|
Summary as presented by Colin Walters, assistant to the Chairman of the 2004 CSTP Ministerial, Peter McGauran, Australian Minister of Science
The consultation meeting on the morning of 29 January was well attended and productive.
The BIAC Delegation focused its intervention on three issues:
The TUAC Delegation focused on the following issues:
The framework for IPRs was discussed as an important issue. BIAC delegates emphasised that there is a shift to innovation-based growth. What is important is not to get stronger IPRs, but to get it right, which requires the right policy framework. The roles of IPR in promoting technology transfer and diffusion and innovation in healthcare were also emphasised by BIAC.
TUAC suggested that protection via IPRs may not always be the best option to encourage innovation. TUAC also raised the issue of how to protect the interest of developing countries under the current IPR systems.
In the discussion on IPR issues, the question of how to maintain the quality of patents was raised. It was noted by a BIAC delegate that quality is an essential problem in many OECD countries. There were also concerns raised that universities lacked the professional capacity for evaluating patent value of research results, and for effective patenting in order to foster technology transfer and not just increase the number of patents. BIAC representatives agreed that this can lead to needless over-patenting in some public research institutions.
In summary, participants noted that the OECD is well placed to help governments develop and adjust IPR frameworks to meet the need of both science and innovation.
The discussions on human resources in S&T focused on the declining interest among young people in S&T: TUAC attributed the diminished interest to the unattractive working conditions and to obstacles to the mobility of S&T personnel.
Points made by other Delegates included:
-
Cultural factors affecting people’s perception on the attractiveness of S&T professions (Australia).
-
The less favourable research facilities in the public research sector in some countries as compared with that of industry (Finland).
-
The importance of less regulation, more freedom, excellence and favourable academic environment for attracting and retaining the best S&T workers (Ireland).
-
Short-term employment contracts in public research can discourage some young researchers (Finland).
-
The need to address the bottlenecks throughout the education system as a whole instead of only in higher education (Germany).
-
The need to promote mobility of researchers throughout their careers, not only just between sectors/disciplines and geographically (France).
TUAC also raised the issue of brain drain, and especially the impact of brain drain on the sending countries.
Regarding the science-innovation interface, participants recognised the growing importance of public research to innovation, as illustrated by the experience of the US. There is a broad consensus that business, universities, and civil society should work together to strengthen the framework for science and industry relations.
In the discussion on biotechnology, BIAC Delegates and other participants emphasised the role of industrial biotechnology in achieving sustainable growth and in particular in the area of human health.
Specific suggestions for the future work by the OECD
Both BIAC and TUAC recognised that the OECD is well positioned to undertake work on the issues being emphasised at this meeting. Suggestions for future work were as follows:
IPR. To study how to improve the regulatory framework for IPR, and how to balance the protection of invention, and technology diffusion, and the interest of developing countries and less developed regions. It was also proposed that OECD study the social cost of IPR systems, the relationship between competition and IPR protection, and the interest of developing countries. An evaluation of the impacts of IPR policies, in terms of how effective they provided incentives for innovation, would to be made by involving a broad range of stakeholders, not just government and industry.
Science-innovation interface. There was broad consensus on the importance of OECD’s work on S&T policy but there is also a need to better link this work with work elsewhere in the Organisation, notably in the areas of education and labour market policy. The OECD has a role to play to foster greater public confidence in science by engaging civil society on issues related to the impact of science and technology. There was a suggestion that the OECD should conduct work on risks associated with the industrial applications of science and technology innovation.
Human resources. The OECD could help member countries address the issue of falling interest in science careers. One area of work that was suggested was that of carrying out an international survey of working conditions in the public research. In the area of mobility, the OECD should not only measure mobility but it should help countries identify the barriers or obstacles to researchers’ mobility and the ways in which governments can overcome these.
Biotechnology. The OECD should evaluate the impact of regulatory policies and incentives on the development of the bio-based economy. BIAC stressed the need for the OECD to analyse advances in biotechnology for human health and the driving factors in this. The OECD could also help governments improve their regulatory frameworks by identifying regulatory barriers and providing recommendations for their removal.
It was noted that these suggestions would be taken up by the CSTP, dependent on available resources.
|
