We conclude that the new research, technology development and innovation policies should be customized according to the differing dynamics of the NSTISS.
which was dominated by public research organizations, started to adopt biotechnollog before 1945. The Taiwanese government supported the sector through agricultural policies,
Indeed, the companies that invested in the innovation of Chinese herbal medicines only carried out detailed research related to these single herbal extracts.
The research interests of individual scholars determined the research topics. Collaborations between different academmic were not frequent.
Even though the scientists had related research interests, they had limited very cooperattio with each other. Moreover, universities had limited interactions with pharmaceutical companies.
The public research organizations play an intermediary role between universities and pharmaceutical companies. Since the universities were supposed not to directly interact with firms, the Development Centre of Biotechnology (DCB),
a public research organization, was set up in National, sectoral and technological innovation systems: Taiwan. 275 1984 to apply the research into small molecules from the universities to develop new chemical medicines and then transfer such technologies to local firms.
or unwilling to develop new medicinnes the DCB gradually became the research center for developing pharmaceutical intermediaries
) The Industrial Technology research Institute, another public research organization, also helped local SMES upgrade their manufacturing facilities
R&d policies became more and more significant. However, as a milestone, the Eight Key Industries itself was only a general policy announcement.
Policies of regulation, FDI and R&d were directed towards the pharmaceutical biotechnology innovation system. The Law of Pharmaceutical Affairs was passed in 1970
) In terms of R&d policies, fundamental biological and pharmaceutical research in universities was funded continuously, and the DCB was found in 1984 to transfer pharmaceutical technology of chemical engineering from the universities to pharmaceuticca companies (DCB 2010).
However, there was no R&d policy to encourage universities to transfer pharmaceuttica biotechnology to companies, and before the late 1990s, there was no particular target for the funding of R&d policies.
Only after 1998 did the government start to recognize Chinese herbal medicines as the backbone of the pharmaceutical sector.
The R&d policies thus turned to encouraging the development of new herbaceous medicines (NSC 2010. To sum up:
. 1 Agricultural public research organizations and private companies. The institutions for the innovation of seeds were originally set up by the Japanese government
The research organizations of the system of agricultuura experiments stations (ASS which included the Agriculture Research institute,
were the most important organizations for seed innovation. These research organizattion were funded fully by the Japanese government during the Japanese colonization and then by the governmeen of the ROC.
The Ass research organizations used the traditional biotechnology of hybridization to improve the genes of Japanese rice with the genes of Japonica, a Taiwanese rice
and became the senior researchers in the ASS. The knowledge about hybridization which had been accumulated by the Japanese scientists was developed then further by the Taiwanese experts, especially in rice research (Su 2004:
and the ASS were the most important research institutions carrying out applied agricultural research. The headquarters of the ASS was built first next to National Taiwan University.
However, because a network between universities was not establisshed the research topics were chosen usually according National, sectoral and technological innovation systems:
Taiwan. 277 to the research interests of individual scholars. The topics studied frequently overlapped and there was very limited coordination between the research teams (Su 2004:
18,20. Until 2000, most results of modern biotechnology research done by the universities were transferred to the ASS for further application (Su 2004:
The two main agricultural policies promoting agricultuura biotechnology innovation system were agricultural R&d and regulation policies.
For agricultural R&d policies the government continued funding fundamental agricultural research in the universities and applied research in the ASS.
Before the 1980s, research into traditional biotechnology was funded in order to increase the productivity of the agricultural sector,
) Treating agricultural R&d policies as a type of welfare policy, modern agricultural biotechnologies innovated by universities and public research organizatiion were commercialized not
but were transferred to farmers on a nonprofit base. In the 1990s, when the Taiwanese government was preparing to participate in the World trade organization
the R&d funding for modern agricultural biotechnology was decreased even slightly (Wong 1998: 115), and at the same time, the Farmers'Insurance was launched (CLA 2010.
And in the majority of cases it was the public research organizations such as the DCB, which played an intermediary role between the universities and pharmaceutical companies.
However, in the agricultuura biotechnology innovation system the public research organizations, the ASS, were the foundations on
Universities were involved mainly in the innovation through the network with the public research organizations. Only in the 1990s did some universities occasionally transfer modern biotechnology to agricultural SMES.
In contrast, in the agricultural biotechnology system both the public research organizations and private SMES adopted biotechnology as their main knowledge base.
The policies directed towards the pharmaceutical biotechnology system were regulations, FDI and R&d. Before the 1980s,
R&d policies became more and more importannt Indeed, the Eight Key Industries, the first biotechnoloog policy, targeted the development of the pharmaceutical sector, rather than biotechnology.
the agricultural R&d policies focused on the quantity of agricultural products. However, after the 1980s, once the agricultural products only served domestic demands,
the government promoted agricultural R&d and regulation policies, merely to increase the welfare of farmers
A scheme of analysis',Research policy, 37: 407 29. Boschert, K. and Gill, B. 2005)‘ Germany's agri-biotechnology policy:
Analytical and methodological issues',Research policy, 31: 233 45. Chang, M.-Y. 2004) The Change of Taiwan's Agricultural Community(.
the case of biotechnology innovation networks',Research policy, 37: 430 45. Dr. Chip. 2010), Products. Dr. Chip:<
Giesecke, S. 2000)‘ The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany',Research policy, 29: 205 23.
Kaiser, R. and Prange, H. 2004)‘ The reconfiguration of national innovation systems the example of German biotechnoology'Research policy, 33: 395 408.
Food Industry Research and development Institute. Lin, J.-Y. 1995)‘ The experiments and research of Taiwan's Agriculture Experiment Station within recent one hundred years'(.
Malerba, F. 2002)‘ Sectoral systems of innovation and productioon'Research policy, 31: 247 64..(2004)‘ Sectoral systems of innovation:
Towards an integrated framework',Research policy, 37: 596 615. Mckelvey, M. 1996) Evolutionary Innovations: The Business of Biotechnology.
Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play Cristiano Cagnin1*,Effie Amanatidou2 and Michael Keenan3 1dg Joint research Centre Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies
and Honorary Research fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK*Corresponding author.
including public procuremeent regulation and direct R&d funding, thereby contributing to the realisation of a fully fledged ERA.
Factors vary, for instance, on R&d intensity (i e. high-tech, medium tech and low tech) and on issues such as availability (or the possibility to develop) skilled labour,
firms (large and small, multinatiiona and domestic), universities, public research labs, government ministries and agencies, and intermeddiar bodies, such as industry associations and private consultants.
It has traditioonall been associated with R&d, but there are differren types of knowledge besides science and technology knowledge, including production,
and include R&d activities in the public and private sectors, and design and production in firms..
creativity and cross-disciplinary research needed to tackle grand challenges, although this may be true to different degrees across the different research themes.
These shortcomings are recognised well in Horizon 2020 and certain new initiatives have been proposed to overcome them.
The Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIS) have been put forward as the main means for coordinating national and regional efforts towards commonly set research agendas and visions.
ERA NET PLUS and Article 185.4 JPIS go beyond existing relevant schemes by implementing joint research programmes towards real public-to-public partnerships between Member States and the EU (ERAC-GPC 2010.
e g. in setting the strategic research agendas in ERA NETS and the European Technology platforms, and lately also in the KICS.
The identification of grand challenges and the corresponding priorities for research and innovation through the use of forward-looking activities is mentioned explicitly in the Council's conclusions (December 2009) 7 on guidance on future priorities for European research.
which analytical guidelines are developed to facilitate the planning and implementation of joint research programmes (ERAC-GPC 2010).
in defining a common strategic research agenda, and in implemeentin a jointly defined strategy (e g. initiating risky
This should be accommodated in selectiin priority areas for research as well as in setting strategic research agendas. Finally, the role of FTA in creating spaces for market formation,
when setting the common strategic research agenda as well as in the implementation phase with equal consideration of market applicability
and in defining a common strategic research agenda amongst involved stakeholders Capacity building role of FTA supports stakeholders to engage,
and setting strategic research agendas Capacity building role of FTA supports building skills for engaging in multi-disciplinary teams
and in setting strategic research agendas among different actors Capacity building role of FTA supports collective learning and knowledge creation Guide direction of search and selection FTA tends to lead to articulation
Current EU programmes and initiatives mainly exploit the informing role of FTA in knowledge development and in providing guidance for direction or prioritisation of research areas and themes.
which decision-makers could then use to underpin their choices, by defining strategic research agendas, and by providing recommendations on the availabbl alternatives.
Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union (ex Article 169 of the Treaty establisshin the European community) enables the EU to participate in research programmes undertaken jointly by several Member States,
The ERA NET scheme is one of the tools of the Seventh Framework programme (FP7) to support the coordination of non-Community research programmes.
and strengthen the coordinattio of public research programmes conducted at national or regional level. It provides a framework to network and mutually open national or regional research programmes, leading to concrete cooperation such as the development and implementation of joint programmes or activities.
On the other hand, ERA NET+is a new option added to the ERA NET scheme in FP7 allowing, in a limited number of cases,
Community financial support to be provided for topping-up joint transnational research funding. 5. Currently five JTIS exist in the fields of innovative medicines (IMI), aeronautics (Clean Sky), embedded computing systems (ARTEMIS),
Council of the European union, Guidance on future priorities for European research and research-based innovation in post-2010 Lisbon strategy, Council conclussions Brussels, 8 december 2009.8.
5. Optimum dissemination and use of research results; 6. Protection, management and sharing of intellectual property rights. 9. One example refers to the KICS.
The proposals are based on a web 2. 0 consultation of the research communities in Europe and beyond,
References Acheson, H.,Amanatidou, E. and Boekholt, P. 2007)‘ Optimising research programmes and priorities',Report of the ERA Expert Group, EUR 23324.
A scheme of analysis',Research policy, 37: 407 29. Boden, M.,Cagnin, C.,Carabias, V.,Haegeman, K. and Ko nno la, T. 2010)‘ Facing the future:
Fundamental and applied research',Report of the Environment Advisory Group, December 2010. Brussels: European commission. Edquist, C. 2008)‘ Design of innovation policy through diagnossti analysis:
I.,Smith, A. and Van Zwanenberg, P. 2009)‘ Transformative innovation',A research report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs. Brighton:
Andre's Belaunde, 36-4c, 28036 Madrid, Spain 4zhaw Zurich University of Applied sciences, Institute of Sustainable development, Postfach, CH-8401 Winterthur, Switzerland*Corresponding author.
Section 3 will draw primarily on recent empirical research presented at the FTA 2011 Conference, 1
Capturing new types of FTA systems in the light of specific circumstances This section introduces the conceptual framework for subseqquen analysis of recent empirical research on FTA systems.
The categories of grand challenges identified by theeuropean Research area (ERA) Rationales Expert Group (European commission 2008) provide one typology of transformations.
and give rise to particular research needs. In the context of this intricate web of disruptive, natural and planned transformations FTA has a critical role to play in defining effective policy responses.
and efforts to define the research agenda, setting research priorities and specialisation focus. Disruptive events in recent years have made apparent critical weaknesses in the capacity to anticipate,
Such dynamics call for further research into the design of tailored FTA systems which are fit for purpose. 2. 3 FTA systems
such as the Scientific Technology Options Assessment Unit of the European parliament, build on long-term service contracts with external public and private research organisations or consulting firms).
Towards this end, we examine in Section 3. 1 how recent empirical research papers, including those presented at the FTA 2011 Conference,
but the focus of attention has remained on research and innovation (R&i) policies, with greater attention being paid to the perspectives of societal stakeholders.
namely to address the entire R&i ecology and its embedding in other policies to tackle grand societal challenges,
Designing research policy and strategy with broad aim of selecting priorities for research investments and cooperation of R&i actors.
Interconnecting different areas of research. Enhancing coordination in research through FTA. Evidence-based, joined-up R&i policy.
Consensus-building and effectiiv engagement of civil society. Programmes and projects. Networking to address open innovation Emerging rationales for FTA.
Improving the robustness and dynamics of the R&i ecology to address (global) disruptions and engineer breakthroughs.
In particular Warnke (2011) recommends the use of strategic dialogues to foster the embedding of suggested‘future fields'into the national research, technology and innovation (RTI) landscaape Ahlqvist et al.
and exploitation of FTA networks to provide agile and strategic support for decision-making. 3. 2 Reflecting on the way forward with FTA systems The above review of recent research work indicates a consideerabl diversity of FTA APPROACHES and systems with coexisting diverse
or shortfalls in the R&i ecology relating to lock in to obsolete technologies or business models, and old networks which require realignment.
and the contextualisation of R&i policy mix are emerging priorities. Local, regional and national FTA networks, cutting across different policy areas, can support an appropriate level of policy coordination to anticipate
and tackle structural deficiencies in the R&i ecology..Addressing grand challenges requires public appreciattio of the important role played by R&i in meeting social, environmental and other needs.
Grand challennge go beyond the domain of research policy and require structured interactions with a broad range of related policy domains (European research area Board 2009;
Weber and Georghiou 2010. They also depend on governments and international institutions working together to define common research agendas.
Worldwide and regional (European) networks of the FTA units in international organisations, national and at least for some grand challenges regional (subnational) governments, business and nongovernmental organisations are providing an organisaationa solution to share policy perspectives
and develop joint policy and research agenda. The subsequent observations deal with the question of how these requirements
and R&d units rather than fulfilling an exploratory think-tank function for top-level management, but this development is currently being reconsidered in several firms (Daheim and Uerz 2008.
Empirical research highlights a diversity of FTA APPROACHES and systems in practice, which reflect the differren mixes of transformations, governance and organisatioona modes.
Experiences from the preparation of an international research programme',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 75: 483 95.
'Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&d and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit
Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. 2007)‘ Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways',Research policy, 36: 399 417.164.
Analytical framework and empirical cases in Europe and beyond, VTT Technical research Centre of Finland Working papers 134,2009.
and Honorary Research fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK 2international Council for Science, 5 rue Auguste Vacquerie
This vision translates into a mission that sees ICSU working with strategic partners to plan and coordinate international research programmes that address major issues of relevance to both science and society.
ICSU has been using foresight practices for some time to determine research priorities (Teixeira et al. 2002) and to develop mobilising visions of the orientation of whole research fields (ICSU 2010).
This period also saw the emergence of international research institutions, like the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), that were regulated by inter-governmental agreements.
This large-scale global programmatic framework complemennte the World Climate Research programme of WMO. Characteristic of these global programmes later complemented by the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP), addressing the human dimensions,
Research projects are submitted then for funding at the national level by individual (groups of) researchers. ICSU cosponsors all four prograamme
Another example of modern international research collaboration is the Human Genome Project (HGP), completed in 2003.
CERN continnue to be a successful example of an inter-governmental research infrastructure for particle physics, expanding its scientific reach through cooperation agreements with countries across the globe.
Nationally oriented research projects are often easier for politicians to justify to their taxpayers. This is a particular challenge in times of economic constraint where countries look to science to address their immediate needs for national growth.
The value of international research programmes, such as the global environmental change programmes, materialises through the coordination of the research and the integration of the results.
and capable of addressing societal issues through interdisciplinary research. Since its creation in 1931, ICSU has played an important role in facilitating major international science initiatives.
In contrast to these earlier foresight approaches, the exercise described in this paper neither attempted to identify research priorities nor did it focus on any particulla research field.
The 2002 foresight exercise had explicitly set out to identify priority areas of science for ICSU to focus upon in its new strategic plan (ICSU 2006.
International collaborative research infrastructures: The types of future international collaborative research infrastructures will have a significant impact on international science,
presuming that there is an ongoing commitment to such structures at all. How they will attract science investment in relation to national priorities
and addressing controversial areas of science in areas of high public interest will be significant for the relationship between science and society.
of labour leads to intense specialisation of countries'economies Governments compete to host the R&d facilities of multinationals through large R&d investments Public science focused on basic research that multinationals are less likely to perform themselves Strong global networks
commons including less developed countries Science is a global stabilising agent Greater mobility of researchers Internationally agreed data standards Global strategic research fund combining 2%of each countries public research
e g. peer review and other forms of self regulation Proliferation of local solutions to societal problems that also utilise‘traditional knowledge'Fewer opportunities for curiosity-driven Research funding for science is on a relative decline Figure 1. Exploratory scenario
Responding to societal challenges is a key part of research agendas: Strategic international cooperation in science is focused clearly on themes of a global nature.
An effective approach to addressing complex global challenges arose from the nexus between fundamental and applied science.
Greater flexibility in international research cooperation is encouraged by the availability of flexible funding from multiple sources including public private partnerships, foundations and charitable donations.
which each nation agrees to contribute a minimum of 1%of its public research budget and further contributions are received from the private sector and foundations.
while the European Science Foundation (ESF) created a programme of Forward Looks in 2000 as an instrument for developing medium term perspectives on future directions of multi-disciplinary research in Europe. 4 In national settings,
Working in partnership with its national members and building partnerships with research funding organisations, ICSU actively promotes interdisciplinary global science.
ICSU also launched a high-profile prize scheme in 2015 to recognise achievement by early career researchers working in interdisciplinary research and communication.
Furthermore, as part of its Initiative On earth System Sustainability, 2012 22, ICSU worked with funding agencies to encourage the development of internatioona courses targeted at developing the ability of young researchers to conduct interdisciplinary research.
Notes 1. The German Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (2010) has developed also exploratory scenarios for the future of the European research landscape in 2025.2.
Scenarios for the European research Landscape 2025. Munich: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. ICSU. 2006) Strengthening International Science for the Benefit of Society:
*Ville Valovirta2 and Torsti Loikkanen2 1vtt Technical research Centre of Finland, Ita inen Pitka katu 4, Turku, P o box 106,20521 Turku, Finland 2vtt Technical research
This paper presents innovation policy roadmapping (IPRM) as a methodologgica framework for linking R&d results to systemic policy contexts and to forward-looking policy design.
socio-technical transformation. 1. Introduction Since the 1960s, the results of R&d practices have increasinngl been approached as knowledge inputs in the construuctio of science and technology policies.
diffusion and embedding innovatiions such as universities, public and private R&d organizations, companies and various intermediate organizattions and the collective learning processes between these organizations (Smits et al. 2010).
First, the policies could aim to facilitate the commercialization of public research and technology developpment Secondly,
such as public funding for R&d and innovation, support for technical standardizatiion intellectual property rights regulation and the provisiio of public technical infrastructure, can be applied.
The development of the IPRM method, still an ongoing process, is an outcome of several projects realized at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland.
Traditionally, the construction industry has invested relativvel little in R&d, and has also been slow to adopt new technologies.
Support to collaborative R&d; Facilitating commercialization of research results TECHNOLOGIES: Public funding for research and technology development;
Technology validation; Verification of environmental impacts SOLUTIONS: Zero energy concepts; Distributed building services systems (e g. cooling, air conditioning, heating;
At the level of products and solutions, the support for collaborative R&d and facilitation of commercialization of research results were assessed as the main innovation policy practices.
Collaboration between the key R&d players and the government would be important especially in the Victorian context, due to the fragmented nature of the construction sector.
Financial support for collaborative Industrial r&d will provide the basis for an innovation-driven construction industry, but should be offset by demandorieente innovation policy measures such as smart regulatiio and public procurement. 4. 2. 3 Sectoral development.
Current R&d on HVAC accentuates the connection of separate systems into a larger building automation system through ICT protocols.
It was completed as a strategic process at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland in 2010, with two aims:
The construction of complex products and systems',Research policy, 29: 955 72. Geels, F. W. 2002)‘ Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:
A multilevel perspective and a case study',Research policy, 31: 1257 74..(2004)‘ From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems.
Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory',Research policy, 33: 897 920..(2005)‘ Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations:
Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. 2007)‘ Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways',Research policy, 36: 399 417.
An International research Handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Squicciarini, M. and Asikainen, A. 2010)‘ Sectoral innovation performance in the construction sector'.
International research collaboration has become a daily business together with the pace of globalisation. In this respect, more collaborattio in research programming across borders makes sense in terms of avoiding duplication, reaching a critical mass and detecting gaps,
In Europe, a lot of room exists for increasing collaboration between the research funding activities of Member States.
Around 85%of all civil public research in Europe is financed still programmmed monitored and evaluated at national level (European commission 2008.
Finally, it draws conclusions for foresight in transnational research programming. 2. Co-ordination of transnational programming The co-ordination of cross-national public research involves a set of challenges in bridging potentially Science and Public policy 39 (2012
Seiser (2010) identifies eight tensions in research priority setting from the point-of-view of policy-makers and scientists (see Table 1). A third set of tensions relates to the multi-disciplinary and multilevel complexity of societal challenges.
between national research systems, horizonttall between disciplines and policy areas, vertically across governance levels (from local to global)
peer review procedures. forward-looking activities. evaluation of joint programmes. funding of cross-border research. optimum dissemination and use of research findings. protection,
%co-ordination or clustering of ongoing nationally funded research projects (59%.%generating multinational evaluation procedures (55%)(Matrix-Rambøll 2009.
and project levels (see Table 2). Table 1. Tensions in transnational research priority setting between science and policy-making, based on experiences with identification of joint programming initiatives.
Based on Seiser (2010) Drivers of transnational research priority setting from point-of-view of science Drivers of transnational research priority setting from point-of-view of policy-making Bottom-up Top-down More focus on scientific frontier Feeding
Institutional barriers Institutional power play Excellence rather than relevance Relevance rather than excellence ajuste retour means that member states get approximately the same amount back in research grants as they contribute. 192.
For instance in Europe knowledgeshaarin platforms offer tools, good practices and informattio on the current (through mapping of existing programmes), planned (through policy documents) and possible future7 state of research priority setting and research systems.
proposals and peer review Calls for proposals are prepared and disseminated in order to receive project proposals, which becomes a subject of peer review
OA policies from national funding bodies, universities and research centers; references to OA in grant agreements) Problems of oversight related to research integrity Evaluation Evaluation of transnational programme refers to appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency in execution of entire programme and its parts
For instance, at the level of international research infrastructures, issues like prioritisation criteria, funding, governance, evaluation and impact assessment are being discussed in Europe (European commission 2010a).
alignment of national research systems. temporal dimension in co-ordination 2. 2. 1 Alignment of research systems.
Nations or regions aiming to collaborate in research programming often face strong differences of varying nature in the way their respective national research systems are built up (Optimat et al. 2005;
the distribution of research across research performers, 17 differences in cross-sector collaborattio (e g. university industry collaboration) and in the degree of control of governments over research agendas;
when conducting research collaboration. 2. 2. 2 Vertical co-ordination of multilayered research systems. The OECD (2003) has identified vertical coherennc as a general long-term policy objective ensuring that the practices of agencies
Historically, research policies have emerged through development paths that reflect the societal contexts of their path-dependent technoinstittutiona co-evolution.
Indeed, today the research system is an integral part of the prevailing multilayered innovation system. Ko nno la et al.
lest they be taken over by short-term policy agendas and debates. 2. 2. 4 Temporal co-ordination of policies and research systems.
In fact, the alignment of strongly differing national research systeem and vertical and horizontal co-ordination are all subject to temporal co-ordination challenges.
The aligning of research systems with vertical and horizontal co-ordination efforts face major difficulties in facilitating policy activities that lead to sustainable policy efforts over time.
participatory and anticipatory co-ordination approach The complexity of the co-ordination challenge of transnatiiona research programming calls for approaches that can engage stakeholders horizontally from different policy and research areas as well as vertically and internationally from different countries and regions to support informed
and related key barriers for transnational research programming Dimension of policy co-ordination Description Potential barriers19 Alignment of research systems Alignment of structural and systemic differences in national research systems
Structural differences between national research systems hampering co-ordination of programmes Structural differences in national programme orientation
and implementation orientation Differences in distribution of research across research performers Differences in degree of control of governments over research agendas Varying interests at national level in collaborating beyond borders Varying openness of current and past
The responsibles for the shaping of research agendas realised that a systematti participatory bottom up foresight process could streamline the engagement of Research and Technology development communities from eight countries.
and carefully planned workshoops 317 future-oriented research issues were proposed by researchers and assessed by researchers
maintain and update the strategic research agenda (SRA), which will support transnational research programming by delivering research issues.
To this end, longer-term strategic requirements with a 10 5 year outlook are identified in a systematic way, building on knowledge about future aspects of animal disease develoopmen in Europe and the world,
and linking this to existing research programmes (see Fig. 2). The partners see the need to repeat such an approach at a certain frequency
in order to adapt research programmes to the dynamic environment. To this end a foresight and programming unit (FPU) was established,
(and three observers) of 19 EU Member States and Associated Countries 2008 11 Develop a durable focused network22 of national research funders in Member and Associated States of EU in order to share information,
coordiinat activities and work towards a common research agenda and mutual research funding activities in field of animal health Structured long-term foresight process to develop,
strengthened global position in Europe'(Urban Europe, 2011) Determine specific research needs and roadmaps, short-and long-term policy measures,
In this case foresight supports the identification of specific research needs and roadmaps, short-and long-term poliic measures
A draft research agenda, known as the Strategic research Framework (SRF) has been developed building upon and around four interconnected pillars,
scenarrio for long-term urban developments, an improved understanding of future trends and research needs, first concepts and recommendations for policy measures, a strengthening of the European research and innovation communities,
from the design of the Urban Europe process and the further development of the SRF to the participation in research projects and in implementatiio measures.
which foresiigh can support the four co-ordination challenges identified in Section 2. 3. 2. 1 Alignment of research systems.
Foresight supports the alignment of different research systems by Figure 2. Project phases of foresight in each of three cases selected. 198.
and collecting informmatio on the views of different stakeholder groups within these research systems on future issues such as research priorities and implementation modes.
Collecting information on (differences in) the structure of research funding the ministries and organisations involved, their respective visions for the future,
Programming Initiative Alignment of research systems Bottom up consultation process networrkin researchers and industrial leaders across borders.
and access to research programmes and results across all countries Mapping and analysis of existing foresight exercises for urban regions and for other non-region specific topics relevant for urban development allows gaps
and organisational change that need to be converted into research programmes Alignment of existing national programmes and research strategies in a variable geometry Vertical co-ordination Bottom up consultation process
or transnational level Proposals for (strategic research topics for commissioning at EU level taking into account ongoing and planned research in European countries Facilitate cost-effectiveness of research-commissioning by trying to establish
close co-operation with China on foresight) Horizontal co-ordination Cross-feeding of research teams was encouraged by assessment of submitted issues
and starting new initiatives with European R&i communities Temporal co-ordination Consultation on research issues among stakeholders provided future-oriented information on directtio and interests of research community.
and Urban Europe and ensuring a long-term integration of stakeholders in activities Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 199 increasing research capacity in a specific thematic area can also contribute to better understanding and aligning research systems.
Joint visions and joint research agendas also facilitate the alignment of future joint programmes and of research infrastructure planning with these programmmes The participation of the actors in research systems in a foresight process may also promote transparennc
and information sharing at different levels and in different phases (information sharing and alignment of existing programmes,
sharing of research results), thus also increasing trust. Participation in the context of aligning research systems may also relate to sharing research results. 3. 2. 2 Vertical co-ordination.
Foresight may enhance vertical co-ordination by taking stock of previous anticipattor studies and existing visions for the future at regional, national and transnational level.
Horizontal coordinnatio can be enhanced by foresight by encouraging the sharing of research interests among research teams in different areas and disciplines.
Alternatively, multidiscipplinar stakeholder groups can be formed to work together towards common research agendas in different sub-areas,
multi-disciplinary supervision of research projects can support horizontal co-ordination. 3. 2. 4 Temporal co-ordination.
and by treating research areas and research themes as relevant‘units of analysis'that experts could assess with an internet-based decision support tool.
Recomposition of smaller units of analysis was carried out in workshops, in order to first, identify similarities and interdependences between proposed research issues;
and secondly to generate more holistic perspectives on the emerging agenda. 4. 1. 2 Modular and structured process for balanced and diverse stakeholder engagement.
consisting of four research areas and 23 sub-areas. Stakeholder participation was also based on the definition of explicit roles and responsibilities for the different phases of the process. 4. 1. 3 Flexible and responsive management to accommoodat with stakeholder expectations.
evaluation and overall legitimmac of the activity by way of allowing traceability of emerging jointly proposed themes or research topics.
and scoping its research programme it is often premature for many national agencies to decide on their level of committmen to that programme and its planning.
Therefore, we suggest further research and piloting of general foresight principles and guidance for the efficient and flexible implementation of transnational research programming.
of research programmes to other nations. For example, ERAWATCH data show that two-thirds of 2009 national research prograamme relevant for the Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture,
Food Security and Climate change have no openness to other EU Member States. 7. Platforms collecting data on foresight exercises can offer deeper insights into possible and desired futures of research priorities, e g.<
<www. foresight-platform. eu>accessed 15 march 2012.8. The use of‘regional'in this paper is to be understood as‘geographically part of a nation'
9. This platform aims at supporting the process for develoopin national/regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation that support the development of well-performing national or regional research and innovaatio systems,
ERAWATCH is a platform collecting data on national research systems in the ERA, including policy documents and research programmes. 11.
NETWATCH collects data on transnational research collaboration in the ERA. 12. In Europe the following European and intergovernmennta mechanisms are in place:
2005) defines three types of dominant programme orientation strategies for national research systems in Europe: single framework programme, multiple generic programmes,
the responsible governments focus on the quality of scientific research (Bruno and Van til 2011). Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 205 19.
EMIDA ERA NET stands for‘Coordination of European research on emerging and major infectious diseases of livestock'.'The case description is based on EMIDA Description of Work (2009.
It has potential to also identify additional research areas and is linked directly to the Management Board. 32.
and for initiating new co-operations within the European research and innovaatio communities (with scientists from different disciplines and research areas, city representatives,
References Anderson, M. S. 2010)‘ International research collaborations: Anticipating challenges instead of being surprised',in Europa World of Learning 2011, Vol. 1, 61st edn, pp. 14 8. London:
Experiences from the preparation of an international research programme',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 75: 483 95.
'Joint research Centre Scientific and Technical Report. Brussels: European commission. Dahlman, C. 2008)‘ Innovation strategies of three of the BRICS:
2010a)‘ A vision for strengthening world-class research infrastructures in the ERA',Report from the Expert Group on Research infrastructures, Directorate-General for Research, Directorate B European research area:
Research programmes and Capacity unit B. 3 206. T. Ko nno la and K. Haegeman Research infrastructures, EUR 24186.
Brussels: European commission..(2010b)‘ EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth',COM (2010) 2020 final.
Meier zu Ko cker, G.,Hein, D. and Chinalski, M. 2008)‘ German Polish network-based R&d co-operation:
OECD. Ooms, W. 2009)‘ EMIDA deliverable 4. 1 A framework for a durable Foresight & Programming unit, including terms of reference to develop a strategic research agenda dynamically,
2005)‘ Examining the design of national research programmes'.'Brussels: European commission. Reid, A.,Miedzinski, M.,Bruno, N. and le Gars, G. 2007)‘ Synergies between the EU 7th Research Framework programme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework programme and the Structural Funds',Policy
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011