be updated and made more strategic. By focusing effort at the community level on truly strategic challenges for Europe, it is hoped that the program will have a more profound impact to the benefit of the European Union' s citizens. REFERENCES Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (1998-2002), Commission Working Paper on Specific Programmes: Starting Points for Discussion, Brussels. European Commission, Science, Research, Development: The Commission's Pro- posal for the 5th Framework Programme (1998-2002~. European Commission, Science, Research, Development: Towards the 5th Frame- work Programme - Scientific and Technological Objectives. European Commission, Science, Research, Development: Inventing Tomorrow, Europe's Research at the Service of Its People, Preliminary Guidelines for the Fifth Framework Programme. Green Paper on Innovation, Bulletin of the European Union, Supplement 5/95.

Mullilingual Information Management Gary Strong National Science Foundation MOTIVATION Every day new computer users link to the World Wide Web and more infor- mation is made available on it. Most of this growth is in Europe and Asia; by one estimate, annual growth for English documents is 50 percent and for other lan- guages over 90 percent. Nobody can speak all of the world's languages. Therefore, every individual, every business, and every government suffers a strategic gap in the new world infostructure. Technology must be developed to support the locating, translating, browsing, and dissemination of multilingual information of both spoken and writ- ten language. This technology can be deployed in many ways. Compelling ap- plications include: Commerce technology watch for foreign business opportunities and challenges, tourism and commerce via the World Wide Web and e-mail; Education learning and browsing from foreign sources (for term papers, projects, etc.) and foreign-language instruction, even just to browsing level; Government information dissemination to citizens in various languages (of tax forms, census information, etc.) and information assimilation for strategic purposes (environmental monitoring, intelligence, etc). CURRENT SITUATION Despite considerable advances in language-processing technology required 117

118 ANNEX to support multilingual information access in both the United States and Europe, what is not yet available, not even pilot research systems, is an integrated multi- lingual information access service that includes voice and typed modalities, IR, MT, and browsing and display capabilities. The core technical obstacles that must be addressed fall into three classes: . . . . . Cross-lingual IR and MT This entire research area is so young that even the broad outlines of how to proceed are controversial. Basic research is urgently needed to determine which of these directions would be the most fruitful to pursue. Example directions are investigating various combina- tions of IR and MT, including how exactly IR and MT should be interre- lated; identifying the lexical and semantic asymmetries between languages in order to develop methods to avoid cross-language error proliferation; and investigating novel techniques that do not combine IR and MT, such as translingual Generalized Vector Space Models or Latent Semantic In- dexing. Multilingual speech processing Research is required in the core area of multilingual speech recognition and synthesis, including the deployment of language identification and appropriate language switching, in an inte- grated system. · Large multilingual digital information collections Researchis required in the collection, standardization, deployment, and maintenance of text resources from the government (including the Census Bureau and Library of Congress) and business sectors (including encyclopedias and technical manuals). Three support efforts are required to ensure success: Resources Building on the European Union's standardization experience in the EAGLES project, lexical, textual, semantic, and spoken resources and corpora must be collected, standardized, annotated, and supported to enable rapid and coordinated research and development (R&D) toward robust processing and wide coverage. Evaluation Building on the U.S. experiences with TREC (for JR), MT EVAL (for MT), MUC (for information extractions), several speech rec- ognition evaluation programs, and others, an evaluation paradigm must be designed for multilingual access tasks, and a series of evaluation meet- ings must be held to measure the progress of research. Interfaces The interfaces currently used by IR, MT, speech, and related systems were not designed to support interactions with integrated multi- lingual systems. Appropriate designs are required to handle, in a fully integrated way, speech recognition, IR, MT, document display and brows- ing, speech synthesis, summary generation, and so forth.

MULTILINGUAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 119 Participants at the First International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) and the workshop sponsored by the National Science Foun- dation on multilingual information management identified the need for research and development in multilingual information management and access that would coordinate and integrate efforts languages as well as applications and core tech- nologies (e.g., syntactic analysis, sense disambiguation). To this end they empha- sized the need to establish an international collaborative framework to support and define the effort. By the nature of multilingual information access and with the current capa- bilities of various research groups in the United States and European Union, a collaboration between the two regions would benefit both. The mutual comple- mentarity exists because of the following: . . U.S. strengths: (1) Breadth and depth of all aspects of English IR, MT, speech processing summarization, and core technology (the United States has spent as much on R&D in English, as the European Union has spent on all its various languages combined); (2) significant competence in sev- eral Asian languages, including Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, as well as access to students from the Far East and India; and (3) experi- ence in multilingual language processing evaluation, including problems of TREC and MUC. EU strengths: (1) Well-established efforts to create standards for linguis- tic resources (in particular, EAGLES and SIMPLE); (2) experience with resource creation, including multilingual resource creation, that imple- ments these standards; (3) experience with cross-lingual issues in inte- grated multilingual systems; and (4) breadth and depth in European lan- guages, notably in languages of non-Indo-European origin such as Finnish, Basque, and Turkish, as well as access to languages of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and China via several contracts. The participants articulated key areas to be addressed by this collaborative effort in support of multilingual information access: annotated, standardized mul- tilingual resources; tools to develop the resources; evaluation paradigms to assess the state of the art and encourage progress in various technologies. These con- cerns reflect the growing importance and demonstrated success of data resources to support automated language processing applications. The resources range from balanced text and speech corpora to corpora annotated for the occurrence of lin- guistic phenomena (names, noun phrases) to higher-level resources, such as lexi- cons with syntactic and semantic information. Resource development represents an excellent area for international cooperation, since each country has access to materials in its language, the linguistics expertise to provide reliable annotation,

20 ANNEX and the motivation to provide its citizens and industry with monolingual informa- tion access tools for that particular language, as well as multilingual access to the global information space. Multilingual Resource Creation Work in multilingual information processing requires assembling balanced comparable or parallel corpora for multiple languages, together with linguistic resources such as translation lexicons, including syntactic and semantic informa- tion, ontologies (WordNet, EuroWordNet, SIMPLE), and so forth. In addition to supporting the creation of resources in itself, one of the key challenges is to de- velop standardized data formats and annotation paradigms that are applicable across languages and applications. Europe has already invested considerable effort in both resource creation and standards development (via projects such as EAGLES and PAROLE). Because of the multilingual environment, Europe has also considered lexical and semantic asymmetries between languages, which is required to develop core technologies applicable across languages and avoid cross-language error proliferation. U.S.- European cooperation would enable the United States to benefit from the Euro- pean experience in these areas; as a start, the National Science Foundation work- shop participants recommended that the United States join the EAGLES standardization effort as soon as possible. It is important to point out that linguis- tic resources must be made freely (i.e., without legal incumbrance) for research use. Tools One major challenge i' s to provide tools that enable multilingual resource creation and annotation. Such tools would dramatically decrease the cost of re- source creation, standardize data formats, and improve the quality of data annota- tion. These tools must apply across multiple languages, multiple writing sys- tems, and multiple media (speech, language, and video). There is already significant international cooperation namely the Transcriber tool (collaboration between DGA/DCE/CTA/GIP France, and the LDC, United States), and collabo- ration on a multilingual text processing environment, GATE, between the Uni- versity of Sheffield in the United Kingdom and NMSU in the United States. If we add to this a freely available multilingual annotation tool (e.g., Mitre's Alembic Workbench), together with a syntax annotation tool (e.g., DFKI's syntax annota- tion tool, the SIMPLE syntax and semantic tools), we would obtain a powerful, uniform corpus preparation environment. Tools for the creation of other resources, such as lexicons, also exist, which could potentially be adapted to a common environment.

MULTILINGUAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Evaluation 121 The technology evaluation paradigm of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency has proved remarkably successful in fostering progress in key areas, including speech understanding, information extraction, and information retrieval. For speech this evaluation paradigm has resulted in a decrease in word error by a factor of two every two years and commercially available medium-to- large vocabulary recognition systems. A number of EU/U.K. groups (Cambridge, Phillips, LIMSI) have participated with great success in these evaluations, in ad- dition to both university and industry groups in the United States (e.g., Dragon, IBM, CMU, SRI, OGI). In information extraction the introduction of component metrics for name identification has resulted in rapid commercialization of multilingual name ex- traction technology. In addition, there are now comparable kinds of evaluation going for French under the auspices of Aupelf-Uref. The text retrieval workshop has been international from its inception. Thus, evaluation is another obvious place to combine U.S. expertise in evaluation and EU expertise in multilingual corpus creation and standardization to increase cooperative multilingual evalua- tions in key technology areas, for example, broadcast news understanding, cross- language document retrieval, and word sense disambiguation. SUMMARY A research program of approximately five years is recommended to address the core obstacles preventing a fuller understanding of multilingual information access and to begin to foster a suitable climate for commercial exploitation. Such a program should include the following broad thrusts: development and support of multilingual resource creation, standardization, and maintenance; development of an evaluation paradigm and support of and evaluation program; and investiga- tion of tie-ins of multilingual information access to related IT areas. We recommend that this be accomplished by establishing an international U.S.-EU collaborative effort, with two major aims: provision of a broad frame- work for research that specifically addresses issues and technologies across lan- guages, applications, etc., and provides for interaction, feedback, and collabora- tion across these areas, and joint development of technology through the fostering of collaborative projects between Europe and the United States. The outcomes of such a program should, if successful, ultimately enable application in commerce (e.g., technology watch), education (e.g., report writing), and government (e.g., environment monitoring) across a wide variety of languages and domains.

Charge for Electronic Commerce Subgroup Ray Kammer, Director, National Institutes of Standards and Technology The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other international organizations have expressed their belief that "the exponential growth and diffusion of the Internet [are] quickly making the promise of wide- spread electronic commerce a reality. High-speed, interconnected global networks like the Internet provide new ways to conduct commercial transactions, generate new markets and revenue streams, lower transactional costs, and forge new rela- tionships between businesses and consumers." The goal of this subgroup is to identify concrete opportunities for coopera- tive activities between the United States and the European Union in the area of electronic commerce. We will seek to identify gaps in current research plans and work together to establish joint projects to fill them. Common issues and ques- tions will be noted for discussion at a subsequent conference. As an example of some potential areas of discussion, attendees of a recent public industry workshop on electronic commerce in the United States delivered the following major conclusions: A lack of interoperability among technologies is a major inhibitor to elec- tronic commerce. A window of opportunity exists to put a framework in place before the market fragments into incompatible point solutions, thereby slowing the evolution of electronic commerce. · Access to trusted information through electronic commerce will empower the consumer and businesses of all sizes. 122

CHARGE FOR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SUBGROUP 123 The attendees further identified the following areas of innovative technology as being promising possibilities for future research and development: multi-ap- plication smart card infrastructure, distributed intelligent search protocols, intel- ligent markets, webs of trust, and public key infrastructure (PKI). We are very fortunate to have here a distinguished group of experts repre- senting industry and government from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Each speaker will present a brief presentation, which will be followed by questions and answers and discussions. I am pleased to introduce the first speaker Ric Jack- son, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. SAMPLE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER DURING THE DISCUSSIONS From OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "Dismantling the Barriers to Global Electronic Commerce," November 1997, Turku, Finland: (1) How best can technologies and policies be developed to help protect or aid in the prosecution of intellectual property rights violators? (2) How can technological solutions be used to protect consumers? What are the best mechanisms for developing and deploying these solutions? (3) To what degree can technological solutions give users confidence that their privacy is being pro- tected? What complementary solutions are needed? (4) To what degree can tech- nological solutions instill trust in electronic commerce? (5) What is the best mechanism for making commercial codes compatible with global electronic com- merce? Today, information technology influences almost all areas of human en- deavor, creating new products, services, and industries. Vice President Gore said that "we are on the verge of a revolution that is just as profound as the change in the economy that came with the industrial revolution. Soon electronic networks will allow people to transcend the barriers of time and distance and take advan- tage of global markets and business opportunities not even imaginable today, opening up a new world of economic possibility and progress." It is my pleasure to have been invited to chair the breakout session on infor- mation technologies. As you have already heard, the U.S. government and the European Commission recently signed a new science and technology agreement to enhance U.S.-European cooperation on a broad range of science and technol- ogy Issues. Information technology is one of the important issues that has been selected for discussion at this session. I would like to introduce the U.S. and the European representatives who have been instrumental in organizing this discussion session: EU Representative Thierry van der Pyl, ESPRIT, and U.S. Representative- Tom Kalil, National Economic Council, White House. The breakout sessions are designed to identify concrete opportunities for cooperative activities in different thematic areas by bringing together policy- makers and researchers from both sides of the Atlantic. The information tech

24 ANNEX nologies session will split into three subgroups. Each subgroup session will in- clude researchers from government, universities, and industry, as well as policymakers from both sides of the Atlantic. The topics for the subgroups are next-generation Internet, electronic commerce, and translingual information man- agement. We are very fortunate to have participation from top-level officials and an exceptionally broad range of experts. I thank Tom Kalil for agreeing to chair the are next-generation Internet subgroup and Gary Strong and Roberto Cencioni for chairing the translingual information management subgroup. I have the honor of chairing the e-commerce subgroup. Common issues and questions will be noted for discussion at a subsequent conference to be held in Europe in the fall or to be taken up in official channels such as the Joint Consultative Group.

White Papers on Transportation Research U.S. Department of Transportation OPPORTUNITIES FOR EU AND U.S. COOPERATION IN GLOBAL NAVIGATION AND APPLICATIONS The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is being defined by the In- ternational Civil Aviation Organization for use worldwide. This global re- source currently based on the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Russian GLONASS system will be the first to provide the entire world with a single-position, navigation, and timing system that will be equally accurate and accessible in all populated areas of the world. The GNSS system will be able to be used by all modes of transportation and by many other users (e.g., surveying, geodesy, farming, telecommunications firms, power distribution, international timing, weather prediction). Currently, through the auspices of many interna- tional organizations, the European Union and the United States are already shar- ing information and research in the areas listed above. However, the European Union and the United States have the opportunity to cooperate in several new areas. Spectrum Protection · Allocation protection. Signals that are used by both GPS and GLONASS are currently protected internationally via their allocation status of Aero- nautical Radionavigation Service. Users in the adjacent bands would like to change the rules to allow potentially interfering signals to be transmit- ted in this same band. This infringement could cause the entire GNSS 125

26 ANNEX . . . program to be seriously hindered in its development. The United States would like to discuss ways to prevent this encroachment, ways to deal with other interfering signals in the band, and technologies to monitor the band to ensure compliance. Security. The GNSS system will allow for improvements in many areas of critical infrastructure. As such it will become the backbone for both criti- cal safety and economically critical systems. This makes the GNSS sys- tem both a tool and a target for military users, both friendly and hostile, and other hostile users such as terrorists. · Military testing notification system. Owing to its ability to provide pre- cise positioning and navigation, the GNSS system is a candidate for ex- ploitation by hostile military forces. For this reason, friendly nations' militaries will develop means of denial for the signals. Testing of the denial equipment and the training regimen for the friendly forces could cause harmful interference to "safety-of-life" systems. A system of data sharing and transmission of alerts for both domestic and international trav- elers needs to be developed that will prevent accidents from occurring because of military testing and training. This system can be a new system developed just for the GNSS system or an evolution of an existing alert network such as the ones used for distributing Notice to Airmen and No- tice to Mariners. European Union participation in defining the new or evolved system is necessary for a uniform and seamless worldwide sys- tem to come to fruition. Civil signal protection from interference. The GNSS signals are very low-power signals and as such can be easily denied because of interfer- ence or overwhelmed by false signals transmitted by hostiles. The United States is interested in defining civilian means of dealing with these threats to the GNSS system given its safety and economic importance. The re- sponse to the threat can come in several levels that deal with nonharmful interference, unintentional interference, and harmful intentional interfer- ence. The United States would like to work with the European Union to expand its current security ties for early identification of parties that may try to intentionally cause harmful interference for safety or economic ter- rorist reasons. In addition, we need to work together to develop technolo- gies to identify, eliminate, or respond in some fashion to all other kinds of interference that originate from unexpected sources and the means for sharing data on these types of occurrences. Definition of the Next-Generation GPS Third civil signal. In March 1998, the Vice President announced that the United States would be modifying a military signal for use as a second civil signal and adding a third civil signal to the GPS satellites. One of

WHITE PAPERS ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH 127 these signals will be chosen to be the second "safety-of-life" signal and will require comparable international allocation protection as we are pur- suing for the current civil signal. The third signal will be available for use by the scientific, precise positioning, and other users (such as weather forecasters, surveyors, and telecommunications firms) that may be able to tolerate short-duration outages caused by localized interference. The United States would like to have input from the European Union for se- lecting the second "safety-of-life" signal and participation in the defini- tion of the new signal structure for the third civil signal. · Constellation evolution~augmentation. The current GPS constellation is undergoing a review by the U.S. government. The future constellation may look different from the current constellation. In addition, the GPS constellation will be supplemented by other spacecraft to fulfill an aug- mentation role in the GNSS or for other purposes. Involvement in the definition of the look of the future constellation and the signals from these other satellites would be beneficial to both the United Stats and European Union. Sharing of Operational Data · GNSS database of status reports. To provide GNSS users with the most up-to-date information, a means of sharing health and status reports must be developed. These reports allow users to know what satellites are not healthy and why and what augmentation systems are having difficulties and why. Armed with this knowledge, users will be able to make in- formed choices that affect them. For example, aircraft will be able to make dynamic route-planning changes, and surveyors will be able to more efficiently schedule when and where they will be able to work. Coopera- tion with the European Union to develop the database standards and inter- faces for this type of system is essential to the success of GNSS. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: SURFACE APPLICATIONS The United States and the European Union have both recognized the poten- tial for using intelligent transportation systems (ITS s) to improve the mobility, safety, and productivity of their transportation systems. Since the early 1990s both groups have implemented aggressive programs of research, operational test- ing, and deployment support (architecture, standards, training, etc.) for ITSs. There have been three formal exchanges between the ITS staff of the U.S. De- partment of Transportation (DOT) and the staff of the European Commission in DGXIII, DGVII, most recently at the ITS World Congress in Berlin. In addition, there have been informal exchanges of technical and programmatic information

28 ANNEX through the World Road Association and the annual world congresses. The ex- changes to date have largely been at a high level, without sufficient follow-up or staff support. As ITS in the United States and Europe moves from an era of research to one of deployment, the importance and value of the exchange of in- formation and technology will increase. Significant areas for cooperation are discussed below. Year 2000 Problem Many ITS legacy systems were programmed to use just two digits to keep track of the date. On January 1, 2000, these systems could recognize a "double zero" not as 2000 but as 1900. They could stop running or start generating inac- curate data. Among those potentially at risk are computers that operate ITS sys- tems, such as synchronized traffic signals, electronic tolls, and automatic vehicle locators used by buses or trucks. Work is under way at DOT to determine the impact of the year 2000 computer problem on ITS s and to identify solutions. A national summit, hosted by DOT, will bring together state and local transporta- tion officials, business leaders, transportation technology suppliers, and others to evaluate the year 2000 problem's possible effects on ITSs, identify solutions, and develop ways to promote their implementation nationwide. Since the ITS legacy systems in place in Europe are similar to those in the United States, it is expected that the year 2000 problem is an important European issue as well. The extent of the problem in Europe and the solutions that have been identified are not well known in the United States. Collaboration on this issue can prove beneficial for minimizing the international impacts of the year 2000 problem on mobility, safety, and productivity. Standards Both the United States and the European Union have been aggressively pur- suing the development of standards. The United States has been working through standards development organizations (e.g., Institute of Transportation Engineers, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers) to develop consensus standards. The Euro- peans have been working through the European standardization organization, CEN. Both groups will be faced with the issue of implementing the standards in their respective countries. Discussions on alternate approaches for encouraging the use of standards and the role of government in testing and certifying standards may prove beneficial. There is also the need to continue discussions on harmoni- zation of standards between the United States and Europe. There has been some discussion through the International Standards Organization. All parties agree that there is value in being more collaborative in the development of standards;

WHITE PAPERS ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH 129 however, not all ITS standards require international harmonization. We should target only those few where there is significant payoff. Architecture The United States has pursued a national top-down approach through the development of a national ITS architecture using an aggressive consensus- building effort throughout the development. A total of 30 regional public fore designed to obtain stakeholder feedback for guiding the national ITS architecture were held at several stages of development. The national architecture was also approved by ITS America in 1996. DOT is now maintaining the architecture, conducting training, providing deployment guidance, and promoting architecture consistency. The Europeans have taken a much more bottom-up approach, focusing on a more carefully designed research-oriented effort. The European Commission's Transport Telematics Applications Programme (T-TAP) has been working to con- solidate system architecture development efforts through 64 projects covering all transportation modes. In addition, the System Architecture and Traffic Control Integration Task Force, initiated in 1994, has developed a recommended method- ology for developing a Pan-European ITS architecture. There may be some benefit from selective harmonization between the two efforts. ITS America has formally requested that the ITS Joint Program Office launch an exchange between the United States and Europe for the purpose of tying to harmonize architectures wherever possible. There are certainly opportu- nities to share lessons learned as both groups move forward using ITS architec- ture as a tool for facilitating the planning, design, and implementation of inte- grated systems. Intelligent Vehicles Both the United States and Europe have been pursuing research on advanced vehicle control and safety systems (AVCSSs). Recently, the United States has consolidated its vehicle-based efforts under the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI). This effort combines ongoing research on crash avoidance and automated high- way systems into a single program focused primarily on improving highway safety. The IVI will use an evolutionary approach, working in partnership with industry to develop technologies that enhance driver performance. The Europeans have also been working to improve highway safety through the development of AVCSSs. The Program for a European Traffic with Highest Efficiency and Unprecedented Safety, Dedicated Road Infrastructure for Vehicle Safety in Europe II, and T-TAP efforts have included significant research in the AVCSS area. These efforts have included strong industry participation and both

130 ANNEX autonomous (vehicle-based) and cooperative (vehicle and infrastructure-based) systems. Significant opportunities for cooperation, including joint research, exist in the intelligent vehicle arena. To date, these have not been pursued. Deployment The United States has had significant technological accomplishments through its ITS research and operational testing efforts. ITS is now beginning to be de- ployed across the country. A primary concern is the degree to which the systems being deployed are being integrated across agency, jurisdictional, and modal boundaries. Transportation system planning and implementation processes must be changed to overcome this challenge. The federal ITS program includes a multipronged approach of model deployment, technical guidance, training, and funding incentives to facilitate integrated deployment. The European Union faces similar, perhaps more difficult, problems in try- ing to achieve integrated deployment throughout Europe. Individual countries have formed organizations to facilitate deployment through cooperation between government and industry. The European Union and the European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organization (ERTICO) provide um- brella organizations to develop overall implementation strategies and coopera- tion. However, the follow-through on ITS deployment is largely left up to the individual countries, with varying approaches on issues such as architecture, pub- lic versus private-sector roles, and so forth. Given that both parties are moving much more heavily into the deployment of ITS, that there is value to integrated deployment, and that there are clear barri- ers to achieving this integration, there are significant opportunities to exchange information on strategies and approaches. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: MARITIME SAFETY The U.S. Coast Guard has a statutory responsibility to ensure the safety and environmental protection of U.S. ports and waterways. In the course of meeting that responsibility the Coast Guard oversees the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) program. A National Dialogue Group composed of national representatives of maritime, port, and public stakeholders was convened to define the basic ele- ments of a VTS and to identify mariners' information needs. This group con- cluded that a VTS is an important tool for ensuring safety in a waterway. The National Dialogue Group specifically recommended an emerging technology, Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), as the principal technology for new VTS systems and to improve navigation safety in non-VTS areas.

WHITE PAPERS ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH The AIS Concept 131 An AIS uses radio transponders carried on vessels. An AIS transponder repeatedly broadcasts vital information about the vessel. This information may include important data about the vessel such as name, type, position (using differ- ential GPS integrated into the system), course, speed, navigation status, dimen- sions, or type of cargo. When coupled with an appropriate display capability, the AIS transponder approach gives real-time navigation and vessel traffic information to the mariner in the wheelhouse. An important aspect of AIS is that it electronically exchanges digital information between all AIS-equipped vessels and thereby reduces the intrusive voice radio traffic associated with congested ports. Within a VTS area, AIS transponders will manage the exchange of data be- tween vessels and the shore-based Vessel Traffic Center (VTC). The VTC would receive signals from every transponder in range, combine them, and then retrans- mit necessary data to all participating vessels in the VTS area. The VTS could enhance the information by including up-to-the-minute water depths, weather, current speed and direction, or other safety-related information. The mariner may then consult the display to make better decisions on collision avoidance and navigation. Outside a VTS area, AIS transponders would work in ship-to-ship mode. The transponders would broadcast information and would in turn receive infor- mation from transponder-equipped ships nearby. International Implications In order for AIS to be universally adopted, it requires international coopera- tion in developing functional and technical standards. It will further require the universal adoption of highly accurate navigation and positioning and agreement on communications protocols. International standards for shipboard displays and data exchange also will be needed. The Coast Guard is pursuing further develop- ment of international standards as a high priority. STRATEGIC ENABLING RESEARCH Research is derived from our need to respond to a changing world. Safety and security concerns, land-use and demographic trends, globalization of trade and economic growth, environmental preservation, and social policy concerns are some key challenges driving transportation research, in particular. Enabling research provides a foundation for making steady technological advances and fostering breakthroughs that will be required to meet twenty-first century trans- portation needs. This is done by creating new transportation-related technologies and building from other related systems and strategies. Six focus areas are iden

32 ANNEX rifled in a recent U.S. Federal Transportation Science and Technology Strategy as those that will foster innovative and cutting-edge research for developing future transportation technologies to help address these challenges. Since enabling re- search will have a longer-term focus and be of higher risk, it will tend to have broad applications to multiple aspects of the transportation system (vehicles, in- frastructure, and human performance). The six areas and opportunities for col- laboration (in italics) are as follow: . Human performance and behavior (e.g., simulation, adaptive automation, fatigue monitoring, information fusion). Collaborative research in this area could be aimed at understanding how transportation system users and op- erators perceive, process, and act on information in real-world situations. Two U.S. multimodal research initiatives on human factors have been identi- fied to guide development of technologies and procedures that maximize human safety and efficiency in transportation-related activities one explores advanced institutional technology and the other alertness andfatigue. . . . Advanced materials and structures (e.g., fiber-reinforced plastics, new steel alloys, composite materials, and adhesives). Recent technical ad- vances have produced a wide variety of new materials and techniques to support research on new generations of vehicle components, vehicle pro- pulsion systems, and transportation-related construction materials and techniques. Collaboration on the application of materials advances to the transporta- tion infrastructure could include demonstrations of their effectiveness, long-term viability, and cost competitiveness in enhancing safety and per- formance. Computer, information, and communications systems (e.g., software assurance, high-confidence systems, modeling, simulation, networks/next- generation Internet, wireless communications). Modern transportation sys- tems require accurate and timely information as innovation through infor- mation infrastructures is integrated into transportation system elements and functions. To improve the efficiency, safety, and performance of these innovations, research and technology development needs to focus on system concepts and on the characterization of alternative configura- tions and technical choices. High benefits are expected from information and software assurance re- search to prevent against cyber-attack. . Energy, propulsion, and environmental engineering (e.g., fuel cells, en ergy conversion, and storage). Numerous U.S. federal government re

WHITE PAPERS ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH 133 search projects seek to reduce the environmental impacts of transporta- tion vehicles, operations, and systems. Among these projects are efforts to develop and test new energy storage and vehicle propulsion systems such as fuel cells, which produce electrical energy from fuel without com- bustion, and flywheel batteries, which store kinetic energy directly. New energy storage and vehicle propulsion systems like these offer enormous potential benefits for energy efficiency and emissions reductions and may be applicable to several modes of transportation. · Fuel cells; batteries; and hydrogen production, distribution, and storage are expected high-payoff research focus areas for fuel-efficient, environ- mentally benign vehicles. · Sensing and measurement (e.g., chemical/biological hazard detection, environmental monitoring, nonobtrusive structural testing and repair, nano/micro-sensors and devices). Research in this area could be focused on development and application of technologies to monitor, analyze, quan- tify, and thus improve the safety and performance of transportation systems. "Smart" structures, such as roads and bridges embedded with sensors, have the potential to increase safety by providing real-time infor- mation on travel conditions. Similarly, "smart" vehicles may improve their performance by sensing environmental and operating conditions. Nanotechnologies for continuous monitoring of human and system behavior and performance are expected to be beneficial in numerous ways~eimproved safety, reduced traffic management and travel times, improved incident manage- ment and responsiveness, and increased throughput of existing physical infra- structure. . Analysis, modeling, design, and construction tools. Research in this area could focus on developing information and techniques to evaluate system design improvements and to estimate the performance benefits of innova- tions on management of system operations. Specific collaborative efforts could be focused to develop transportation system design tools and meth- ods to support (1) broad system engineering and integration to assure high- level system performance; (2) system performance and impact character- ization to monitor and forecast the effectiveness of congestion relief and mobility enhancement strategies; (3) transportation and logistic system operations and management to assess the safety implications of planning and design decisions; and (4) transportation planning, economics, and in- stitutions to evaluate multimodal tradeoffs for optimizing transportation expenditures among various modes. Tools for policy research on transportation issues, such as global climate change, land use, pricing, and societal concerns, are expected to return high ben- efits.

34 ANNEX INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION: INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS Efficient intermodal transportation networks are particularly vital to Europe and North America. Increasing volumes of goods and passenger traffic, along with growing demands for speed, safety, and environmental protection, have in- creased the need for interconnected transportation networks on an international scale. To achieve a balanced intermodal network, both regions recognize the necessity of integrating long-range planning priorities; the potential of techno- logical developments; and the organizational, legal, and institutional shifts needed to improve interconnection and interoperability. There must also be greater at- tention to the information common to all modes and countries and how this infor- mation can be harmonized into a standard packet of information. Significant benefits from information exchange and technology cooperation have been iden- tified for the following areas: Legal and Regulatory Issues Intermodalism has demonstrated advantages in reducing congestion and of- fering competitive modal pricing and choices in the United States and in the European Union (KU) member nations. The EU is still in the process of imple- menting consistent regulatory issues across its member states, particularly re- garding to the liberalization of European railways. The EU's Directive 91/440 on rail deregulation addressed many problems targeted by the U.S. Staggers Rail Act. The United States can offer experience in regulatory oversight gained from recent rail mergers and acquisitions. The United States and the EU face similar challenges in rail consolidations, mergers, and service decisions that must be acted on to achieve greater transpor- tation efficiency but ensure that customers and consumers are not disenfranchised. Physical Infrastructure Constraints EU transportation officials recognize that the majority of physical transpor- tation impediments involve access constraints incompatible land use, roadway congestion, rail service limitations, poor timing/coordination of infrastructure im- provement projects that hinder the movement of cargo into and out of inter- modal terminals and points of manufacture/distribution. By fostering the devel- opment of trans-European networks, the European Commission has made a substantial effort to stimulate the growth of system-wide intermodal movements as a genuine alternative to road transportation. The United States is taking steps to eliminate transportation bottlenecks through requirements for coordinated transportation planning, assessing and investing intermodal connections to the

WHITE PAPERS ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH 135 National Highway System, and identifying long-term strategic needs through the Waterways Management Initiative. Equipment Standardization European intermodal stakeholders have identified the manufacture, use, and regulation of equipment, standardization of containers and rail equipment, and the use of the swap body (European truck trailers) as issues requiring further 1- . alscusslon. The United States and EU share common problems trying to utilize domestic equipment in international transportation. The United States has initiated discus- sions on standardization with Mexico and Canada in accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Information Processing Data collection to support regulatory safeguards and trade analysis will be a major concern to the European Union when it eliminates all border crossings and attendant information checks. Data processing and collection constitute a major enabling factor for inter- modal transportation growth in Europe; this electronic interchange includes four components: (1) the need to coordinate actions of both small and very large orga- nizations active in intermodal transport chains; (2) the need to involve economic actors from different modes, many of which have very divergent views and con- cepts of how to respond to customer needs; (3) the presence of a very wide diver- gence in technology applications introduced by the various parties engaged in intermodal transportation; and (4) the international character of many intermodal chains. The United States has embarked on an effort to facilitate and expedite the collection of international trade data through the creation of an International Trade Data Systems (ITDS) initiative; the Office of Intermodalism represents U.S. De- partment of Transportation on the ITDS Board of Directors.

DC. Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation Between the European Community and the Goverment of the United States of America The following Agreement was signed on December 5, 1997 in Washington, THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (thereinafter "the Community"), of the one part, and THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, of the other part, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties"; CONSIDERING the importance of science and technology for their economic and social development; RECOGNIZING that the Community and the Government of the United States of America are pursuing research and technological activities in a number of areas of common interest, and that participation in each other's research and develop- ment activities on a basis of reciprocity will provide mutual benefits; HAVING REGARD to the Declaration on EC-US Relations of November 23, 1990, and the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint KU-US Action Plan adopted in Madrid on December 3, 1995; DESIRING to establish a formal basis for cooperation in scientific and techno- logical research which will extend and strengthen the conduct of cooperative ac 136

AGREEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION 137 tivities in areas of common interest and encourage the application of the results of such cooperation to their economic and social benefit; HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS ARTICLE 1 Purpose The Parties shall encourage, develop and facilitate cooperative activities in fields of common interest where they are pursuing research and development activities in science and technology. ARTICLE 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Agreement: (a) "Cooperative activity" means any activity which the Parties undertake, or support, pursuant to this Agreement, and includes joint research; (b) "Information" means scientific or technical data, results or methods of re- search and development stemming from joint research, and any other data relat- ing to cooperative activities; (c) "Intellectual Property" shall have the meaning defined in Article 2 of the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, done at Stockholm, 14 July 1 967; (d) "Joint research" means research that is implemented with financial support from one or both Parties and that involves collaboration by participants from both the Community and the United States of America, and is designated as joint re- search in writing by the Parties or their scientific and technological organizations and agencies, or in the case where there is funding by only one Party, by that Party and the participants in that project; (e) "Participants" means any individual or entity, including inter alla, the Parties' scientific and technological organizations and agencies, private persons, under- takings, research centers, universities, subsidiaries of European and U.S. entities, or any other form of legal entity involved in cooperative activities.

138 ARTICLE 3 Principles ANNEX Cooperative activities shall be conducted on the basis of the following principles: (a) Mutual benefit based on an overall balance of advantages; (b) Reciprocal opportunities to engage in cooperative activities; (c) Equitable and fair treatment; (d) Timely exchange of information which may affect cooperative activities. ARTICLE 4 Areas of cooperative activities (a) Sectors for cooperative activities are: environment (including climate research); biomedicine and health (including re- search on AIDS, infectious diseases and drug abuse); agriculture; fisheries sci- ence; engineering research; non-nuclear energy; natural resources; materials sci- ences and metrology; information and communication technologies; telematics; biotechnology; marine sciences and technology; social sciences research; trans- portation; science and technology policy, management, training and mobility of scientists; (b) The Parties may modify this list upon recommendation by the Joint Consulta- tive Group mentioned in Article 6, in accordance with procedures in force for each Party. (c) The Parties may jointly pursue cooperative activities with third parties. ARTICLE 5 Forms of cooperative activities (a) Subject to applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Parties shall foster, to the fullest extent practicable, the involvement of participants in cooperative ac- tivities under this Agreement with a view to providing comparable opportunities for participation in their scientific and technological research and development activities. (b) Cooperative activities may take the following forms:

AGREEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION 139 1. coordinated research projects and joint research projects; 2. joint task forces; 3. joint studies; 4. joint organization of scientific seminars, conferences, symposia and workshops; 5. training of scientists and technical experts; 6. exchanges or sharing of equipment and materials; 7. visits and exchanges of scientists, engi- neers or other appropriate personnel; 8. exchanges of scientific and technological information as well as on practices, laws, regulations and programs relevant to cooperation under this Agreement. Where appropriate, such cooperative activities shall take place pursuant to imple- menting arrangements concluded between the Parties' executive agents, or their scientific and technological organizations and agencies. These arrangements may describe the nature and the duration of cooperation for a specific area or purpose, treatment of intellectual property as provided for in the Annex, funding, alloca- tion of costs, and other relevant matters. ARTICLE 6 Coordination and Facilitation of Cooperative Activities (a) The coordination and facilitation of cooperative activities under this Agree- ment shall be accomplished on behalf of the Government of the United States of America by the Department of State and on behalf of the Community by the European Commission, acting as Executive Agents. (b) The Executive Agents shall establish a Joint Consultative Group (hereinafter referred to as the "JCG") for the oversight of scientific and technological coop- eration under this Agreement. The JCG shall consist of a limited equal number of official representatives of each Party. (c) The JCG may hold consultations on general science and technology issues; exchange information; establish task forces and working groups as appropriate; consult experts as appropriate and needed; and otherwise work to increase mutual understanding of the Parties' activities and programs related to science and tech- nology. (d) The functions of the JCG shall include: 1. overseeing and recommending activities under the Agreement; 2. making rec- ommendations pursuant to Article 4 (b); 3. advising the Parties on ways to en- hance cooperation consistent with the principles set out in this Agreement; 4. annually providing a report on the status and effectiveness of cooperation under- taken under this Agreement; 5. reviewing the efficient and effective functioning of the Agreement.

140 ANNEX (e) The JCG shall meet annually, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties. Meet- ings should be held alternately in the Community and the United States of America. The JCG shall establish its own rules of procedure, subject to approval by the Parties. (f) Decisions of the JCG shall be reached by consensus. Minutes, comprising a record of the decisions and principal points discussed, shall be taken at each meeting. These minutes shall be agreed upon by those persons selected from each side to jointly chair the meetings. ARTICLE 7 Funding and Legal Considerations (a) Cooperative activities shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds and to the applicable laws and regulations, policies and programs of the Commu- nity and the United States of America. (b) Each Party shall bear the costs of discharging its responsibilities under this Agreement, including costs of participation in meetings of the JCG. However, costs, other than those for travel and accommodation, which are directly associ- ated with meetings of the JCG, shall be borne by the host Party. ARTICLE 8 Entry of Personnel and Equipment Each Party shall take all reasonable steps and use its best efforts, within appli- cable laws and regulations, to facilitate entry to and exit from its territory of persons, material, data and equipment involved in or used in cooperative activi- ties under this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 Treatment of Intellectual Property The allocation and protection of intellectual property rights under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Annex, which forms an integral part of this Agreement.

AGREEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION ARTICLE 10 Other Agreements and Transitional Provisions 141 (a) The Parties shall endeavor, where appropriate, to bring under the terms of this Agreement new arrangements for scientific and technological cooperation be- tween the Community and the Government of the United States of America that fall under the scope of Article 4. (b) This Agreement is without prejudice to rights and obligations under other agreements between the Parties and any agreement or arrangement between ei- ther of the Parties and non-participant third parties, including agreements or ar- rangements between their scientific and technological organizations or agencies and a Member State of the Community. ARTICLE 1 1 Territorial Application This Agreement shall apply, on the one hand to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and on the other hand to the territory of the United States of America. This shall not prevent the conduct of cooperative activities on the high seas, outer space, or the territory of third countries, in accordance with interna- tional law. ARTICLE 12 Entry into Force, Termination and Dispute Settlement (a) This Agreement shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties have notified each other in writing that their respective internal procedures necessary for its entry into force have been completed. (b) This Agreement is concluded for an initial period of five years. Subject to review by the Parties in the final year of each successive period, the Agreement may be extended, with possible amendments, thereafter for additional periods of five years by mutual written agreement between the Parties. (c) This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either Party upon six months' written notice. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not

42 ANNEX affect the validity or duration of any arrangements made under it, or any specific rights and obligations that have accrued in compliance with the Annex. (d) This Agreement may be amended by agreement of the Parties. Amendments shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties have notified each other in writing that their respective internal procedures necessary for amending this Agreement have been completed. (e) All questions or disputes related to the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement shall be settled by mutual agreement of the Parties. ARTICLE 13 This Agreement is signed in duplicate in the Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish languages, each of these texts being equally authentic. ANNEX INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Pursuant to Article 9 of this Agreement; The Parties shall ensure adequate and effective protection of intellectual property created or furnished under this Agreement and relevant implementing arrange- ments. The Parties agree to notify one another in a timely fashion of any inven- tions or copyrighted works arising under this Agreement and to seek protection for such intellectual property in a timely fashion. Rights to such intellectual prop- erty shall be allocated as provided In this Annex. I. SCOPE A. This Annex is applicable to all cooperative activities undertaken by the Parties or their participants pursuant to this Agreement, except as otherwise specifically agreed by the Parties. B. For purposes of this Agreement, "intellectual property" shall have the meaning found in Article 2 of the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, done at Stockholm, July 14, 1967. C. This Annex addresses the allocation of rights, interests, and royalties be- tween the Parties or their participants. Each Party shall ensure that the other Party or its participants can obtain the rights to intellectual property allocated in accor- dance with the Annex. This Annex does not otherwise alter or prejudice the allo

AGREEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION 143 cation between a Party and its nationals, which shall be determined by that Party's laws and practices. D. Disputes concerning intellectual property arising under this Agreement should be resolved through discussions between the relevant participants, or, if neces- sary, the Parties. Upon mutual agreement of the Parties, the participants may submit a dispute to an arbitral tribunal for binding arbitration. Unless the partici- pants agree otherwise in writing, the arbitration rules of UNCITRAL shall gov ern. E. Termination or expiration of this Agreement shall not affect rights or obliga- tions under this Annex. II. ALLOCATION OF RIGHTS A. Each Party shall be entitled to a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free li- cense in all countries to reproduce, publicly distribute and translate scientific and technical journal articles, non-proprietary scientific reports, and books directly arising from cooperation under this Agreement. All publicly distributed copies of a copyrighted work prepared under this provision shall indicate the names of the authors of the work unless an author explicitly declines to be named. Each Party or its participants shall have the right to review a translation prior to public distri- bution. B. Rights to all forms of intellectual property, other than those rights described in paragraph II (A) above, shall be allocated as follows: 1. Visiting researchers, for example, scientists visiting primarily in furtherance of their education, shall receive intellectual property rights under arrangements with their host institutions. In addition, each visiting researcher named as an inventor shall be entitled to treatment as a national of the host country with regard to awards, bonuses, benefits, or any other rewards, in accordance with the policies of the host institution. 2. (a) For intellectual property which is or may be created during joint research, the Parties or their participants shall jointly develop a technology management plan. The technology management plan shall consider the relative contributions of the Parties and their participants, the benefits of licensing by territory or for fields of use, requirements imposed by the Parties' domestic laws, and other fac- tors deemed appropriate. (b) If the parties or their participants did not agree to a joint technology manage- ment plan in the initial research cooperation agreement and cannot reach an agree

44 ANNEX ment within a reasonable time, not to exceed six months, from the time a Party becomes aware of the creation or likely creation of the intellectual property in question as a result of the joint research, the Parties or their participants shall resolve the matter in accordance with the provisions of paragraph I (D). Pending resolution of the matter, such intellectual property shall be owned jointly by the Parties or their participants, but shall be commercially exploited (including prod- uct development) only by mutual agreement. (c) "Joint research" means research that is implemented with financial support from one or both Parties and that involves collaboration by participants from both the Community and the United States of America and is designated as joint re- search in writing by the Parties or their scientific and technological organizations and agencies, or in the case where there is funding by only one Party, by that PartY and the participants in that project. (d) In the event that either Party believes that a particular joint research project under this Agreement has led or will lead to the creation or furnishing of a type of intellectual property that it protects but is not protected throughout the territory of the other Party, the Parties shall immediately hold discussions to determine the allocation of the rights to the said intellectual property. The Joint activities in question will be suspended during the discussions, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties thereto. If no agreement can be reached within a three month period from the date of the request for discussions, cooperation on the project in question will be suspended or terminated at the request of either Party. III. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION In the event that information identified in a timely fashion as proprietary is fur- nished or created under the Agreement, each Party and its participants shall pro- tect such information in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and ad- ministrative practice. Without prior written consent, none of the Parties shall disclose any proprietary information except to employees, government person- nel, and prime and subcontractors. Such disclosures shall be for use only within the terms of their permits or licenses with the Parties or the scope of work of their contracts with the Parties and in work relating to the subject matter of the infor- mation so disseminated. The Parties shall impose, or shall have imposed, through appropriate arrangements such as research contracts, grant documents, technol- ogy management plans, etc. an obligation on all participants receiving such infor- mation to keep it confidential. If one of the Parties becomes aware that, under its laws or regulations, it will be, or may reasonably be expected to become, unable to meet the non-disclosure provisions, it shall immediately inform the other Party. The Parties shall thereaf

AGREEMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION 145 ter consult to define an appropriate course of action. Information may be identi- fied as proprietary if it is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration or assembly of its components, generally known or readily accessible by lawful means; has actual or potential commercial value by virtue of its secrecy; has been subject to steps that were reasonable under the circumstances by the person lawfully in control, to maintain its secrecy; and not already in the possession of the recipient without an obligation concerning its confidentiality.

Conference Participants Philip Abelson American Association for the Advancement of Science Jean-Francois Abramatic World Wide Web Consortium Enrico Alleva Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Italy Jane Alspach American Association of Engineering Societies Pablo Amor U.S. Delegation of the European Union Kiyoshi Ando Nikkei Anders Backlund Kvaerner Masa-Marine Ouahid Bakouche Embassy of France Dennis Baldocchi National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Elizabeth Baldwin Optical Society of America Wendy Baldwin National Institutes of Health Sharon Bank Transportation Research Board Thomas Barnwell National Exposure Research Laboratory Jon Baron Department of Defense David Beckler Carnegie Commission 146

PARTICIPANTS Ed Behrens Procter and Gamble Johannes Belz German-American Academic Council Dorothy Bergamaschi Department of State Ake Bergman Stockholm University Francois Bertin Embassy of France Robert J. Betsold Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center Amar Bhat National Institutes of Health Richard Bissell National Research Council Richard Biter Department of Transportation Dr. Blanc GEC Alsthom Signalling Wilhelmus Blonk European Commission, DGVII Joseph Bordogna National Science Foundation Michael Borrus University of California, Berkeley Brad Botwin Department of Commerce 147 Sandor Boyson University of Maryland Jeffrey Brancato National Science Foundation Rick Brennan GE Information Services Mel Briscoe United States Navy Richard Brook Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Abraham Brouwer Wageninigen Agricultural University, The Netherlands Steven Buchsman Department of State John Cadogan CBE, FRS Research Councils, UK Joseph F. Canny Department of Transportation Giulio Cantarella University of Reggio Calabria, Italy Fenton Carey Department of Transportation Steve Carpenter National Institute of Standards and Technology Ian Carter University of Glasgow

148 Paul Cederborg National Academy Press Roberto Cencioni European Commission, DGXIII Mel Ciment National Science Foundation Steve Clemons Economic Strategy Institute lain Cockburn University of British Columbia Jerry Cogan Milliken Research Tom Coleman BASE E. William Colglazier National Research Council T. D. Collinsworth Department of Defense Sara Comley International Observers Anna Constantinidou Embassy of Greece Henri Conze Ministry of Defense, France Stephen L. Cooney Siemens Corporation Robert W. Corell National Science Foundation ANNEX Lucio G. Costa University of Washington George Counts US-KU Task Force on Communicable Diseases, NIH Kelley S. Coyner Department of Transportation Wolfgang Cramer Potsdam-Institut fur Klimafolgenforschung, Germany John C. Crawford Sandia National Laboratories Mark H. Crawford New Technology Week Michael Crow Columbia University Ulrich Cubasch Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Germany Christina Curtin Environmental Science and Technology George Daston Procter & Gamble Mike Davey Congressional Research Service Fonseca de Moura Carnegie Mellon University Jim DeCorpo United States Navy

PARTICIPANTS Raoul Delcorde Embassy of Belgium Papken S. Der Torossian Silicon Valley Group Maxx Dilley US Agency for International Development Gerry Dinneen National Research Council Dee Ann Divis GPS World Magazine Bruce Don Critical Technologies Institute Mortimer Downey Department of Transportation J.C. Duplessy France Robert Eagan Sandia National Laboratories Paul Eckert Office of Senator John Breaux Martin Eichtinger Embassy of Austria Stuart E. Eizenstat Department of State Frank Elfring United States Coast Guard Maria Eli The European Institute 149 Margarete Endl Journalist Stephen Eule House Science Committee Jean-Pierre Euzen European Commission Carey Fagan Federal Aviation Administration Ana Faisca Ministry of Science and Technology, Portugal Paolo Fasella Director General for Research, Italy Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp Environmental Protection Agency Alda Fernandes Embassy of Portugal Peter Finnerty Sea-Land Service, Inc. Frank Finver Department of State Kenneth Flamm Brookings Institution Christian Fluhr Conseiller du Directeur de la DIST, France Gioacchino Fonti MURST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

New Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00 Buy Ebook | $40.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The successful conclusion of the US-EU Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation offers the prospect of a new chapter in transatlantic cooperation. As with any international agreement in science and technology, the accord's full potential will be realized only if it can encourage mutually beneficial cooperation. With this in mind, responsible officials of the European Union (EU) and the U.S. government contacted the National Research Council's Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) to discuss how this negotiating success might be publicized and productively exploited. It was agreed that the STEP Board should organize a conference to celebrate the accord, inform the U.S. and European research communities of the agreement, and explore specific opportunities for enhanced cooperation. At the same time, the conference would provide the occasion to review existing and evolving areas of transatlantic cooperation in science and technology from the perception of the United States, the European Commission, and the member states of the European Union.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!