1. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science ROUND TABLE 3 The science programme and “Leaders of Tomorrow”:...

2. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Howard Alper Thordur JONSSON Lajos NYIRI Alain JUBIER Chris De WISPELAERE

3. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science n Brain Drain n Fellowships n Commercialization

4. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Brain Drain n Brain drain is an excessive loss of talented people n It is a problem for Partner Countries n Some brain drain is inevitable n Fellowships may lead to loss of talented people n Brain circulation is positive

5. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Fellowships (1) n Fellowships are an important tool for creating relationships between scientists n NATO fellowships programme has been very successful in the past but needs restructuring

6. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Fellowships (2) n NEW Fellowships programme u Should assist young Partner scientists when back in their respective home countries u Should reinforce other parts of Science Programme (LG - SfP) u Create “NATO Return Fellowships”

7. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Fellowships (3) n Right strategy ? n Strengths and weaknesses ? n Other actions ?

8. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Growing number of S&T projects under OFFER the Science for Peace program with commercialisation potential - OFFER Challenges of the market economies in the PCs related to the application of DEMAND S&T knowledge - DEMAND Commercialisation & NATO Science

9. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science  Fragmented and not well-developed NIS  Poor academy-industry links  Weak industry base (poor market pull!)  Financial markets under major transition  Poor infrastructure for commercialisation  Internationalisation of S&T activities Challenges of the Partner Countries

10. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Major considerations:  Limits of NATO (complexity of the problem vs.. competence/experience of NATO)  Smart reactions: differentiation cost/benefit  Co-operation with other international schemes & organisations (EU, EUREKA, IMF etc.) Positioning NATO

11. Grand Gathering Brussels 24 Oct 2002 www.nato.int/science Positioning NATO Action Lines u New Actions F Special awards for projects with commercialization (what and who should be supported and how ???) F Participating in a new international Fund creation (NATO’s role ???) u Re-orientation of existing actions ? F Restructuring the evaluation criteria ??? F Changing the aim of SfP u Strengthening the All-NATO approach ? F Example: SfP-STPO