A Community framework for R & D : with evidence / Select Committee on the European Communities.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities
Date:
1990
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: A Community framework for R & D : with evidence / Select Committee on the European Communities. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/156 (page 13)
    “T think that Government, industry and all the people who are involved in research have to work as a team and make sure that the collective experience is brought into the market as effectively as possible” (Q 152). GTS said it was debatable whether basic research should be supported by the Community, or from national funds (p 85). GEC argued that basic research should be funded nationally and there was no objection to the Community funding near market research if the aim was to compete with Japan and the US. “The Japanese, in particular, have no inhibitions about helping their companies to dominate markets” (p 83). 40. Some witnesses considered whether the Community should primarily fund directed or reactive research, ie whether money should be available for specified objectives, or for responding to developments. Most EC funded research is currently directed (p 70) and no witness argued that this balance should alter fundamentally, although IBM did wish to see Community programmes sufficiently flexible to allow for reaction to new requirements as they emerged (p 87). Dr. Webb of Oxford University suggested that 25 per cent of funds should be available for reactive research in response to new developments during the life of the Third Framework Programme (p 116). The Medical Research Council (MRC) pointed to the benefits of collaborating with the Commis- sion under “concerted action” procedures (see paragraph 22 above). This allowed projects to be developed from within the scientific community itself in response to perceived needs, and would ensure the high standards necessary to retain the credibility of the programme (p 93). 41. The consensus on these questions was that the balance of funding between projects of different kinds would necessarily vary according to the subject. A pragmatic approach was required (pp 74, 77, 82-3, 85, 93, 96, 115). Non-SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA 42. The Framework Programme draws particular attention to the need to strengthen the economic and social cohesion of the Community and to nurture small and medium-sized enter- prises (SMEs). According to the Commission’, a small and medium-sized organisation (SME) is an organisation which fulfils all the following criteria:— (i) it has fewer than 500 employees; (ii) its net turnover is below 38 mecu; and (iii) it is not more than one third owned by a parent organisation or financial institutions. 43. Witnesses were divided on the importance of such non-scientific objectives. University College London (UCL) argued that “surely ... the European Framework is all about” strength- ening economic and social cohesion and Bristol University argued that raising the scientific base in the less developed States was a good aim (pp 109, 111). Projects with such aims often produced useful results, GTS argued, and for the CBI any short-term loss of excellence could be balanced by greater integration in the long-term (pp 78, 86). British Aerospace argued “Some sacrifice in the level of excellence of programmes must sometimes be accepted in making an emphasis [on economic and social cohesion] and the acceptable level of this sacrifice must be a matter of judgment on a case by case basis” (p 75). 44. Dr. Webb commended the vigour and inventiveness of many SMEs (pp 116-7). UMIST favoured more financial support for SMEs than for larger corporations, to encourage participation and collaboration. SMEs could contribute innovation and “quality, scientific and technical excell- ence as well as flexibility”. UMIST also thought that support for projects strengthening economic and social cohesion would lead to a growth in the number of SMEs (pp 107-8). GEC said SMEs could play a part without a loss of excellence and with the CBI identified a case for supporting SMEs undertaking near-market research (pp 78, 84). Dr. Adam noted the European Parliament’s eagerness to encourage a technology application programme to back up R & D by SMEs. He hoped the Commission’s proposed CRAFT programme would do this (QQ 125-6). 45. UCL, onthe other hand, dismissed the “United Kingdom obsession” with SMEs as “largely political and rarely relevant” (p 109). GEC identified problems with mixing small and large firms in the same project (p 83). GTS suggested that the best help for SMEs would come from the independent research institutions (p 86). ' EC Research Funding: A Guide for Applicants, p 14.