The Committee for Scientific and Technical Research (Crest) is the advisory committee to the Council and the Commission. CREST has an advisory role, informing the Commission and the Council. Its mission is to issue reports at the request of either of the two bodies or on its own initiative, on subjects relating to scientific and technical research and in particular, on the co-ordination of national R+D policies.
"[...] The Committee de la Recherche Scientifique & Technique (CREST) is an advisory Committee to the European Council and is tasked with acting as the operational interface to define and oversee the implementation of a soft governance tool called the "Open Method of Coordination" to achieve the goal set at the Barcelona European Council 2002 of research investment approaching 3% of GDP by 2010. This "Open Method of Coordination" involves mainly benchmarking & peer group review.
During the first CREST cycle, expert groups looked at 6 broad areas, with the Patent Office providing expert input to the "IPR and Research" expert group. All 6 of these groups reported back to the main CREST committee and the "IPR and Research" final report can be viewed here. Its recommendations were:
Improve the coherence and effectiveness of IPR ownership regimes applicable in publicly funded research;
Member States should earmark funding for the management of knowledge and IPR;
Collect data in a coordinated way and develop IPR performance indicators;
Establish mechanisms for promoting management of IPR in public research organisations (PROs);
Promote the validation of European guidelines for management and exploitation of IPR in PROs and public-private partnerships by stakeholders;
Basic awareness-training on IPR and technology transfer should be available for every student;
Recognise IPR and technology transfer activities in appraising the performance of researchers;
Promote the accreditation of technology transfer professionals on a Europe-wide basis.
The outcomes of this first cycle were published by CREST in its report of 1 October 2004. Useful recommendations came out of this first phase but many Member States, including the UK felt that the process could be improved by focusing on discreet projects based around fairly narrow issues.
As a result, the second CREST cycle which begins in 2005 will be structured as a rolling programme of narrowly defined, Member State led projects. The Patent Office is currently actively considering leading one such group that would look at intellectual property ownership issues in a European context.[...]"
The CREST Report is available on-line as Document CREST 1206/04. Some Highlights from this paper:
"[...]First cycle recommendation 11
Improve the coherence and effectiveness of IPR ownership regimes applicable in publicly funded research. This can be done:
- By the production of clear legislation or guidelines for all PROs (universities and others) in each Member State;
- By the regular exchange of experience and good practices between those countries having a 'professor's privilege' regime. Although the same basic principle – professor's privilege – exists in a number of countries (FIN, IT, GR, S, RO), each one has peculiarities, and convergences between them should be promoted;
- By those countries with 'professor's privilege' regime making disclosure (to TTOs) of inventions and patents mandatory This would permit PROs in 'professor's privilege' countries to have a better overview of the inventions developed by their staff, and possibly to play a role in promoting their exploitation. In particular, it would make it easier (e.g. for industry) to identify the owner of any results generated by a PRO in these countries;
- By those countries having a 'professor’s privilege' system encouraging PROs making arrangements with researchers/professors so that they systematically assign their IP to the PRO or to its TTO, under clearly defined conditions. While doing so, transition to the institutional ownership regime should be promoted as a long term objective to such countries. Without requiring new legislation to be adopted, such a measure – to be taken individually by PROs – would have the same consequence as the replacement of the professor's privilege regime by the institutional ownership regime. It could also be promoted by Member States including provisions in their funding regimes, which allocate the rights to the institution rather than to the professor. Institutional ownership appears to be emerging as the common practice worldwide.
[...]
First cycle recommendation 12
Member states may consider that an earmarked percentage of their global public R&D financing will be devoted to the management of knowledge and IPR (technology transfer organisations and associations, incubators, etc.).
[...]
First cycle recommendation 13
Detailed data relating to the activities of TTOs (patenting, licensing, spin-off creation, etc.)should be collected in a coordinated way, so as to be able to benchmark these activities against each other. IPR performance indicators should be developed at European level and be directly comparable to that collected by AUTM in North America.
[...]
First cycle recommendation 14
Member States are advised to establish mechanisms to promote the management of Intellectual Property in PROs. To do this:
- Universities and other PROs are encouraged to establish their own guidelines regarding IPR management and exploitation. Public funding for technology transfer could be linked to such guidelines being in place at the PRO2. Furthermore, funding (in general) could make disclosure of profit-sharing arrangements between partners a mandatory requirement;
- National (and EC) R&D programmes and individual projects within them are advised to consider their economic / business impact due to IPR exploitation during evaluations.
[...]
First cycle recommendation 15
Member states and the EC should promote the validation of the European guidelines being prepared by stakeholders. To do this:
- Member States are proposed to monitor the progress of the work on the guidelines with the aim of assisting their validation and eventual implementation. To this end Member states could undertake suitable initiatives (e.g. national workshops involving both industry and PROs) to raise awareness on these guidelines and discuss their implementation at a national level;
- Member states considering the development of new national guidelines may wish to do so on the basis of these European guidelines;
- The Commission should promote collaboration and networking among existing European technology transfer associations.
[...]
First cycle recommendation 16
Member States should ensure that before graduating, every student – especially from science, engineering and business schools – receives basic awareness / training regarding intellectual property and technology transfer.
[...]
First cycle recommendation 17
Member states should ensure that researchers’ activities relating to patenting, licensing, spin-off creation and the like will be duly taken into account for performance appraisal purposes, to the same extent as classical academic criteria such as publications and prizes.
[...]
First cycle recommendation 18
Member states and/or the Commission should promote the accreditation of technology transfer professionals on a Europe-wide basis, to facilitate exchange of personnel and experience, and promote mobility, across Europe. [...]"
UK-PTO website: