Insights from the FORLEARN Mutual learning Process, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2006, Joint research Centre/European commission. 32 G. P. Hodgkinson, G. Wright, Confronting strategic
ethical and social impacts of nanosciences,-technologies, and-artifacts. The paper suggests that Inclusive foresight, reinforced with the principles of CSH, can be of use in the nano-field providing wider stakeholder representation during the research and development processes.
is the purpose of this paper. 1. 1. History Current Foresight studies attempt to create collective anticipations, usually related to technology,
and methods used in technology forecasting, indeed initially the Japanese studies were called‘technology forecasts 'and were based on US experience of the Delphi method.
As a result, there are two general shapes to Foresight studies that flow from early decisions about their procedures and management structure.
but so far Foresight has depended on expert technological opinion where inclusivity has been interpreted as seeking opinions from a larger number of the typical experts.
Inclusivity is a matter of creating trust across a wide range of communities in discussions of future developments, especially in science and technology.
and technology and has paid relatively little attention to the third. The case for inclusivity comes directly out of the need to recognise the following:
-The assumption that all technologies are desirable and that people possess an infinite‘plasticity'toward the adoption of ever more invasive, complicated, if not complex technologies-The lack of trust between all the parties involved, especially between the‘expert'community and the general public,
which has undergone such a marked erosion in recent years with the shift towards a postmodern world 1209 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221-A dissatisfaction
'a well known concept in brain science (see 6), toward the adoption of ever more invasive technologies: this is now widely questioned.
In an example of foresight in this connection, Loveridge 7 outlined the way that computer and communication technologies might evolve into‘information technology',with its widespread adoption throughout society,
In the 1950s outsiders to whatever policy making processes there were began to reject the notion of infinite plasticity toward the adoption of new technology.
It was a time of immense confidence in science and technology, and their applications to improve wealth creation
Formal rejection of the notion of infinite plasticity came in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the growth of technology assessment (TA) and the creation of the Office of Technology assessment (OTA) in the USA,
the deleterious side effects of technology, or the attempts to deal with social problems through the procedures of science hang on the answers to questions that can be asked of science
and technology the non-expert's view about desirability will be as important. The last of Barker and Peters fields (6) is clearly inaccessible even to the expert community who make up the committees that advise policy makers;
what are and what are not desirable future situations°Prioritising the choices that have to be made among the outcomes of Foresight Avoid the assumption that people have infinite plasticity toward new technology Increase trust between policy makers, business and the general public,
when products and services based on new technologies are rejected when they are launched or soon afterwards Create policy processes amenable to current and future issues within the characteristics of trans science (Weinberg ibid.)
Academic social research Trade unions Issue groups including the Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Intermediate Technology development Group and other similar organisations Grass roots organisations Minority groups, such as women
All the experiments that have been made spread Foresight well beyond the conventional sphere of technology alone. 3. 1. Policy requirements for inclusivity For policy purposes the minimum conditions for Inclusive foresight then seem to be:
as does 1 above 3. Greater opportunity for participation from all levels, ages and gender throughout the scientific and technology community,
5. Admission of the social influence on the directions taken by science and technology from within and without the scientific and technology community 6. Greater attention to the question of desirability,
and technology have been the traditional focus for Foresight: even there inclusivity has not often been an important feature.
The traditional hierarchies of science and technology have tended to dominate even where there have been specific efforts to widen participation.
Conditions for inclusivity in science and technology need to address this concern. In 9 above, there is a concern for the psychology of information overload;
Furthermore, the omnibus term‘nanotechnology'misleads the participants in any Foresight study into believing that they are confronting a homogeneous and coherent technology
Nano artifacts depend on the convergence of sets of sciences and technologies, elsewhere called genus sciences and technologies 23, of very different kinds for their evolution into feasible and (hopefully) desirable artifacts.
even though biotechnological artifacts too require the convergence of sets of sciences and technologies for their evolution.
technological feasibility and artifact desirability of a nano artifact. 1218 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 participation in Foresight relating to these issues.
Critical to public acceptance is the growth of a critical mass of opinion favourable to any particular form of nano artifact and its supporting sciences and technologies:
and technologies. Underlying the discussion is the contention that, as practiced, institutional Foresight contains a democratic deficit characterised by exclusivity as the extent of public participation is restricted.
1978 95, Futures 14 (3)( 1982) 205 239 June 13 D. Loveridge, Foresight seven paradoxes, International Journal of Technology management 21 (7/8
Converging technologies at the nanoscale: the making of a new world? Technology and Strategic management 20 (1)( 2008) 29 44 January 24 P. Berg, et al.
Potential Biohazards of RECOMBINANT DNA Molecules, Science (1974) 303. Denis Loveridge is an Honorary Visiting professor and Ozcan Saritas is a Research fellow:
Received 24 november 2008 Received in revised form 15 july 2009 Accepted 17 july 2009 Potentially breakthrough science
and technologies promise applications which may radically affect society. Nanotechnology is no exception, promising many benefits through nano-enabled applications across multiple sectors and with the potential of affecting many parts of our society.
Retrospective studies of emerging technology applications/products (from disciplines of Management and Sociology of Innovation) reveal that the journeys twist
and dynamics in the environments the hopeful technology may encounter. For those wishing to enable beneficial technology applications stemming from potentially breakthrough areas of science and technology, such as nanotechnology,
this complexity increases as we shift from retro-to prospective analysis of potential paths to innovation
robinson@emerging technologies. eu. 0040-1625/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. techfore. 2009.07.015 Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Technological forecasting
But the potential breakthrough nature of nanotechnologies as enablers of radically new applications may mean a complex reconfiguration of the environments that a nanotechnology innovation may traverse during its‘lifetime'from concept to well embedded technology in our society.
uncertain and involve multiple actors working at multiple levels shot through with anticipatory strategies and expectations on risks and benefits of the emerging technology field.
This approach is developed as a support tool for Constructive technology assessment (Constructive TA), see Box 1, and incorporates what we call endogenous futures into scenarios
and the unfolding innovation journeys of technology development have not been developed to date. Such scenarios require insight into co-evolutionary dynamics,
The Technology assessment Programme was part of the Science to Industry work package and the Ethical and Societal Aspect package,
However, for breakthrough technologies, the factors that shape the pathways may be evolving too! An example could be the regulatory landscape
which would enable certain technology options and constrain others. The arrangements of the industrial sector could also enable
and constrain certain technology options. Of course the technology options themselves may shape the landscapes that they encounter could initiate a change in industrial sectors, in regulation etc.
Nanotechnology, even at this nascent stage, is stimulating a lot of speculation on shifts in these landscapes leading to a desire to explore the potential mutual co-evolution of nanotechnologies
theory and concepts Recent thinking about innovation adds up to a general idea that technology emergence is a process of innovation and selection shot through with anticipations (c. f. quasi-evolutionary
Paradigms, trajectories and expectations offer partial understanding of how new technologies emerge, but have not answered these questions,
institutional and social factors in shaping a technology. 4 Braun for example describes the early notions of innovation as being characterised by a‘linear'view of innovation as an automatic spill over process between basic knowledge
and technological application whilst recent notions regard innovation as being nonlinear and recursive interactions between a variety of actors participating in the quest for innovation. 8. 5 These environments,
which enable and constrain certain technology options, I will call selection environments. 1224 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting
They acknowledged the concentric bias of the enactor perspective (technology developers and promoters who project a linear path from their technology option into the future described in Box 1) and attempted to broaden this concentric bias by taking into consideration open-ended nature of their projections and structured explorations of the journey-like
nature of actual emergence. In this project on RRIWE add a further conceptualization using the idea of arenas of innovation and selection
in order to get close to the real issues being explored through the CTA. Building of the notions and gaps given above,
This landscape will have different characteristics at different stages of technology/product emergence and is shaped by broader framing conditions and by anticipatory coordination on the part of technology developers and promoters,
as well as those who seek to control and select options. With this in mind, I propose the Innovation chain+framework as a way of presenting this situation.
the latter being typical for potentially radical and breakthrough innovations). Detailing in brief, in this visualization an innovation traverses a complex mosaic of arenas of innovation
Within this mosaic certain technology options are enabled whilst others are constrained. The arenas for innovation and selection are shown here as bubbles where each arena represents a particular socio-technical configuration carrying
Thus the innovation journey (represented in Fig. 1 as a branching line) is made up of a path to innovation (a pathway represented by the bubbles in the centre of Fig. 1) where the emerging technology itself
which journeys through these bubbles. 7 The technology (and its socio-technical network) shifts and reconfigures based on the arenas it encounters,
and is a combination of technology studies, innovation and management studies, and path dynamics which adds up to a mosaic of arenas,
+8 Still the focus of technology developers in their FTA ACTIVITIES, focus on paths (such as roadmapping) rather than journeys.
the IC+provides a game board for locating emerging technologies and evolving arenas and thus a way of framing our scenarios.
and coevoluution of technologies and the IC+we need some indications of how paths-to-innovation may emerge
and insights into the transition from present into future. 2. 3. Endogenous futures While new (emerging science and technology introduce novelties,
emerging irreversibilities facilitate specific technological paths making it easier to act and interact whilst constraining others making it more difficult to do something else.
When technology is involved, irreversibilities are solidified further in configurations that work 30. The concept of configuration that works applies to artefacts and systems,
Van Merkerk and Robinson 9 show examples from the field of lab-on-a-chip technology and how expectations have an effect on selection choices of pathways to follow,
and creating scenarios for a CTA exercise. 3. Evolving selection environments, and their internalisation 3. 1. A project is initiated In Autumn 2007 (as still the case 2 years on) there was an increasing emphasis on societal impact and embedment of nanotechnology applications.
Thus, there was an occasion to launch a technology assessment exercise, with the aim of bringing together actual and potential players involved in nanotechnology governance to share perspectives,
and current situation and developed three co-evolutionary scenarios showing plausible playings out of technology innovations
and the role of technology platforms which came about through institutional entrepreneurship between the framing conditions, the bubbles and the coordinating bodies. 1227 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222
Box 1 The Constructive technology assessment goal of reflexivity rather than prediction. For early stage and highly uncertain fields of technology development, prediction is a tough task.
Another approach would be to shift the focus of strategy articulation away from relying on prediction in its strictest sense,
Constructive technology assessment (Constructive TA) 6 10 as a reflexive strategy articulation support system taking as its starting point ongoing socio-technical dynamics is particularly suitable for such a purpose.
Garud and Ahlstrom 12 describe two perspectives of such technology assessment, those of technology developers and promoters they term insiders (that focus on innovation through enactment cycles)
and outsiders (who focus on comparing and selecting options through selection cycles). This has been developed further by Rip 13
and elsewhere) but have been ad hoc and mainly centred around technology developer outreach programmes. Also, there is something like a regulation void,
I have placed innovation journeys at the micro-level, technology developer coordination attempts at the meso-level and selector coordination and control at the macro-level.
and technology developers begin to start anticipating on societal acceptance of products. Proliferation of engagement/communication approaches at the micro-level allows justification of societal awareness as a strategy for ensuring societal acceptance.
or FTA mechanisms that are reflexive of the wider complexities of new and emerging technologies? Who should be involved and when?
Anticipation on further regulatory delays sees shift in private investments from nano to other promising technologies.
1) Instrumental motivations legitimising R&d activities as a policy to ensure that technology is held not back by public skepticism;(
Early stage technologies are fragile and too early selection may inhibit novel solutions. The same for regulation-nanocodes enable in this scenario
In this case a technology 12 Nanodiablog crosses all three motivations for engagement. The normative motivation is set down in the EU Action plan
One technology entrepreneur uses the Nanodiablog with a substantive motivation for engagement to improve the product.
but allows progress in technology development through self regulation and self quality control. The codes are particularly enabling for medical devices,
and others lead to the inclusion of engagement programmes in technology R&d programmes to inform
and a number of technology assessment scholars. The elements and actors were recognised by the participants with praise about the plausibility of such scenarios.
The co-evolution of regulatory approaches and technology options was discussed also throughout the workshop, although not directly quoted in the discussions,
and are agreed to Coordination of governance stemming from technology promoters see Fig. 1..Government instigated voluntary reporting,
Thus technology promoters dominate..Not all actors in R&d sign up to the codes, the broadness of principles causes concerns with some actors a large pharmaceutical company states,
The lack of clarity and small print is unsettling for early stage technologies. Uncertainty in possible inroads for litigation and liability is covered not by such codes,
but allow progress in technology development through self regulation and self quality control Misalignments enabling for some: A continuation of the situation given in Fig. 3 becoming an emerging irreversibility (not quite path dependency but a situation becoming increasingly entrenched of a patchwork of soft law options.
researchers and technology developers do not feel pressure and continue with their R&d unabated. This was inspired by interviews at an annual meeting of the Frontiers Noe,
Similar developments can be seen for crime scene investigation and civil security technologies, where advanced diagnostics,
forensics and identification technologies were stimulated the focus by government grants, small companies begin to commercialise this technology Broader context of comparable innovation journeys:
these other fields are added to compare to the medical device innovation journeys later in the scenario..
and other engagement exercises lead to the inclusion of engagement programmes in technology R&d programmes to inform
but have little effect because of the lock in enabling technology development but constraining comparative selector input..Some issues of workers safety voiced but related to non-nano issues
Emergence of platform technologies with applications in multiple sectors and comprising of ever increasing complexity of functional nano-elements (multifunctional tailored nanoparticles, highly integrated Lab on a chip, Moore than More integrating of semiconductors
increasing complexity of governance of platform technologies. This highlights another issue of where to locate responsibility for nanotechnology in applications,
as nano is an enabling technology, and just contributes to the functioning of a large system. Key question:
I see that many technology promoters take an adverse stance towards precaution, connecting it to a halt (moratoria) on technology progress.
This was placed in the text to provoke a discussion..Innovation actor's quality not assured. Voluntary codes align best practice
However, there is alignment in the complicated relationships between technology platforms (multi-functionalised nanoparticles, and other functional macromolecular systems) and the various applications/sectors (they have become embedded),
What previously enabled technology development constrains its embedment into markets: as medical nano enters the clinics user issues begin to emerge (previously unarticulated requirements come about.
and previous (technology promoter dominated) governance arrangements collapse..5. 4. Total recall By 2014 Nanotech employs approximately 2. 3 million workers globally.
Whilst for nanomedicine and bionanotechnology the clamour for tests and rapid certification hampers technological progress
6. Evaluation and discussion These co-evolutionary scenarios can prepare the ground for discussion of complex potential radical technologies via the combination of endogenous futures, the IC+framework and deep case research into actors
entanglements due to sunk investments (Finnish policy), collective decision on technology developer side for soft law, etc.
and integration, The Handbook of Science and Technology studies, 2007.2 H. te Kulve, A. Rip, Engagement Requires Investment in Pre-engagement:
Mapping and Scenarios for Emerging technologies. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Study of Science (4s) in Montreal, Quebec, 2007.3 A. Rip, H. te Kulve, Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios, in:
E. Fisher, C. Selin, J. M. Wetmore (Eds. The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Presenting Futures, vol. I, Springer, Berlin, 2008.4 F. W. Geels, Towards sociotechnical scenarios and reflexive anticipation:
using patterns and regularities in technology dynamics, in: K. H. Sørensen, R. Williams (Eds. Shaping technology, Guiding Policy:
Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Cheltenham (UK), Northampton (MA, USA), Edward Elgar, 2002.5 A. H. van de ven, D. E. Polley, R. Garud, S. Venkataraman
Shaping technology, Guiding Policy; Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002.8 J. Schot, A. Rip, The past and future of constructive technology assessment, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 54 (1997) 251 268.9 R. van Merkerk, D. K. R. Robinson, The interaction between expectations, networks and emerging paths:
a framework and an application to Lab on a chip technology for medical and pharmaceutical applications, Technol.
18 july September 2006) 411 428 Numbers 3 4,-4. 10 R. van Merkerk, R. E. H. M. Smits, Tailoring CTA
for emerging technologies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (3 march 2008) 312 333.11 P. Larédo, E. Jolivet, E. Shove, S. Raman, A. Rip, E. Moors, B. Poti, G
of new technology: making use of recent insights from sociology and economics of technology, Technol. Anal. Strateg.
Manag. 7 (4)( 1995) 417 431.13 A. Rip, A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance and its ironies, in:
The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1987.16 K. Green, R. Hull, A. Mcmeeking, V. Walsh, The construction of the techno-economic:
networks vs. paradigms, Res. Policy 28 (1999) 777 792.17 S. Bakker, H. van Lente, M. Meeus, Arenas of expectations for hydrogen technologies, Innovation studies Utrecht (ISU) Working
Paper Series, Working Paper#08.19,2009. 18 H. van Lente, Promising Technology The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological developments.
Ph d Thesis, University of Twente. Delft: Eburon Press. 1993.19 G. Dosi, Technical paradigms and technological trajectories a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technological change, Res.
Policy 11 (3)( 1982) 147 162.20 R. R. Nelson, S g. Winter, In search of useful theory of innovation, Res.
Getting New technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin New york, 1998.22 M. Callon, Techno-economic networks and irreversibility, in:
Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, 1991, pp. 132 161.23 B. de Laat, Scripts for the future technological foresight, strategic analysis and socio technical networks:
in science and technology, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 18 (2006) 285 298.14 Targeted (and used) for transition policy. 4 15 Used for open-ended roadmapping by technology developers at early stages of development 6. 16 Used for exploring industrial/sectorial alignment/misalignments. 17 See Haico
te Kulve's work on Food Packaging for a thorough description of this approach 2. Also see the work of Alireza Parandian,
33 1238 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 30 A. Rip, R. Kemp, Technological change, in:
Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology, in: M. Leach, I. Scoones, B. Wynne (Eds.),
34 R. van Merkerk, R. E. H. M. Smits, Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies, Technol. Forecast.
technology platforms and institutional entrepreneurship, Paper Presented at the Triple Helix Conference, Turin, May 18 21 2005.40 D. K. R. Robinson, A. Rip, V. Mangematin, Technological agglomeration
Douglas K. R. Robinson obtained his Undergraduate and Masters degree in Physics and Space science and Technology at the University of Leicester (UK), Universität Siegen (Germany) and International Space University in Strasbourg (France.
and creation with a focus on innovative design in high technology industries. Alongside this, he is also a part-time Technical Analyst at the Institute of Nanotechnology (UK) focusing on nanotechnologies in the agrifood sector. 1239 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1t 3jh, UK Technology analysis & Strategic management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www. tandfonline. com/loi/ctas20 Impacts and implications of futureorieente technology analysis for policy and decision making Ozcan Saritas, Cristiano Cagnin, Attila Havas & Ian Miles
Ozcan Saritas, Cristiano Cagnin, Attila Havas & Ian Miles (2009) Impacts and implications of future-oriented technology analysis for policy and decision making, Technology analysis & Strategic management, 21:8, 915-916, DOI:
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www. tandfonline. com/page/termsanndconditions Technology analysis & Strategic management Vol. 21, No.
elaborated the underpinning scientific and technological bases, relations to emerging societal and industrial needs, with illustrations of future possibilities by way of concrete manifestations (such as innovations).
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1t 3jh, UK Technology analysis & Strategic management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
Per Dannemand Andersen & Mads Borup (2009) Foresight and strategy in national research councils and research programmes, Technology analysis & Strategic management, 21:8, 917-932, DOI:
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www. tandfonline. com/page/termsanndconditions Technology analysis & Strategic management Vol. 21, No.
technology and innovation studies; socio-technical; public research organisatioons foresight; science and technology and innovation policy studies 1. Introduction The setting of priorities in science
and innovation policy is one of the most important rationales for implementing national foresight activities. Important users of this type of foresight activity are often national research and innovation councils,
and technology was formulated by Ben Martin as‘the process involved in systematically attempting to look into the longer-term future of science, technology,
and strategy in national research councils and research programmes 919 and the emerging generic technologies likely to yield the greatest economical and social benefits'(Martin 1995).
cross-societal discussion of the future prospects for science and technology and with implementing the results of such discussions in priorities for public expenditures on research.
and objectives for foresight The rationale for carrying out public foresight exercises is often related to the political goal of increasing economical competitiveness by means such as technological or societal innovation.
the concepts of national innovation systems (NIS) and technology innovation systeem (TIS) are important in understanding how new technologies emerge
and suppliers of technology (i e. to influence the direction in which actors employ their resources);(
Foresight and similar future-oriented technology analysis methodds such as trend extrapolation, scenarios, Delphi analysis, focus groups, cross-impact analyses and roadmapping, can be found in traditional business-school
and discussed them in light of, for example, technology foresight, technology forecasting and technology assessment (Martino 1983; Millet and Honton 1991.
The fact that Delphi surveys often solely include point of views from scientists indicates that scientists in such surveey are expected to know about the future development of technology.
and lists of approaches and methood for foresight have been suggested by different authors in review articles on foresight and future-oriented technology assessment methods (Technology Futures analysis Methodsworking Group 2004).
Rather, foresight is a field of practice with origins in several other more or less established academic disciplines such as evolutionary economy, strategy, technology assessment or social studies of science, futures studies.
Most foresight practice in Europe has been focussed on public policy making and especially policy making in science and technology
since the 1960s from the first generation of technology-oriented forecasting to the current third-or fourth-generation activities that also include wider social dimensions (Reger 2001;
that of science, technology, economy and society in general. In the perspective of strategic positioning (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand,
The context of science is strategic research and emerging technologies, and it is economical and competitive (and not to better understand nature and humankind).
and the development of generic technologies, become determined by generic market structure of global research and technology.
This includes methods such as technology watching, trend analyses and the use of learning curves. As already mentioned, the idea of the rational decision has been challenged for decades by decision theorists.
The context is not related to any particular understanding of science or technological development but to powers and political interests in the affected areas of science and technology;
in this sense it is almost a Mode 1 understanding of science and technology; Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight
The council was located in the Danish research Agency under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation,
However, in the first phase a number of Danish researchers in science and technology, who were not members of the council,
The vision papers were to cover all areas of science and technology research. The authors came primarily from public research institutiions and also from industry.
and discussed the different areas of research in science and technology, building on, among other things, the vision papers.
Therefore, the strategic areas can to some extent be seen as representing the main areas of research in science and technology,
1) biotechnology and chemistry,(2) energy,(3) environment,(4) nanotechnology,(5) production and materials technology,(6) information systems,(7) simulation and, finally,(8) research consortia.
brief passages of text and boxes containing short examples of the use of science and technology research and quotes from well-known and highleeve industry representatives.
with the aim of inspiring them to spend more on science and technology. Whereas the earlier plans focused on‘internal'prioritisation and strategic action within the research council
and technology research can make to society. Earlier strategy plans for the Technical research Council, as well as plans for other research councils,
R&d on environmentally friendly energy production technologies. The PSO R&d programme was operated by the two electricity grid operators
A third funding source for energy research, a New energy and Environment Research programme, was established also in the period through the Strategic research Council, under the auspices of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
The selection of areas basically reflected Danish energy policy and its focus on environmentally friendly energyproduuctio technologies,
The selection of only four priority areas resulted in a stronger and narrower technology focus than the broader priority areas of the Energy research programme's earlier strategies.
First, work on hydrogen technology was initiated, an area with application to research on fuel cells. Second, strategy activities concerning energy-efficient technologies and biofuels were launched by the Danish energy authority.
In addition for the other priority areas of technology roadmap exercises were recommended as a follow-up activity. It was, in general,
There was a relatively strong network, both informal and formal, between the programme management and the established industrial and research actors in the field of energy technology.
Technollog and Innovation Partly the Confederation of Danish Industries Advisory Council for Energy Research Energy production companies Energy-technology companies Scientists Interest groupings/NGOS Target groups
Upward Government minister, parliamentary politicians Downward Programme Management system operators (PSO actors) Energy production companies Energy-technology companies Scientists Approaches Key scope Science
-oriented Technology-oriented and methods Time horizon 10 20 years 2008 2012 and 2030 Method, systematics and tools Invited vision papers Council discussions Council members'own
and technology this does not seem to have influenced significantly strategic thinking and strateggi processes in Danish research councils and research programmes.
In contrast, in the Energy research programme there seems to exist a more coherent understanding of strategy associated with developing new energy technologies.
supporting existing areas, the opposite of priority setting The strategy of new technologies: technology and not science-discipline-oriented The strategy of positions of strength:
underpinning priorities related to scientific strengths rather than future societal or industrial potentials The strategy of developing new production and consumption systems:
the strategy of (technological and scientific) territory: demarcation, e g. against natural science and the natural science research council Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 930 P. D. Andersen and M. Borup 4. Conclusion In contrast to basic funding for universities
priority-setting goes beyond selecting between areas of science and technology: to develop measures and instruments are also important issues in research strategies.
The strategy processes can benefit from better articulated expectations about future technologiies It is not enough to argue that a certain technology offers great opportunities for future commercial exploitation.
and future energy technologies. He has headed and participated in numerous national and international studies. Mads Borup is a senior scientist at the Innovation systems
An important part of his work is also strategic foresight on environment and technology. Notes 1. The two electricity grid operators were at that time Eltra and Elkraft System.
New technology foresight, forecasting and assessment methods, 13 14 may, Seville, Spain. EU DG Research. 2005. Final Report.
In The approach to and the potential for new technology foresight, The Proceedings of an International Conference on Technology foresight, Tokyo, Japan. http://www. nistep. go. jp/achiev/ftx/eng/mat077e/html/mat077oe
the case of renewable energy technology in Sweden. In Technology and the market: demand, users and innovation, eds.
R. Coombs, K. Green, V. Walsh, and A. Richards. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Johnson, G, . and K. Scholes. 2002.
Foresight in science and technology. Technology analysis & Strategic management 7, no. 2: 139 68. Martino, J. P. 1983.
Technological forecasting for decision making. Newyork: Mcgraw-hill. Miljø-og Energiministeriet. 1996a. National Strategi for Dansk Miljø-og Energiforskning.
A manager's guide to technology forecasting and strategy analysis methods. Columbus/Richland, OH: Batelle Press.
Technology analysis & Strategic management 13, no. 4: 533 53. Siune, K.,ed. 2001. Science policy. Setting the agenda for research.
Technology Futures analysis Methodsworking Group. 2004. Technology future analysis: towards integration of the field and new methods.
Technological forecasting and Social Change 71, no. 3: 287 303. The Prime minister's Office. 2006: Progress, innovation and cohesion.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011