technological and innovation‘think tank'created in 2001. It has been qualified as a‘social organization'by the Brazilian Presidency,
and is supervised by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Its inception was part of government efforts to promote science, technology and innovation (ST&I) develoopmen in Brazil in order to advance economic growth, competitiveness and well-being.
Its scope covers three integrated themes: strategic foresight exercises (future studies; strategic evaluation of large programs and projects;
A case study of a strategic organizational foresight execise at the Brazilian Innovation Agency (FINEP), which focused on the knowledge required for a given exercise to achieve the desired outcomes is discussed in Section 5. Finally,
when we observe the emergence of problems related to the need to coordinate new forms of research and innovation organization,
demands may be associated with innovation, competitiveness, long-term government planning, subsidies to S&t public policies, and the future of complex themes, such as climate change, demography, biodiversity, bioethanol, energy efficiency etc.
which is also known as the Brazilian Innovation Agency (Coelho et al. 2011). The following items are presented:.A brief description of FINEP's context..
FINEP is one the main agencies under the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MCTI.
All phases of the innovation value chain are being mapped by FINEP in order to define strategies and instrumeent for funding
and trends in intellecctua property rights (IPR) Mapping S&t national capacity according to data available in CNPQ/Lattes databases and Innovation Portal Expert panels to debate the following themes:
and expand its current position as the main public innovation agency in Brazil, over the next 15 years.
and the types of policies required to foster innovation in the future. Other than this study, foreign experts gave lectures
2011)‘ Strategic foresight applied to the management plan of an innovation development agency',Technology analysis & Strategic management, 24: 267 83.
Basic books. Kelley, T. and Littman, J. 2001) The Art of Innovation. New york: Currency/Doubleday. Miles, I.,Harper, J. C.,Georgiou, L.,Keenan, M. and Popper, R. 2008)‘ The many faces of foresight'.
China, science policy, research, innovation. 1. Introduction and problem definition In recent years, there has been a rapidly growing interest in the development of science, technology and innovation (STI) in the People's republic of china.
They claim that the current research system‘wastes resourrces corrupts the spirit and stymies innovation'(Shi and Rao 2010.
institution-and capacity-building and governance refer to efforts aimed at creating basic foundations for research and innovation.
‘highly systemic'in the sense that the focus was on reshaping the division of labor and the interaction between producers and users of knowledge and innovation.
on‘indigenous innovation'as beacons of policy-making more generally, are examples of the first level of priority-setting,
indigenous innovation (zizhu chuangxin), leapfrogging in key areas (zhongdian kuayue), supporting economic and social development (zhicheng fazhan), leading the future (yinling weilai).
1986 National High-technology R&d Program (863 Program) 1986 Foster China's overall innovation capacity in high-tech sectors and enhance its international competitiveness Spark Program 1986
on Key Basic research Priorities (973 Program) 1997 Support basic research Innovation Fund for Technology-based SMES 1999 Support innovative activity by high-tech SMES Special
200 103 178 150 Special Technology development Project for Research institutions 158 214 193 183 186 200 250 250 Innovation Fund for Small Technology
improve China's indigenoou innovation capability, and improve industrial competitiveenes and upgrade in general. While the mission orientation has remained prominent throughout the history of the People's republic of china,
By strengthening innovation capacity in selected fields it aims to improve the international competitiveness of major industries.
as well as the identification of public procurement to promote enterpriises innovation capability. The Innovation Fund for SMES,
which provides loans to high-tech SMES, is another diffusion measure, as are the Agricultural S&t Transfer Fund and the New National Products Program.
when a country has developed insufficiently capital markets compared with countries where there are mature markets and channels for innovation funding.
As a result, there is a severe shortage of innovation funding, particulaarl for private firms and for SMES (The Economist 2009;
The Knowledge Innovation Program (KIP) launched in 1998 by the CAS is expected to result in a select group of research institutes
The MOST propagated the idea that China should pursue the idea of‘indigenous innovation 'or‘homegrown innovation'and strive to reduce China's dependence on foreign Technology research priority setting in China. 267 (Mei and Luo 2005).
In contrast, some economists, such as Justin Yifu Lin, argued that the country should continue to rely on China's comparative advantages (Lin et al. 2003.
and diplomats on how they viewed the term‘indigenous innovation'(zizhu chuangxin). Overall, the processes surrounding priority-setting in China's national S&t programs are characterized by formal and elaborate processes with an emphasis on input by scientific experts,
as a leader in innovation, but also a society balancing economic growth with social stabillit and ecological balance.
for instance‘harmonious society'and‘indigennou innovation',indicating the contributions and frameworks of STI governance with broader policy process.
and that hundreds of suggestions had been given by the public (Shi 2004) References Block, F. and Keller, M. eds)( 2011) State of Innovation:
D'Costa, A. and Parayil, G. 2009) New Asian Dynamics in Science, Technology and Innovation.
Foray, D. 2000)‘ On The french system of innovation: between institutional inertia and rapid changes'Paper prepared for the workshop on Innovation Paradigm:
The Impact of Economic Ideas on RTD Policies, 4s/EASST Conference 2000, held 27 30 september 2000, Vienna.
Gu, S. and Lundvall, B.-A°.(2006)‘ China's innovation system and the move towards harmonious growth and endogenous innovation'.
Jakobson, L.,(ed.),2007) Innovation with Chinese Characteristics: High-tech Research in China. New york: Palgrave Macmillan.
Frietsch, R. and Schu ller, M. eds) Competing for Global Innovation Leadership: Innovation systems and Policies in the USA, Europe and Asia, pp. 241 63.
Suttmeier, R. P.,Cao, C. and Simon, D. 2006)‘ Knowledge innovation and the Chinese Academy of Sciences',Science, 312/5770: 58 9. US Embassy Beijing.
Zhang, C.,Zhihua Zeng, D.,Mako, W. P. and Seward, J. 2009) Promoting Enterprise-Led Innovation in China.
while the sectoral innovation system emphasizes the innovation of a particulla set of products (Malerba 2002).
journals. permissions@oup. com The government's research, technology development and innovation (RTDI) policies, which are special forms of national institutions
From Freeman's perspective (1987) research, technology development and innovation (RTDI) policies extensively shape the national system of innovation.
Figure 1. Potential relationships between national (NSI) and sectoral (SSI) systems of innovation and a technological innovattio systems (TS.
Indeed, the companies that invested in the innovation of Chinese herbal medicines only carried out detailed research related to these single herbal extracts.
as policies graduaall turned to encouraging innovation in the pharmaceuticca sector, R&d policies became more and more significant.
Only in the late 1990s did the government start to support the development of modern pharmaceutical biotechnnolog through supporting the innovation of new herbaceous medicines. 3. 2 Evolution of the Taiwanese agricultural biotechnology innovation system 3. 2
The institutions for the innovation of seeds were originally set up by the Japanese government and further developed by the government of the ROC after 1945.
were the most important organizations for seed innovation. These research organizattion were funded fully by the Japanese government during the Japanese colonization and then by the governmeen of the ROC.
They were not sufficient for them to reinvest in seed innovation (Liu 1996: 188). ) The institutions for seed innovation remained almost the same until 2000.
However, the introduction of modern biotechnology in the 1980s extensively changed the knowledge and technology used for seed innovation.
The modern biotechnology of genetic modification was introduced to the ASS through a group of Taiwanese scienttist who were trained in the USA.
and expanded to the innovation of new species of livestock, such as farm animals and aquaculture, the modern techniques of genetic modification were adopted to improve the genes of particular seeds,
which played supplementary roles in the innovation of seeds. These companies usually focused on specific types of seeds
Moreover, throughout Taiwanese agricultural history, MNCS such as Monsanto, have not played any role in seed innovation in Taiwan. 3. 2. 2 Universities and their networks.
Before the 1980s, there was no policy regulating the innovation of seeds. With the developmmen of GMOS in the 1980s,‘Genetic Modified Safety Rules'were implemented in the labs. Yet, besides field trials,
in the pharmaceuticca biotechnology innovation system local SMES led the innovation and manufacturing. MNCS were involved only once in the manufacturing activities of the system
which innovation was built. Local private agricultural SMES only played a supplementary role in innovation and targeted those products
which were innovated not yet by the public organizations. Universities were involved mainly in the innovation through the network with the public research organizations.
Only in the 1990s did some universities occasionally transfer modern biotechnology to agricultural SMES. In brief, within the same nation different NSTISS may involve different groups of actors
Even though the system certainly adopted biotechnnolog for innovation, the commercialization of agriculttura biotechnology was encouraged not by policies.
and encourage the production and innovation of a particular set of products. Indeed, new RTDI policies should be customized to deliberately match the different dynamics of different NSTISS
the case of biotechnology innovation networks',Research policy, 37: 430 45. Dr. Chip. 2010), Products. Dr. Chip:<
Lundvall, B.-A.,ed.,(1992) National systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interaction. London: Pinter.
Malerba, F. 2002)‘ Sectoral systems of innovation and productioon'Research policy, 31: 247 64..(2004)‘ Sectoral systems of innovation:
basic concept and issues'.'In: Malerba, F. ed.)Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe, pp. 9 35.
Cambridge: CUP..( (2005)‘ Sectoral innovation systems: how and why innovattio systems differs across sectors'.'In: Nelson, R.,Mowery, D. and Fagerberg, J. eds.
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp. 380 406. Oxford: OUP. Markard, J. and Truffer, B. 2008)‘ Technological innovattio systems and the multilevel perspective:
Mckelvey, M. 1996) Evolutionary Innovations: The Business of Biotechnology. Oxford: OUP. Mckelvey, M.,Orsenigo, L. and Pammolli, F. 2004)‘ Pharmaceutical analyzed through the lens of a sectoral innovaatio system'.
Malerba, F. ed.)Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues, and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe, pp. 73 119.
A review of the past and projectiio for the future',Forum for Agricultural Innovation and Development Council of Agriculture, 26 nov 2004, pp. 15 21.
Wong, J.-W. 1998)‘ The relationship between bureaucratic organizzatio and agricultural innovation: Taking Agricultural Experiment Station as example'(:
It takes a‘systems of innovation'approach and focuses on the structural and functional aspects of such systems to consider the relevant roles of fta.
technology and innovation (STI) systems might be reoriented to better address several grand challenges that affect not only contemporary societies but also the future of human civilisation itself.
In this regard, it is important to recognise that innovation can just as much exacerbate the problems associated with grand challenges as it can contribute to their solutions.
and positively transformatiiv innovation practice to develop, and if it does so, the supporting roles that FTA might play, especially in relation to newly established EU instruments.
this paper starts (Section 2) by presenting the basic elements of innovation and the need for an operational agenda that takes into consideration a context-sensitive approach required to address specific challenges.
Section 5 then explores the roles of fta in enabling a shift in innovation foci towards grand challenges.
and innovation collaborration the degree to which recent developments cover the identified needs in the reorientation and governing of innovation systems and STI policies,
Section 7 draws some conclusions. 2. Innovation: Some essentials If innovation is to contribute to solving some of the grand challenges of our time,
it is important to set out some sort of baseline as to what it is, how it is practiced and by whom,
In other words, it is important to move beyond the often glib political statements of the importance of innovation for grand challenges
Orienting European innovation systems. 141 Innovation refers to a process of introducing a new product process, service or organisational form into the marketplace and the social sphere (OECD and Eurostat 2005;
This suggests there are many potential levers for shaping the direction of innovation towards grand challenges. At the same time, innovation is a systemic phenomenon by nature as it results from the continuing interaction between different actors and organisations (Freeman 1970.
This means that a firm does not innovate in isolation but rather in interacttio with its environment.
to shape with a view to directing innovation in a predictabbl top-down manner. This has implications for any attempts at guiding innovation activities towards grand challenges.
Innovations can be radical and disruptive but often result from a long process involving many interrelated innovaation (Rogers 1995;
Furthermore, many economically significant innovations occur while a product or process is being diffused since the introduction of something‘new'in a different context often implies adaptation
when linking innovation agendas to grand challenges as it will likely act as a barrier to the radical changes that are needed probably.
It is also important to highlight that the factors influencing innovation differ across industries, and this has implications for policy (Fagerberg et al. 2004).
innovation can be understood as a systemic activity, with firms and other innovating actors operating in linked environments of institutions and other actors.
The advantages of thinking in terms of innovation systems is that they provide a more complete picture of the topography of innovation-relevant actors and the relations between them
cooperation and interactive learning are central to the process of innovation. Such interactions involve not only firms (though these are more common),
since cycles of learning and innovation are less likely to become established when system connectivity is poor.
and regulations) and soft institutions (e g. social norms and values) that can enable or hinder innovation.
Extending the heuristic construct of systems of innovation some authors (e g. Bergek et al. 2008) have recommended the functions of innovation system as an alternative point of analytical departure. 1 Such functional analysis,
particularly for radical innovatiions The innovation system therefore needs to create spaces, for example, through procurement policies, standards or regulations that nurture demand for innovations..
and social (for the public good) innovation (Depledge et al. 2010). Furthermore, grand challenges cannot be dealt effectively with through technological innovaation alone.
and focus of business actors in engaging with innovation, since certain grand challenges call for social responsibility
or stakeholder theory, in which business organisations increasingly promote innovation in their social and environmental policies (Smith 2000).
which many potential levers for shaping the direction of innovation can be identified (e g. regulatory, financial, consumer behaviour etc.).
C. Cagnin et al. between policy‘silos'and thereby support the emergence of an effective policy mix for innovation.
This role most closely corresponds to the innovation functions of knowledge diffusion, mobilisaatio of resources, and creating spaces for market formatiion FTA PROCESSES lead not only to new combinations of Table 1. Innovation system functions
research and innovation programmes Knowledge development Transformative shifts implied by solutions to grand challenges will need new knowledge as well as a new type of knowledge production.
Addressing grand challenges is at the core of EU policies for research and innovation as illustrated by the latest EU strategic policy documents.
At the same time, the Innovation Union3 Flagship Initiative recognises that the same challenges also provide powerful opportunities to develop innovative products
it advocates a strategic and integrated approach to research and innovation in dealing with grand challennge while also strengthening European competitiveness.
The concept of European Innovation Partnerships (EIPS) introduced by the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative is the overarching framework embracing relevant joint programming activities ranging from Art. 185 initiatives to ERA NETS, or JPIS.
EIPS focus on innovations that address major societal challenges and pursue a broad concept of innovation involving all actors and regions in the innovation cycle,
i e. large firms, small and medium-sized enterprises, the public sector, the social economy and citizens themselves (CEC 2010).
The identification of grand challenges and the corresponding priorities for research and innovation through the use of forward-looking activities is mentioned explicitly in the Council's conclusions (December 2009) 7 on guidance on future priorities for European research.
and the Table 2. FTA roles in innovation functions and their integration in EU instruments Innovation system function FTA roles Integration of FTA in EU instruments Facilitate experimenttatio
It has argued that a reorientation of innovation systems towards grand challenges could offer opportunities for a more responsible and transformative innovation practice to develop.
Taking a systems of innovation approach, the paper also suggests that FTA can support the spanning of traditional boundaries that might
or launched new initiativves such as the Lund Declaration11 that shall be the basis for designing the EU's future policies for research and innovation.
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.
but also on the design of its first Strategic Innovation Agenda. 10. See<http://www. era. gv. at/space/11442/directory/19999/doc/21643. html>accessed Dec 2011.11.
Amanatidou, E. 2011)‘ Strategy workshop on Innovation Union: Joint programming and its instruments',Final Report.
Bright, D. S.,Fry, R. E. and Cooperrider, D. L. 2006)‘ Transformative innovations for the mutual benefit of business society,
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
Depledge, M.,Bartonova, A. and Cherp, A. 2010)‘ Responsible and transformative innovation for sustainable societies.
Fagerberg, J.,Mowery, D c. and Nelson, R. R. 2004) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford:
Freeman, C. and Soete, L. 1997) The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd edn. London: Pinter.
Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. 2010) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: North Holland, Elsevier.
Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edn. Paris: OECD. Rogers, E. M. 1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn.
New york: Free Press. Rittel, H. and Weber, M. 1973)‘ Dilemmas in a general theory of planning',Policy Sciences, 4: 155 69.
I.,Smith, A. and Van Zwanenberg, P. 2009)‘ Transformative innovation',A research report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs. Brighton:
) Democratising Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Woolthius, R. K.,Lankhuizen, M. and Gilsing, V. 2005)‘ A system failure framework for innovation policy design',Technovation, 25: 609 19.152.
and demand-side measures to create innovation-friendly markets. Social and environmental challenges deal with the causes and consequences of issues such as climate change, food and energy security and the ageing society,
is an important driver of innovation and competitiveness, often requiring structural and systemic change and, in turn, necessitating the capacity to design
but the focus of attention has remained on research and innovation (R&i) policies, with greater attention being paid to the perspectives of societal stakeholders.
'Stimulating national and regional economic development through innovation. Guiding and/or complementiin competition and integratiio oriented governance.
technology and innovation (STI) policies and achieving impact on national innovation systems (NIS). They argue that external FTA services are useful
In particular Warnke (2011) recommends the use of strategic dialogues to foster the embedding of suggested‘future fields'into the national research, technology and innovation (RTI) landscaape Ahlqvist et al.
which engages stakeholders in innovation and policy roadmapping activities‘Linking territorial foresight and urban planning'Ferna'ndez Gu ell et al.
and embedding innovation priorities into innovation landscape and in particular policy strategies Various governance modes are addressed in examination of instituutiona change for uptake of foresight results in design of systemic innovation policy Discusses how the findings of foresight project are embedded in institutional structures and policy design 160.
Embedded and networked FTA facilities are particularly suitable to fulfil the following functions for innovation policy4 in such a dynamic context:.
However, the coordination mode of governance that seems to be on rise in Europe see for instance the debates on European Innovation Partnerships
6. Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union,<http://ec. europa. eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication en. pdf>accessed 15 december
'Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&d and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit
2010)‘ Commission Staff Working Document A rationale for action, accompanying the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',COM (2010) 546, pp. 9 and 89,
<http://ec. europa. eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/rationale en. pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none>accessed 15 dec 2011.
Giving innovation a central role in European policy',Farhorizon project report.<<http://farhorizon. portals. mbs. ac. uk/Portals/73/docs/Farhorizon%20dynamising%20inno vation%20policy. pdf>accessed 15 dec 2011.
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.
innovation is a systemic activity that:..involves a variety of actions within the system, of which the innovating organization
foresight and forward-looking policy design The concept of a system has different emphases in different branches of the innovation literature.
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.
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:
Niche innovations build up internal momentum, through learning processes, price/performance improveements and support from powerful groups..
Destabilization of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche innovations (Geels 2002,2005; Geels and Schot 2007;
because, for example, commercialization of innovations is usually dependent on investments and development activities realized by multiple actors.
Particularly when developmeent commercialization and diffusion of innovation takes place in a context with a high degree of systemic characteristics
This is common, for example, in environmental innovation. Social and economic costs created by emissiion and pollution are not always easy to allocate to those who generate them.
such as public funding for R&d and innovation, support for technical standardizatiion intellectual property rights regulation and the provisiio of public technical infrastructure, can be applied.
The fifth way is to identify specific innovation targets, either singular technologies or logical temporal sequences, in the roadmap structure.
The key idea of a transformation roadmap is to connect the development of technologies and innovations to a wider societal sphere.
The fragmented structure of the industry, its value chains and business models create barriers to the adoption of new innovations.
Innovation in the constructiio sector therefore needs to be framed within the larger context of new business processes, contractual arrangemennts organizational culture,
The cyclical nature of the industry with its expectations of short-term profit discourages innovation, as both demand and profits are subject to strong variation (Squicciarini and Asikainen 2010).
Support for standardization is becoming accepted as a legitimate goal for government innovation policy as part of demand-oriented innovation support.
Standardization is a critical prerequisite for innovation because it influences technology development and contributte to innovation through shaping the way in
which new technologies are developed. A further policy proposal would be to catalyse government procurement of green buildings,
Financial support for collaborative Industrial r&d will provide the basis for an innovation-driven construction industry, but should be offset by demandorieente innovation policy measures such as smart regulatiio and public procurement. 4. 2. 3 Sectoral development.
It can also provide a more nuanced perspective of the temporal sequencing of the evolution of technology and innovation,
In addition, diffusion of innovations often depends on changes in infrastructure, information systems, organizational practices and social institutions.
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.
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:
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..(
'Final report, task 1. Europe Innova, Innovation Watch. World Business Council for Sustainable development. 2009) Energy efficiency in Buildings.
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.
If effective research and innovation are seen as part of the solution to these tensions, they also require alignment along these dimensions.
innovation clusters may benefit from links with coordinated programmes. Positioning programme co-operation and co-ordination within this wider perspective shows the importance of aligning collaboraatio between different levels of S&t co-operation.
and followed by the identification of research/innovation topics and societal challenges. Programme design and initial funding commitments are made,
At the level of innovation clusters the recently established first knowledge and innovation communities (KICS) of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) also face issues of governance, prioritisaatio and evaluation.
A recent evaluation14 of the EIT proposes to put in place‘robust procedures developed through a mutual learning process with the existing KICS'.
'The further development of transnational research and innovation collaboration is likely to benefit from conceptuua demarcation of different dimensions of the challenges.
authorities and autonomous Mobility and exchange of scientists Programme cooperation and coordination Institutional cooperation Project cooperation Exchange of S&t information Innovation/knowledge clusters 2 3
Such challenges have been related to the systemic nature of innovation (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004), performmanc of innovation systems (Lundvall 1992;
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
In effect, the adoption of innovation as a crosscutting policy objectivvewhich is prominent even in sectorally oriented policies holds promise for the closer integration of innovattio and other policies.
In last two decades systemic challenges in research and innovation have lead to the development of systemic Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. 195 instruments for better preparedness, co-ordination and integrratio of research and innovation systems
innovation and other policy areas (such as competition, regional, financial, employment and education policies) Another organisation deals with international activities Problems with aligning financial resources and budget
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
and implementation plans'depends on the envisaged role that is ascribed to a specific foresight activity in an evolving innovation environment.
a programme set up in connection with the Europe 2020 strategy (European commission 2010b) and European Innovation Partnerships (European commission 2010c).
or when the research and innovation systems and capacities of the countries involved are highly diverse. 5. Conclusions Recent efforts in transnational research programming indicate that the mobilising effect of embedded foresight activities can lead to novel networking and cross-feeding of research and innovation
horizon scanning and generation of innovation ideas among a wide and diverse set of stakeholders) can alleviate the risk of co-optation,
Notes 1. See Europe 2020 (European commission 2010b) and the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union (European commission 2010c.
A Strategy for American Innovation: Securing Our Economic growth and Prosperity.<<http://www. whitehouse. gov/innovation strategy>accessed 15 march 2012.3.
Method of Coordination, COST, KICS, European Innovation Partnerships. Thematic instruments are the Standing committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) in the field of agriculture,
Chioncel, M. and Cuntz, A. 2012)‘ Research and innovation challenges and policy responses in Member States'.
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
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.
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.<
Lundvall, B.-A°.,ed.,(1992) National systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning. London: Pinter.
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
Optimat Ltd and VDI/VDE-Innovation+Technik Gmbh for DG Research Directorate M2. 2005)‘ Examining the design of national research programmes'.
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
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011