Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'Michael Keenan1,,*Paul Cutler2, 3, John Marks4, Richard Meylan2, 5, Carthage Smith2 and Emilia Koivisto2, 6 1directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD,
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
, 75116 Paris, France 3present address: Division of Earth sciences, National science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA 4kort Galgewater 16,2312 BR Leiden, Netherlands 5present address Royal
Society of New zealand, PO BOX 598, Wellington 6140, New zealand 6present address Institute of Seismology, P o box 68 (Gustaf Ha llstro min katu 2b), FI
-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland*Corresponding author. Email: michael. keenan@oecd. org Over the coming decades, science will play a key role in society's response to emerging global‘grand challenges'.
ICSU is a non-governmental organisation with a global membership of national scientific bodies Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 166 177 doi:
10.1093/scipol/scs019 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
UN Commission on Sustainable development, Rio+20 Earth Summit in 2012. 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). The purpose of its current foresight exercise is to explore the potential development of international science over the next two decades in a changing economic, social, political and environmental context.
From an organisational perspective, it is designed to test the role and mission of ICSU and guide long-term strategic choices aimed at strengthening internatioona science for the benefit of society.
To this end, the conduct of the foresight exercise has been synchronized closely with the development of the ICSU strategic plan 2012 7 (ICSU 2011a)
The International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957 8 was the first large-scale international field study.
In the mid-1980s following signals of potential climate change as a consequence of increasing CO2 emissions, the scientific community, under the aegis of ICSU, established the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme.
and the UN Environment Programme in 1987 to carry out integrated assessments of scientific evidence. It has engaged over 3,
completed in 2003. This 13-year project coordinated by the US Department of energy and the National institutes of health aimed to discover all the estimated 20,000 25,000 human genes
and make them accesssibl for further biological study. During the early years of the HGP
the Wellcome Trust (UK) became a major partner. Additional contributions came from Japan, France, Germany, China and others.
Regional initiatives, particularly the development of a transnational European research area, are having a signifiican effect on international science cooperation (European commission 2008.
Whilst several countries such as Brazil, China and India are making rapid progress (Royal Society 2011
There remain a large number of poorer countries where investment in science is negligible (UNESCO 2010.
In 2002 it commissioned a meta-analysis of the results of several existing national foresight exercises with the aim of identifying future priority areas for international science cooperation (Teixera et al. 2002.
More recently, ICSU has started to use foresight approaches in some of its thematic work. For example, it has been carrying out a visioning exercise On earth systems research with a view to identifying a single strategic framework for global environmental change research and its policy relevance (ICSU 2010.
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.
These areas were considdere to still be valid in 2009 and are being carried mostly over into the new strategic plan (2012 7). Therefore,
the new exercise set out to focus on the exploration of possible futures of international science cooperation and the roles ICSU might play.
and Review (CSPR) and was started in October 2009. The sub-sections that follow begin with a discussion of the considerations
Following a foresight design framework outlined by Keenan and Miles (2008 these can be grouped as follows:.
This was taken the approach in 2002 but had resulted in some problems absorbing the results into the ICSU strategic plan.
The time horizon of the foresight exercise had to be beyond ICSU's usual planning horizons of 5 10 years.
the exercise settled for a 20-year time horizon, which happens to coincide with the centenary of the founding of ICSU in 1931.
how have changed things over the last 20 years and to what extent were anticipated these? In some ways, a lot has changed since 1990, e g. the internet,
but in others, many of the problems faced in 2010 were discussed already widely, e g. environmental concerns.
While there is no guarantte that patterns of change will be similar in scope and scale over the coming two decades as they were in the previous
perhaps coalescing into a‘perfect storm'of major problems (Beddington 2009) this thought experiment served to lessen the remoteness of 2031
Phase 1 october 2009 to April 2010: Gather perspectiive on the key drivers influencing international science in the next 20 years (from individuals in ICSU's membership, bodies,
partners and other stakeholdders including young scientists, as well as from the literature)..Phase 2 april 2010 to March 2011:
Build exploratory scenarios from the key drivers and conduct a broad consultation with the same range of parties identified for the previous phase..
Phase 3 march 2011 to February 2012: Use the key drivers and exploratory scenarios to develop and validate a visionary‘success scenario'of where ICSU should be Going in the process,
During Phase 1, perspectives were gathered on potential drivers of international science over the next 20 years.
and early career scientiist (who had participated previously in a meeting marking ICSU's 75th anniversary in 2006);
importance of the driver in shaping future developmeent over the next 20 years in international science. uncertainty around the direction and dynamics of the driver over the next 20 years and the impacts it is likely to have on international science
which trends over the next 20 years are more or less clear at least in their direction of evolution, if not in their precise impacts, as follows:.
and presented as a‘general context'to developments over the coming 20 years. In addition, a further 13 key drivers, for which trends are much more uncertain,
see Bo rjeson et al. 2006). The approach used for building exploratory scenarios in the ICSU exercise broadly aligned with a process previouusl developed by former Royal dutch shell Group staff,
which has been popularised in several publications (Schwartz 1998; Ogilvy and Schwartz 1998. The first step involved developing plausible forecasts for each of the 13 key drivers.
Draft forecasts were prepared by the ICSU Secretariat with inputs from the Task Team. A two-day scenario workshop involving the Task Team was held in April 2010
in order to sharpen the forecasts and to use them as a basis for developing contrasting explorrator scenarios of the future of international science cooperation.
In a following step, scenarios were developed within four distinct‘scenario spaces'framed by two axes selected from the list of key drivers (van't Klooster and van Asselt 2006.
and over the course of the months following the April 2010 workshop, the exploratoor scenarios were redrafted several times.
The CSPR played an important role in further sharpening the scenarrio at its September 2010 meeting, after
offer four distinct, yet plausible images of the future‘world order'and of international science cooperation 20 years from now.
The success scenario approach has been pioneered by researchers at the University of Manchester (see Miles (2005) for an overview)
The resulting success scenario has a 20-year time horizon outlining the contours of a desirable state of international cooperation in science in 2031 and ICSU's role in its achievement.
The exercise and its results were debated extensively at ICSU's General assembly in September 2011, a gathering of the ICSU‘family'of member organisations that occurs every three years.
Overall, the exercise was viewed favourabbl as a way of positioning and visioning science in society
as is done often in business environments (Mendonc¸a et al. 2003). Shortlists of relevant wild cards can be assembled readily through a mix of group brainstorming
and from the EC-funded iknow project dedicated to the collection and analysis of wild cards and weak signals (iknow 2011).
Science Forum in Budapest in November 2011) the explorrator scenarios were picked quickly up and featured in an article in Nature (Macilwain 2011).
This can be taken as a strong signal of the likely interest of the science policy community in the scenarios. 4. 2 Lessons in conducting international foresight Reflecting on the approach taken in the ICSU foresight,
For example, experiences with international foresight using scenarios have been described by Cagnin and Ko nno la (2011) for the domain of intelligent and sustainable manufacturing,
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,
and for improving organisatioona agility vis-a vis future unpredictable change (Miles et al. 2008). These are all qualities that that can benefit international science cooperation as it seeks to address many of the grand challenges of our time.
ICSU is seen as an independent platform able to bring together funders and the science community to co-design programmes, building on the success of the Earth System Sustainability Initiative, 2012 22.
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.
In 2007 ESF evaluated the experiences with Forward Looks (Van der meulen 2007. Though the Forward Looks focus on science agendas,
References Beddington, J. 2009)‘ Food, energy, water and the climate: A perfect storm of global events?'
'speech delivered at the conferrenc‘Sustainable development UK 09',held London, 19 march 2009. Bo rjeson, L.,Ho jer, M.,Dreborg, K.,Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. 2006)‘ Scenario types and techniques:
Towards a user's guide',Futures, 38: 723 39. Cagnin, C. and Ko nno la, T. 2011)‘ The challenge of global foresight:
lessons from scenario and roadmapping process on intelligent and sustainable manufacturing systems, 'paper presented at the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, held Seville, Spain, 12 may 2011.
European commission. 2008)‘ Opening to the World: International Cooperation in Science and Technology',report of the ERA Expert Group 5, Directorate-General for Research, EUR 23325 EN.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European communities. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. 2010) Envisioning Future research Horizons: Scenarios for the European research Landscape 2025.
Munich: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. ICSU. 2006) Strengthening International Science for the Benefit of Society: ICSU Strategic Plan 2006 2011.
Paris: International council for science..(2010) Earth System Science for Global sustainability: The Grand challenges. Paris: International council for science..(2011a) ICSU Strategic Plan II, 2012 2017.
Paris: International council for science..(2011b)‘ ICSU Foresight Analysis Report 1: International Science in 2031 Exploratory scenarios'.'Paris: International council for science. iknow.
2011)‘ iknow ERA Toolkit: Applications of Wild Cards and Weak signals to the Grand challenges and Thematic Priorities of the European research area'.
'Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester. Keenan, M. and Miles, I. 2008)‘ Scoping
and planning foresigght'In: Georghiou, L.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Keenan, M.,Miles, I. and Popper, R. eds) The Handbook of Technology foresight, pp. 342 75.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Macilwain, C. 2011)‘ Science's attitudes must reflect a world in crisis',Nature, 479: 447,24 November 2011.
Mendonc¸A s.,Cunha, M. P. E.,Kaivo-oja, J. and Ruff, F. 2003)‘ Wild cards, weak signals and organizational improvisattion'FEUNL Working Paper 432.
Lisbon: Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Miles, I. 2005)‘ Scenario planning',in UNIDO Technology foresight Manual, Vol. 1, pp. 168 93.
Vienna: UNIDO. Miles, I.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Georghiou, L.,Keenan, M. and Popper, R. 2008)‘ The many faces of foresight'.
'In: Georghiou, L.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Keenan, M.,Miles, I. and Popper, R. eds) The Handbook of Technology foresight, pp. 3 23.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ogilvy, J. and Schwartz, P. 1998)‘ Plotting your scenarios'.'In: Fahey, L. and Randell, R. eds) Learning from the future.
New york: Wiley. Royal Society. 2011) Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st century.
London: Royal Society. Schwartz, P. 1998) The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World.
New york: Wiley. Teixeira, A.,Martin, B. and von Tunzelmann, N. 2002)‘ Identification of Key Emerging Issues in Science and Society:
an International Perspective on National foresight Studies',review report to the ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review Report.
2010)‘ UNESCO Science Report 2010: The Current Status of Science around the World'.'Paris: UNESCO.
Van der meulen, B. 2007)‘ Looking Beyond the Endless Frontier, ESF Forward Look Scheme: Analysis and Recommendations',report to the European Science Foundation.
European Science Foundation. van‘t Klooster, S. A. and van Asselt, M. B. A. 2006)‘ Practising the scenario-axes technique',Futures, 38:15 30.
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.
and along with the emergence of an emphasis on innovation policy in the 1990s, many new features,
Because of these developments, in the 2000s it has become more common to talk about systemicity in the context of science, technology and innovation (STI) policies.
As Smits and Kuhlmann (2004: 11) argue, innovation is a systemic activity that:..involves a variety of actions within the system,
but also the policy-making process could benefit from the use of‘systemic instruments'(Smits and Kuhlmann 2004:
In recent years, roadmapping has been applied increasingly as an instrument of strategy-making (Blackwell et al. 2008.
In Section 3 we Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 178 190 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs016 Advance Access published on 16 march 2012 The Author 2012.
Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals. permissions@oup. com outline the methodological background and the policy ratioonal of IPRM.
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).
Secondly, the literature on systemic innovations and transition managemeen emphasizes the dynamic relations of sociotechnoologica landscapes, socio-technical regimes and niche-level innovations in the context of emerging technologies (Geels and Schot 2007.
Thirdly, the literature on technological systems places the emphasis on networks of agents in a specific economic or industrial sector and the particular institutional infrastructure involved in the generaatio and diffusion of technology (Carlsson and Stankiewicz 1991.
In this view, system failures are approached as outcomes of‘rigidities and mistakes of innovation agents'and‘a lack of linkages and fragmentatiio between innovation actors'(Georghiou and Keenan 2006:
Georghiou and Keenan (2006: 764) also propose that foresight has other functions, like exploring future opportunities in order to set priorities for investment in science and innovation activities,
2009: 955) argue that policy processes have gone through a conceptual shift in which a linear model of policy-making has been replaced with a more learningbaase cyclical model.
strategic counselling and facilitating (Weber et al. 2009: 956). ) Georghiou and Keenan (2006: 766) also distinguish three policy rationales of foresight.
The first is the provision of policy advice by accentuating the long-term perspective. The second is the building of advocacy coalitions.
2008: 369) aptly capture the functions of foresiigh in the context of policy design. The functions of foresiigh are:.
IPRM builds on two cultures of roadmapping (on roadmapping, see Barker and Smith 1995; Kostoff and Schaller 2001;
Farrukh et al. 2003; Kostoff et al. 2004; Phaal et al. 2004; Lee and Park 2005; Phaal and Muller 2009.
The first is the culture of technology roadmapping, in which roadmapping is approached as a normative instruumen to identify relevant technologies
and align them with explicit product plans and related action steps. In this culture the roadmapping process is a systematic managemmen practice aimed at product development.
The second is the emerging culture of strategy roadmapping in which the roadmapping is perceived more as a dynamic
and iterative process that produces weighed crystallizzations usually in a visual form, of an organization's long-term vision,
and short-to medium-term strategies to realize this vision. It is based on an idea that roadmaps are like visual narratives that describe the most critical paths of future developments (Phaal and Muller 2009.
This visual emphasis enables the use of roadmaps as crystallized strategy maps that open up a simultaneous perspective on both the macro-level currents and on the corresponding micro-level developments (Blackwell et al. 2008.
This‘second culture'is methodologically more exploratory than traditional technology roadmapping. The roadmaps are approached not as‘hermetic'plans to achieve definite goals (e g. new products),
This idea links the strategy roadmapping to organization and strategy studies, especially to strategy crafting (Whittington and Cailluet 2008;
Heracleous and Jacobs 2008. IPRM can be compared to a transition management (TM) framework. TM was developed in The netherlands in the early 2000s (e g.
Rotmans et al. 2001. The aim of TM is to connect micro-scale technical niches into macrosccal landscape developments through the middle-scale of a socio-technical regime (Geels 2004:
915). ) It is supposed that transitions result from a multilayered process of interactions:.Niche innovations build up internal momentum, through learning processes, price/performance improveements and support from powerful groups..
Changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime..Destabilization of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche innovations (Geels 2002,2005;
Geels and Schot 2007; Eerola and Loikkanen 2009. Heiskanen et al. 2009: 411 2) have provided a crystallizaatio of the central features of TM.
First, TM is based on long-term thinking. In this case, the long-term stands for a period of over 25 years.
Secondly, TM accentuates the interrelatedness of societal and technological systems and the multiplicity of actors.
Thirdly, TM emphasizes both top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Fourthly, TM puts a specific emphasis on crafting the policy activities according to the long-term systemic targets.
it is important to identify all the elements and linkages in a network (Adner and Kapoor 2010).
the Victoria Technology roadmap, made by Intellectual Capital Services (ICS) and VTT, in Victoria, Australia, in 2009.
Commissioned by the Victorian government, the purpose of the Victoria Technology roadmap was to build a synthesizing picture of the effects of emerging technologies and technology convergence in the region of Victoria, Australia, up until the year 2020.
Project processes usually have nonstandard features that do not support systematic repetition (Gann and Salter 2000.
as both demand and profits are subject to strong variation (Squicciarini and Asikainen 2010). The fifth systemic bottleneck is split incentives.
Building owners and users do not have the same incentives to improve building performmanc in relation to, for example, energy efficiency (World Business Council for Sustainable development 2009.
targeted towards the year 2020, was the following: Victoria is sophisticated a market for green and intelligent buildings.
It was completed as a strategic process at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland in 2010, with two aims:
in order to improve environmental sustainability (Ahola et al. 2010). The case example consists of a transformation roadmap (see Fig. 4)
The long-term vision, targeted towards the year 2025, for the roadmap of environmentally sustainable ICT was the following:
and Keenan (2006) who emphasize the systemic rationale of foresight. Foresight enables the connection between multiple stakeholdders with diverging perspectives
R. 2010)‘ Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependennc affects firm performance in new technology generations',Strategic management Journal, 31: 306 33.
Ahola, J.,Ahlqvist, T.,Ermes, M.,Myllyoja, J. and Savola, J. 2010) ICT for Environmental sustainability.
Barker, D. and Smith, D. J. H. 1995)‘ Technology foresight using roadmaps',Long Range Planning, 28:21 8. Blackwell, A f.,Phaal, R.,Eppler, M
. and Crilly, N. 2008)‘ Strategy roadmaps: new forms, new practices'.'In: Stapleton, G.,Howse, J. and Lee, J. eds) Diagrams 2008, pp. 127 40.
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. 1991)‘ On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems',Journal of Evolutionary economics, 1: 93 118.
Da Costa, O.,Warnke, P.,Cagnin, C. and Scapolo, F. 2008)‘ The impact of foresight on policy-making:
Insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process',Technology analysis and Strategic management, 20: 369 87. Innovation policy roadmapping. 189 Eerola, A. and Loikkanen, T. 2009) Governance and Research of Nordic Energy system Transition-Summary Report of the Gorenest Project, VTT Research Notes 2505.
Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy. Farrukh, C.,Phaal, R. D. and Probert, R. 2003)‘ Technology roadmapping:
Linking technology resources into business planning',International Journal of Technology management, 26:12 9. Gann, D. and Salter, A. 2000)‘ Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms:
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:
Refining the co-evolutionary multilevel perspectivve'Technological forecasting and Social Change, 72: 681 96. Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. 2007)‘ Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways',Research policy, 36: 399 417.
Georghiou, L. and Keenan, M. 2006)‘ Evaluation of natioona foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 73: 761 77.
Heiskanen, E.,Kivisaari, S.,Lovio, R. and Mickwitz, P. 2009)‘ Designed to travel? Transition management encounters environnmenta and innovation policy histories in Finland',Policy Sciences, 42: 409 27.
Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C. D. 2008)‘ Crafting strategy: The role of embodied metaphors',Long Range Planning, 41: 309 25.
Kostoff, R. N. and Schaller, R. R. 2001)‘ Science and technoloog roadmaps',IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48: 132 43.
Kostoff, R. N.,Boylan, R. and Simons, G r. 2004)‘ Disruptive technology roadmaps',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 71: 141 59.
Lee, S. and Park, Y. 2005)‘ Customization of technology roadmaps according to roadmapping purposes: Overall process and detailed modules',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 72: 567 83.
Phaal, R. and Muller, G. 2009)‘ An architectural framework for roadmapping: Towards visual strategy',Technological forecasting & Social Change, 76:39 49.
Phaal, R.,Farrukh, C. J. P. and Probert, D. R. 2004)‘ Technology roadmapping a planning framework for evoluttio and revolution',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 71:5 26.
Rotmans, J.,Kemp, R. and Van Asselt, M. 2001)‘ More evoluttio than revolution: Transition management in public policy',Foresight, 3: 15 31.
Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. 2004)‘ The rise of systemic instrumeent in innovation policy',International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy, 1: 4 32.
Smits, R.,Kuhlmann, S. and Shapira, P.,eds,(2010) The Theory and Practice of Innovation policy:
An International research Handbook. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Squicciarini, M. and Asikainen, A. 2010)‘ Sectoral innovation performance in the construction sector'.
'Final report, task 1. Europe Innova, Innovation Watch. World Business Council for Sustainable development. 2009) Energy efficiency in Buildings.
Transforming the Market. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable development. Weber, M.,Kubeczko, K.,Kaufmann, A. and Grunewald, B. 2009)‘ Trade-offs between policy impacts of future-oriented analysis:
experiences from the innovation policy foresight and strategy process of the City of Vienna',Technology analysis and Strategic management, 21: 953 69.
Whittington, R. and Cailluet, L. 2008)‘ The crafts of strategy',Long Range Planning, 41: 241 7. 190.
joint programming. 1. Introduction Science and scientists have crossed the national borders of individual states for many years.
monitored and evaluated at national level (European commission 2008. Another driver for more collaboration is the increasing pressure in Europe1 and other parts of the world2 for research and innovation to both support competitiveness3 and offer solutions to global and local societal challenges.
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
10.1093/scipol/scs020 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
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.
As current governance systems are incapable of tackling current and future, interconnected, global challennge (Ko nno la et al. 2012),
Gnamus (2009) proposes eight levels in internatioona science and technology (S&t) co-operation (see Fig. 1). This paper will focus on level four‘programme co-operation and co-ordination'.
management and sharing of intellectual property rights (CEC 2010) In the ERA NET scheme a four-step approach is applied4 (Matrix-Rambøll 2009).
%generating multinational evaluation procedures (55%)(Matrix-Rambøll 2009. For the purpose of this paper we define five key functions in transnational research programming,
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
An example is the co-operation between ERA NETS and European technology platforms (Niehoff and Andersdotter 2007.
2011) identified two challenges:.vertical co-ordination. horizontal co-ordination We elaborate on this work
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;
Anderson 2010. These include: structuura differences in national programme orientation15 and implementation orientation, 16 diversity of programme funding organisations;
Anderson (2010) also points to the importance of legal and regulatory systems, oversight related to research integrity,
The OECD (2003) has identified vertical coherennc as a general long-term policy objective ensuring that the practices of agencies
Comprehensive strategic cross-policy/sector partnerships 8 Figure 1. Development phases of international S&t co-operation (Gnamus 2010.
and foreign RTD investments (Kaiser and Prange 2004). Indeed, today the research system is an integral part of the prevailing multilayered innovation system.
2011) consider experiences from vertical co-ordination between local, regional and (international levels providing significant insights into the challennge of managing multilayered research and innovation systems.
Such challenges have been related to the systemic nature of innovation (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004), performmanc of innovation systems (Lundvall 1992;
Edquist 1997), and processes of regionalisation (Kaiser and Prange 2004), which have resulted together in complex multilayered policies especially in Europe.
The articulation of thematic priorities for transnational research and innovation co-operation, e g. from EU level, raises issues related to their coherence with the priorities and needs of lower levels of governance, particularly in terms of
while policy co-ordination can only assume soft forms (Reid et al. 2007). 2. 2. 3 Horizontal co-ordination between research and other policy areas.
2011) note that successful research and innovation processes can be facilitated by horizontal co-ordination between research and other policy areas (such as competition, regional, financial, employment and education policies).
In more general terms, the OECD (2003) has called for horizontal coherence as a general governance objective ensuring that individual objectives
Such differences are caused by the dynamics of evolutionary and systemic processes with different phases of competing technological alternatives and emerging dominant designs (Ko nno la et al. 2011.
The OECD (2003) defines temporal coherence as a general policy objective that ensures that policies continue to be effective over time
(Smits and Kuhlmann 2004. Among different systemic instruments foresight has been characterised as a participatory, systemic and anticipatory vision building approach that supports the present-day decision-making (European commission 2002).
In this paper we explore the possible role of foresight in transnational research programming and how it can respond to systemic, horizontal,
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 respective foresight roles Case Partners Timing Goal Role of foresight Wood Wisdom-net20 18 partners from 8 European countries 2004 8 Establish
(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,
and associated countries 2010 onwards‘Rethink and manage the increasing urban orientation and concentration in Europe in order to create
strengthened global position in Europe'(Urban Europe, 2011) Determine specific research needs and roadmaps, short-and long-term policy measures,
business opportunities and needs for new co-operation structures Support identification of breakthrroug innovations on functions of cities in future (2020 50) Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 197 3
business opportunities, needs for new co-operation structures and breakthrough innovations with regard to the functions of cities in the future (2020 50.
Foresights with a time horizon of 2050 and beyond are planned therefore Development of scenarios, desirable futures and pathways towards these futures for specific Urban Europe topics Use of a pilot call to improved understanding of future trends
and enables transitions between different levels of abstraction by way of problem structuring and synthesis (Ko nno la et al. 2011).
or modules can be enacted relatively independently from the other sub-processes (Ko nno la et al, 2011).
Furthermore, if one regards foresight as a creative process (Salo et al. 2004), then it may be impertinent to fix foresight objectives
and execute large-scale foresight exercises according to a clear‘bluepriint (Havas 2003). Salo et al. 2004) argue that responsiveness to shifting objectives
and stakeholder expectations should be regarded as a major concern and even a key design variable in the planning and execution of foresight activities.
By way of engaging stakeholders in the creation and codification of tacit knowledge (Nonaka 1994), foresight synthesises key findings for decision-makers from fragmented information and expert recommendations.
and participation in transnational research programming, making use of existing initiatives such as the Forlearn Online foresight Guide (European commission 2012) or the UNIDO Technology foresiigh Guide (UNIDO 2012)..
one of the recent and most advanced efforts to move forward with transnational research programming has been Joint Programming (JP) in Research (European commission 2008),
a programme set up in connection with the Europe 2020 strategy (European commission 2010b) and European Innovation Partnerships (European commission 2010c).
EU Member States have approved a first version of evolving and voluntary framewoor conditions for joint programming (ERAC-GPC 2011),
Notes 1. See Europe 2020 (European commission 2010b) and the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union (European commission 2010c.
For an analysis of the link between innovation strategies and economic performance, see Dahlman (2008. 4. The four steps used by ERA NET (European research area-NET) are:.
2005), Anderson (2010), Chioncel and Cuntz (2012), European commission (2011), Seiser (2010) and authors'own expertise. 6. An indicator of the culture of openness may be the past and present openness
For example, ERAWATCH data show that two-thirds of 2009 national research prograamme relevant for the Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture,
JTIS make use of Framework Prograamm 7 support services such as the IPR Helpdesk(<www. ipr-helpdesk. org>accessed 15 march 2012)
and the Finance Helpdesk(<www. finance-helpdesk. org>accessed 15 march 2012). 14. External evaluation of the EIT (External Evaluation 2011.
15. Optimat et al. 2005) defines three types of dominant programme orientation strategies for national research systems in Europe:
single framework programme, multiple generic programmes, and multiple thematic programmes. 16. Optmat (2005) defines three types of dominant funding organisations:
multi agency/council/ministry, several agencies/councils, and single agency/council. 17. For example, 23.9%of EU gross expenditure on r&d is performed by the higher education sector,
%while in Lithuania over 50%of gross expenditure on r&d is performed by this sector (calculaation based on Eurostat data for 2009).
the responsible governments focus on the quality of scientific research (Bruno and Van til 2011). Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 205 19.
2005), Anderson (2010), Chioncel and Cuntz (2012), European commission (2011), Seiser (2010) and the present authors'own expertise. 20.
2008). ) 21. 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. 22. This initiative builds on the work of the SCAR. 23.
Case description based on Urban Europe (2011. 24. The case description is based on Brummer et al. 2008).
) 25. Over 400 stakeholders from all participating countries participated in the process. 26. The assessment criteria for researcher's were:
Case description based on EMIDA Description of Work (2009. 28. To this end terms of reference (Ooms 2009) for its establishment have been drafted,
which will be part of a wider collaboration agreement. 29. Case description based on Urban Europe (2011. The first experiences with practical implementation followiin this report may look somewhat different than described in this report.
Within the timeframe of this paper it is, however, too early to draw any conclusions on possible discrepancies between planning and implementtatio of foresight activities in this case. 30.
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:
Routledge. Brummer, V.,Ko nno la, T. and Salo, A. 2008)‘ Foresight within Era nets: Experiences from the preparation of an international research programme',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 75: 483 95.
Bruno, N. and Van til, J. 2011)‘ ERAWATCH Country Reports 2010: Belgium'.'Brussels: ERAWATCH Network Technopolis Group, European commission.
Chioncel, M. and Cuntz, A. 2012)‘ Research and innovation challenges and policy responses in Member States'.
'Joint research Centre Scientific and Technical Report. Brussels: European commission. Dahlman, C. 2008)‘ Innovation strategies of three of the BRICS:
Brazil, India and China: What can we learn from three different approaches?''Working Paper SLPTMD (Department of International Development, University of Oxford.<
<http://economics. ouls. ox. ac. uk/14015/>accessed 15 march 2012. Edquist, C.,ed.,(1997) Systems Innovation:
Technologies, Institutions and Organisations. London: Pinter. EMIDA. 2009)‘ Description of Work, Grant Agreement for Co-ordination and Support Actions (Coordinating) EMIDA, Annex 1, approved 31 january 2008 and updated 28 october 2009 (FP7 Theme
2 Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology'.'Brussels: European commission. ERAC-GPC. 2011)‘ Voluntary Guidelines on Framework Conditions for Joint Programming in Research 2010'.
'Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European union. European commission. 2002)‘ Thinking, debating and shaping the future: Foresight for Europe'.
'Final Report of the High level Expert Group for the European commission, 24 april 2002. Brussels: European commission..(2008)‘ Summary of the Impact assessment',Commission Staff Working Document.
Accompanying document to the Towards Joint Programming. In Research: Working together to tackle common challenges more effectively, 15/07/2008, SEC (2008) 2282.
Brussels: European commission..(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.
2010b)‘ EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth',COM (2010) 2020 final.
Brussels: European commission..(2010c)‘ Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',COM (2010) 546 final. Commission..(2011)‘ National open access and preservation policies in Europe',Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Directorate B European research area, Unit B. 6 Ethics and gender.
Brussels: European commission..(2012)‘ Forlearn Online foresight Guide',<http://www. foresight-platform. eu/community/foresightguide/>accessed 15 march 2012.
External Evaluation. 2011) External Evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (May 2011), Framework Contract on evaluation and related services (EAC 03/06), Final report on evaluation.<
<http://ec. europa. eu/dgs/education culture/evalreports/education/2011/eitreport en. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Gnamus, A. 2009) Comparative Report on S&t Cooperation of the ERA Countries with Brazil, India and Russia, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 25022 EN.<
<http://erawatch. jrc. ec. europa. eu/erawatch/export/sites/default/galleries/generic files/file 0101. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012.
Havas, A. 2003)‘ Evolving foresight in a small transition economy: The design, use and relevance of foresight methods in Hungary',Journal of Forecasting, 22: 179 203.
Haegeman, K.,Scapolo, F.,Ricci, A.,Marinelli, E. and Sokolov, A. in press)‘ Quantitative and qualitative approaches in FTA:
from combination to integration?''Technological forecasting and Social Change, in press. Kaiser, R. and Prange, H. 2004)‘ Managing diversity in a system of multilevel governance:
The open method of co-ordination in innovation policy',Journal of European Public policy, 11: 249 66.
Ko nno la, T.,Salo, A. and Brummer, V. 2011)‘ Foresight for European coordination: Developing national priorities for the forest-based sector technology platform',International Journal of Technology management, 54: 438 59.
Ko nno la, T.,Salo, A.,Cagnin, C.,Carabias, V. and Vilkkumaa, E. 2012)‘ Facing the future:
Scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning',Science and Public policy, 39: 222 31. Lundvall, B.-A°.,ed.,(1992) National systems of Innovation:
Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning. London: Pinter. Matrix-Rambøll. 2009)‘ Evaluation and impact assessment of the ERA NET scheme and the related ERA NET actions under the 6th Framework programme Volume 1:
Final Report. Evaluation for the European commission',<ftp://ftp. cordis. europa. eu/pub/fp7/docs/fp6-era net-evaluation-final-report-volume-1-q1-q5-d1
-to-d14 en. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Meier zu Ko cker, G.,Hein, D. and Chinalski, M. 2008)‘ German Polish network-based R&d co-operation:
Enablers and barriers'.'Berlin: European Institute for Innovation and Technology. Niehoff, J. and Andersdotter, C. 2007)‘ Report on the Workshop for ERA NETS on industrial technologies',<http://netwatch. jrc. ec. europa. eu/static/download/Report%20workshop
%20era-NETS%20industrial%20technologies%202007. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012. Nonaka, I. 1994)‘ A dynamic theory of organizational knowleedg creation',Organization science, 5: 14 37.
OECD. 2003)‘ Policy coherence',Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, GOV/PUMA (2003) 4. Paris:
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,
'<http://www. emida-era net/upload/pdf/WP4%20deliverable%204%201%20framework%20fpu%20incl%20tor%20 final%2016042009. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012.
Optimat Ltd and VDI/VDE-Innovation+Technik Gmbh for DG Research Directorate M2. 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
Department Economic and Scientific Policy, European parliament (IP/A/ITRE/FWC/2006-87/LOT3/C1. Strasbourg:
European parliament. Salo, A.,Ko nno la, T. and Hjelt, M. 2004)‘ Responsiveness in foresight management: Reflections from the Finnish food and drink industry',International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy, 1: 70 88.
Seiser, C. 2010)‘ Priority setting for JPIS against all odds: Science versus politics. A front-line report',presentation at the Joint Programming Conference, held Brussels, 18 9 october 2010.<
<www. jointprogramming2010. eu/pdfpresenntation1. 2%20-%20seiser. pptx>accessed 15 march 2012. Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. 2004)‘ The rise of systemic instrumeent in innovation policy',International Journal of Foresight and Innovation policy, 1: 4 32.
UNIDO. 2012)‘ UNIDO Technology foresight Guide',<https://www. unido. org/foresight/registration/dokums raw/volume2 unido tf manual. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012.
Urban Europe. 2011)‘ Report for EC assessment',Urban Europe Joint Programming Initiative.<<http://www. era. gv. at/attach/Urban-Report ecassessment 201104 final. pdf>accessed 15 march 2012.
Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 207
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011