significant numbers of non-competitive sub-contracts 

 through national procurements — ironically could be 

 denied access to a greater extent than at present. 



Another aspect of access involves intellectual 

 property rights (IPR). Ownership of research results and 

 rights to license such results has become a critical 

 stumbling block in U.S. discussions with other nations 

 on matters of trade, technology transfer and basic 

 research. The EC is attempting to construct a common 

 Community IPR policy and an instrument of application. 

 However, it has encountered substantial difficulties both 

 in obtaining consensus within the Community on 

 specifics of a policy and in formulating compromise 

 language close enough to the U.S. position to be 

 negotiable. The informal agreement of EC member 

 states to avoid "external" IPR commitments which 

 might jeopardize formulation of a collective EC policy, 

 however, may result in the absence of a common legal 

 framework on IPR between the U.S. and any 

 Community country individually. Such a situation would 

 hinder most forms of basic and applied research 

 collaboration. 



The situation on the U.S. side changed considerably 

 in mid-1990, with the adoption of a revised U.S. IPR 

 policy. It incorporates language that provides increased 

 flexibility and forms the basis for a new round of 

 negotiations with individual EC countries. The revised 

 policy addresses the more important concerns voiced in 

 recent years by European government officials. More 

 importantly, it satisfies U.S. concerns, mostly related to 

 inadequate IPR protection in developing countries, by 

 permitting U.S. agencies to tailor the language of 

 agreements to meet their particular needs. 



At a practical level for an American individual 

 researcher, the access issue is not yet a problem. 

 Individual U.S. researchers and entities can be (and are) 

 hired or invited to participate in research projects 

 receiving EC (or EUREKA) funding without 

 discrimination, although rights to their findings belong 

 to the inviting or hiring entity. By far, most U.S. 

 participation involves research at university or public 

 research facilities receiving support directly from the 

 national governments, and access and IPR provisions are 

 set by the particular country where the research is being 

 performed. Little evidence of change has appeared at 

 this level; however, the role of the EC research programs 

 in creating or changing precedents should not be 

 downplayed. Nor should the possibility be dismissed of 

 a collective EC-wide IPR policy, administered by the 

 Commission in dealing with non-EC states. 



Collection, Assessment and Dissemination of 

 European S&T Information 



Concern: The U.S. capability to acquire, assess and 

 disseminate information about European 

 science and technology policies, resources, 

 organization and capabilities suffers from 

 inadequate resources and insufficient 

 priorities. 



Issue: What should be done by the U.S. government 

 to increase the quantity and quality of 

 information and assessments (I&A) on 

 European science and technology? Are NSF 

 efforts sufficient to provide timely and 

 adequate information about European S&T to 

 policy makers and public users? 



Assessment A Need for Increased Resources 



Regarding the ability of U.S. govemment agencies to 

 collect, evaluate and disseminate information concerning 

 European S&T, it may be insufficient to the task of 

 informing and guiding a wide circle of potential users in 

 the United States. Executive Order 12591 directed the 

 Departments of State and Commerce, as well as NSF, in 

 1986 to develop such a capability; however, resources 

 available and priorities attached to the task do not appear 

 to be keeping pace with the growing need for 

 information and analysis, especially regarding the 

 European Community's rapid evolution. 



For example, NSF has a staff of five assigned to 

 foreign S&T information collection, analysis and 

 dissemination, of whom two are temporary detailees. 

 This staff began publishing a quarterly journal. 

 International S&T INSIGHT, in late 1988. It has also 

 constructed an on-line electronic database on foreign 

 S&T, recently made available to public users, that must 

 be supplied regularly with significant amounts of new 

 information and culled of out-of-date material. It is also 

 a principal source of policy-support activity for NSF's 

 international cooperative programs and initiatives. Only 

 two of the staff are responsible for covering Europe. 

 NSF's Europe Office, in Paris, is staffed by one 

 professional. 



As another example, the State Department has 

 developed the STRIDE system for disseminating cable 

 traffic on substantive European S&T developments from 

 U.S. embassies overseas. Despite noteworthy efforts by 

 the agency to raise the profile and priority of S&T 

 reporting and distribution, the system still suffers from a 



19 



