DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
3.29 While new knowledge
is valuable for its own sake, everyone involved in research hopes
for outcomes which can be applied and exploited, either to create
wealth or to improve the quality of life or both. Yet we note
evidence (paragraph 2.85) that dissemination and exploitation
have been weak in FP4. The Commission are right to envisage
dissemination and exploitation as an important "horizontal
activity" in FP5, concentrating on smaller firms (see
above, paragraph 3.17) and less developed regions.
We urge them to consider the advice of several of our witnesses
that, where appropriate, research proposals should chart the pathway
to exploitation of the outcomes. This would involve a requirement
to address from the start the difficult but vital question of
intellectual property arising from the collaboration, and the
equally important question of venture capital or "seed capital".
We welcome the proposal in Towards FP5 2 to
address the problem of venture capital for technological innovation.
Of course, Framework funds themselves must not be diverted
into venture capital; and what is proposed must not duplicate
existing activities of DG XIII. In this connection, we draw attention
to our forthcoming report on the Innovation-Exploitation Barrier.
3.30 This presupposes,
of course, that the outcomes of Framework-funded research are
worthy of dissemination and fit for exploitation. We have noted
already our doubts as to the overall worth of the outcomes to
date, in the absence of reliable evaluation.
3.31 It is unhelpful
for the Commission to have one Directorate-General responsible
for research and another for exploitation of research (paragraph 2.58).
This problem is compounded by the fact that the former DG is
based in Brussels, and the latter in Luxembourg, thereby rendering
impossible regular informal contacts of Commission officials based
in the two DGs. We recommend that responsibility for exploitation
should be united with responsibility for research in time for
the start of FP5.
CONCLUSION
3.32 We support the
Framework Programmes; and we consider that the extra cost of R&D
collaboration across frontiers is worth paying. But the value
for money represented by EU research activities must be improved,
and must be demonstrated by better evaluation. From FP5 the Government
should look for a higher overall standard of scientific outcomes,
leading to a better record of industrial exploitation.
3.33 We are grateful
to Professor Routti and his colleagues for their co-operation
in this inquiry. However we are dismayed by the approach to FP5
set out in Towards FP5 2. Where the Commission
promised focus and selectivity, they offer instead a programme
of vast scope and unlimited geographical extent; they promised
a reduced role for the JRC, but now it appears that its role is
to be maintained or enhanced. The United Kingdom and the European
Union have much to gain from FP5. All those involved in the negotiations
over the coming months need to work together to ensure that the
Programme is focused, adequately resourced, properly managed on
the basis of uniformly open competition, and capable of meeting
the needs and opportunities of the future.
