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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Researcher mobility schemes operating beyond Europe should be streng<strong>the</strong>ned. In line with <strong>the</strong> KETs discussion, companies wanted to see investment by <strong>the</strong> EU not only in R&D but also in pilots and demonstrations. These have benefits both for technological development and for standardisation. The EU should lead projects aiming to set global standards and norms. This is an opportunity to take <strong>the</strong> initiative and have a decisive influence on <strong>the</strong> shape <strong>of</strong> such standards. The EU could also take <strong>the</strong> lead in projects addressing some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> grand challenges, where a global effort is beneficial for everyone. This is especially useful in ‘horizontal’ issues where IPR is not a major concern. More broadly, EU international projects should have clear and transparent IPR and exploitation rights. The EU should work towards more harmonised international rules and practices in relation to IPR. The EU efforts towards innovative procurement should be mirrored in international activities – encouraging o<strong>the</strong>rs to open <strong>the</strong>ir innovative procurement programmes also to EU firms. In addition, <strong>the</strong> EU should pay attention to traditional trade and industry policy aspects such as reduction <strong>of</strong> trade barriers and encouraging entry. 87
Page 1 and 2:
International Cooperation in Scienc
Page 3 and 4:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION International C
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents
Page 7 and 8:
Composition of <st
Page 9 and 10:
List of abbreviati
Page 11 and 12:
Executive summary Changes in <stron
Page 13 and 14:
Research and innovation infrastruct
Page 15 and 16:
allow strategic partnerships with a
Page 17 and 18:
5. Variable geometry should be expl
Page 19 and 20:
ERA was discussed as part o
Page 21 and 22:
• Enable EU and MS to tackle glob
Page 23 and 24:
innovation policy needs to anticipa
Page 25 and 26:
• Developing economies with stron
Page 27 and 28:
• The general opening principle a
Page 29 and 30:
third countries, while the<
Page 31 and 32:
and Member States of</stron
Page 33 and 34:
intrinsic objectives of</st
Page 35 and 36:
Fig. 2: Measures and instruments fo
Page 37 and 38: and lead to a significantly more at
Page 39 and 40: Fig. 4 Long and medium term priorit
Page 41 and 42: in nature, and in general occur bet
Page 43 and 44: egulations and values that make up
Page 45 and 46: Towards a strategic approach A stra
Page 47 and 48: Exploit variable geometry Objective
Page 49 and 50: third countries, typically with <st
Page 51 and 52: c) with a strong jointly accessible
Page 53 and 54: e) funded by the E
Page 55 and 56: The need for an evidence- and analy
Page 57 and 58: 1) Understanding the</stron
Page 59 and 60: Scientific collaboration: (priority
Page 61 and 62: • International acquisition <stro
Page 63 and 64: • a collaboration of</str
Page 65 and 66: • Information on national priorit
Page 67 and 68: Conclusions and key policy recommen
Page 69 and 70: educational level of</stron
Page 71 and 72: Kaiser L., Ganea P., Gibson J., and
Page 73 and 74: Annex 1: Mandate of</strong
Page 75 and 76: Consideration should include: - def
Page 77 and 78: Annex 2: Dimensions of</str
Page 79 and 80: Annex 3: Trends, Drivers and Impact
Page 81 and 82: however, is not so far justified by
Page 83 and 84: companies from different countries
Page 85 and 86: competitors are located in
Page 87: This engineering pattern is, howeve
Page 91: SME are usually constricted due to
Page 95 and 96: How to obtain EU publications Free
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?