EUROPEAN COMMUNITY S&T: INFLUENCES ON 

 U.S.-EUROPEAN S&T COOPERATION 



Challenges for U.S. Policymaking 



Scientific and technological vitality are increasingly 

 viewed in Europe as critical catalysts of economic 

 growth and well-being. Consequently, the majority of 

 the EC's member governments have been willing 

 increasingly, albeit reluctantly, to relinquish traditional 

 notions of sovereignty over S&T matters, as they have 

 done previously in economic affairs. The U.S. is thus 

 presented with a pressing need to develop a coordinated 

 response to the evolution of a Community-level S&T 

 structure for policy and research programs. Yet almost 

 no U.S. government agencies, including the National 

 Science Foundation, have substantial knowledge of or 

 experience with EC programs, having focused their 

 efforts heretofore on bilateral cooperation with 

 indivi-dual countries or research field-specific 

 organizations like ESA or CERN. Decision making is 

 further handicapped by uncertainties, equally prevalent 

 in Europe, over the extent to which future progress in 

 S&T cooperation will be coordinated and 

 centrally-planned from Brussels, or ad hoc and directed 

 informally by national governments. 



Several challenges to U.S. policymaking stem from 

 this situation. The first is one of accuracy in U.S. 

 perceptions of the nature, intent and scope of S&T 

 integration in Europe. Current analytical resources and 

 mechanisms are inadequate to provide extensive and 

 reliable information or assessments on individual 

 countries, research fields or overall European 

 capabilities and resources in S&T. Thus it is difficult to 

 make comparisons of these areas, either with 

 corresponding U.S. research capabilities or with the 

 policy objectives and claimed accomplishments of 

 European multilateral programs, particularly within 

 FRAMEWORK or EUREKA. 



The second challenge involves a resolution within the 

 Federal govemment of different views on how best to 



utilize U.S. influence on European S&T evolution. The 

 question remains open in most quarters of how far to 

 proceed in developing a relationship with the EC which, 

 de facto, lends support to European multilateral S&T. 

 The question is posed against a concensus emphasizing 

 the continued predominance of bilateral cooperation 

 with the member states. Looming over this is the more 

 elusive issue of whether openness and cooperation in 

 international research can be maintained and 

 strengthened independently of the often-conflicting 

 interests of trade and commercial competitiveness. 



Another challenge is that of resource allocation 

 policy. Given a consensus that recognizes a growing role 

 in European and international S&T for the Community 

 and other European multilateral organizations, the U.S. 

 will be confronted with decisions on measures and 

 mechanisms to support effective collaboration in a 

 multilateral research environment. Participation to any 

 significant degree will further stretch or bring about 

 redirection of U.S. resources devoted to bilateral 

 international cooperation, which by some estimates are 

 already inadequate. 



These issues are complicated by uncertainty and some 

 skepticism over whether centrally-guided and 

 administered, multilateral S&T will actually become a 

 reality in Europe. The evidence is far from conclusive 

 that the kind of synergy evolving in Europe in the 

 microelectronics field will characterize other research 

 fields as well. Yet evidence is abundant of an evolution 

 toward some sort of strategic framework for the 

 multilateral, interdependent utilization of S&T 

 resources. For U.S. policymakers, there is a growing 

 realization that the U.S. is already a principal factor in 

 this process, the final form of which is not much clearer 

 in the capitals of Europe than in Washington. 



15 



