EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1997
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: EU Framework Programme for European research and technological development : evidence / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.
37/254 page 29
![Lord Phillips of Ellesmere contd.] 13. Do you not think you are confusing the issue even further by introducing terms like “applied strategic research” and so on? (Mr Wright) It is certainly not our intention to confuse things further. In the summary we were trying to condense everything down. In the paper we have gone to some lengths to try to explain what it is that we mean, given that we recognise that the meanings are obscure to say the least. 14. Can I draw your attention to the footnote on page 3—it is page 1 of the full document—of the position paper. It is not clear what that footnote is defining. (Mr Wright) The intention there is to define “applied and strategic research and technological development”.! Lord Phillips of Ellesmere] I repeat: it is not clear that that is what you are trying to define. Chairman] Perhaps you can note our confusion. Lord Porter of Luddenham 15. Following the same line, Mr Wright, you would agree that collaboration is good in research, whether it is done at a national, European or global level? In fact it is done at all of them for most subjects. What we are talking about is your plea that there is a continuing need for a European programme of research. I wonder how you decide what is European really. Let me ask you one specific question on your evidence at paragraph 31 where you have made this decision. You say “... the framework programme should not serve as a funding source for pure basic research as such. This should be the responsibility of member States.” If you put that the other way round it would be equally convincing to me. Why is pure basic research not suitable for member states? (Mr Wright) I think it essentially comes back to what we are trying to achieve through the programme. What we are trying to achieve, and this is written into the Treaty, is to make a fairly direct link to European competitiveness and therefore that gives you first the figures on Europe and on the member states of the Community. Second, it gives you a focus fairly clearly on research that will come through to affect competitiveness in due course. 16. European competitiveness is the thing you talked about a number of times. We also have national competitiveness, and we have global competitiveness. In research what is the difference here? Why Europe? Why does Europe have to !“The footnote to paragraph 2 (ii) the UK Position Paper is intended to define the phrase ‘applied and strategic research and technological development’. The definition is consistent with the definitions used in the 1996 Forward Look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology (paragraphs 1.1 to 1.10 of Cm 3257-II), which draws on the definitions in the 1993 OECD Frascati Manual. Applied research is defined as ‘original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge ... directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective’; and strategic research is used to describe ‘work ... where practical applications are likely and feasible but cannot yet be specified, or where the accumulation of underlying technological know-how will serve many diverse purposes’.” compete in its research with Japan, say, but the UK not compete with Japan? In basic research particularly, which you are excluding, I should have thought European competition and collaboration was part of the whole science story, global and national included. (Mr Wright) That is absolutely right, but essentially we are looking at what we can best spend European money on. At the basic level the conclusion is that this is best covered by national governments because there is no direct relationship between the basic research undertaken and the competitiveness of Europe, which is competitiveness as you mentioned as against Japan and the States and other major trading blocks. It is a decision that, if one is going to have a research programme, if one deems a research programme to be good value for money in the sense that we do, it is positioned here in the middle of the basic to product development spectrum where it will have the most impact broadly across Europe. That is not to say that there should not be collaboration across Europe in basic research. There is a great deal of collaboration. 17. Can I press you a little further on that? Can you give examples of research not in the pure basic area or any research which is specifically of advantage to Europe and to nobody else? (Mr Wright) No, I cannot give an example. If there was research that was of advantage to Europe uniquely one would wonder why we were investing in it at all because presumably we would be in some sense ahead of the market. 18. Not exclusively, but particularly applicable to Europe, research which is particularly applicable to, suitable for and needs to be done in, Europe rather than elsewhere? (Mr Wright) If one looks at, for example, many of the areas currently covered by the 4th Framework Programme, there are European industries emerging in biotechnology, in IT, in telematics, where there are industries that have themselves, because of the links they are building across Europe, become European. I do not know if Mr Moore would like to add something to that. (Mr Moore) One could refer to the IT programme and, looking back over the 2nd and 3rd Framework Programmes, identify that through the IT collaboration in Europe arguably the European software industry has been able to remain in the competitive race with the United States and Japan where, without collaboration on a European scale, it is very likely that the individual member states’ software industries would simply have been overwhelmed by such competition. Lord Gregson 19. Half the software created for UK programmes is generated in India. (Mr Moore) I do not think that alters the fact that at the level of the type of research that my colleague was describing, having to follow through from the strategic stage and through exploitation plans in the proposals which, through UK insistence largely, have to be in the project proposals now. There has been a clear European added value. That is](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0037.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
