Monica Beltrametti, Vice President & Director, Xerox Research Centre Europe
Billions of dollars and euros are to be invested in research and development to achieve the similar goals set out in these respective packages. Yet there is hardly any effort to coordinate this work.
Coordination could at best lead to great synergies and groundbreaking results – and at worst – avoid duplication. The same holds for the annual US federal government and EU R&D budgets, which represent 2 to 3 per cent of GDP, but which have very seldom involved any joint effort, even when they shared similar objectives.
To some, that may not seem the best way to spend taxpayers’ money. Can decision-makers in the White House and Brussels be the only ones not to notice that – for want of a better euphemism – there might be a ‘missed opportunity’? So why are we playing blind to such potential waste?
Like many a large organisation with R&D centres across the globe, Xerox is working alongside public R&D institutions in different countries and geographic areas. As a company we regularly witness the lack of coordination in funding.
When you analyse past – failed – attempts at coordination, particularly in the 1990s when the EU and the US National Science Foundation assigned funding for joint R&D projects, common issues emerge. The main problems in conducting these projects were that the financing bodies had different evaluation standards, and they each wanted total ownership of the results.
The desire to avoid getting into sticky intellectual property disputes thus precluded any real kind of collaboration [1]. Many projects never saw the light of day, while the results of those that did go ahead were so disappointing, for both researchers and funding agencies, that all parties were generally discouraged from renewing the experience.
A time of opportunity
Which raises the question of what is so different about the current environment that means US/EU R&D collaboration has a better chance of bearing fruit?
Well, the world has changed somewhat since those times. Even before the current crisis the concept of ‘Open Innovation’ was becoming more widespread and accepted. It’s now fairly common practice for private industries to in-license technology or intellectual property and to find external partners with whom to share the risk of heavy research investments. The days of doing it all by oneself are long gone, as time to market gets shorter and competitive pressures multiply.
Change brings opportunity, and right now two significant political factors are in alignment. The new US administration, and in particular President Obama himself, has energised populations and shifted perspectives. The country is rethinking its approach to competitiveness and R&D, an exercise it hasn’t been through for many years. Combine this with a newly-elected European Parliament and newly-appointed Commission, and there is much opportunity that must be grasped, before we once again become entrenched in our ways.
Then of course there is the global economic crisis, the first of its kind on such a widespread scale. Even the developing markets, including the BRIC countries, which were enjoying unprecedented levels of growth, are being hit hard. In periods of strong performance the tendency is to protect oneself from both the strong and the weak. What we are experiencing at the moment has forced governments and industries across the world to rethink.
Discussions have opened up, and it is now an opportune time to explore what could be achieved by uniting the scientific and technical capabilities of the developed world for global benefit.
In the US and Europe the recession has highlighted the need for research and innovation in traditional industries like manufacturing, healthcare and transport, and these are exactly the problem areas that emerging nations desperately need to address too.
The Challenge
If common sense tells us this is something worth doing, what kind of advice can we give to decision-makers to ensure this gets on the international relations agenda? As a start the following might help:
Identify what we have in common. If you consider that almost two thirds of US R&D investments outside the US are in Europe and vice versa, there is definitely a substantial mutual interest [2].
Identify differences. Two examples are funding and education. State funding of R&D in the EU member states is anything from 15 to 20 per cent higher than in the US, with far less spending on defence. Researchers in the US tend to have a broader set of skills, and more business acumen, while Europe excels in specific scientific fields such as mathematics and systems engineering.
Don’t replicate what works in one place without fully understanding the context. Small and medium sized businesses grow at a much faster rate in the US, but it’s difficult to match that in Europe. The US national market is larger than any single European country. It’s also simpler and less expensive for US companies to become international as long as English remains the language of business.
If it’s likely to work, make it more systemic. France is having recognised success with its ‘Competitive Clusters’, which bring together some 700 public and private research organisations in specific geographic areas with a high concentration of skills [3]. The most successful ones have attracted world class expertise and created easy entry points to their particular areas of expertise. The European Union is now encouraging the development of similar clusters across the member states.
Encourage people to do what is in their best interests. We may not all speak the same language, but even the fiercest of competitors will come together and find a solution if they want it badly enough. Take the example of Europe’s ARTEMIS technology platform for embedded intelligence and systems. The partners need a broad platform but couldn’t afford to do it all themselves. In the project the work was divided up, with each contributing company developing the part of the platform that was closest to their business.
Diversify. Get higher returns by applying existing knowledge and expertise to completely different areas. The classic example here is the invention of magnetrons for defence radars leading to the creation of microwave ovens. A current example, which is closer to home for Xerox, is applying expertise in manipulating toner particles to the filtering of wastewater.
Jump start a couple of high profile, high impact projects that have a good chance of success. Role models are great motivators. Let’s not forget the EU has worked hard at learning and teaching very diverse member states to work together. The Treaty of Lisbon signed by 27 states is a shining example. This experience will be invaluable in helping both sides move forward.
Most of all, a push to encourage US/EU cooperation in R&D will require strong and persistent leaders capable of driving through further reform. Defining exactly how to tackle this issue needs to be begin now. Once that’s been done, the argument speaks for itself. Economic growth will be based on technology and innovation. We’re not asking the taxpayer to give more, but trying to spend what we have more wisely. That’s something on most people’s minds these days and it’s not likely to go away for quite some time to come.
This viewpoint springs partly from a roundtable that Xerox organised recently on the topic, at its lab in Grenoble, France. Participants were:
David Appia, Ambassador for International Investment, Chairman and CEO, Invest in France Agency; Monica Beltrametti Vice President & Director, Xerox Research Centre Europe; Oliver Griffith, Managing Director, American Chamber of Commerce, France; Jean-Charles Guibert, Director of Technology Transfer Office, CEA-Grenoble, Director of MINATEC; Richard L. Hudson, CEO & Editor, Science|Business (moderator); Anne M. Mulcahy, Chairman, Xerox Corporation; Khalil Rouhana. Head of Unit European Commission, C2 Strategy for ICT research and innovation; Joseph Sifakis, Director VERIMAG and Turing award recipient 2007.
1. Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America - Intellectual property, OJ L 284, 22.10.1998, p. 37–44
2. Booz&co. "Beyond Borders: The Global Innovation 1000”, October 21st, 2008
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
A unique international forum for public research organisations and companies to connect their external engagement with strategic interests around their R&D system.
