The following article is based upon the Review of the Science and Technology Cooperation between the European Community and the USA 2003-2008, published in January 2009, and co-authored by the author of this article and Keith A. Harrap.
In December 19971, the first agreement on science and technology (S&T) cooperation was signed by the United States and the European Community (EC). Its goal was to foster transatlantic research cooperation, notably through implementing arrangements between the European Commission and US government departments and research funding agencies. It was foreseen that the agreement should be reviewed every five years before being extended for another five-year period.
In mid-2008, Keith Harrap and I were assigned as independent experts by the European Union to conduct such a review (click here for detailed information on the review procedures) for the period 2003-2008; the first impact assessment was carried out in 200323, . On March 26, 2009, the findings of our review were presented to the EC-US Joint Consultative Group, the steering body of the S&T agreement. The present article summarizes our conclusions and recommendations.
Why S&T agreements?
The European Community has concluded S&T Agreements (STA) with various third countries4 such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, India, Egypt, India, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Tunisia, and Ukraine. An agreement with New Zealand was signed on July 16, 2008, and should enter into force in 2009. Currently, the Community is negotiating or considering negotiating S&T agreements with Japan, Jordan, and Algeria.
These agreements constitute a framework and a privileged forum to identify common interests and priorities, to ensure a regular policy dialogue, and to develop the necessary tools and instruments for S&T collaboration. They offer a political, legal, and administrative framework for coordinating and facilitating cooperative S&T activities between European legal entities and international partners, thereby strengthening the international dimension of the European Research Area.
Under the umbrella of certain agreements "Implementing Arrangements" can be signed between the European Commission and third countries' government departments and funding agencies to better organize collaboration in specific areas of research. These have been a particular feature of the EC-US STA.
The S&T Agreement between the European Community and the US
The STA is seen as an important platform for the regular S&T policy dialogue between the EU and the US. Compared to the earlier periods of the agreement since its signing in 1997, the reporting period of 2003-2008 has seen a substantially increased intensity of interactions. On both sides, there is increased awareness of the importance of transnational S&T cooperation. However, information on and awareness of the STA and the opportunities for supporting EU-US S&T cooperation could still be strengthened.
One major point to address is the low US participation in the EC Framework Program and the opportunities available for intensification. Administrative provisions have been improved, but there are still barriers and hurdles that should be reduced. Our report identified perspectives for enhanced cooperation by balancing the bottom-up approach of opening EU and US programs for mutual participation against a strategic approach focusing on jointly identified priority areas implemented by coordinated calls or program-level cooperation. The arrangement between the NIH and the European Commission can act as a model.
At present, EU Member States and Community S&T activities lack coherence, complementarity, and also visibility as "European S&T." We see opportunities for better coordination and cooperation in different organisational settings. The new Strategic European Framework for International S&T Cooperation will provide a forum for Member States to develop joint strategies and cooperative activities where appropriate and beneficial.
The role and the management of the EC-EU S&T Agreement
The EC-US STA is an important and efficient tool for the regular S&T policy dialogue between the European Community and the government of the United States, with the aim of intensifying EU-US S&T cooperation and the exchange of experience and good practice in the area of S&T policy. Not only should it be continued, but it should be extended, possibly considering new areas such as, e.g., security and space and also new forms of activities such as program-level cooperation.
In general, S&T agreements also have the potential to play an important role in the frame of the implementation of the new Strategic European Framework for International S&T Cooperation5, especially in the context of further moves towards strategic partnerships between groups of EU Member States and key non-EU countries. Of course, the ways and means of setting targets and implementing activities must be developed accordingly, which will be the task of the new Forum for International Science and Technology Cooperation that was recently established during implementation of the above framework. The Forum will be the body in which EU Member States and associated countries will develop joint strategies and programs.
Compared to 1998-2003, meetings of the EC-US Joint Consultative Group (JCG) are greatly improved, regarding both scientific content and participation of high-level stakeholders. Particularly, the preparation of road map documents is a real advance and should be developed further. The road map summarizes the plans for cooperative activities for the next year which, on the European side, forms the basis for including cooperative activities in the annual work programs of the European Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Program.
There are opportunities for strengthening the links between external policies and S&T policy and between the declarations of EU-US Summits and implementation of the S&T agreement.
During the reporting period, the directorates of the "research family" of the European Commission have shown substantial involvement in the interaction with the US in the frame of the EC-US STA. Thus, the internal awareness and utilization of the STA among the Commission services has been enhanced. However, opportunities remain for better utilization of coordination and cooperation across directorates and directorates general (DGs).
In general, on both the EU and the US sides, information on the EC-US S&T agreement, and information on the opportunities for S&T cooperation between the European Union and the US and the programs and instruments supporting the cooperation, should be further improved.
EU Member States and S&T experts should be better informed about the agenda and outcomes of JCG meetings and, where appropriate, invited to provide input. In formats that are in accordance with the rules of the JCG, information on the main outcomes of JCG meetings should be widely circulated among S&T stakeholders of the Member States (e.g., via the Member States' S&T counsellors in the US and the Forum for International S&T Cooperation), National Contact Points (NCPs), and the S&T community at large. Also, preparation and implementation of the road maps could be used to intensify the exchange of information and the cooperation between the European Commission and the Member States.
In 2003-2008, as in the past, the prime implementation tool for EC-US S&T cooperation was the EC RTD Framework Program. Strategies for balanced use of EC and US funding instruments for supporting EC-US S&T cooperation have yet to be further developed. Future initiatives for funding EC-US S&T activities could learn, especially from the example of best practices in health research - as of 2009, FP7 and NIH funding opportunities will be reciprocally open to entities on both sides6. Opportunities for similar approaches in other areas, and with other research promotion actors, should be systematically explored.
In the further development of a European strategic framework for international S&T cooperation, the whole spectrum of possible cooperative arrangements should be explored and utilized in complementary ways: EC-US cooperation in the EC Framework Program, joint EC-US S&T programs, EC-US cooperation in US programs, cooperation in variable configurations between groupings of Member States and US partners, and bilateral cooperation between Member States and the US.
The Science, Technology and Education Section of the EC Delegation to the US shows excellent performance, but would require more human resources to act as the vanguard of EC S&T activities in the US. Also coordination and cooperation should be strengthened with Member States active in the area of S&T cooperation with the US.
In the United States, the Obama Administration has made transparency one of the key themes of its approach to governance. In the President's agenda for the nation, the section on technology includes a pledge to "...use cutting-edge technologies to create a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America's citizens." The first official memorandum issued by President Obama concerned "Transparency and Open Government ," and reads in part:
Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public.
Concurrently, the Obama Administration has embraced the idea that regional economic growth is a key driver of national prosperity. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2010 includes "$50 million for regional planning and matching grants to support the creation of regional innovation clusters that leverage regions' existing competitive strengths to boost job creation and economic growth." While past government programs have attempted to assist regional economies in organizing their innovation efforts, this proposal reflects the President's belief that the future of the nation lies in building an innovation-based economy.
Wastewater treatment in the Washington, DC, area seems to be a family-run business: Sudhir Murthy, son of a wastewater engineer, is research director at the Blue Plains treatment facilities of the DC Water & Sewer Authority, while his wife, Maureen O'Shaughnessy, works at the Alexandria Sanitation Authority in Virginia, on the opposite shore of the Potomac River. One of the challenges the couple faces at work is how to achieve significant long-term reduction of their plants' energy needs. The most power-consuming process is the removal of nitrogen - a nutrient that gets into the wastewater every time you flush your toilet.
Macroscopic view of Anammox bacteria.
Bernhard Wett from the University of Innsbruck, Austria, is an expert in nitrogen removal. The environmental scientist joined the Murthy/O'Shaughnessy family in 2005 to introduce a new groundbreaking technique in wastewater treatment within the Washington, DC, area. The "Demon" process, invented by Wett, employs the recently discovered Anammox bacteria. Wett first demonstrated it successfully in a much smaller treatment plant in Strass in the Tyrolean Alps. For the treatment of certain sidestreams with particularly high nitrogen loads, he could decrease the energy consumption by more than 50 percent. Hence, the "Demon" process became a key component in making the Strass plant Austria's most energy-efficient wastewater treatment plant.
The collaboration of Wett with the American scientists has already received well-deserved recognition for outstanding performance in the US: In February of this year, the US National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the nation's biggest independent association for wastewater treatment, selected the DC Water & Sewer Authority together with the Alexandria Sanitation Authority to receive an award in the "Research & Technology" category of its annual National Environmental Achievements Program for "enhancing nitrogen removal and increasing sustainability with innovative sidestream treatment" using the Demon process.
Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
"We treat 300 million gallons of water a day," Murthy explains, while driving around the Blue Plains facilities. The distances are too long to
Blue Plains - the largest Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant in the US.
cover by walking, since Blue Plains is the largest Advanced Treatment plant in the United States. Serving 2 million people from the Washington, DC, metro area, Blue Plains is far bigger than the other 10 plants in the neighborhood combined.
Wastewater treatment was invented 100 years ago, and Blue Plains was built in the 1930s. Back then, the removal of organic pollution - carbon (C) compounds - was considered sufficient treatment. "Otherwise these carbon compounds get degraded in the rivers or sea. Degradation is an oxygen-consuming process, the fish would die," says Murthy. In the 1970s, however, it turned out that removing the less bulky compounds nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) is even more critical (click here to access a "bridges" article with comprehensive background information on the different pollutants found in waste water). These nutrients fertilize the water bodies, thereby enhancing algal bloom, which is again followed by degradation and oxygen depletion. The Blue Plains treatment process (click here to access a "bridges" article with background information on Blue Plains "Advanced Wastewater Treatment") removes carbon and phosphorus and, since 2000, nitrogen as well. Additionally, a sand filter and disinfection by chlorination further improve the effluent quality. "Blue Plains is located at the nicest spot on the Potomac River; sometimes you can even see bald eagles," smiles Murthy. The effluent of the treatment plant has almost drinking water quality. Still, the Potomac River has environmental problems.
From left to right: Eric Kandel, Petra Seeger and Nils Bruzelius.
"I can't imagine what I can say about Dr. Kandel," says Nils Bruzelius , The Washington Post's deputy national editor for science, "that was not described by the movie." With this, Bruzelius, who served as moderator on the evening of January 27th, kicked off the Q&A session. The screening at the Carnegie Institution in the US capital was the first in a series of film screenings, during which Austrian-born neuroscientist and Nobel Prize-winner Eric Kandel, joined by German filmmaker and producer Petra Seeger, toured the United States with the 95-minute documentary film about Kandel's life.
More than 2100 people, including representatives from the fields of science, politics, and culture, from students to Nobel Laureates, attended the series of screenings from January 27 through February 29, 2009, organized by the Office of Science & Technology (OST) at the Embassy of Austria in cooperation with FilmForm Köln , and hosted by partner institutions in Washington, DC, New York, NY, Boston, MA, Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA. Among the hosts were renowned institutions like the Carnegie Institution for Science and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (for a complete list of all partnering institutions, please click here ).
It has been exactly five years since bridges' last in-depth report on S&T policy in Canada in its 2004 article "Science & Technology Policy North of the Niagara Falls ." Meanwhile, much has changed: Two years after the article, in the federal elections of 2006, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper defeated then-Prime Minister Paul Martin and formed a minority government, putting an end to more than 12 years of liberal rule.
With the new conservative government came also changes for Canadian S&T policy: The position of the independent, nonpartisan advisor to the prime minister on science and technology, introduced in 2004, was abolished in January 2008 after the Harper administration formed an 18-member Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) in 2007. With the formation of the STIC, the position of the science advisor obviously became obsolete. Interestingly, though, immediately after the elections in 2006 Harper had already moved Arthur Carty, a chemist by training and previous president of the National Research Council Canada who was appointed first Canadian S&T advisor, from the prime minister's office to office space located at Industry Canada; there he reported to the minister of industry instead of reporting directly to the prime minister.
However, it should be clarified that, from the very start, success for the S&T advisor's office was rather unlikely due to a poorly defined mandate and - as so often with such appointments - because the funding made available was inadequate for the operations of such an office. Carter's budget, including salaries, is said to have been only Can $1 million, and with no permanent staff to support him with his tasks until his third year on the job.
Now the STIC has taken over providing policy advice to the government and reporting on Canada's S&T performance. Some say that having an 18-member council provides even better advice than a single person, especially since many members of the STIC are renowned scientists and entrepreneurs. Others, however, have aired their fear that the council lacks independence and even objectivity in its advice, since government administrators occupy several seats on the council.
According to an article in Nature magazine published last December, many Canadian scientists have complained about the way science has been treated under Harper. In the lead-up to the October 2008 election, they rallied against the Conservative government by issuing two letters of protest. One called for politicians to crack down on greenhouse-gas emissions, the other for an end to the mistreatment and politicization of science. "While science is not the only factor to be considered in political decision making, ignoring and subverting science and scientific processes is unacceptable," said the October 8 letter, which was signed by 85 scientists and addressed to the five party leaders.
bridges: In May 2007, the Canadian government introduced a science & technology (S&T) strategy "Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage." This far-reaching strategy defines a 10-year national agenda for Canadian S&T across all sectors, and is designed to turn ideas into innovations that provide solutions to environmental, health, and other social challenges, while also improving economic competitiveness. Two years later, would you say that Canada is on track to reach its set goals?
Chad Gaffield
Gaffield: From my perspective, we have made good progress. SSHRC's programs are organized along strategic outcomes that contribute significantly to the Science and Technology (S&T) Strategy's People, Research and Entrepreneurial Advantages. Currently, more than 25% of our budget directly supports the four priority areas identified by the Government in the Strategy: environmental science and technologies; natural resources and energy; health and related life sciences and technologies; and information and communications technologies. Furthermore, SSHRC is playing an important role insupporting the research, the development of talent, and knowledge mobilization activities that promote innovation in management, entrepreneurship and sustainable economic development practices. These activities are funded in part by an $11 million annual allocation to support research in management, business and finance, announced in Budget 2007 from the Government of Canada. And, of course, we are investing in the development of talented, creative and innovative leaders who can contribute across all sectors. Together we are contributing to the implementation of the S&T strategy to make Canada a global economic leader through world-class research, a highly skilled workforce and strong partnerships across business, academic and public sectors. As well, we have reinforced even more our collaborations with the other granting agencies, both in terms of policy and research support.
Since my predecessor last wrote in bridges in 2004, there has been significant change on both sides of the Canada-US border, with new elected officials in both countries resulting in a new S&T policy realm. One thing has not changed: Canada and the US still continue to enjoy a strong collaborative relationship in all areas of science and technology. This is, in a way, representative of the greater and unique Canada-US relationship: We share the world's largest and most comprehensive trading relationship, a common border that stretches across 8,893 kilometers (5,526 miles) of land and three oceans, and stewardship of a rich and diverse environment, including 20 percent of the world's supply of fresh water in the Great Lakes.
You can imagine the possibilities and opportunities to work together in the area of S&T. While we continue not to have an overarching S&T agreement, the US and Canada have literally hundreds of agency-to-agency S&T arrangements or memoranda of understanding (MOU), which provide an enhanced level of collaboration with US entities. These are in addition to the extensive integration at the grassroots level. Broad areas of collaboration between the US and Canada include biomedical research, space, information and communication technologies (ICT), energy, environment, and Arctic research. A diverse range of bilateral projects includes Neptune, the world's largest cable-linked seafloor observatory; collaboration between the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Canada's National Research Council (NRC) to develop measurement standards for nanotechnology; and collaborations between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the various institutes of the Canadian Health Research Institutes (CIHR) in the areas of cardiovascular health, neuroscience, infectious diseases, and cancer research.
Another important Canada-US project is the Canada-California Strategic Innovation Partnership (CCSIP) between several of Canada's major research universities and California's university research system (nine major universities). CCSIP has established working groups to address three crosscutting issues (attracting risk capital, managing intellectual property, and ensuring a free flow of faculty and students between the two jurisdictions), and also five substantive areas of research and development: ICT/broadband, stem cells, clean energy, infectious diseases, and nanotechnology. One of the early successes is a major collaborative research agreement with California for cancer stem cell research.
Canada has worked very closely with the American space programs since the creation of NASA, when Canadian engineers and scientists played key roles in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Canada has also played a collaborative role in many of the leading satellite programs (telecom, remote sensing, and deep space exploration). The 1981 deployment of the Canadarm, the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System, has inspired several generations of scientists and engineers as they develop new technologies for industry, medicine, and other applications.
Every week is Bike to Work Week for Wolfgang Haider, associate professor of resource and environmental management at the School of Resources and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. "I ride the bicycle to work almost on a daily basis - it's a workout and a commute all at the same time," says Haider, who estimates his commuting route is about 13 kilometers, or 8 miles, from his home to his office on campus. Haider's daily commute is what many people would only consider as a weekend activity. Not so for Haider. Even after arriving at his desk on campus, Haider's thoughts and actions continue to focus on biking and other outdoor and recreational activities such as hiking or fishing: He studies and models the decisions and behavior of people in recreational activities.
Haider, who received his M.Sc. in geography and history at the University of Vienna , is from the Austrian city of Eisenstadt. He attributes much of his affinity for geographical studies to growing up in the '60s in a small town in Austria and being sports and outdoors oriented. "Certain directions of thinking are ingrained in somebody - either you have it, or you don't have it. Being fascinated with geography was something I just had from when I was little," Haider says. After his studies in Vienna, he became a high school geography teacher. But Haider wasn't interested in settling down in this career. "That wasn't in my psyche to settle down. I was looking for something else," Haider said. That "something else" happened to lead him to Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, where he received his M.A. in geography. Following his passion, he went on to receive his Ph.D. from McGill University in geography as well.
One look at Sylvia Stöckler Ipsiroglu's curriculum vitae makes a stunning impression. Her 25-year career as a researcher,pediatrician, and health care manager is impressive enough when examined at each stage, but even more impressive when all of her accomplishments are combined: Stöckler launched her research career by discovering a metabolic disorder that later became part of newborn screenings in Austria; she then extended and overhauled the screening with new technology as a health care manager during her time in the Department of Pediatrics at the University Hospital in Vienna, and as head of the Austrian newborn screening program. In 2005, she followed a call to head the Division of Biochemical Diseases and the Cystic Fibrosis clinical service at British Columbia's Children's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada. She continues to apply her knowledge and expertise to expand newborn screening in Canada - while still finding time to sit at the bedsides of her young patients.
From a pediatrician to a health care manager
After finishing her Ph.D. at the Karl Franzens University in Graz in 1983, Stöckler completed her residencies and some fellowships before moving to Göttingen, Germany, in 1992 to work in neurology at the August University.
During her fellowship training in Göttingen, her career was serendipitously pushed in a certain direction: In 1994, she was the first scientist to describe the cerebral creatine deficiency syndrome. Her discovery was about a metabolic disorder, more precisely, about a defective enzyme, guanidinoacetate methyltransferase (GAMT), one of the enzymes responsible for creatine production. If not treated, this rare disorder leads to mental retardation, speech delay, and epilepsy. However, if diagnosed early in newborns, treatment is simple by supplementing the patients with creatine monohydrate and ornithine and putting them on dietary arginine restriction. This can be done immediately after birth, reducing brain damage enormously.
After this groundbreaking discovery, her professor suggested extending her stay at August University in Göttingen to continue research in this field. Stöckler did so, and also completed her Habilitation in 1996 while at Göttingen.
Through metabolism, the human body transforms food into energy. Many enzymes are necessary to break down digested food into substances to be used by body cells and turned into energy. Some enzymes are responsible for building up essential compounds that cannot be obtained from nutrition, and others break down components that are no longer needed, which the body wants to get rid of. A genetic defect can lead to enzyme dysfunction (from too little to no enzyme production), which corresponds to mild or severe presentation of a metabolic disease.
Even today, Stöckler continues to enjoy an international reputation for her 1994 pioneering discovery of the creatine deficiency syndrome. "People still call me up to ask for my opinion on how patients should be treated," says Stöckler. Today, the number of patients identified with creatine deficiency is estimated to be approximately 250. "There might be so many more out there. A few years ago, a child's diagnosis was simply epilepsy and severe developmental delay, but today - especially thanks to the availability of advanced analytical methods (such as tandem mass spectrometry) - we can diagnose a creatine deficiency disorders early on, and treatment can be started before major damage occurs. Creatine deficiency is also a good candidate for newborn screening," so Stöckler.
In 1996, Stöckler returned to Austria, where she became an attending physician in the Department of General Pediatrics and head of the Unit for Biochemical Diseases at the University Hospital of Vienna. Only one year later, she was appointed to head the newborn screening program in Austria.
In December 19971, the first agreement on science and technology (S&T) cooperation was signed by the United States and the European Community (EC). Its goal was to foster transatlantic research cooperation, notably through implementing arrangements between the 
The European Community has concluded S&T Agreements (STA) with various third countries4 such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, India, Egypt, India, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Tunisia, and Ukraine. An agreement with New Zealand was signed on July 16, 2008, and should enter into force in 2009. Currently, the Community is negotiating or considering negotiating S&T agreements with Japan, Jordan, and Algeria.
The STA is seen as an important platform for the regular S&T policy dialogue between the EU and the US. Compared to the earlier periods of the agreement since its signing in 1997, the reporting period of 2003-2008 has seen a substantially increased intensity of interactions. On both sides, there is increased awareness of the importance of transnational S&T cooperation. However, information on and awareness of the STA and the opportunities for supporting EU-US S&T cooperation could still be strengthened. 
The EC-US STA is an important and efficient tool for the regular S&T policy dialogue between the European Community and the government of the United States, with the aim of intensifying EU-US S&T cooperation and the exchange of experience and good practice in the area of S&T policy. Not only should it be continued, but it should be extended, possibly considering new areas such as, e.g., security and space and also new forms of activities such as program-level cooperation.
