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.
42/254 page 34
![Lord Dixon-Smith contd. | at it at a European level rather than looking at it individually country by country. Clearly the investment of individual Member States in R&D, both in the public sector and through private sector support, varies very very widely. If one looks at the published results in the Indicators Report by the Commission one sees there are only four major investors in R&D on their own account which are Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy. There are a number of other Member States either not investing a very high proportion of GDP in R&D or not investing a very high amount in absolute terms. I do not think the level of the framework programme is something which influences or is influenced by the propensity of Member States to invest or not. It is something which is reached independently of looking at national investment. Lord Gregson 37. When the original programme was being devised there were the Reisenhuber Criteria laid down and the then President of the Council was quite blatant in justifying the cost in the last paragraph of the Reisenhuber Declaration which refers to cohesion, unification and in those days (it has since been admitted) dragging up the smaller countries by their boot laces and that was the justification for the high cost of the work carried out. That does not line up very closely to your view that we are getting magnificent value for the enormous amount of money which is poured into these programmes. It has been there for an entirely different reason. (Mr Wright) The Reisenhuber criteria still apply very much to research but we would question, as I think you have done, the cohesion element. The last of the criteria mentions cohesion together with research which leads, where necessary, to the establish of uniform laws and standards. I think the standard supporting activity is a perfectly legitimate activity of research. It remains a fact also, however, that all European programmes are supposed to support cohesion and that is written into the Treaty in Article 130a. 38. That costs a lot of money. (Mr Wright) But the cohesion objective is, we believe, not best achieved through the R&D programme. We have said in our paper to the Commission very clearly quality should be the sole criterion on which research is funded. That may involve researchers from the less favoured countries (they do have good researchers and it would be wrong to exclude them, and their participation in the programme can have a very large spin-off for them in terms of raising their capability), but we have said very clearly we do not think cohesion should be a driving force in research. 39. Therefore collaboration should not be a criterion of doing research om this basis? (Mr Wright) Collaboration should be a criterion pepe it should involve more than one Member tate. 40. That is cohesion. (MM r Wright) Cohesion is normally read in terms of involving the less favoured regions and there are separate programmes for that, for example, through the structural funds. Lord Gregson] That was withdrawn right at the early days from the Reisenhuber criteria. Chairman 41. For the sake of clarification can I be clear that your interpretation of cohesion does involve bringing in some of the less favoured nations in scientific terms. (Mr Wright) Yes, it does but we are saying we do not believe that should be an objective of the programme as such, even though the programme should remain open to the less favoured regions. Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior 42. With respect to cohesion, do you agree that enhancing the scientific capacity of less advanced European nations should be addressed via a separate explicit programme from the Framework Programme? (Mr Wright) Certainly there are a number of other programmes that do address those particular issues, in particular, the structural funds. The structural funds can be used and are used to support infrastructural development in the field of R&D and more broadly in the field of technology and something like two to three per cent of the structural funds from 1989 to 1993 were used for those purposes. That is the right way, we think, to help bring up the technological scientific capability of the less favoured regions and it should not be a primary purpose at all of the Framework Programme to supplement that by supporting less than the best possible research. If those less favoured regions’ scientists can participate in good high quality research then they should be involved. 43. I am sure, if I may go on, my Lord Chairman, it is not a question of all or nothing in anyone’s minds, but with some of the Member States of Europe, Eastern Europe in particular, there is a tremendous amount of talent there that needs to be liberated and I would think that is an important part (but not a major part) of the Framework Programme. One must take note of that issue and provide, for example, scholarships for collaborative works where these people can come and come up to western standards through this sort of programme. It is to the benefit of Europe as a whole. (Mr Wright) Absolutely and I think the question contains its own answer in that Lord Soulsby used the word “talent”. We are talking about high quality research and where we can—and it is possible to— engage the best quality scientists wherever they are in Europe, indeed in Central and Eastern Europe, we should be doing that. But there is a risk in some senses of using cohesion as an excuse for supporting less than good research as a means of supporting the less favoured regions. We do not agree with that. Lord Lewis of Newnham] My Lord Chairman, I must agree with Mr Wright. Having made proposals to the Commission there is no doubt whatsoever about it that it was an accepted protocol that if there were certain countries on the proposal it enhanced](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218734_0042.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
