|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 103
Annex
European Union Research Programs
Professor Jorma Routti and Dr. William Cannell,
DGXII, European Commission
International collaboration in research, involving universities, research cen-
ters, and industry, has long been supported by the European Union (EU). Orga-
nized since 1984 within successive multinational framework programmer, com-
munity research activities are designed to complement those of the EU member
states and work toward closer integration of Europe's scientific and industrial
communities. The central objectives of community research policy are to rein-
force and mobilize the EU's scientific and technological capabilities in support of
industry, the economy, and quality of life.
The Fifth Framework Programme (1998 to 2002) breaks with tradition in
targeting resources on specific socioeconomic objectives, by means of focused
research actions of an integrated and interdisciplinary nature. The approach will
be more selective than the science and technology-driven approach of the past
and will favor partnerships and networks of research actors, public and private,
which are more strongly oriented toward utilization and uptake of results.
BENEFITS OF EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
Encouraging higher investment in research and technology as well as im-
provements in research productivity are clear economic priorities for Europe.
Levels of expenditure on research and development (R&D) tend to lag those of
competitors overseas. Overall, the EU spends 1.8 percent of its gross domestic
product (GDP) on civil R&D, as opposed to 2.5 percent in the United States and
2.8 percent in Japan. The EU's position on patenting technological inventions is
weaker than that of the United States and Japan, and Europe's major industries
103
OCR for page 104
104
tend to have relatively low science
i,
university sector need reinforcement.
ANNEX
intensity. Also links between industry and the
Action at the community level aims to promote research collaboration on a
European scale that brings a number of benefits:
.
Bringing together the research capabilities of research actors in different
member states improves the linkages between the different types of actors
(public and private) at the European level, provides a deeper pool of ex-
pertise to address existing as well as new and emerging problems, and
provides a stimulus toward a more dynamic technological and business
environment.
· There is an increasing number of areas of research that can only be carried
out effectively on a transnational basis. Some phenomena that need to be
studied are intrinsically international (e.g., climate change, marine and
terrestrial ecosystems). In other areas the research effort needed surpasses
the capacity of individual countries (e.g., genome sequencing).
· Large-scale research infrastructure is of crucial importance to many areas
of science and technology but in view of its costs is not evenly distributed
around the European Union; cross-national access can optimize its effec-
tive utilization as well as the direction of further development.
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES FOR
EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
Nature of Framework Programme
Under the present treaties, the Framework Programme* encompasses all of
the research activities carried out by the KU. It aims to strengthen the scientific
and technological competitiveness of European industry and to provide support
for the broad range of community policies. According to the treaty, the Frame-
work Programme comprises four different "activities" each of which is imple-
mented by one or more "specific programmer."
.
Research, technology development, and demonstration, mainly through
European collaborative research networks, involving enterprises, research
centers, universities, and policy organizations. This activity comprises the
*There are in fact two Research Framework Programmes, provided for under the EC and Euratom
treaties, respectively. Their content is complementary (the EC focusing on nonnuclear and the Euratom
program on nuclear research), and their administration is harmonized; hence, they will be considered
here under the generic title "Framework Programme."
OCR for page 105
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
105
majority of expenditures, amounting to about 87 percent of funds under
the present (Fourth) Framework Programme.
· International cooperation in research involving partners outside the EU
and/or international organizations. Such cooperation supports the devel-
opment of less developed countries, provides community researchers with
access to new technologies in advanced countries outside the KU, and
builds research networks with neighboring countries, especially with can-
didates for accession to the KU.
Dissemination and exploitation of research results through a variety of
actions, including networks for technology transfer and innovation, sup-
port for best practice in management of research and technology, and ad-
visory structures.
Stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers, through interna-
tional fellowship schemes.
.
.
Evolution of the Framework Programmes
The first Framework Programme was established in 1984 as an umbrella for
a number of research activities that had been developed earlier under the Euro-
pean Community and Euratom treaties. Since then, yearly investments to com-
munity research have grown by a factor of three in real terms; they now amount
to 3.5 billion ecu per annum. The Framework Programme accounts for 4 percent
of civil government-funded research in the union. Research also represents about
4 percent of the total community budget of some 90 billion ecu (by comparison
the common agriculture policy accounts for about 50 percent and the structural
funds for 32 percent). When other funding arrangements, such as EUREKA for
industrial research collaboration, COST for joint research funded by 25 partici-
pating countries, and those run by the European Space Agency, CERN for par-
ticle physics, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and the European Sci-
ence Foundation are included, the total European collaborative research effort
accounted for 16 percent of government expenditures on civil research in 1996,
compared with 6 percent in 1985.
The majority of funding under the four Framework Programmes to date has
been allocated to five broad themes: energy, life sciences, environment, industrial
and materials technologies, and information and communications technologies.
However, priorities have evolved over time. Energy research has diminished in
relative importance; life sciences have progressively increased; and after increas-
ing during the 1980s, information and communications technologies have de-
clined somewhat. At the same time, a number of other research areas, such as
transportation and socioeconomic research, have grown in importance, as have
the horizontal activities (i.e., international cooperation, dissemination, and train-
ing and mobility).
OCR for page 106
106
ANNEX
Impact of Framework Programme on European Research
The Framework Programme has had an impressive impact on European re-
search. Multinational cooperation has become embedded in the European research
system and international collaboration has become commonplace for researchers.
For contracts signed in 1996 alone, the number of international linkages created
by the Framework Programme amounted to over 70,000, resulting from 6,400
projects.
Higher education establishments and research centers account for more than
half of the total participation. Enterprises account for 38 percent of participa-
tions, and there has been a noticeable increase of small- and medium-sized enter-
prises. Based on aggregate data for 1995-1996, a shared-cost research project has
an average EU contribution of ecu 0.8 million, an average of 5.2 partners per
project, and an average of 3.4 member states per project.
The framework and its specific programs are subject to comprehensive evalu-
ation by outside experts. A monitoring exercise is conducted annually to provide
input to improvements from year to year. A five-year retrospective assessment is
required prior to the commission tabling proposals for new programs.
THE FIFTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
Development of the Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002) is based on
wide consultation of experts in member states, research, industry, and policy-
makers. The European Commission has recognized the need for community RTD
within a broader strategy based on knowledge, research, innovation, education,
and training.
The European Union is rapidly integrating, under the impetus of a monetary
union, while looking forward to future expansion and closer partnerships with its
neighbors, within a wider and economically stronger Europe. There are major
questions, such as employment, threats to the environment, stability of social
systems, and the well-being of citizens, to be addressed alongside the issue of
competitiveness in a world economy.
Science and technology have become increasingly important to the fortunes
of industries, nations, and regions, which are all going through major structural
transitions. A strategic approach encompassing adaptations of structure, content,
and management is needed for the Framework Programme to make the best of its
potential. Stronger links are needed to industrial competitiveness, community
policies, innovation, infrastructures, and the concerns of citizens.
Selection Criteria
The targeted and selective approach of the Fifth Framework Programme re-
quires in addition to European added value specific criteria that assure the rel
OCR for page 107
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
107
evance ot research to the challenges facing the European Union and its member
states. The criteria consist of three elements:
· Criteria related to socioeconomic objectives improving the employment
situation, promoting the quality of life and health, preserving the environ-
ment.
.
Criteria related to economic development and scientific and technologi-
cal prospects expanding areas with good growth prospects, fields in
which activities can and must become more competitive, areas with sig-
nificant technological opportunities.
· Community value added and the subsidiarily principle critical mass in
human and financial terms, complementary expertise, significant contri-
bution to community policies, problems at the community level, standard-
ization. development of the European area.
For selection of research proposals the basic criteria will include, in addition
to scientific and technological excellence, the innovativeness of a project, and the
prospects for exploiting research results.
Structure of the Fifth Framework Programme
The key words for the Fifth Framework Programme are concentration and
flexibility. The program is focused on more precise objectives, which are essen-
tially socioeconomic rather than technological and call for integrated multidisci-
plinary actions. Structures for implementation will allow more flexible allocation
of resources to follow changing priorities. These changes should ensure that re
search efforts undertaken are effectively translated into practical and visible re-
sults.
In contrast to the disciplinary structure of the Fourth Framework Programme,
involving some 20 separate specific research programs, the commission has pro-
posed a Fifth Framework Programme organized around seven individual pro-
grams that include four thematic programs and three horizontal programs, with a
budget of 16.3 billion ecu over four years.
The four thematic programs cover life sciences and biotechnology, user-
friendly information technologies, competitive and sustainable growth of indus-
tries, and energy and environmental questions. They combine a focus on a limited
number of objectives with actions to maintain and strengthen the science and
technology base and consist of the following:
Key actions are directed toward well-defined problems and objectives and
will mobilize, through an integrated "system approach," various disci-
plines and technologies needed to meet the goals.
Generic research and development of technologies follow a more
OCR for page 108
108
ANNEX
OCR for page 109
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
109
OCR for page 110
110
ANNEX
OCR for page 111
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
111
OCR for page 112
2
ANNEX
traditional approach to strengthen technological capabilities and ensure
access to new knowledge and expertise.
· Research infrastructure support optimizes the utilization and further de-
velopment of infrastructure and facilities across Europe.
The horizontal programs complement the thematic programs by focusing on
issues of international cooperation, SMEs, dissemination and exploitation, train-
ing, and mobility. They are common to all thematic programmer but also require
· r. · . .
specific activities.
Socioeconomic Research
In keeping with the treaty requirement to support the scientific and techno-
logical bases of European industry, the Framework Programme has been mainly
concerned with natural science and technology. However, increasing importance
has been given to the social and economic aspects in successive programs. This
acknowledges the substantial impact of social, behavioral, and economic factors
on the development and use of science and technology. It also recognizes benefits
achieved from the international linkages in these areas that would otherwise be
addressed in a fragmentary manner. The Fifth Framework Programme has been
designed to address socioeconomic research in several fronts.
First, socioeconomic research is of importance in the thematic programs.
Key actions follow an integrated interdisciplinary philosophy to optimize their
economic, industrial, environmental, and social benefits. For example, in bio-
technology and bioethics, transportation issues, energy and environment, and in-
formation society, socioeconomic issues are of as much concern to citizens as the
science and technology.
Second, part of the horizontal program on "Improving Human Potential and
the Socioeconomic Research Base" is dedicated to socioeconomic research as
such, its focus being on the structural changes facing societies. Research will, for
instance, be carried out on structural, demographic, and social trends; relation-
ships between technological change, employment, and society; changing roles of
European institutions, systems of governance and citizenship; and the validation
of new development models.
Third, research will be promoted on science and technology policy issues
and related indicators to provide a basis for the development of future policies.
The Joint Research Centre
A proportion of funding under the Framework Programme (about 7.3 percent
in the Fourth Framework Programme) is allocated to the European Community' s
own research laboratory, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), through so-called direct
OCR for page 113
EUROPEAN UNION RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
113
OCR for page 150
150
Joshua Foster
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Paul Foster
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
Robert Frederking
Carnegie Mellon University
Peter Fritz
UFZ Umwaltforachungszentrum,
Germany
Bill Frymoyer
Office of House Democratic Leader
Richard Gephardt
Henry Fuchs
University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill
Irene Gabriel
Federal Ministry of Science and
Transport, Austria
Asa Gahne
Embassy of Sweden
Carmen Garcia
Embassy of Spain
Peter Gelbke
BASE AG, Germany
Rainer Gerold
European Commission, DGXII
Leslie A. Gerson
Department of State
ANNEX
Richard Getzinger
American Association for the
Advancement of Science
Anver Ghazi
European Commission, DO XII
John Giesy
University of Michigan
Joe Giglio
Northeastern University
Jim Glass
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
H. Glatz
Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue
Francois Govaerts
European Commission, DO XII
Martin Grabert
KOWI, Germany
Nicholas E. Graham
International Research Institute
Thomas Grandke
Siemens Corporate Research, Inc.
Jacqueline Grapin
The European Institute
L. Earl Gray
National Health & Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Martha Graybowski
Renesselear Polytechnic Institute
Dan Greenberg
Science & Government Report
OCR for page 151
PARTICIPANTS
John Gresham
DDR&E, Department of Defense
Jeff Grove
House Science Committee
Eva Guterres
Embassy of Sweden
Erik Habers
European Commission, DGIII
Matthias Hack
Bundesministerium fur Bildun und
Wissenschaft, Germany
Herbert Hager
University of Agricultural Sciences,
Austria
Manuel Hallen
National Science Foundation
Jack Halpern
University of Chicago
Robert L. Hance
Motorola
Aaron Hand
Photonics Spectra
Gerald Hane
Office of Science and Technology
Policy
Donna K. Harman
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Dan Hartley
Sandia National Laboratories
151
Juris Hartmanis
National Science Foundation
Dr. Hasselman
Max-Plank Institut, Germany
Yvon Heckscher
Heckscher Professional Group
Susan Hedigan
University College Dublin, Ireland
Maria Hedqvist
Embassy of Sweden
Colin Helmer
Department of State
Bill Hendrickson
Issues in Science and Technology
Bert Herzog
Computer Graphics, Inc.
Thuy Hia
Department of Commerce
Lynette Hirschman
Mitre
Ron Hodge
General Electric
Alice Hogan
Office of Science and Technology
Policy
Charles Holland
Department of Defense
Brooke Holmes
Department of State
OCR for page 152
152
John B. Horrigan
National Research Council
John C. Horsley
Department of Transportation
Manfred Horvat
BIT, Austria
Edward Howard
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Kay Howell
NCOCIC
Jeanne Hudson
National Science Foundation
Caitlin Hughes
Department of Transportation
Charles A. Hunnicutt
Department of Transportation
Sharon Hyrnkow
National Institutes of Health
Veijo Ilmavirta
Helsinki University of Technology,
Finland
Marie-Christine Imbert
INRIA, France
Richard Jackson
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Said Jahanmir
Department of Commerce
ANNEX
William James
Procter and Gamble
Margaret Jenny
U.S. Airways
James Jensen
National Academy of Sciences
Lynn Johnson
National Academy of Science
Peter Jones
Transport Studies Group, UK
Gary Jones
Sandia National Laboratories
Gilbert Kalb
GMD German National Research
Center for Information Technology
Tom Kalil
National Economic Council
The White House
Ray Kammer
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Marie-Ange Katzeff
Embassy of Belgium
Robert J. Kavlock
National Health & Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Samuel Kavruck
Washington Counseletter
Martin Kayser
BASE
OCR for page 153
PARTICIPANTS
Keith Keen
European Commission, DGVII
Hannu Kemppainen
Tekes, Finland
Melinda L. Kimble
Department of State
Kelly Kirkpatrick
Office of Science and Technology
Policy
Judith Klavans
Columbia University
John P. Klus
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Martin Koubek
Department of Transportation
Steve Krauwer
University of Utrecht, The
Netherlands
John Krebs, FRS
Natural Environment Research
Council, UK
Norman Kreisman
Department of Energy
Anssi Kuj ala
Embassy of Finland
Damian Kulash
ENO Foundation
Kathleen Kunzer
Chemical Manufacturers Association
153
Kristina A. Kvien
Department of State
Patrice Laget
US Delegation of the European Union
Gordon John Lake
European Parliament
Richard Lamb ert
Department of Health and Human
Services
Ron Larsen
Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency
Lisbeth Lawrence
United Medical & Dental Schools
Graham Lawton
Chemistry and Industry Magazine
Carolyn Leep
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Hans Lehmann
Kontakstelle Biomed, Germany
Risto Lemmela
Helsinki University of Technology,
Finland
Wil Lepkowski
Chemical & Engineering News
Josh Lerner
Harvard Business School
Michael Lesk
National Science Foundation
OCR for page 154
154
Tore Li
Royal Norwegian Embassy
Helmut List
Industrial Research and Development
Advisory Council
Ron Lorton
Department of State
George Lucier
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
George Luckett
Shell Chemical Europe Ltd.
Janet Lynch
General Electric
Johannes Mater
Bosch
Erminio Marafante
Ispra
Gennaro Marino
University of Naples, Italy
Steve Mautner
National Academy Press
Gail McCarthy
Electric Power Research Institute
Roger McClellan
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
Bill McCluskey
United States Navy
ANNEX
Clark McFadden
Dewey Ballantine
Jean-Pierre Medevielle
INRETS, France
Joaquin Melia
Universitat de Valencia, Spain
Jose Amaral Mendes
University of Evora, Portugal
Steve Merrill
National Research Council
Gerard Meyer
Carnegie Mellon Research Institute
John C. Miles
Ankerbold International Ltd.
Kevin Mills
Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency
Norman Y. Mineta
Lockheed Martin IMS
Ana Mirones
Portugal
Alfonso Molina
University of Edinburgh
Michael Moloney
Embassy of Ireland
Linda Moodie
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
OCR for page 155
PARTICIPANTS
Duncan T. Moore
Office of Science and Technology
Policy
Gordon Moore
Intel Corp.
Bill Morin
R. Wayne Sayer & Associates
Grant Moser
Business Publishers
Kelly Jacobs Mudd
Environmental Protection Agency
Mort Mullins
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Jeremiah Murphy
Siemens Corporation
Antonio Navarra
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche,
Italy
Eric A. Nerlinger
Zentrum fur Europaische
Wirtschaftsforschung, Germany
Mikko Niini
Kvaerner Masa-Yards, Finland
Stefan Noll
Fraunhofer-Institut fur Graphische,
Germany
Robert C. North
United States Coast Guard
Headquarters
Robert Norwood
NASA Headquarters
155
W.C. Oechel
San Diego State University
John C. Oldfield
National Research Council
Scott Pace
Critical Technologies Institute,
RAND
Hugo Paemen
U.S. Delegation of the European
Union
Jeff Paniati
Department of Transportation
Ron Parsons
CommerceNet
Markus Pasterk
Federal Ministry for Science and
Transport, Austria
Marcus Pattloch
DFN-Verein, Germany
Louis-Francois Pau
Ericsson, Sweden
Fabian Pease
Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency
John Sarborg Pedersen
Embassy of Denmark
Maria Luz Penacoba
Spain
Karin Petersen
Palo Alto Research Park
OCR for page 156
156
William A. Peterson
Department of Education
Kees Planque
Embassy of The Netherlands
Gary Poehlein
National Science Foundation
Alan Poole
DOW Europe S.A.
E. Praestgaard
European Science and Technology
Assembly
Peter Preuss
Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas Price
American Association of Engineering
Societies
William E. Primosch
Department of State
Knud Prytz
Scandlines, Denmark
George Radda
Medical Research Council, UK
F.J. Radermacher
FAW Ulm, Germany
Saifur Rahman
National Science Foundation
Geoff Randall
Zeneca, UK
Brian Randell
University of Newcastle, UK
ANNEX
Steve Rattien
RAND
Scott Rayder
House Science Committee
Ruth Reck
University of California, Davis
Lucy H. Richards
Department of Commerce
Giovanni Rinaldi
Italy
John Rodman
RAMS-FIE
Philippa Rogers
Embassy of Great Britain
Laura Rosato
L.R. Associates
Ronald Rosenfeld
Carnegie Mellon
Christopher Ross
US Delegation of the European Union
M.D.A. Rounsevell
Cranfield University, UK
Jorma Routti
European Commission, DGXII
Tom Rozzell
National Research Council
Roland Ruhle
University of Stuttgart, Germany
OCR for page 157
PARTICIPANTS
Jason Rushton
Innolog
Lee Sanders
University of Warwick
Scott Sandgathe
United States Navy
Margarida Santos
Instituto de Cooperacao Cientifica e
Tecnologica Internacional, Portugal
Roger Sattler
University of Maryland
Claire Saundry
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
R. Wayne Sayer
R. Wayne Sayer & Associates
Wendy Schacht
Congressional Research Service
Dr. Schacke
Ministry of Transportation,
Denmark
Ingolf Schaedler
Federal Ministry for Science and
Transport, Austria
Wolfgang Schlump
Embassy of Germany
Wolfram Schoett
Embassy of Germany
Christopher Schonwalder
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
157
Gregory Schuckman
American Association of Engineering
Societies
Craig Schultz
National Research Council
Stuart J.D. Schwartzstein
Office of Naval Research Europe
Bernard Schwetz
Food and Drug Administration
Rob Scott
Economic Policy Institute
Alan Sears
Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency
H. Segner
Center for Environmental Research,
Germany
Dieter Seltzer
Fraunhofer Institute, Germany
Lisa Shaffer
University of California
John Shamaly
Silicon Valley Group
Michael Shelby
NIEHS
Kenneth Shine
Institute of Medicine
Jagadish Shukla
Institute of Global Environment and
Society, Inc.
OCR for page 158
158
Susan M. Sieber
Division of Cancer Epidemiology
Robert Skinner
Transportation Research Board
Horst Soboll
DaimlerBenz Technology, Germany
Randall Soderquist
Office of Senator Bingaman
Elizabeth Sokul
House Committee on Science
Micheal Sollosi
US Coast Guard
Bill Spencer
SEMATECH
Scott Stafford
DDR&E, Department of Defense
Linda Staheli
National Institutes of Health
Attilio Stajano
European Commission, DO III
Volker Steinbiss
Philips Speech Processing, Germany
Robert Stern
Consultant in Technology
Management
Carrie Stevens
U.S. General Accounting Office
Macol Stewart
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
ANNEX
Matthew Stiff
Museum Documentation Association,
United Kingdom
Deborah Stirling
Stirling Strategic Services
George Strawn
National Science Foundation
Gary W. Strong
National Science Foundation
Orson Swindle
Federal Trade Commission
Istvan Szemenyei
Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
Rob Taalman
CEFIC-EMSG
Tyrone Taylor
Federal Laboratory Consortium
Alexander Tenenbaum
Embassy of Italy
Francois-Xavier Testard-Vaillant
Embassy of France
William B. Testerman, II
House Science Committee
Costantino Thanos
CNR, Italy
Richard Thayer
Telecommunications & Technologies
International
Bonnie H. Thompson
National Science Foundation
OCR for page 159
PARTICIPANTS
Gavin Thomson
European Economic Development
Services, Lid
Sandra Tirey
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Marja-Leena Tolonen
TEKES, Finland
Alan Tonelson
US Business and Industrial Council
Educational Foundation
Francoise Touraine-Moulin
Embassy of France
Kevin Trenberth
National Center for Atmospheric
Research
Charles Trimble
Trimble Navigation
Robert Tuch
German-American Academic Council
James Turner
House Science Committee
Franklin Urteaga
Office of Science and Technology
Policy
Steve Usdin
Endocrine-Estrogen Newsletter
Hans Uszkoreit
DFKI, Germany
Allie Uyehara
Uyehara International Associates Inc.
159
Cecil Uyehara
Uyehara International Associates Inc.
Riccardo Valentini
Universita della Tusscia, Italy
Anja Van Dam
Royal Netherlands Embassy
Thierry van der Pyl
European Commission, DGIII
Reinder J. Van Duinen
European Science and Technology
Assembly
G. van Oortmerssen
CWI, The Netherlands
Gerrit Vanderwees
Embassy of the Netherlands
Dave Varney
Federal Information and News
Dispatch
Pedro Veiga
FCCN, Portugal
Nicholas Vonortas
George Washington University
J.G. Vos
RIVM, The Netherlands
Meredith Wadman
Press
Caroline Wagner
Rand
Shukri Wakid
Department of Commerce
OCR for page 160
160
Michael Wallace
University of Washington
Michael Waters
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Albert Wavering
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Peter Webster
University of Colorado
Tom Weimer
National Academy of Sciences
Clifford Weinstein
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles Wessner
National Research Council
John Westensee
Aarhus School of Business, Denmark
Christopher Whaley
Embassy of Great Britain
ANNEX
Chelsea C. White
University of Michigan
Wendy White
National Academy of Sciences
Isabel Wolte
Embassy of Austria
David N. Wormley
Pennsylvania State University
William Wulf
National Academy of Engineering
Kenneth Wykle
Department of Transportation
Dr. Yelloz
GEC Alsthom Signalling
Antonio Zampolli
Instituto di Linguistica
Computazionale, Italy
Representative terms from entire chapter:
framework programme
