and Management, Delft University of Technology, 2600 GA, Delft, The netherlands a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c
including technology forecasting, technology intelligence, future studies, foresight, and technology assessment 1. In their own ways each of these approaches is used for analyzing technological developments and their potential consequences.
Technology refers both to physical artifacts as well as to social practices that specify how these artifacts can be used.
Thus, technological systems can be decomposed in the physical components as well as the social components including institutions.
The various fields covered by the umbrella term FTA have at their disposal a wide variety of methods, techniques, and approaches.
Institutional change driven by liberalization, changing economic competitiveness of the dominant fuels, new technologies, and changing end-user preferences regarding electricity supply are some examples of these developments.
EMA is used to explore plausible transition trajectories in the face of these developments given technological uncertainty about investment and operating costs,
and fuel efficiency of various alternative technologies; political uncertainty about future CO2 abatement policies such as emission trading;
and the expected limited growth of metal supply (especially of crucial low-volume metals such as rare earth metals that are required in ever bigger quantities for many innovative technologies
and advances in Air Traffic Management (ATM) technology radically alter the functioning of the sector 35.
or logistic growth to a maximum followed by logistic decline ATM technology Change in air traffic management technology,
the curves can be parameterized in various ways Exponential or logistic performance increase Engine technology (noise/emissions) Change in air traffic management technology,
Institutional change driven by liberalization, changing economic competitiveness of the dominant fuels, new technologies, and changing end-user preferences regarding electricity supply are some examples of these developments.
we use EMA to explore plausible transition trajectories in the face of these developments given technological uncertainty about investment and operating costs,
and fuel efficiency of various alternative technologies; political uncertainty about future CO2 abetment policies such as emission trading;
which decisions are expected mainly based on lifetime of the technology used in a generation unit. A unit at the end of it is lifetime
Multiplier factor to alter the future variable operating costs of a technology 0. 6 1. 25 Coal
if a high tech company is dependent on specific minerals and/or metals, the results of the case could be used to identify early indicators of, for example, cyclic pricing behavior.
I. Miles, M. Mogee, A. Salo, F. Scapolo, R. E. H. M. Smits, W. Thissen, Technology futures analysis:
and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2008.14 J. H. Miller, Active nonlinear tests (ANTS) of complex simulation models, Manag.
Sci. 44 (1998) 820 830.15 J. H. Kwakkel, The Treatment of Uncertainty in Airport Strategic planning, Faculty of technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2010.16
An Exploratory System Dynamics Model and Analysis of the Global Copper System in The next 40 Years, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2011.22 J. H. Kwakkel, W
45 G. Yücel, Analyzing Transition Dynamics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2010.46 L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, C. J. Stone, R. A
Delft, Delft University of Technology. M. Sc. Thesis, 2004.50 S. J. Heblij, R. A a. Wijnen, Development of a runway allocation optimisation model for airport strategic planning, Transportation Planning and Technology 31 (2
)( 2008) 201 214.430 J. H. Kwakkel, E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 Jan Kwakkel is a postdoctoral researcher at Delft
University of Technology. He received his MSC. and Ph d. degrees from Delft University of Technology.
In addition he studied philosophy at Leiden University. His research focuses on the treatment of uncertainty in model-based decision support.
Erik Pruyt is Assistant professor of System Dynamics and Policy analysis at the Faculty of technology, Policy and Management of Delft University of Technology.
He obtained his master's degree in Commercial Engineering and Phd degree from the Faculty of economics, Social and Political sciences & Solvay Business school of the Free University of Brussels. His research focuses mainly on the multidimensional dynamics of complex uncertain systems,
Kristian Borch b, Ted Fuller c a SVR, Research centre of the Flemish Government, Boudewijnlaan 30, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium b Department of Management Engineering
For instance, developments in science and technology have a strong potential to influence social change. There are, however, many reasons why the practical use of scientific knowledge
and technology varies widely between countries. Societies differ, just as economies, and governments deal with international scientific developments in different ways through the policies they pursue 14.
cultural and political power as well as by technological rationalism and such indeterminism makes systemic approaches to innovation policy far from linear or predictable.
technology and innovation not solely for generating economic benefits, but also for anticipating and responding to the grand challenges 15.
i e. new scientific or technological principles, but rather as a nonlinear process of learning 36.
it evolves with alterations in the content of technologies and products as well as in the relationships among various other innovation systems.
technological and deterministic characteristic 15. Although the innovation process is now much more open and receptive to social influences,
For instance, Hekkert et al. 40 highlight that stimulating knowledge flows (alone) is not sufficient to induce technological change and economic performance.
but it has been shown that differences in the construction of time play a significant role in the construction of meaning about the future (e g. of nanotechnologies 44).
and technology planning 55. A science or technology roadmap is like a highway roadmap that describes how one might proceed from a starting point to a final destination expressed as a vision.
a science or technology roadmap also shows the intersections between scientific steps or technologies 56. A roadmap can take various forms,
which provides a means to link technology and other resources to future products, as well as to innovation objectives and milestones 55.
Linking scenarios with technology roadmapping initiates an exploratory and creative phase to identify and understand uncertainties.
and establishing a common vision among the innovation stakeholders as a boundary framework before moving into technology roadmapping 70.4.2.2.
technological cooperation and converging technologies. Clearly innovation is an essential feature of the scenarios. 2 PRELUDE:
(i e. inward reflection) and often driven by technology or changes in our way of living.
Roadmaps directed towards a single target are likely to be inappropriate where policy intervention may direct technology towards a different trajectory altogether 70,71.
Hence, it is important to recognize that representing scientific and technological diversity offers an important means to help foster more effective forms of innovation
and defining areas for innovation Weak on complexity of socio-technological systems Evolutionary Interaction Engage in sustainable pathways enabling transformations of innovation systems Allows a systemized negotiation process linking a variety of social actors
innovation Risk of not reaching out to key (technological) actors 440 P. De Smedt et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 acknowledge the limits of our analysis:
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20 (2008) 369 387.6 P. D. Andersen, M. Borup, K. Borch, J. Kaivo-oja, A. Eerola, T. Finnfjörnsson, E. Øverland
Integrating Insights, Transforming Institutions and Shaping Innovation systems, Seville, 12 13,may 2011, 2011.11 A. Webster, Technologies in transition, policies in transition:
. F. Coates, Future innovations in science and technology, in: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, 2003.32 C. Leadbeater, We-Think:
Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter publishers, London, 1997.39 B. Carlsson, R. Stankiewicz, On the nature, function,
and composition of technological systems, J. Evol. Econ. 1 (1991) 93 118.40 M. P. Hekkert, R. A a. Suurs, S. O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, R. E. H. M
a new approach for analyzing technological change, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 74 (2007) 413 432.41 M. S. Jørgensen, Visions and visioning in foresight activities, in:
temporal harmony and dissonance in nanotechnology networks, Time Soc. 15 (2006) 121 139.45 M. Aaltonen, Multi-ontology, sense-making and the emergence of the future, Futures 41 (2009
The Fast Start to Technology Roadmapping, Planning Your Route to Success, Centre for Technology management, Ifm University of Cambridge, 2001.56 T. J. Gordon, S&t roadmapping, in:
Paper Presented at the Future seminar of the Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, 7th of June, 2007, in:
June 7th 2007.78 A. Stirling, A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society, J. R. Soc.
His field of interest is socio-technological aspects such as uncertainty ethics and sustainability, of emerging technologies mainly inside agriculture, food production, biotechnology and bioenergy.
Furthermore, he is an expert in foresight and scenario methodologies, where his interests are focused on how to handle trans-disciplinary conflicts and scientific uncertainty.
Currently Kristian is Head of Section in the Department of Management Engineering (DTU Man) at the Technical University of Denmark.
The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology Petra Schaper-Rinkel AIT Austrian Institute of technology, Donau-City-Straße 1, A-1220 Vienna, Austria a r t i c l e
i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 24 july 2011 Received in revised form 7 july 2012 Accepted 3 august 2012 Available online 2 november 2012 This paper analyzes the role that different types of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA
) have played in the development of nanotechnology governance. In the US, FTA has been used to create visionary concepts
from the first monitoring and forecasting studies on nanotechnology to the establishment of national nanotechnology programs
but rather on the longer-term interplay between the organizational settings in both countries and the future-oriented nanotechnology analysis. In countries such as the US and Germany, where FTA on nanotechnology were already underway in the late 1980s,
the early stages of FTA relied on expert-based methods such as technology intelligence and technology forecasting to define the field
and to explore what could happen in general. Participatory formats such as dialogues on ethical legal and social aspects (ELSA) became more important only later on.
Governance Emerging technologies Key enabling technologies Nanotechnology Public engagement Foresight Technology assessment Responsible research and innovation 1. Introduction As science and technology become more central to economic development,
the question of future-oriented governance of emerging technologies gets raised repeatedly. A decade ago, the question addressed how to maximize the contribution of such technologies to economic innovation with the intention of enhancing competitiveness 1, 2. Today,
the question also includes how to use these technologies to tackle societal challenges and to contribute to environmental sustainability 3, cf. 4. In both rationales,
different types of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) are used to determine national science and technology priorities, to develop governance frameworks
and to address national innovation systems. In the case of nanotechnology, a variety of FTA ACTIVITIES have been in use over the last quarter of a century to structure the field itself
and to establish governance structures in the field of nanotechnology. Compared with other countries, the US and Germany started assessing the status and future trends in the area of nanotechnology early on 5,
6 and rank high with regard to R&d spending and output indicators such as publications and patent applications 7,
8. More than ten years have passed since the U s. National science and Technology Council published its first vision for nanotechnology research
and development and Germany established its public funding program. Understandingwhat nanotechnology is and howit is governed requires first focusing on the governance processes associated with its development
and then recognizing that the Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 E-mail address:
& Social Change emergence of nanotechnology is adjudicated not just in labs, but rather also in processes such as technology forecasting, technology assessment and participatory future-oriented studies, involving scientists, policymakers, media,
and other public participants. The aim of this paper is to show what topics have been addressed and
what main actors were involved in the future-oriented activities conducted prior to and after the establishment of national nanotechnology programs.
The paper analyzes the role that different types of future-oriented technology analysis played in the development of nanotechnology governance.
In both countries, the public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
What are the contributions of the distinct future-oriented approaches to the development of nanotechnology governance?
2. Analyzing the role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of nanotechnology 2. 1. Nanotechnology: the field, its definition and its governance The Technical Committee 229 on Nanotechnologies of the International Standardization Organization (ISO) issued a definition of nanotechnology in 2010
which contains the same elements as those used over the last decades: nanotechnologies include understanding and controlling matter
and processes at the nanoscale, where the onset of size-dependent phenomena usually enables novel applications.
Nanotechnologies utilize the properties of nanoscale materials that differ from the properties of individual atoms, molecules,
and bulk matter to create improved materials, devices, and systems that exploit these newproperties. 1 This broad definition covers clusters of technologies that may have different characteristics and applications.
In the context of the US Nanotechnology Initiative, four generations of products were envisioned: the first generation includes passive nanostructures (nanoparticles,
nanostructuredmaterials), followed by a second generation of active nanostructures (e g. targeted drugs and chemicals, actuators),
a third generation of 3-D nanosystems and systems of nanosystems (characterized by various syntheses and assembling techniques),
and a fourth generation (starting in 2015) of heterogeneous molecular nanosystems, where molecules are envisioned as devices to build up engineered structures and architectures with fundamentally new functions 9. 2 The emergence,
funding and institutionalization of nanotechnology were linked closely to the ways that various branches of nanoscience
and nanotechnology were anticipated contextualized and as the field called nanotechnology. Many studies in the field of science and technology studies (STS) have shown that nanotechnology is as much a political as a cultural phenomenon 11 14.
Visions, roadmaps, and visionary policy documents have been a main source for analyzing the social and political dimensions of nanotechnology in the broad range of STS,
although the impact of fta itself on the governance of nanotechnology has not been the subject of analysis. The scope of nanotechnology governance covers both anticipating
and realizing future opportunities and identifying and reacting to potential risks. At the turn of the century, nanotechnology was discussed mainly with regard to content (future applications), not with regard to the future decision-making processes and the participation of stakeholders,
which is central to governance. Governance is broader than government covering non-state actors, and is characterized by continuing interactions among network members 15.
Today, future governance is seen as crucial for the development of nanotechnology 16.2.2. Approaching the future of nanotechnology:
the scope of future-oriented technology analysis Several distinct approaches toward anticipating the longer-term implications of nanotechnology have been taken.
Early and radical visions that shaped the field in the late 1980s were published by individual thinkers 17,18.
In the 1990s, studies mapping the field and technology assessment studies included actors and knowledge mainly from science and industry 1, 19 22.
After the establishment of public funding programs in some countries and increasing risk debates, anticipatory activities included a wide range of stakeholders from politics, academia, industry and NGOS,
Governments that established nanotechnology funding programs later, such as Denmark, used national level technology foresight processes to prepare
commid=381983 2 Nanotechnology and the governance of nanotechnology are intertwined furthermore with the discourse on converging technologies, referring to the synergistic combination of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences (NBIC),
where a similar governance framework as in the case of nanotechnology is discussed 10 (M. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies, J. Nanopart.
Res. 10 (2008) 11 29. Indeed, it turns out there are strong analogies between nanotechnology and converging technologies,
though they seem to be very different phenomena with regard to the funding and policy dynamics in the fields.
The main difference is that in the field of nanotechnology the funding strategies were implemented before broader public discourses emerged,
whereas in the field of converging technologies broad futuristic discourses took place that were followed not by funding strategies dedicated explicitly to converging technologies. 445 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting
& Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 As FTA is understood commonly as an umbrella term for a broad set of activities that facilitate decision-making and coordinated action,
especially in science, technology and innovation policy-making, 28 the above mentioned activities can all be considered as FTA.
In this paper, FTA is used as the umbrella term covering subfields such as technology foresight, technology forecasting, technology roadmapping and technology assessment cf. the list in 29 and combining tools, ranging fromquantitative methods
In addition, the term also encompasses new participatory types of future-oriented nanotechnology-related studies and activities, such as dialogues on ethical, legal and social aspects cf. 31.
and technology landscape of the United states. The U s. stands virtually alone in specifically avoiding centralized S&t planning
Despite these different traditions, both countries used FTA to develop governance frameworks for nanotechnology. 3. Future-oriented technology analysis of nanotechnology in the US
and Germany The early history of nanotechnology as an emerging technology is heterogeneous. In the 1980s a first funding program was established in UK that has fallen
Usually, two US visions are seen as the starting point of nanotechnology as an emerging technology. The early individual vision of Eric Drexler, who envisioned a distant future vision of molecular manufacturing in the late 1980s,
The Coming Era of Nanotechnology 17, Drexler developed far reaching new ideas of the possibilities and risks of technologies on the nanoscale.
Drexler became a key figure for this new technological vision and his ideas became a disputed reference point in the debate around nanotechnology in the late 1980s and the 1990s.
Hiswork was highly influential in the early history of nanotechnology in that it imaged a new industrial revolution through nanotechnology cf. 11
35,36. 3 The second vision was presented to the broad public in 2000 by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative called Nanotechnology Shaping the World Atom by Atom. 22 3. 1
. Integrated vision-building and governance network-building in the US At the end of the 1990s, the US science policy community established an organizational structure around nanotechnologies
and developed a vision for nanotechnology R&d. This started in 1998 when the National science and Technology Council (NSTC), the principal executive body responsible for coordinating science and technology policy,
formally established a specific working group called the Interagency Working group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology (IWGN),
which included members of different government departments and agencies. 4 In 1999, the NSTC conducted a series of studies and published reports on the status of and trends in nanotechnologies.
The studies brought together science and technology assessment of different fields of what would then be called nanoscale science and technology.
Visits to leading research laboratories in Japan and Europe and workshops held in the United states, Europe,
and Russia were used to gather additional information for worldwide studies in the field of nanostructure science and technologies 37.
The resulting report most explicitly related to future orientation was the IWGN workshop report on nanotechnology research directions
which included a Vision for Nanotechnology research and Development in The next Decade 1. Vision building at this stage was accompanied by early cooperation and coordination between and among agencies and departments of the federal government.
In their work within the IWGN, the participating agencies and departments stated their major interests in nanotechnology,
proposed themes for R&d support and stated their planned contributions of their programs to the nanotechnology initiative.
Over 150 participants and contributors from government, science, and industry were involved in developing the vision.
Nearly all of the experts from academia came from the natural sciences and engineering. Only one expert was from toxicology
and no experts represented the social sciences, humanities, innovation studies, environmental studies or science and technology studies. At this stage, the FTA ACTIVITIES did not involve a broad range of stakeholders.
Rather, it was driven a process by technology experts. The small section of the IWGN workshop report on the social impact of nanotechnology contains a vision on the future
which names two factors that will determine the competitiveness of individuals, organizations, and nations. These factors are,
and how smart they become about the application of nanotechnology solutions. Those societies that 3 Today
most scientists do not give credit to Drexler's contribution to nanotechnology and instead focus on Feynman as the genius behind the origins of the field 11 (C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, science, technology & human values,(2007) 196 220).
Historical analysis indicates that the process of drawing the boundary so as to exclude Drexler's ideas was connected closely with controversies around the question,
J. Radin, Bounding an emerging technology: para-scientific media and the Drexler Smalley debate about nanotechnology, Soc.
Stud. Sci. 41 (2011) 457 485). 4 Participating agencies included the Department of commerce (DOC), Department of Defence (DOD), Defence Advanced Research projects Agency (DARPA), Department of energy (DOE), Department of transportation
446 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 support nanotechnology education, research and development the fastest will thrive in the new millennium 1. These statements illustrate that the report
represented a future-oriented relation of technology policy and society which can be characterized as a model of linear and science-driven innovation.
In this model, technology results from research whereas society has to adapt to technology to make its applications successful.
and accelerate the uptake of technology through funding, education and awareness-raising. The report outlined the vision that nanotechnology will lead to the next industrial revolution 1. It recommended a national nanotechnology initiative
stating that The initiative, ‘National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Leading to a New Industrial revolution',should approximately double the Federal government's annual investment in nanoscience,
engineering and technology research and development from the approximately $255 million it spent in fiscal year 1999.1.
The NNI was announced a few months later. 5 In hindsight, the technology assessment activities and the vision building process served to link disperse organizations
and research fields and to create an organizational setting. At the same time a strong action orientation was established,
as the activities of the working group on nanotechnology were linked directly with the preparation of the NNI.
the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the NSTC Committee on Technology (which succeeded the IWGN) called for the involvement of social scientists across the board 38
Since 2004, risk has become the subject of political concern as well as the subject of analysis. Public opinion about nanotechnology
Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) into nanotechnology R&d programs and supported centers for nanotechnology in society.
entitled Nanotechnology research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020 3 combined retrospective and future-oriented analysis documenting developments in nanotechnology from 2000 to 2010
and presented a vision for progress in nanotechnology from 2010 to 2020 3. Besides redefining the R&d goals for nanoscale science and engineering integration,
and presenting concepts of how to establish nanotechnology as a general-purpose technology in the next decade,
from NGOS, from the physical and biological sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, economics, and philosophy. The report included insights from US experts in the field, examinations of lessons learned,
that was introduced by social scientists at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State university. The concept aims at having participatory FTA be taken up into ongoing sociotechnical processes to shape their eventual outcomes at all levels including to the point of the lab 43.
Another concept, highlighted in the report is real-time technology assessment, a research program to integrate natural science and engineering investigations with social science and policy research from the outset 44.
This concept also stems from the NNI6 and became a part of the vision for 2020.
application-driven research will produce new scientific discoveries and economic optimization leading to new technologies and industries.
and real-time technology assessment 3. The report refers to the previous involvement of a broad variety of stakeholders
The need to increase multi-stakeholder and public participation in nanotechnology governance is stated as one of the main lessons learned after ten years 3. In 2011, the key architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Mihail C. Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology at the National science Foundation (NSF) recounted the history
and envisioned the future of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative 16. He distinguishes two foundational phases, called Nano 1 and Nano 2. The first foundational phase (2001 2010),
focused on interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale and was dominated by a science-centric ecosystem. The second foundational phase (2011 2020) is planned to be focused on the integration of nanoscale science
and engineering and the mass use of nanotechnology. The related future governance will be oriented on a user-centric ecosystem
which is expected to become increasingly participatory and will be based on a technosoccioeconomic approach 16. The goals defined in the latest NNI strategic plan of 2011 address this user-centric ecosystem by covering the whole ecosystem of innovation:
they address R&d (Advance a world-class nanotechnology research and development program), innovation (Foster the transfer of new technologies into products for commercial and public benefit),
and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology) as well as risk governance (Support responsible development of nanotechnology) 45.
The funding is provided through the NNI member agencies. 6 The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State (CNS-ASU) is funded by the NSF. 447 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting
safety and societal impacts of nanotechnology as environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology 46 and to develop risk governance for nanotechnology 42.
In the case of nanotechnology, there was no centralized and formal planning process, but rather a coordination of future-oriented activities that allowed the departments involved to develop their own individual agendas
With regard to nanotechnology it seems that for specific issues, as in the case of emerging technologies, the diverse and dynamic environment enables the actors within the pluralistic system to use FTA to build up governance networks
and to integrate a growing number of stakeholders. The term technology foresight has not been used with regard to future-oriented activities in nanotechnology,
but considering the nano-related FTA of the last fifteen years, the NNI uses advanced strategic planning methods and tools and acts as a kind of umbrella organization for pooling heterogeneous future-oriented activities.
the activities under the umbrella of the National science and Technology Council Subcommittee were per se closely policy-related and, in the last decade,
nanotechnology has been on the policy agenda of the federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) since the late 1990s.
The nanotechnology related activities of BMBF, the main public agency in Germany in charge of promoting pre-commercial research and development,
and focused in the early stages on technology analysis, market analyses and technology assessment activities. The BMBF commissions the Association of German Engineers Technology Center (VDI-TZ), a subsidiary company of the Association of German Engineers (VDI),
to monitor future technology trends that could be the subject of funding programs in the future. These reports are referred to as technology analyses
and include both assessment and future-oriented parts, but focus predominantly on economic issues and impacts.
The BMBF commissioned several forecasting studies on nanotechnology-related fields starting in the early 1990s.
The results of the forecasting exercises were published in technology analyses, summarizing the process and results of the forecasting exercises for nanotechnology in general and for various subfields of nanotechnology,
including fullerenes, synthetic supramolecular systems, nanotubes, and nanobiology. These reports provided information on the technology field
or sub-field, documenting its potential prospects from the perspective of various sectors of industry,
describing future applications, analyzing research deficits, and making policy recommendations. From1988 to 1998, the technology field wasmonitored by analyzing the literature,
visiting conferences and other relevant actors internationally, organizing expert panels on different aspects of nanotechnology,
conducting studies on specific nano-subfields and by bringing together relevant actors from science and industry through workshops and expert discussion 6. Technology intelligence, technology assessment,
and future market assessment were used to identify the promising areas of the field and to assess the market potentials of future nano-applications.
these early monitoring and forecasting activities were followed by an initiative of the BMBF to establish the first six national nanotechnology competence centers with annual funding.
At the onset of the German national nanotechnology initiative, officially started in the late 1990s by widely publicized funding programs for nanotechnology,
In 2003, the BMBF developed a national strategy for future funding and support of nanotechnology.
Nanofab (electronics, nanotechnology for high performance ICT components. Nanoforlife (pharmaceuticals, medical technology nanotechnology for new medical therapies and diagnostics.
Nanomobil (automotive sector, nanotechnology for resource-saving automobiles. 7 These networks represent organizations that have been funded by the Ministry before.
Especially industrial players such as Bayer, Degussa, Siemens, Zeiss, industry-oriented organizations of applied science such as Fraunhofer-Institutes,
Before special nanotechnology funding programs were installed, they received funding from other programs of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)( e g.,
, optical technologies, new materials. 448 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 Nanolux (optics industry, nanotechnology for energy efficient lighting.
Nanochem (production and safety assessment of nanomaterials for industrial applications. In 2003 the Office of Technology assessment at the German Parliament conducted a broad technology assessment on nanotechnology 49.
In 2006, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) established the Nanokommission a stakeholder commission on nanotechnologies as part of the federal government's high-tech strategy.
The commission, which worked in two phases until 2011, identified more than 25 examples of German dialogue processes concerned with the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies.
These unrelated processes cover dialogues at the federal and state levels as well as stakeholder dialogues and processes of public understanding of science and technology 50.
The Nanokommission itself organized a dialogue where representatives of environmental and consumer organizations a women's association and a medical practitioners'organization, trade unions, churches, academia, industry and government bodies (such as federal ministries and agencies as well as ministries on the regional and state level) discussed their positions 51.
Its mandate was solely to foster exchange among the various stakeholder groups in society on the potential benefits
and risks of nanotechnologies and to discuss the responsible use of nanomaterials. In 2007, the Nano-Initiative Action Plan 2010 emerged as an important part of the high-tech strategy of the German government.
Through the action plan, other federal ministries8 finally joined the German nanotechnology initiative more than fifteen years after the firstmonitoring and forecasting activitieswere conducted.
The action plan was planned as a cross-departmental initiative. However, the next strategic document, the Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015 refers to only some initiatives of other ministries and agencies (mainly with regard to regulation,
rather than future strategies) without mentioning past or future cooperation and collaboration among ministries and agencies of the federal government 52.
A broader concept of responsible development of nanotechnology in general was developed not (only the identification of risks for safe and responsible handling) 52.
One of the recommendations published in the Nanokommission's final report in 2011 is that the German federal government should establish a national cross-departmental internet platform providing information on developments and activities in the field of nanotechnologies 51.
and research to pool the distributed strategic knowledge gained from different activities such as technology intelligence, parliamentary technology assessment, technology monitoring and dialogue processes.
and this institutional fragmentation can also be observed with regard to the governance of science, technology and innovation in the field of nanotechnology. 4. Comparing the US and Germany 4. 1. Timing and intervention Between the late 1980s and the late 1990s,
FTA aimed mainly at assessing the potential of the field known today as nanotechnology. Several industrial countries established their first programs in that field in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
But only in the end of the 1990s were disconnected the formerly fields of nanoscale science and engineering brought together under the broader umbrella definition of nanotechnology.
FTA ACTIVITIES were used in this early stage to facilitate a common understanding, develop visions, build up policy networks, as well as shape and prepare funding programs.
On the one hand, the emergence and increase of participatory FTA ACTIVITIES is a positive reflection of increasing public attention to nanotechnology after the funding programs were established.
when nanotechnology risks was perceived first as problems and became the subject of global discussion among NGOS 54 and reinsurance companies 55.
and Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWI). 449 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 In this later stage, heterogeneous stakeholders beyond the actors of the early established nano-policy networks
The function of these participatory processes can be seen as part of acceptance politics 57 that attempts to increase acceptance of emerging technologies.
Participatory processes as well as different concepts of responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology were triggered by global debates on the risks of nanotechnology. 4. 2. International screening
and technology as early as possible have given rise to efforts to monitor emerging technologies on a global scale.
The US Interagency Working group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN) published a worldwide study on Nanostructure Science and Technology in 1999.
analyzing nanotechnology related activities in the US 6 . While the US NNI continued this international screening
The forward-looking activities of the US nanotechnology initiative have had a major impact on the future orientation within the US political realm with regard to nanotechnology governance
The NNI's early nanotechnology assessment studies indicated to the public that policy was based on scientific knowledge information
and conclusion FTA ACTIVITIES were used to shape the emerging field of nanotechnology in the early stages (priority-setting
and preparation of funding programs) and to influence the national innovation systems by implementing nanotechnology programs and nanotechnology regulatory structures in later stages.
the field later called nanotechnology. Expert-driven FTA ACTIVITIES were used in the first stages to build a common understanding
These early activities brought together the formerly unconnected fields of nanoscale science and engineering under a broad definition of nanotechnology and served as the foundation in developing long-term R&d visions and strategies.
Both in the US and Germany, actors conducting early FTA did not claim to have a broad impact on public policy,
as they intended to identify emerging technologies and not to shape the field. Nonetheless, these activities contributed to forming the field and shaping the expectations.
In both countries, early FTA envisioned innovative future nanotechnologies but did not provide guidance either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation to address grand societal challenges.
The implication for future emerging technologies is that the methodology and practice of FTA should consider the governance dimension from the beginning by acknowledging that monitoring
and identifying a broad field implicitly includes the shaping of the field and its governance structure by including
and in spreading the idea that nanotechnology would become one of the key enabling technologies of the 21st century.
Coherent and powerful statements of what the future governance of nanotechnology should aim to accomplish can be seen as a precondition that could potentially lead to binding prioritization of the goals to be reached by using nanotechnologies.
The updated nanotechnology vision in the US 3 is envisioning the involvement of a broader range of experts and stakeholders and addresses societal challenges through a sophisticated concept of future nanotechnology governance.
The US nanotechnology governance is oriented conceptually toward responsible research and innovation and broad participation. It has established broad networks with a focal organization as the basis for implementing its strategic vision.
The German nanotechnology policy in contrast, has no continuously operating nano-related inter-organizational setting;
References 1 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Nanotechnology research directions: IWGN workshop report, Vision for Nanotechnology research and Development in The next Decade, 1999.2 BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, in:
Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU. COM (2011) 48, Green Paper, European commission, Brussels, 2011.5 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, IWGN, E. A t.,The Interagency
Working group on Nanoscience, Nanostructure Science and Technology, in: A Worldwide Study, 1999.6 G. Bachmann, in:
Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos, VDI Technologiezentrum, Düsseldorf, 1998, p. 220.7 J. Youtie, P. Shapira, A. Porter, Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries
Res. 10 (2008) 981 986.8 K. Blind, S. Gauch, Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany, J. Technol.
Transf. 34 (2009) 320 342.9 M. C. Roco, Nanoscale science and engineering: unifying and transforming tools, AICHE J. 50 (2004) 890 897.10 M. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies, J. Nanopart.
Res. 10 (2008) 11 29.11 C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, Sci. Technol.
Hum. Values (2007) 196 220.12 A. Nordmann, No future for nanotechnology? Historical development vs. global expansion, in:
F. Jotterand (Ed.),Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy issues in Bionanotechnology, Springer, Netherlands, 2008, pp. 43 63.13 P. Schaper-Rinkel, Governance von Zukunftsversprechen:
Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, in: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Springer, 2010.15 R. A w. Rhodes, Understanding governance:
Stud. 28 (2007) 1243 1264.16 M. Roco, The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years, J. Nanopart.
Res. 13 (2011) 427 445.17 K. E. Drexler, Engines of creation, The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, Anchor Press, New york, 1987.18 K. E. Drexler
, C. Peterson, G. Pergamit, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, William Morrow, New york, 1991.19 G. Bachmann, Technologieanalyse Nanotechnologie, VDI Technologieanalyse, in:
VDI, Düsseldorf, 1994.20 POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, in: Making it in Miniature Nanotechnology Report Summery, POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, London, 1996, p. 4. 451 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change
80 (2013) 444 452 21 I. Malsch, Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts'Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-areas, Brussels Luxembourg, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997.22 National science and Technology Council, Nanotechnology, in:
Shaping the World Atom by Atom, 1999, p. 12 S, Washington. 23 L. M. Pytlikzillig, A j. Tomkins, Public engagement for informing science and technology policy:
what do we know, what do need we to know, and how will we get there?
Rev. Policy Res. 28 (2011) 197 217.24 M. Powell, D. L. Kleinman, Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making:
the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model, Public Underst. Sci. 17 (2008) 329 348.25 R. Zimmer, R. Hertel, G.-F. Böl, Bfr Consumer Conference Nanotechnology, Federal Institute for Risk assessment, Berlin
, 2009.26 P. Dannemand Andersen, B. Rasmussen, M. Strange, J. Haisler, Technology foresight on Danish nanoscience and nano-technology, Foresight, J. Futur.
Stud. Strateg. Think. Policy 7 (2005) 64.27 M. Keenan, R. Barré, C. Cagnin, Future-oriented technology analysis: future directions, in:
C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barré (Eds. Future-oriented technology analysis, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 163 169.28 A. Eerola,
I. Miles, M. Mogee, A. Salo, F. Scapolo, R. Smits, W. Thissen, Technology futures analysis: toward integration of the field and new methods, Technol.
Chang. 76 (2009) 1187 1197.35 C. Milburn, Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: science fiction as science, Configurations 10 (2002) 261 296.36 S. Kaplan, J. Radin, Bounding an emerging technology:
para-scientific media and the Drexler Smalley debate about nanotechnology, Soc. Stud. Sci. 41 (2011) 457 485.37 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Nanostructure Science and Technology, R&d Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials,
and Nanodevices, 1999.38 M. C. Roco, W s. Bainbridge, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: NSET Workshop Report, National science Foundation (NSF), 2001.39 E. Fisher, Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI:
planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program, Technol. Soc. 27 (2005) 321 328.40 M d. Cobb, Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology, Sci.
Commun. 27 (2005) 221 239.41 M d. Cobb, J. Macoubrie, Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trusts, J. Nanopart.
Res. 6 (2004) 395 405.42 O. Renn, M. C. Roco, Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance, J. Nanopart.
Res. 8 (2006) 153.43 D. Barben, E. Fisher, C. Selin, D. H. Guston, Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology:
foresight, engagement, and integration, in: O. A. Edward, J. Hackett, Michael E. Lynch, Judy Wajcman (Eds.
Handbook of Science and Technology studies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2008, pp. 979 1000.44 D. H. Guston, D. Sarewitz, Real-time technology assessment, Technol.
Soc. 24 (2002) 93 109.45 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Strategic Plan, 2011. Washington. 46 M. C. Roco, Environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology, How the U s. Government is Dealing with the Immediate and Long-term issues of this New technology, Environmental science & Technology, 2005.
107 112). 47 I. Miles, The development of technology foresight: a review, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 77 (2010) 1448 1456.48 A. Zweck, G. Bachmann, W. Luther, C. Ploetz, Nanotechnology in Germany:
from forecasting to technological assessment to sustainability studies, J. Clean. Prod. 16 (2008) 977 987.49 TAB, in:
D. Bundestag (Ed.),Bericht des Ausschusses für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung (17. Ausschuss) gemäߧ56a der Geschäftsordnung Technikfolgenabschätzung hier:
Responsible Use of Nanotechnologies: Report and Recommendations of the German Federal government's Nanokommission for 2008,2008. 51 Nanokommission of the German Federal government, Responsible use of nanotechnologies:
report and recommendations of the German Nanokommission 2011, in: W.-M. Catenhusen, A. Grobe (Eds.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), 2011, Berlin. 52 BMBF, Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015, BMBF, Bonn, 2011.53 T
Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience, Res. Policy 37 (2008) 888.54 ETC Group action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), Size matters!
The case for a global moratorium. No small matter II, in: Occasional Paper Series, vol. 7, nr. 1, 2003, p. 20s,(Winnipeg.
Nanotechnology. Small Matter, Many Unknowns, 2004, p. 57s, Zürich. 56 B. Wynne, Public participation in science and technology:
performing and obscuring a political conceptual categorymistake, East Asian Sci. Technol Soc: Int. J. 1 (2007) 99 110.57 D. Barben, Analyzing acceptance politics:
towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science and technology, Public Underst. Sci. 19 (2010) 274 292.58 E. Altvater, B. Mahnkopf, The world market unbound, Rev.
insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process, Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20 (2008) 369 387.60 U. Felt, M. Fochler, Machineries for making publics:
inscribing and describing publics in public engagement, Minerva 48 (2010) 219 238.61 K. Braun, S. Schultz, a certain amount of engineering involved:
Her current research focuses on foresight, governance of emerging technologies, and methods and practices of futuring. 452 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011