years

ART81.pdf

Exploratory Modeling and Analysis, an approach for model-based foresight under deep uncertainty Jan H. Kwakkel, Erik Pruyt Faculty of technology, Policy,

Received 14 may 2011 Received in revised form 12 july 2012 Accepted 27 august 2012 Available online 29 october 2012 Exploratory Modeling

which are key activities of FTA. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Future-oriented technology analysis Exploratory Modeling and Analysis Deep uncertainty System dynamics Adaptive policymaking Agent-based modeling 1. Introduction Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) is understood as an umbrella label for various approaches

Similarly, if the Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 Corresponding author. Tel.:++31 15 27 88487.

E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 that policy or planning debates can often be served even by the discovery of thresholds, boundaries,

E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 This small and simplistic System Dynamics model was developed in about one day in close collaboration with a mineral/metal expert

Start, end, slope Fig. 1. Causal loop diagram of the scarcity model 18.422 J. H. Kwakkel, E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013

E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 otherwise. Next, we tried to identify subspaces in the overall uncertainty space that show a high concentration of crises runs using the Patient Rule Induction Method 31 33.

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has been working over the last couple of years on a plan for guiding its long-term development 37,38.

3. Evolution of market price for a 1000 runs. 424 J. H. Kwakkel, E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 3. 2

At the moment, Schiphol is considering expanding the airport by adding a new runway that is to become operational in 2020.

Moreover, a participatory process has resulted in the agreement that no more than 510,000 operations can be scheduled at Schiphol in 2020.

Up to 70,000 short haul operation are to be relocated from 2015 onwards to the existing airport Eindhoven,

and Lelystad Airport which is to be developed in the coming years. Using a conjugant gradient optimization algorithm

-1%+4%425 J. H. Kwakkel, E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 could serve as a starting point for slightly modifying the outlined dynamic adaptive plan,

Outcome indicators Static plan Adaptive plan Size of noise contour after 30 years (km2) 13.2 63.8 10.2 47.4 Cumulative Average Casualty Expectancy (ACE

) 0. 9 2. 7 1. 1 2. 3 Ratio practical capacity to demand after 30 years 0. 25 2. 48 0. 89 1

E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 can be decommissioned. Generation companies'expansion decisions are driven mainly by profit expectations,

That is, in most cases, the fraction of fossil based generation in the final year is higher than 0. 6. Thus,

Planning horizon for each generation company is initialized randomly using a uniform distribution with a lower (i e. 5 years) and an upper bound) 6 12 Mean return on investment of generation companies Average expected return

E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 irreducible uncertainties inherent in the forces driving toward an unknown future beyond the short term

E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 some structural uncertainties were taken into account.

(2013) 419 431 scenario discovery. Another major avenue of research is on the communication of EMA that results to policy-makers and FTA practitioners.

Chang. 71 (2004) 287 303.2 D. Jamieson, Prediction in society, in: D. Sarewitz, R. j. Pielke, R. Byerly (Eds.

Rev. 18 (2002) 501 531.6 O. H. Pilkey, L. Pilkey-Jarvis, Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future, Columbia University Press, New york, USA, 2007.7 R. J. Lempert, S. Popper, S. Bankes, Shaping The next One hundred Years:

New methods for Quantitative, Long-term Policy analysis, RAND, Santa monica, California, 2003.8 J. H. Kwakkel, W. E. Walker, V. A w. J. Marchau, Classifying

Policy Manag. 10 (2010) 299 315.9 Y. Ben-Haim, Information-Gap Decision theory: Decisions under Severe Uncertainty, 2nd ed. Wiley, New york, 2006.10 E. A. Erikson, K. M. Weber, Adaptive foresight:

Chang. 75 (2008) 462 482.11 D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke, R. Byerly, in: Prediction, Island Press, Washington, D c, 2000.12 S. Bankes, Exploratory modeling for policy analysis, Oper.

Res. 4 (1993) 435 449.13 D. B. Agusdinata, Exploratory Modeling and Analysis: A Promising Method to Deal with Deep uncertainty, in:

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

Chang. 76 (2009) 1150 1162.17 J. Kooroshy, C. Meindersma, R. Podkolinski, M. Rademaker, T. Sweijs, A. Diederen, M. Beerthuizen, S. de

T. H. Moon (Ed.),The 28th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 2010, Seoul, Korea. 19 E. Alonso, J. Gregory, F. Field

Technol. 41 (2007) 6649 6656.20 A. Valero, A. Valero, Physical geonomics: combining the exergy and Hubbert peak analysis for predicting mineral resources depletion, Resour.

Recycl. 54 (2010) 1074 1083.21 W. Auping, The uncertain future of copper, in: 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

. Auping, E. Pruyt, The uncertain future of copper: dynamic scenario discovery under deep uncertainty, Technological forecasting and Social Change,(under review.

Econ. 61 (2007) 115 128.24 J. Forrester, Principles of Systems, Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, MA, 1968.25 J. D. Sterman, Business Dynamics:

M. H. Lee (Ed.),The 28th International Conference of The System Dynamics Society, 2010, Seoul, Korea. 27 Ventana Systems Inc, in:

Rev. 15 (1999) 3 36.31 R. J. Lempert, D. G. Groves, S. Popper, S. Bankes, A general analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios, Manag.

Sci. 52 (2006) 514 528.32 D. G. Groves, R. J. Lempert, A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios, Glob.

Chang. 17 (2007) 73 85.33 J. H. Friedman, N. I. Fisher, Bump hunting in high-dimensional data, Stat.

Comput. 9 (1999) 123 143.34 T. W. Liao Clustering of time series data a survey, Pattern Recog. 38 (2005) 1857 1874.35 J. H. Kwakkel, W. E. Walker, V. A w. J. Marchau

, Adaptive airport strategic planning, Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 10 (2010) 227 250.36 R. de Neufville, A. Odoni, Airport Systems:

Planning, Design, and Management, Mcgraw-hill, New york, 2003.37 Schiphol Group, in: Lange Termijn Visie op de Ontwikkeling van de Mainport Schiphol:

Airfield Capacity Model, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington D c, 1981.40 FAA, FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal years 2008 2025, U s. Department of transportation, Federal Aviation

I. Bratko, G. Shaulsky, B. Zupan, Microarray data mining with visual programming, Bioinformatics 21 (2005) 369 398.48 B. P. Bryant, R. J. Lempert

Chang. 77 (2010) 34 49.49 S. J. Heblij, Development of a runway allocation optimisation model.

)( 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

from short-term crises to long-term transitions. 431 J. H. Kwakkel, E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431

ART82.pdf

Received 4 july 2011 Received in revised form 24 june 2012 Accepted 23 august 2012 Available online 11 november 2012 In recent years, accelerated by the economic and financial crisis,

and using scenarios and orienting innovation systems and research priorities 6. Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 Corresponding author.

At a strategic level, the European union took up this challenge via the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative as part of the Europe 2020 strategy launched in 2010.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 2. Material and methods How can we learn about orienting innovation systems from future scenario practice?

Thus through trial-and-error and learning-by-doing 1 The Cost Action A22 network was a four year program (2004 2007) entitled Foresight methodologies Exploring new ways to explore the future and funded by the Individuals, Societies, Culture

followed by an open scientific conference in July 2007. The main research questions were: What methodological issues are salient in relation to the identification of emerging trends and change?

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 experiments in the policy process, new concepts and sustainable solutions can be found to grand challenges.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 The concept of the multiple-axes method is based on one of the approaches used by Pierre Wack 52.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 our analysis a better understanding of the linkages between scenario design, methods used and related outcomes.

i e. beyond twenty years, can be difficult. Most often, the scenarios are used to highlight important societal assets under threat.

Getting into the Right Lane for 2050 and AG2020 are good examples here (see Appendix 1). In this group,

i e. 5 10 year. Breaking up the long-term in more tangible time periods helps understand the necessary steps for embracing change.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 The images of the future are focused on key internal developments

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 5. Discussion Due to the social dynamic characteristic of innovation, new socio-technical subsystems are emerging 24.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 The solutions developed should be socially reflexive

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 acknowledge the limits of our analysis: i e. using a policy perspective for doing an ex-post analysis of future scenario practice.

Appendix 1. Overview of the case studies 1. AG2020 DG RTD (2011 Foresight analysis for world agricultural markets (2020) and Europe. www. ag2020. org 2. Danish Technology foresight on Environmentaall Friendly Agriculture K. Borch,(in press) The Danish Technology foresight

on Environmentally Friendly Agriculture, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press 3. DP21 DP21 (2003), Dierlijke Productie & Consumptie in de 21ste eeuw.

Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available in Dutch at http://www. kbs-frb. be/uploadedfiles/KBS-FRB/Files/NL/PUB 1338 DP21 STAKEHOLDERS. pdf. 4. Duwobo Duwobo (2010), Transitiemanagement

duurzaam wonen en bouwen. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available in Dutch at http://www. duwobo. be/index. cfm. 5. 2nd SCAR Foresight exercise EC (2008), New challenges for agricultural research:

climate change, food security, rural development, agricultural knowledge systems. The 2nd SCAR Foresight exercise. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://ec. europa. eu/research/agriculture/scar/pdf/scar 2nd foresight exercise en. pdf 6. 3rd SCAR Foresight exercise EC (2011), Sustainable

food consumption and production in a resource-constrained world. 3rd Foresight exercise. European commission DG RTD, Directorate E Unit E. 4, Brussel. 7. Prelude EEA (2006) Prelude (PROSPECTIVE Environmental analysis of Land use Development in Europe) scenarios.

Available at http://www. eea. europa. eu/multimedia/interactive/prelude-scenarios/prelude. 8. The world in 2025 European commission (2009

The world in 2025. Rising Asia and socio-ecological transition. Research*eu, Brussels. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://ec. europa. eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/theworrldin-2025-report en. pdf. 9. Givaudan

Givaudan (2011) Sustainability, translating vision into action. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at www. givaudan. com. 10.

Research Dialogue in Germany E. Göll, Futur the Research Dialogue in Germany, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds.

Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 11. eforesee Malta L a. Pace,(in press) Strategic planning for the Future:

Getting into the Right Lane for 2050 PBL & Stockholm Resilience Centre (2009), Getting into the Right Lane for 2050.

UNEP/RIVM (2003. Four scenarios for Europe. Based on UNEP's third Global Environment Outlook. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://www. unep. org/geo/GEO3/pdfs/four scenarios europe. pdf. 16.

Buiten de lijnen VLM (2009) Buiten de lijnen. Vlaamse Land Maatschappij, Brussel. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available in Dutch at http://www. vlm. be/Sitecollectiondocuments/Publicaties/Platteland/VLM BROCHURE DEF. pdf. 17.

Vision 2050: The new agenda for business. WBCSD (2010) Vision 2050: The new agenda for business.

World Business Council for Sustainable development, Washington. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://www. wbcsd. org/web/vision2050. htm. 441 P. De Smedt et al./

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 References 1 C. Harries, Correspondence to what?

Chang. 70 (2003) 797 817.2 S. C. H. Greeuw, M. B. A. van Asselt, J. Grosskurth, C a m. H. Storms, N

Chang. 23 (1983) 95 120.5 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making:

Manag. 20 (2008) 369 387.6 P. D. Andersen, M. Borup, K. Borch, J. Kaivo-oja, A. Eerola, T. Finnfjörnsson, E. Øverland

Chang. 72 (2005) 59 73.8 A. Wilkinson, E. Eidinow, Evolving practices in environmental scenarios: a new scenario typology, Environ.

Lett. 3 (2008. 9 M. Boden, C. Cagnin, V. Carabias, K. Haegeman, T. Konnola, Facing the Future:

Time for the EU to Meet Global Challenges, EUR 24364 EN, Publications Office of the European union, Luxembourg, 2010.

foresight in the risk society, Technovation 19 (1999) 413 421.12 H. Linstone, On discounting the future, Technol.

Pract. 3 (2001) 311 337.15 OECD, Fostering innovation to address social challenges, in: Workshop Proceedings, OECD, Paris, 2011.16 EC, Innovation Union Competitiveness Report 2011.

Executive Summary) European commission, DG Research and Innovation, Brussels, 2011.17 G. Hamel, C. K. Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business school Press, Boston, 1994.18

37 (2005) 795 812.19 M. Godet, Integration of scenarios and strategic management: using relevant, consistent, and likely scenario, Futures 22 (1990) 730 739.20 M. Lindgren, H. Bandhold, Scenario planning:

The Link Between Future and Strategy, Palgrave Macmillan, New york, 2003.21 M. E. Porter, Competitive advantage, Free Press, New york, 1985.22 G. Ringland, The role of scenarios in strategic foresight, Technol.

Chang. 77 (2010) 1493 1498.23 I. Wilson, From scenario thinking to strategic action, Technol. Forecast.

Chang. 65 (2000) 23 29.24 B. Carlsson, S. Jacobsson, M. Holmén, A. Rickne, Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues, Res.

Policy 31 (2002) 233 245.25 T. Rickards, The future of innovation research, in: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003.26 L. Gunderson, C. Folke, M. A. Janssen, Reflective practice, Ecol.

Soc. 12 (2007) 40 (online URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/vol12/iss2/art40/./27 A l. Cunliffe, Reflexive inquiry in organizational research:

Relat. 56 (2003) 983 1003.28 M. Alvesson, K. Sköldberg, Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research Towards a Reflexive Methodology, Sage, London, 2000.29 P. De Smedt, Interactions between foresight and decision-making, in:

J. Econ. 19 (1995) 5 24.34 In: B. A. Lundvall (Ed.),National systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning, Pinter, London, 1992.35 R. Nelson, S. Winter, In search of a useful theory of innovation, Res.

Policy 14 (2002) 1 13.37 R. Sternberg, J. Pretz, J. Kaufman, Types of innovation, in:

Econ. 1 (1991) 93 118.40 M. P. Hekkert, R. A a. Suurs, S. O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, R. E. H. M

Chang. 74 (2007) 413 432.41 M. S. Jørgensen, Visions and visioning in foresight activities, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds.

42 (2010) 723 732.44 C. Selin, Time matters: 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

) 279 283.46 A. Marchais-Roubelat, F. Roubelat, Futures beyond disruptions, Futures 43 (2011) 130 133.47 S. A. van't Klooster, M. B. A. van Asselt, Accommodating or compromising change?

A story about ambitions and historic deterministic scenarios, Futures 43 (2011) 86 98.48 P. W. F. van Notten, J. Rotmans, M. B. A

. van Assel, D. S. Rothman, An updated scenario typology, Futures 35 (2003) 423 443.49 S. Rayner, Uncomfortable knowledge:

the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses, Econ. Soc. 41 (2012) 107 125.50 L. Borjesön, M. Hojer, K.-H. Dreborg, T. Ekvall, G. Finnveden, Scenario types and techniques:

towards a user's guide, Futures 38 (2006) 723 739.51 E. Wollenberg, D. Edmunds, L. Buck, Using scenarios to make decisions about the future:

anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests, Landsc. Urban Plan. 47 (2000) 65 77.52 P. J. H. Schoemaker, Scenario planning:

a tool for strategic thinking, Sloan Manag. Rev. 25 (1995) 40.53 A. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths:

Towards a Durable Peace, Friends of the Earth International, San francisco, 1977.231 pp..54 J. Rotmans, M. B. A. van Asselt, C. Anastasi, S. Greeuw, J. Mellors, S. Peters, D. Rothman, N. Rijkens

, Visions for a sustainable Europe, Futures 32 (2000) 809 831.55 R. Phaal, C. Farrukh, D. Probert, T-plan.

The Delphi method, 2002,(Last accessed 31/01/12 and available at http://www. is. njit. edu/pubs/delphibook.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 58 J. P. Gavigan, F. Scapolo, A comparison of national foresight exercises, Foresight 1 (1999) 495

Chang. 39 (1991) 253 263.61 T. Fuller, P. De Smedt, From oracles to dialogue, in:

four scenarios 2015 2020, Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 6 (2004) 331 343.65 K. van der Heijden, Scenarios:

The Art of Strategic Conversation, Wiley, Chichester, 1996.66 K. Weick, Sense-Making in Organizations, Sage, London, 1995.67 S. Inayatullah, Deconstructing

predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies, Futures 22 (1990) 115 141.68 E. Weiner, A. Brown, Future Think:

Chang. 77 (2010) 1061 1075.72 L. Ilmola, O. Kuusi, Filters of weak signals hinder foresight: monitoring weak signals efficiently in corporate decision-making, Futures 38 (2006) 908 924.73 C. Prell, K. Hubacek, M. S. Reed, C. Quinn, N. Jin, J

. Holden, T. P. Burt, M. Kirby, J. Sendzimir, If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail:

Rev. 32 (2007) 1 20.74 S. Funtowicz, J. Ravetz, Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25 (1993) 735 755.75 A. Jetter, W

an exploratory study of solar energy, Futures 43 (2011) 52 66.76 B. Höijer, R. Lidskog, Y. Uggla, Facing dilemmas:

Futures 38 (2006) 350 366.77 P. De Smedt, Can Negotiating the Future Influence Policy and Social change?

Paper Presented at the Future seminar of the Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, 7th of June, 2007, in:

Interface 4 (2007) 707 719.79 P. Goodwin, Spanning boundaries: social innovation in a complex world, in:

OECD (Ed.),Fostering Innovation to Address Social challenges, Workshop Proceedings, OECD, Paris, 2011, pp. 59 64.80 M. Godet, The art of scenarios and strategic planning:

Chang. 65 (2000) 3 22.81 T. J. B. M. Postma, F. Liebl, How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool, Technol.

Chang. 72 (2005) 161 173.82 J. Hauschildt, Promoters and champions in innovations: development of a research paradigm, in:

L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, UK, 2003. Peter De Smedt has a background in ecological system analyses.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443

ART83.pdf

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

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

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,

Especially the inter-organizational setting can be considered a crucial condition for maximizing the impact that participatory FTA can have in the future governance of nanotechnology. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

8. More than ten years have passed since the U s. National science and Technology Council published its first vision for nanotechnology research

and then recognizing that the Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 E-mail address:

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

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,

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.

10 (2008) 11 29. Indeed, it turns out there are strong analogies between nanotechnology and converging technologies,

& 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,

In the 1980s a first funding program was established in UK that has fallen since into oblivion.

The early individual vision of Eric Drexler, who envisioned a distant future vision of molecular manufacturing in the late 1980s,

and his ideas became a disputed reference point in the debate around nanotechnology in the late 1980s and the 1990s.

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

This started in 1998 when the National science and Technology Council (NSTC), the principal executive body responsible for coordinating science and technology policy,

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.

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).

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

engineering and technology research and development from the approximately $255 million it spent in fiscal year 1999.1.

In the years following the implementation 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

In 2010, a follow-up report on the vision report of 1999, 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,

the presented vision for 2020 was conducted by involving a wider range of experts and stakeholders to generate broader knowledge than in 1999.

These experts and stakeholders came from industry from NGOS, from the physical and biological sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, economics, and philosophy.

In comparison with the first vision generated prior to the establishment of the NNI in 1999/2000,

and became a part of the vision for 2020. Both concepts rely on experiences derived from participatory activities.

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

He distinguishes two foundational phases, called Nano 1 and Nano 2. The first foundational phase (2001 2010),

The second foundational phase (2011 2020) is planned to be focused on the integration of nanoscale science

The goals defined in the latest NNI strategic plan of 2011 address this user-centric ecosystem by covering the whole ecosystem of innovation:

& Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 approaches to address environmental, health, safety and societal impacts of nanotechnology as environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology 46 and to develop risk governance for nanotechnology 42.

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.

nanotechnology has been on the policy agenda of the federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) since the late 1990s.

started in the late 1980s and focused in the early stages on technology analysis, market analyses and technology assessment activities.

The BMBF commissioned several forecasting studies on nanotechnology-related fields starting in the early 1990s.

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,

In 1998 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.

448 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 Nanolux (optics industry, nanotechnology for energy efficient lighting.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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 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,

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.

Participatory FTA ACTIVITIES increased in both countries after 2004, when nanotechnology risks was perceived first as problems

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

which documented mutual visits and mutual screening activities in the 1990s. The US Interagency Working group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN) published a worldwide study on Nanostructure Science and Technology in 1999.

The report includes site reports for visits conducted by the IWGN expert panel to leading research laboratories in Japan and Europe.

The vision-building process of 2010 served as an instrument to pool and coordinate FTA ACTIVITIES among government departments, agencies, and research communities.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several industrial countries established their first programs in 450 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452

In the US the new vision for 2020 represents such a concept, while in Germany many different agendas were developed in parallel without a common strategy.

Nanotechnologie in Deutschland, BMBF Publik, Bonn, 2002, p. 16 S. 3 M. Roco, C a. Mirkin, M. Hersam, Nanotechnology research Directions for Societal Needs

in 2020, Berlin/Boston, Retrospective and Outlook, Springer, 2010.4 European commission, Green Paper, in: E. Commission (Ed.),From Challenges to Opportunities:

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

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:

Zur politischen Ökonomie der Nanotechnologie, Prokla 36 (2006) 473 496.14 M. Kaiser, S. Maasen, M. Kurath, C. Rehmann-Sutter, Governing future technologies.

Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, in: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Springer, 2010.15 R. A w. Rhodes, Understanding governance:

ten years on, Organ. 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?

Policy Res. 28 (2011) 197 217.24 M. Powell, D. L. Kleinman, Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making:

Sci. 17 (2008) 329 348.25 R. Zimmer, R. Hertel, G.-F. Böl, Bfr Consumer Conference Nanotechnology, Federal Institute for Risk assessment, Berlin

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, Methods and tools contributing to FTA:

a knowledge-based perspective, Futures 43 (2011) 265 278.29 M. Rader, A l. Porter, Fitting future-oriented technology analysis methods to study types, in:

Fitting Future-oriented technology analysis Methods to Study Types, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 25 40.30 A l. Porter, W. B. Ashton, G. Clar, J

Chang. 71 (2004) 287 303.31 A. Rip, Futures of ELSA, Sci. Soc. Ser. Converg. Res. 10 (2009) 666 670.32 A l. Porter, W. B. Ashton, United states case study, in:

L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.),International Handbook on Foresight and Science policy:

Concepts and Practice, 2008, pp. 154 169.33 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany, J. Forecast. 22 (2003) 93 111.34

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:

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) gemäß§56a der Geschäftsordnung Technikfolgenabschätzung hier:

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

Policy 37 (2008) 888.54 ETC Group action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), Size matters! The case for a global moratorium.

Occasional Paper Series, vol. 7, nr. 1, 2003, p. 20s,(Winnipeg. 55 R c. Swiss re, in:

Small Matter, Many Unknowns, 2004, p. 57s, Zürich. 56 B. Wynne, Public participation in science and technology:

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. Int. Polit.

Econ. 4 (1997) 448 471.59 O. Da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The impact of foresight on policy-making:

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:

constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements, Public Underst. Sci. 19 (2010) 403 419. Dr. Petra Schaper-Rinkel, political scientist, is a senior scientist and scientific project manager at the AIT Austrian Institute of technology in Vienna.

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

< Back - Next >