We used an independent evaluation that was conducted in 2010 by the University of Twente 21, based on interviews with 21 politicians and civil servants and a document analysis. Furthermore,
. Hazeu, E. van der Linde, P. Rademaker, On the use of futures research for organizational change in Dutch government ministries, Futures 12 (2010) 23 36.25 O. Da
the case of the RWS2020-project, Foresight 12 (5)( 2010) 41 57.32 T. Yoda, Perceptions of domain experts on impact of foresight on policy making:
The refined research topics were then prioritised in terms of (i) a timeline between 2010 and 2020,(ii) inter-dependencies between research topics (those
Proceedings from the IMS2020 Summer School o Sustainable Manufacturing, 26 28 may 2010, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 2010.28 E. Dall, C. Cagnin, Regional foresight a case
The IMS Summer School Manufacturing Strategy First Edition 2010: Sustainable Manufacturing, 2010.34 D. Klimkeit, Organizational context and collaboration on international projects:
new approaches to governance, Futures 43 (2010) 279 291.4 P. Warnke, G. Heimeriks, Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument:
Challenges of user involvement in future technology analysis, Science and Public policy 37 (2010) 51 61.20 C. Lettl, User involvement competence for radical innovation, Journal of Engineering and Technology management
Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, 2010.23 E. Von Hippel, Lead users:
Proceedings of the 8th international interactive conference on Interactive TV & Video, ACM, Tampere, Finland,(2010), pp. 15 22.25 E. Von Hippel, The dominant role of users
Proceedings of the Third international conference on Human-centred software engineering (HCSE'10), Springer-verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 111 118.29 W. Gaver, A. Boucher, S
scorecard in public administration, Revista academiei fortelor terestre 1 (2010) 49 57.21 S m. Hronec, Vital Sign:
Time for the EU to Meet Global Challenges, Publications Office of the European union, Luxembourg, 2010, http://dx. doi. org/10.2791/4223eur 24364 EN, ISSN 1018
Given that the involvement of outside organizations in the WINN program was limited in reality (at least until 2010),
They were supposed to be fully operational by October 2010. The EIT governing board developed an overarching Strategic Table 4 Networked foresight activities at the EICT Gmbh.
Until 2010, the selection of innovation activities was made by the management team in various workshops based on proposals that were submitted by the partner organizations.
Management 40 (2010) 213 221.13 S. Liyanage, Towards a fourth generation R&d management model research networks knowledge management, International Journal of Technology management 18 (1999) 372 393.14
a portfolio-approach in evaluating organizational development, Futures 42 (2010) 380 393.18 F. Phillips, On s-curves
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010003-04 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 3 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
and that there is an urgeen need to inform decision-makers of the potential value of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA APPROACHES (Johnston and Cagnin, 2010).
Introduction Science and Public policy February 2010 4 anticipate and shape future technological developmennts mainly, technology foresight, technology forecasting and technology assessment.
trend impact analysis Introduction Science and Public policy February 2010 5 Six functions of FTA for policy-making are:
**Introduction Science and Public policy February 2010 6 scans in the UK, The netherlands and Denmark, as developed in the ERA NET Forsociety Project.
Johnston, R and C Cagnin 2010. The influence of future-oriented technology analysis: addressing the Cassandra challenge. Futures (in press.
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010007-12 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 7 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
Joint horizon scanning Science and Public policy February 2010 8 Horizon scanning is the systematic examination of potential future) problems, threats,
and Public policy February 2010 9 horizon scans can be narrower in scope (only looking for new technologies),
Joint horizon scanning Science and Public policy February 2010 10 Joining up the data To compare the data of the different scans
administrative and legal Public services Politics State Global Joint horizon scanning Science and Public policy February 2010 11 first discussion with this network was held
and Public policy February 2010 12 discussions with representatives from different ministrries The primary data for The netherlands scan were collected by the COS Horizon scanning team
2010 13 public, companies, researchers, universities and organisaations Preselection of prioritised themes took place within an expert group that delivered input for a workshop with a user panel
Morton Wied Joint horizon scanning Science and Public policy February 2010 14 responsible, whatever its political constitution. Issuue were selected on the basis of indications in the literature of either positive and/or negative impact on these values.
The report contained recommendations for Joint horizon scanning Science and Public policy February 2010 15 specific foresight activities which still have to be executed.
and Public policy February 2010 16 weak signals and wild cards that may be used to assees the robustness of results that may come from other forward-looking tools as planning, scenarios and quantitative modelling.
and evoking important questiion around the future than in providing clear-cut Joint horizon scanning Science and Public policy February 2010 17 answers (Medina Vasquez, 2006).
/>last accessed 1 february 2010.)11. UK Sima Scan. Available at<http://www. sigmascan. org>,last accessed 1 june 2009.12. UK Delta Scan.
Evaluation, Impact and Learning, Anchor paper Theme 2. Paper presented at Second joint horizon scanning Science and Public policy February 2010 18 International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis:
>last accessed 1 february 2010. Habegger B 2009. Horizon scanning in Government. Zurich: ETH Centre for Security Studies.
NWO Strategy 2007 2010. Available from<http://www. nwo. nl/files. nsf/pages/NWOA 6PXJ9W ENG/$file/wetens chap gewaarderd lowres eng. pdf>,last accessed 1 june 2009.
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010019-12 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 19 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 20 with the creative environment in which content activiitie unfold that make the creative content sector a fertile ground for radical innovations or disruptions
Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 21 elements and showing how the implementation of those elements in combination enables us to disentanngl the complexity of the disruptive forces influenccin a sector
adapted from Wiesand and Söndermann (2005) Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 22 a mass audience.
experts) Workshop (stakeholders) Workshop (restricted, client) Impact assessment Figure 2. Overview of methodology building blocks Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010
and building trust and awareness are part Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 24 of the equation.
Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 25 and related variants, uncertain issues, potential disrupttion and the likelihood of possible identified trends/issues.
and Public policy February 2010 26 remain crucial for the future success of the creative content sector.
and Public policy February 2010 27 promises associated with user created content, sociia software and Web 2. 0 are realised.
Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 28 Step 5: Policy analysis Our adaptive foresight on the creative content industrrie was concluded with a policy analysis,
2008) Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 29 mediating between skills and demand for skills.
Adaptive foresight in the creative content industries Science and Public policy February 2010 30 With regard to the impact assessment aspect of the methodology
EPIS Deliveerabl 2. 3. 1. Available at<http://epis. jrc. ec. europa. eu/>,last accessed 28 january 2010.
2006 2010. Global Overview. New york: Pricewaterhouusecooper LLP Rafi, F and P Kampas 2002. How to identify your enemies before they destroy you?
docid=4850&intitemid=2068&lang=1>,last accessed 28 january 2010. Wiesand, A j and M Söndermann 2005. The‘Creative Sector':
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010031-10 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 31 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 32 Nurture direct links to senior policy-makers.
Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 33 evaluation of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) should be based upon an assessment of foresiigh quality in terms of the conjectures produced,
>last accessed 3 february 2010 Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 34 been a serious attempt to understand its effects in aggregate.
In particular, foresight has not been evaluated as an instrument of science and innovation policy. Thus the real effect of foresight on priorities may be difficult to determine.
and practical implementation Involvement of political actors in the process Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 35 asked what they thought were the best contemporary foresight organizations,
synchronization with the business agenda of the organization Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 36 Ireland, Japan, Finland and the UK;
and implementation of technology policy Understand the best methods and use of foresight Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 37 Results:
the foresiigh capacity and stakeholder organizations need Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 38 to be linked with
As present (early 2010) there are some encouraging signs of a revival of interest by the Canadian government in a modest S&t foresight initiative so,
Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 39 Compared to most of the other nations represennte in our study,
and Public policy February 2010 40 is done not, then the exercise is of minimal or no value.
See website, available at<www. apecforesight. org>,last accessse 3 february 2010. References Amanatidou Effie and Ken Guy 2006.
Available at<http://www. foresight-network. eu>,last accessse 3 february 2010. Georghiou, Luke and Michael Keenan 2004.
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010041-10 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 41 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
Biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 42 new diseases such as SARS and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) with variants such as H5n1;
and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 43 The concept has been extended in the European union's Seventh Framework Program to the possibiliitie at the interface of micro nano systems and the living world.
Phucharoenchanachai (2005) Biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 44 In Phase II, the objective was to determine directiion for future R&d
emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 45 possibly hinder the progress of technology developmment
The model Was developed in Roadmapping I Developed in Roadmapping II Figure 3. Structure of technology roadmaps Biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 46 proposed at the workshop
and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 47 find more technology applications. The additional technology applications identified were:
to combating EIDS Biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 48 Table 3. Roadmap for development of EID diagnostics 2007 2012 2013 2017
multi-agent diagnostic devices linked to automated data collection and analysis Biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 49 APEC diagnosis center,
and emerging infectious diseases in Asia-pacific Science and Public policy February 2010 50 identification of‘technology roadmaps'that are to be applied to a wider geographical area and more diverse level of technology capacity and socioeconommi development.
Available at<http://www. apec. org/apec/leaders declarations/2006. html>,last accessed 20 february 2010. Nordmann, Alfred 2004.
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010051-11 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 51 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 52 Indeed, although‘the consumer'has always been important,
User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 53 of the diffusion theory has to do with its proinnovvatio bias and the assumed linearity of the innovaatio and adoption process.
and at a more latent level that are quite difficult to grasp User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 54 narrow and technology-centric scope of many projects.
i-City's User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 55 large-scale living lab was the main research location.
evaluation Figure 1. Schematic overview of the three research phases User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 56 activities and finds it difficult to identify with the life
participants imagined they were in the year 2010 and were restricted therefore not by current legislation
and Public policy February 2010 57 the use of mobile applications to support their existiin products and services.
User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 58 disregarded, this choice illustrates that decisions are made sometimes at the expense of the user-centred rationale.
2010 59 4. battery lifetime plus security; and 5. response time. 2. Pre-usage translation workshops.
Q2, Q5 and Q6 User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 60 Conclusion In this paper, we have focused on the shift from traditiiona technology push to more user-oriented and user
User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 61 Latour B 1993. We Have Never Been Modern.
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010063-16 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 63 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 64 avoids the functional form restrictions implicit in running a regression of some type.
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 65 consensus not only among political actors but also among organizations representing business interests.
To the best of our knowledge, it is unique in Europe as a main promotional policy Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 66 either matching approaches (as in this paper) or selecctio
+-positive (negative) and statistically significant effect at 10%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 67 find a positive policy effect but in some cases
%Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 68 significantly lower than the respective share of projeect of these scientific fields.
CTI database, authors'calculations Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 69 firms which are subsidized not out
G g a-=0 N a Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 70 (6) where and is the kernel7 at the point In a fifth step,
5%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 71 innovation performance than non-subsidized firms (at the 5%test level.
5%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 72‘low-subsidy'firms from that of the respective groups of non-subsidized firms.
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 73 Appendix Table A1.
Italian (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 74appendix (continued) Table A3.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 75 Appendix (continued) Table A5.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 76 Appendix (continued) Table A7.
and Public policy February 2010 77 Notes 1. See Bozeman (2000); Georghiou and Roessner (2000; and Feller (2007) for recent reviews of the central issues related to the evaluation of the effectiveness of technology programmes.
and Public policy February 2010 78 3. The questionnaire may be obtained from the authors. It is available in German,
Time for the EU to meet global challenges'(Boden et al. 2010) to illustrate how horizon scanning can enable collective sense-making processes which assist in the identification of emerging signals and policy issues, the synthesis of such issues into encompassing clusters,
In 2010, global challenges were identified, analysed, restructured and selected according to potential Fraunhofer contributions and market potential.
References Boden, M.,Cagnin, C.,Carabias, V.,Haegeman, K. and Ko nno la, T. 2010)‘ Facing the future:
Time for the EU to meet global challenges',24364 EN, 6/2010. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European commission.
Vecchiato and Roveda (2010) prefer to use the term‘strategic foresight'rather than the simpler‘foresight
It is defined by Habegger (2010) as a deliberate attempt to broaden the‘boundaries of perception
and common sense perspectives ingrained in the past (Hames 2010; Johnston 2010. In foresight exercises developed by CGEE, mind-set revision involves the participation of experts
and stakeholdders applying a variety set of methods and tools, and a suitable combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Secondly, systematically introducing collective intelligeenc throughout all the phases of the process is the key for achieving success (Glenn 2010.
Glenn, J. C. 2010)‘ Collective Intelligence: one of the next big things'.'In: Wagner, C. G. ed.)Worldfuture 2010:
256. C. C. Nehme et al. Sustainable futures, Strategies, and Technologies. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society. Godet, M. 2001) Creating Futures Scenario planning as a Strategic management Tool.
Habegger, B. 2010)‘ Strategic foresight in public policy: reviewiin the experiences of the UK, Singapore and The netherlands',Futures, 42:49 58.
Hames, R. D. 2010)‘ New windows into new worlds: The case for integral foresight',paper presented at Foresight International Seminar:
From Theory to Practice, Brasilia, Brazil, 16 7 december 2010. Horton, A. 1999)‘ Forefront: a simple guide to successful foresigght'Foresight:
Johnston, R. 2010)‘ Methods and tools for breaking mindsets and bringing new perspectives to the table',paper presented at Foresight International Seminar:
From Theory to Practice, Brasilia, Brazil, 16 7 december 2010. Jouvenel, B. 1967) The Art of Conjecture.
Vecchiato, R. and Roveda, C. 2010)‘ Foresight in corporate organizations',Technology analysis & Strategic management, 22:99 112.
In an article in People's Daily in August 2010, prominent academmic complained that the current S&t system is overfunnde but institutionally weak (Zhao et al. 2010.
journals. permissions@oup. com Similarly, in an editorial in Science, Shi and Rao (2010) argue that bureaucrats misuse
They claim that the current research system‘wastes resourrces corrupts the spirit and stymies innovation'(Shi and Rao 2010.
2010)).)) Priority-setting in Chinese research policies and programs operates on different levels. The first level concerns ideology and overarching national strategy.
Kroll, H.,Conle',M. and Schu ller, M. 2010)‘ China innovattio system and innovation policy'.'In:
Shi, Y. and Rao, Y. 2010)‘ China's research culture',Science, 329/5996: 1128. Simon, D. and Goldman, M.,(eds),(1989) Science and Technology in Post-Mao China.
2010)‘ Four Famous persons in the Scientific Community Give Suggestions to Deepen the reform of Science and Technology System, 16 august 2010,
whose knowledge base was chemical engineering rather than biotechnology (MOEA 2010). Policies of regulation, FDI and R&d were directed towards the pharmaceutical biotechnology innovation system.
and the DCB was found in 1984 to transfer pharmaceutical technology of chemical engineering from the universities to pharmaceuticca companies (DCB 2010).
The R&d policies thus turned to encouraging the development of new herbaceous medicines (NSC 2010. To sum up:
For example, Taikong which was a trade company selling ornameenta fish has worked with the National Taiwan University to develop GM ornamental fish since the 1990s (Taikong 2010.
115), and at the same time, the Farmers'Insurance was launched (CLA 2010. 8 Another important agricultural policy promoted by the government was agricultural regulation.
whose knowleedg base is across electronic engineering and biotechnollog (Dr. Chip 2010). However, since biochips are very minor in the sector,
Therefore, interactions between scientists in the public universities and pharmaceutical companies were forbidden (LY, 2010. 8. Farmers'Insurance is a special kind of insurance particularly for farmers.
and the farmers only need to pay for 40%of the insurance premium (CLA, 2010). References Bergek, A.,Jacobsson, S.,Carlsson, B.,Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. 2008)‘ Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems:
2010),‘The introduction for the Clause of Farmers'Insurance Council of Labor Affairs'<http://www. bli. gov. tw/sub. aspx?
a=Rxe1rbebazo%3d>accessed 14 december 2010. DCB (2003) Yearbook of Pharmaceutical industry 2003 (2003. Taipei: Development Center of Biotechnology.
DIT (2009) Yearbook of Medical Devices 2009 2010 (2009-2010. Taipei: Department of Industrial Technology.
2010), Products. Dr. Chip:<<http://www. bio-drchip. com. tw/HOME2ENG/06products. asp>accessed 14 december 2010.
Edquist, C. and Hommen, L.,eds,(2008) Small Country Innovation systems: Globalization, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe.
PCODE=S0020038>accessed 10 december 2010. Malerba, F. 2002)‘ Sectoral systems of innovation and productioon'Research policy, 31: 247 64..(
MOEA 2010. Taiwan's Biotechnology Policy and Promotion Status. Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical industries Program Office<http://www. bpipo. org. tw/en/policy. html>accessed 14 december 2010.
Nelson, R.,ed.,(1993) National Innovation systems: A Comparative analysis. Oxford: OUP. Nelson, R. and Rosenberg, N. 1993)‘ Technical innovation and national systems'.
NSC 2010. Background of National science and Technology Program for Bio agriculture. National science and Technology Program for Bio agriculture<http://dpiab. sinica. edu. tw/intro. php>accessed 14 december 2010.
OECD. 1999) Managing National Innovation systems. OECD: Paris. Senker, J. 2004)‘ An overview of biotechnology in Europe:
2010),‘Company statement'.'Taikong<http://www. azoo. com. tw/azoo tw/instruction/004. php>accessed 14 december 2010.
Torgersen, H. and Bogner, A. 2005)‘ Austria's agribiotecchnolog regulation: Political consensus despite divergeen concepts of precaution',Science and Public policy, 32: 277 84.
It occurs mostly in firms that respond to expected market opportunities by combining different types of knowledge, capabilities, skills and resources (Hall and Rosenberg 2010.
and technology transfer and/or organisational changes (Hall and Rosenberg 2010). This incrementalism often leads to lock in
and social (for the public good) innovation (Depledge et al. 2010). Furthermore, grand challenges cannot be dealt effectively with through technological innovaation alone.
2010) highlight the need for the creation of more transparent and accountable forms of governance that are better able to anticipate
and engaging certain stakeholders like businesses (Annenberg et al. 2010), as well as in contributing to the coordination of national and local research and innovation policies towards joint goals (IDEA Consult 2010).
Additionally, there are limitations to achieving the necessaar flexibility, creativity and cross-disciplinary research needed to tackle grand challenges,
ERA NET PLUS and Article 185.4 JPIS go beyond existing relevant schemes by implementing joint research programmes towards real public-to-public partnerships between Member States and the EU (ERAC-GPC 2010.
i e. large firms, small and medium-sized enterprises, the public sector, the social economy and citizens themselves (CEC 2010).
which analytical guidelines are developed to facilitate the planning and implementation of joint research programmes (ERAC-GPC 2010).
the notion of‘function'is provided useful its heuristic value is stressed. 2. COM (2010) 2020, Brussels, 3 march 2010.3. COM (2010) 546 final, Brussels, 6 october 2010.4.
Council of the European union, Guidance on future priorities for European research and research-based innovation in post-2010 Lisbon strategy, Council conclussions Brussels, 8 december 2009.8.
I.,Acheson, H.,Borra's, S.,Halle'n, A.,Maimets, T.,Mustonen, R.,Raffler, H.,Swings, J.-P. and Ylihonko, K. 2010)‘ Interim evaluation of the Seventh
Boden, M.,Cagnin, C.,Carabias, V.,Haegeman, K. and Ko nno la, T. 2010)‘ Facing the future:
2010)‘ Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social, Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',SEC (2010) 1161
, COM (2010) 546 final, 6 october 2010. Brussels: European commission. Depledge, M.,Bartonova, A. and Cherp, A. 2010)‘ Responsible and transformative innovation for sustainable societies.
Fundamental and applied research',Report of the Environment Advisory Group, December 2010. Brussels: European commission. Edquist, C. 2008)‘ Design of innovation policy through diagnossti analysis:
Identification of systemic problems (or failures)',CIRCLE Electronic Working Paper Series 2008/06. Lund: Lund University.
2010)‘ Joint programming in research 2008 2010 and beyond',Report of the High level Group on Joint Programming to the Council, November 2010.
2010)‘ EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth',COM (2010) 2020,3 March 2010.
Brussels: European commission. Fagerberg, J.,Mowery, D c. and Nelson, R. R. 2004) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. 2010) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: North Holland, Elsevier.
2010)‘ The impact of European policy on the development of the ERA in the areas relevant to environmennt'Draft Final Report.
Prepared for the European commission, Research Directorate-General, Directorate 1 Environment, November 2010. Brussels: IDEA Consult.
Van Rij 2010) together with the downscaling of national exercises and the embedding of FTA functions in organisations and their respective decision-making structures and processes.
The distinction between disrupptiv and recognised grand challenges referred to in the European Science Foundation report (European Science Foundation 2010) highlights the fact that areas of disruptiiv grand challenges can be exogenous
Weber and Georghiou 2010. They also depend on governments and international institutions working together to define common research agendas.
FARHORIZON Innovation policy Workshop (Weber and Georghiou 2010) and ERAPRISM Policy Dialogue Brief on Innovation policy (Georghiou and Harper 2010),<http://farhorizon. portals. mbs. ac. uk
2011 (SEC 2010) References Ahlqvist, T.,Valovirta, V. and Loikkanen, T. 2012)‘ Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design',Science and Public policy, 39
2010)‘ Contribution to Developing voluntary guidelines on framework conditions for joint programming in research Foresight activities'(28 june 2010.
Georghiou, L. and Cassingena Harper, J. 2010)‘ Policy dialogue brief on innovation policy',Report from the ERAPRISM Project.<
2010)‘ Commission Staff Working Document A rationale for action, accompanying the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',COM (2010) 546, pp. 9 and 89,
Van Rij, V. 2010)‘ Joint horizon scanning: identifying common strategic choices and questions for knowledge',Science and Public policy, 37:7 18.
Weber, M. and Georghiou, L. 2010)‘ Dynamising innovation policy: Giving innovation a central role in European policy',Farhorizon project report.<
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011