Draft Report of the Expert Group on International STI Cooperation to ...

The companies are generally interested in cooperating with excellent research groups in <strong>the</strong>ir
field. The criterion is primarily excellence ra<strong>the</strong>r than geography, so while in <strong>the</strong> short term
that cooperation will be focused on <strong>the</strong> USA and Europe, over time it will stretch
geographically out to <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world. One science-based company was especially
vigorous in seeking out ideas and technology worldwide. Often this resulted in licensing
ra<strong>the</strong>r than a deep cooperation. It is based more on buying information than on establishing
lasting relationships. O<strong>the</strong>r co-operations are longer lasting.
Different cooperation partners were chosen for different reasons, which might be access to
science, standardisation, access to technology, supplier development, technology testing or
pilot development.
Access to IPR was in many cases a reason for cooperating but IPR could also be a reason not
to co-operate, in particular where potential partners could not be trusted, where <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> cooperation would not let <strong>the</strong> firm adequately protect background knowledge from its
partners or where <strong>the</strong>re was a risk that a university would claim rights – a problem especially
in <strong>the</strong> USA under <strong>the</strong> Bayh-Dole Act.
Firm size helped determine <strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> co-operations that were possible. While large firms
could take a strategic and long-term view <strong>of</strong> benefits, smaller ones needed co-operation to
produce results <strong>of</strong> more immediate, shorter-term relevance.
Research cooperation would become easier if <strong>the</strong>re was greater researcher mobility to build
personal linkages.
Policy Implications
The companies were keen to emphasise that <strong>the</strong> first thing to do in support <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
internationalisation <strong>of</strong> EU industry and <strong>the</strong> ERA is to continue to operate a strong (but <strong>of</strong>
course administratively simplified) Framework Programme. STI funds should primarily go to
EU companies, ra<strong>the</strong>r than funding non-Europe-based firms to compete with <strong>the</strong> EU. One
aspect <strong>of</strong> investing in STI in Europe is to attract FDI and to continue to make it attractive for
EU-based firms to remain in place.
Reciprocity in access to programmes was seen as important. There is lack <strong>of</strong> a clear
distinction between policy to support development in poor countries and STI cooperation with
developed ones. In <strong>the</strong> second case, <strong>the</strong> EU should only support cooperation with countries
that allow EU organisations to participate in <strong>the</strong>ir programmes on a similar basis. The EU
should devote efforts to persuading o<strong>the</strong>rs to open <strong>the</strong>ir programmes as this would make
international cooperation easier.
International cooperation plays an important role in converging efforts, reducing risk and
setting standards. This is valuable and needs support well beyond Europe.
86