Published the 3rd call for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology on the 30th November 2007
Click here for detailed information.
Contact the SPAS partner closest to you if you would like support for participation.
The Atlas of Ideas
Share knowledge to survive, says new report [Date: 2007-05-11]
The EU should be seen as an advocate and example of international collaboration in research and development, according to a new report from the think tanks Demos and The Centre.
The report, 'The Atlas of Ideas', is the outcome of an 18-month study. It charts the rise of innovation in China, India and South Korea, and sets out four key recommendations on how the EU could best respond to the challenges posed by these countries.
'We make the case that it is those who are good at sharing, not protecting knowledge who will do well,' said James Wilsdon, one of the authors of the report, at the Atlas' launch in Brussels.
According to Simon O'Connor of The Centre, however, Europe needs to act now while Asia's innovation capacity is still developing. 'In 10 years it will be too late,' he warned.
The report's first recommendation for the EU is to 'unleash mass collaboration'. The report notes that with its increased funding levels and greater emphasis on international collaboration, the EU's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) is a step in the right direction. The challenge now is to ensure that R&D is given an even higher priority under the EU's long term budget plans.
'The aim should be to double the share of the budget devoted to 'competitiveness for growth and employment' - and within that, to ensure that funding for FP8, which will run from 2014 to 2020, exceeds €100 billion,' the authors write.
Furthermore, within the Eighth Framework Programme, international cooperation should be given a higher priority. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of the new international cooperation mechanisms introduced under FP7 should be reviewed in 2010. This will allow time for lessons learned to be incorporated into the next framework programme.
The second recommendation for the EU is to become a 'magnet for talent'. 'Flows of scientists and entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of global innovation networks,' reads the report. The first step for the EU is to carry out research into international talent flows in the EU Member States and the relationship between migration and innovation.
Improving the participation of Asian researchers in the EU's Marie Curie mobility programmes is one way in which the EU could attract talent to its shores. Currently Asian participation in the programmes is pitifully low. At the same time, the EU needs to send more of its scientists to Asia; currently almost all Marie Curie fellows going to third countries choose the US, Canada or Australia as their destination.
The third recommendation is to 'build the knowledge banks'. 'New developments could happen at any time and the EU needs to be ready,' commented Simon O'Connor. This means creating and strengthening links with the scientific and research communities of third countries. Currently, the Commission's representations in China and India have just one science counsellor each, yet many Member States have sizeable teams of science counsellors and advisors in these countries.
'Does this balance serve Europe's long-term interest?' asks the report. 'Or does it encourage third countries to play off individual EU states against one another, and against larger partners such as the US?'
The final recommendation is to 'lead global science towards global goals'. The nuclear fusion project ITER and satellite navigation system Galileo are good examples of projects which pool global knowledge to solve global challenges. Other areas identified by the report which could benefit from this approach include low-carbon energy, sustainable transport and the prevention of pandemic diseases.
Mary Minch, Director of International Cooperation at the European Commission's Research Directorate General, welcomed the report, pointing out that the question of how to boost cooperation globally is a key part of the recently published Green Paper on the European Research Area.
'International cooperation will be an important part of the debate,' she said.
Contact person: For more information, please visit:
http://www.atlasofideas.org
International cooperation under FP7:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/capacities/international-cooperation_en.html
Mixed feelings from SMEs over patent proposal
UEAPME, the European small and medium sized enterprise (SME) employers' organisation, has praised the European Commission for its proposal to improve the current EU patent litigation system, but expressed regret at the lack of progress made on the Community patent.
In a statement issued on 4 April, the organisation said it welcomed the integrated approach on the EU litigation system, which the Commission put forward in its communication 'Enhancing the patent system'.
The approach brings together the best of two previously-tabled suggestions: a centralised judicial system, strongly based on the draft European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), combined with a limited number chambers of first instance. The system, which would be firmly integrated into Community jurisdiction, would have the competence to litigate on European patents and future Community patents.
'The EU-wide level and the first instance chambers would respectively ensure a homogenous interpretation and proximity, and thus increase legal certainty and reduce litigation-related expenses,' commented Luc Hendrickx, UEAPME Director of Enterprise Policy and External Relations.
But the Commission still has some way to go to make the proposal suitable to the needs of SMEs, argues UEAPME. It points to a need to urgently introduce reduced patent fees for SMEs, since the high costs of patenting are one of the biggest deterrents to SMEs obtaining patents for their inventions and products.
Another stumbling block is the lack of a patent litigation insurance system, which UEAPME says is an 'indispensable part of an efficient SME patent policy'. In 2001 and again in 2006, the Commission requested a study on the possibility of introducing such a system. These studies were followed by a public consultation. Although the stakeholder responses are still being analysed, the Commission says that it can already conclude that the overall reaction to a mandatory patent litigation insurance system is sceptical.
On the Community patent, UEAPME said it 'deplored' the fact that the issue of the language regime remained unresolved. Under the Community patent proposal as it stood in 2003, patent applications would be submitted in one of three languages (German, English or French), while successful claims would have to be filed in all official Community languages at the applicant's cost. Many stakeholders however have objected to this regime, since it would involve very high translation costs, particularly for SMEs.
UEAPME argues that the number of languages in which a patent can be filed should be reduced, ideally to English only, and calls upon the Commission to find a solution. 'The unresolved Community patent leaves European SMEs without one of the essential instruments to innovation,' noted Mr Hendrickx.
Meanwhile, BUSINESSEUROPE, a grouping of EU industries, said it hoped that the Commission's communication would move the patent debate forward. 'I hope that this initiative will help to bring us forward. Companies have voiced what they need and it is now time for action,' said Ernest-Antoine Seillière, President of BUSINESSEUROPE. 'Member States cannot claim that R&D [research and development] and innovation are key for economic growth and at the same time block progress on the patent agenda.'
Contact person:
For more information about the EU patent system, please visit:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm
|
|
|
||||||||||||