Attila Havas c, Ozcan Saritas d, e a EU DG JRC-IPTS, Seville, Spain b Center for Strategic Studies and Management (CGEE), SCN
Hungary d Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9pl, UK e National research University, Higher School of economics, Moscow, Russia
It does so by critically reflecting on the selected papers for this special issue as well as on the discussions that took place at the fourth Seville International Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis.
FTA practices Fundamental change and transformations Grand challenges 1. Introduction Drawing upon a critical reflection on the selected papers for this special issue as well as on the discussions that took place at the fourth Seville International Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis,
The papers discussed below have been selected initially by the scientific committee of the fourth Seville International Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis to be considered for publication with several other papers.
Shaper-Rinkel 13 analyses future-oriented governance of emerging technologies in the USA and in Germany,
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 379 385 In more detail, Haegeman et al. 4 depart from the methodological debate that has been a relevant element of the International Seville Conference series on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA
She explores the role that different types of FTA played in the development of nanotechnology governance in the USA and in Germany.
In Germany, FTA was used mainly to shape and define research and innovation agendas. In both countries, public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
The FTA TOOLS used to develop governance frameworks for nanotechnology in these two countries differ along time.
In the USA, the approach entails mainly integrated vision-building and governance network-building coupled with avoiding centralised S&t planning.
In Germany, FTA is used mainly for addressing the future of existing areas of strength with FTA ACTIVITIES being governed by one ministry (BMBF),
In both countries, early FTA envisioned innovative future nanotechnologies, but did not support guidance either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation in order to address grand societal challenges.
Comparing these two countries, the main difference lies in the existence of an umbrella organisation in the USA that pools heterogeneous stakeholders
in Germany the process is less coordinated and does not involve heterogeneous stakeholders nor make use of the knowledge gained in various FTA.
The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), 2011,12 13 may. 7 L. Gao, A l. Porter, J. Wang, S. Fang, X. Zhang, T. Ma, W. Wang, L. Huang, Technology life cycle analysis method
Time for the EU to Meet Global Challenges, EUR 24364 EN, Publications Office of the European union, Luxembourg, 2010.
He is developing EU and national projects related to sustainable manufacturing, RTDI priority-setting and regional coordination as well as joint programming,
and been a member of several EU expert groups. He has advised national governments and international organisations on the above issues.
Garcilaso 3, 41092, Sevilla, Spain b European commission, JRC-IPTS, Seville, Spain c European commission, JRC, Brussels, Belgium d ISIS, Rome, Italy
e Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, Higher School of economics, Moscow, Russia a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t
since the first edition of the International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), there is still little dialogue
Qualitative Quantitative Barriers Combination Integration FTA Epistemological divide 1. Introduction The methodological debate has been a relevant element of the International Seville Conference series on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA
karel-herman. haegeman@ec. europa. eu (K. Haegeman), elisabetta. marinelli@ec. europa. eu (E. Marinelli), fabiana. scapolo@ec. europa. eu
Since its first edition the International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis devoted part of its attention to the development of new tools and methods, novel use of existing methods and (new) disciplines applied by FTA.
Comparison of outcomes of qualitative and quantitative approaches Participants at the 2011 International Seville Conference on FTA raised the potential of the use of qualitative and quantitative methods for identifying
During the 2011 International Seville Conference on FTA, the use of images and visualisation techniques was suggested as a tool,
The experience of the European foresight Platform (www. foresight-platform. eu) could provide some relevant inputs towards this endeavour.
The different and highly heterogeneous contributions to the 2011 International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis in this area share a common bottom line:
and both the Scientific Committee and the participants of the 2011 Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis for the fruitful discussions that helped shaping and refining it.
proceedings of the EU US scientific seminar: new technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods, in: JRC Technical Report, EUR 21473 EN, European commission, 2004, Available at:
http://forera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta/Proceedings%20short%20version. pdf. Last accessed July 2012.2 P. Bazeley, Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, May 12 13 (2011) Seville, 2011, Available at: http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/documents/download/PRESENTATIONS/Keynotes/FTA%202011%20%205-9%20%20hl%20%20
%20%20%20ppt%20%20copy. ppt. Accessed July 2012.13 H. A. Linstone, Three eras of technology foresight, Technovation 31 (2011) 69 76.14 I. Tuomi, Foresight in an unpredictable world, Technol.
The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: FTA and Grand Societal Challenges Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic transformations, 2011, Available at:
http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/FTA2011 CALL FINAL. pdf. Accessed August 2012.19 H. Van Lente,
www. foresight-platform. eu/community/foresightguide/2010accessed August 2012.24 J. E. Smith, O. Saritas, Science and technology foresight baker's dozen:
12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, US Naval War College, Newport R i. USA, June 19 21,2007, 2007, Available at:
http://ec. europa. eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/efmnmapppingforesight en. pdf, last accessed July 2012.70 M. Rader, A l. Porter, Fitting future-oriented technology analysis methods to study
and in organising several foresight trainings and International Seville Conferences on Future-oriented technology analysis. He has been publishing articles and reports on anticipatory and analytical research in support of European RTDI policy and on new methods and tools for FTA.
He coordinated many EU projects with a strong forward looking dimension, including PASHMINA (Paradigm Shifts Modelling
in Russia. He authored over 120 publications in Russia and internationally devoted to Foresight and S&t and innovation policies;
managed several national S&t foresight exercises in Russia, participated in dozens of international projects. Alexander Sokolov is a member of a number of high-level expert groups at the OECD and other international organisations. 397 K. Haegeman et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 386 397
Technology life cycle analysis method based on patent documents Lidan Gao a b,, Alan L. Porter c, Jing Wang d, Shu Fang a, Xian Zhang a, Tingting Ma e, Wenping Wang e, Lu Huang e
a Chengdu Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, PR China b School of economics and Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, PR China c
School of Public policy, Georgia Institute of technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA d College of Computer science & Technology, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, 361021, PR China e
Beijing 100081, PR China a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history:
Chengdu Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, PR China. Tel.:++86 13811903239.
Because of the difference in patent law between the U s. and other countries, too many individual assignees are observable in U s. patents,
adopted to varying degrees by every country or organization with an official patent office. Lerner 25 introduced four-digit IPC codes to measure the scope of each patent.
T in the way paved by the German philosopher of technology Hans Sachsse 18 almost three decades ago.
Sachsse (whose work was published most in German and has remained in a kind of limbo, probably obfuscated by the devolutionary epistemologyt developed by Karl Popper, with
This terminus was proposed first in 1777 by the German economist Johannes Beckman (in his opus beinleitung zur Technologie oder zur Kenntnis der Handwerke, Fabriken und Manufakturenq) as science
The 30th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, St gallen, Switzerland, 2012.38 S. Bankes, Exploratory modeling for policy analysis, Oper.
and/or chronic scarcity. 3. Strategic or speculative behavior of countries that have a quasi-monopoly on the extraction of (rare earth) metals may seriously hinder the transition of modern societies towards more sustainable ones.
and technology varies widely between countries. Societies differ, just as economies, and governments deal with international scientific developments in different ways through the policies they pursue 14.
the development of scenario practice as a methodology for planning and decision-making probably started more than half a century ago in the field of war game analysis. The Rand Corporation in the US became a major center for scenario thinking and Herman Kahn,
Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://ec. europa. eu/research/agriculture/scar/pdf/scar 2nd foresight exercise en. pdf 6. 3rd SCAR Foresight exercise EC (2011), Sustainable
Available at http://www. eea. europa. eu/multimedia/interactive/prelude-scenarios/prelude. 8. The world in 2025 European commission (2009
Research*eu, Brussels. Last accessed on 29/06/11 and available at http://ec. europa. eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/theworrldin-2025-report en. pdf. 9. Givaudan
Research Dialogue in Germany E. Göll, Futur the Research Dialogue in Germany, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds.
Proceedings of the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis: Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making-Seville 28 29,september 2006, 2006.4 H. S. Becker, Scenarios:
a tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government and industry, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Time for the EU to Meet Global Challenges, EUR 24364 EN, Publications Office of the European union, Luxembourg, 2010.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), FTA for Structural and Systemic transformations in Response to Grand Societal Challenges:
Integrating Insights, Transforming Institutions and Shaping Innovation systems, Seville, 12 13,may 2011, 2011.11 A. Webster, Technologies in transition, policies in transition:
Proceedings of the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis: Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making, Seville, 28 29,september 2006, 2006.30 H. Lawson, Reflexivity, The Postmodern Predicament, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.31 J
. F. Coates, Future innovations in science and technology, in: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),The International Handbook on Innovation, Pergamon, London, 2003.32 C. Leadbeater, We-Think:
Futures research methodology, Version 2. 0 AC/UNU Millennium Project, American Council for the United nations University, Washington D c.,US, 2003.57 In:
Proceedings of the Third International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis: Impacts and Implications for Policy and Decision-making Seville 16 17,october 2008, 2008.62 K. Borch, F. Mérida, Dialogue in foresight:
consensus and negotiation, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 63 E. Göll, Futur-the research dialogue in Germany, in:
K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight.
Guiding Exploratory Innovation and Strategy, the 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: 12 & 13,may 2011, May 13 2011.71 O. Saritas, J. Aylen, Using scenarios for roadmapping:
On a broad range of regional and EU projects, involving foresight and integrated assessment, Peter worked together with experts
The example of nanotechnology Petra Schaper-Rinkel AIT Austrian Institute of technology, Donau-City-Straße 1, A-1220 Vienna, Austria a r t i c l e
In the US, FTA has been used to create visionary concepts and to promote cooperation between and among agencies, departments of the federal government, academia, and stakeholders.
In Germany FTA has mainly been used to shape and define research and innovation agendas of established science industry networks.
but rather on the longer-term interplay between the organizational settings in both countries and the future-oriented nanotechnology analysis. In countries such as the US and Germany, where FTA on nanotechnology were already underway in the late 1980s,
Compared with other countries, the US and Germany started assessing the status and future trends in the area of nanotechnology early on 5,
6 and rank high with regard to R&d spending and output indicators such as publications and patent applications 7,
and development and Germany established its public funding program. Understandingwhat nanotechnology is and howit is governed requires first focusing on the governance processes associated with its development
The first set of national activities the paper analyzes is from the US, where FTA was used to create visionary concepts
The second set of national activities the paper analyzes is from Germany, where FTA was used mainly to shape
In both countries, the public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
In the context of the US Nanotechnology Initiative, four generations of products were envisioned: the first generation includes passive nanostructures (nanoparticles,
After the establishment of public funding programs in some countries and increasing risk debates, anticipatory activities included a wide range of stakeholders from politics, academia, industry and NGOS,
Examples of these participatory and future-oriented activities include consensus conferences in the US 24 and a consumer conference in Germany 25.
The US and Germany differ with regard to their commitment to national-level foresight activities (as a highly comprehensive form of FTA.
In contrast to the US, the German government has launched several technology foresight processes in the last decade 33,34.
Despite these different traditions, both countries used FTA to develop governance frameworks for nanotechnology. 3. Future-oriented technology analysis of nanotechnology in the US
and Germany The early history of nanotechnology as an emerging technology is heterogeneous. In the 1980s a first funding program was established in UK that has fallen
Usually, two US visions are seen as the starting point of nanotechnology as an emerging technology. The early individual vision of Eric Drexler, who envisioned a distant future vision of molecular manufacturing in the late 1980s,
35,36. 3 The second vision was presented to the broad public in 2000 by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative called Nanotechnology Shaping the World Atom by Atom. 22 3. 1
. Integrated vision-building and governance network-building in the US At the end of the 1990s, the US science policy community established an organizational structure around nanotechnologies
and developed a vision for nanotechnology R&d. This started in 1998 when the National science and Technology Council (NSTC), the principal executive body responsible for coordinating science and technology policy,
and Russia were used to gather additional information for worldwide studies in the field of nanostructure science and technologies 37.
The report included insights from US experts in the field, examinations of lessons learned, and integrated international perspectives collected through multinational workshops held in the US, Europe and Asia.
In comparison with the first vision generated prior to the establishment of the NNI in 1999/2000,
and envisioned the future of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative 16. He distinguishes two foundational phases, called Nano 1 and Nano 2. The first foundational phase (2001 2010),
The pluralistic nature of the US R&d system, the diverse, dynamic nature of US national political bodies and the limitations of US foresight history makes centralized goal-setting across many
national issues in the US very unlikely 32. They see widespread skepticism among US leaders of most forms of centralized,
formal government planning as a main reason for this. In the case of nanotechnology, there was no centralized and formal planning process,
Over more than a decade, the US science policy community established a continuously working core organization, built up a network and opened the network gradually to new stakeholders
and disciplines. 3. 2. Germany FTA for addressing the future of existing areas of strength In Germany,
nanotechnology has been on the policy agenda of the federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) since the late 1990s.
The nanotechnology related activities of BMBF, the main public agency in Germany in charge of promoting pre-commercial research and development,
At the onset of the German national nanotechnology initiative, officially started in the late 1990s by widely publicized funding programs for nanotechnology,
as opposed to the US case. In 2003, the BMBF developed a national strategy for future funding and support of nanotechnology.
they received funding from other programs of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)( e g.,
In 2003 the Office of Technology assessment at the German Parliament conducted a broad technology assessment on nanotechnology 49.
Through the action plan, other federal ministries8 finally joined the German nanotechnology initiative more than fifteen years after the firstmonitoring and forecasting activitieswere conducted.
In summary, for over a decade, the German variety of FTA ACTIVITIES was governed mainly by one ministry (BMBF) and focused largely on science industry relations.
Unlike in the US, there was no initiative in the beginning that brought together different actors under an independent umbrella organization.
In contrast to the US, Germany lacks an organizational structure that brings together the expertise of the broad variety of ministries, agencies, stakeholders,
The German research system is characterized by its high level of institutional fragmentation 53 and this institutional fragmentation can also be observed with regard to the governance of science, technology and innovation in the field of nanotechnology. 4. Comparing the US and Germany 4. 1. Timing and intervention Between the late 1980s and the late 1990s,
FTA aimed mainly at assessing the potential of the field known today as nanotechnology. Several industrial countries established their first programs in that field in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
But only in the end of the 1990s were disconnected the formerly fields of nanoscale science and engineering brought together under the broader umbrella definition of nanotechnology.
and in the case of the US a growing recognition to include a wider range of stakeholders
On the other hand, the increase was triggered by critics coming from voices outside the networks established in both countries.
Participatory FTA ACTIVITIES increased in both countries after 2004, when nanotechnology risks was perceived first as problems
as evidenced by first reports in the US and Germany, which documented mutual visits and mutual screening activities in the 1990s.
The US Interagency Working group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN) published a worldwide study on Nanostructure Science and Technology in 1999.
The report also documented workshops held by the panel not only in the US but also in Germany, Sweden,
and Russia to gather additional information on activities in those countries 5. In Germany, the report on the first forecast activities also documented international activities,
analyzing nanotechnology related activities in the US 6 . While the US NNI continued this international screening
and networking by conducting multinational workshops in and outside the US 3, the BMBF did not report similar activities. 4. 3. Governance structures Beside many parallel developments in the US and Germany,
such as the late consideration of societal challenges, there are also differences in governance structures. In Germany, disparate sources of knowledge were pooled not
a nano-specific organizational context was established not that could serve as an umbrella organization to promote cooperation among agencies
and ministries of the federal government and to pool the knowledge gained in stakeholders processes conducted beyond the BMBF.
As a result, the knowledge from the various nano-related FTA and participatory processes remains unconnected,
Unlike in the US, the BMBF does not include the input from the social sciences in setting a future agenda.
In Germany other ministries and government agencies have their own agendas with regard to the future governance of nanotechnology without being part of a common board where strategies are compared and aligned.
The forward-looking activities of the US nanotechnology initiative have had a major impact on the future orientation within the US political realm with regard to nanotechnology governance
whether the US initiative will be as effective in implementing its far-reaching goals as it was in pooling disparate sources of knowledge to design its vision for 2020.4.4.
In Germany, early FTA ACTIVITIES also provided justification for a policy under consideration (symbolic function) and were used also for policy conceptualization,
Unlike in the US, the governance network in Germany is centralized around one ministry (the BMBF) lacking a continuously working governance structure to bring together the variety of actors involved in nano-related innovation processes.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several industrial countries established their first programs in 450 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452
Both in the US and Germany, actors conducting early FTA did not claim to have a broad impact on public policy,
In both countries, early FTA envisioned innovative future nanotechnologies but did not provide guidance either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation to address grand societal challenges.
In the US the new vision for 2020 represents such a concept, while in Germany many different agendas were developed in parallel without a common strategy.
Comparing these two countries, the main difference lies in the existence of an umbrella organization in the US that pools heterogeneous stakeholders
and that ensures the organizational continuity to use the experience and knowledge gained in distributed FTA ACTIVITIES.
While early FTA involved experts almost exclusively fromscience and industry and governmental bodies, current future-oriented activities involve at least in the US experts from social science and humanities.
such as public engagement activities organized by researchers in the US or dialogues organized by the German Nanokomission were involving increasingly other stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations and citizens.
The updated nanotechnology vision in the US 3 is envisioning the involvement of a broader range of experts and stakeholders and addresses societal challenges through a sophisticated concept of future nanotechnology governance.
The US nanotechnology governance is oriented conceptually toward responsible research and innovation and broad participation. It has established broad networks with a focal organization as the basis for implementing its strategic vision.
The German nanotechnology policy in contrast, has no continuously operating nano-related inter-organizational setting;
it is therefore less coordinated and does not include the requirements of heterogeneous stakeholders nor make use of the knowledge gained in various FTA.
Acknowledgements This paper builds on earlier research on the governance of nanotechnology in Germany funded by the German Research Foundation DFG and also on studies for an AIT funded project on the impact of foresight (Sufo Sustainable Foresight.
Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU. COM (2011) 48, Green Paper, European commission, Brussels, 2011.5 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, IWGN, E. A t.,The Interagency
Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos, VDI Technologiezentrum, Düsseldorf, 1998, p. 220.7 J. Youtie, P. Shapira, A. Porter, Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries
evidence from Germany, J. Technol. Transf. 34 (2009) 320 342.9 M. C. Roco, Nanoscale science and engineering:
Experts'Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-areas, Brussels Luxembourg, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997.22 National science and Technology Council, Nanotechnology, in:
Concepts and Practice, 2008, pp. 154 169.33 K. Cuhls, From forecasting to foresight processes new participative foresight activities in Germany, J. Forecast. 22 (2003) 93 111.34
K. Cuhls, A. Beyer-Kutzner, W. Ganz, P. Warnke, The methodology combination of a national foresight process in Germany, Technol.
Chang. 77 (2010) 1448 1456.48 A. Zweck, G. Bachmann, W. Luther, C. Ploetz, Nanotechnology in Germany:
Report and Recommendations of the German Federal government's Nanokommission for 2008,2008. 51 Nanokommission of the German Federal government, Responsible use of nanotechnologies:
report and recommendations of the German Nanokommission 2011, in: W.-M. Catenhusen, A. Grobe (Eds.
Dr. Petra Schaper-Rinkel, political scientist, is a senior scientist and scientific project manager at the AIT Austrian Institute of technology in Vienna.
Envisioning structural transformation lessons from a foresight project on the future of innovation Elna Schirrmeister, Philine Warnke Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany a r t
It was carried out between 2009 and 2012 by the Austrian Institute of technology AIT (Austria), Fraunhofer ISI (Germany), Z punkt (Germany) and Solutioning Design Scenarios SDS (Belgium.
whereas an intuitive approach without any software support has been practiced for many years in the US 17.
one fromthe USA and two from Russia answered the survey. The vision based survey was received very positively by the responding experts.
Innovation Leadership Forum, UK (Russia) Three seminars in the framework of international conferences with researchers and company representatives in Nürnberg, London and Exeter) 4. City-driven systemic
Germany Workshop with stakeholders of future innovation camps in Berlin 6. Ubiquitous Innovation (including dark sides) Rolandas Strazdas Professor,
Berlin, Germany (US) Workshop in Berlin with stakeholders and key actors from cradle to cradle communityb in Berlin 8. Social experimentation Stéphane Vincent La 27e Région,
JRC-IPTS (Ed.),The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), Book of Abstracts, Sevilla, 2011.5 P.-B. Joly, A. Rip, M. Callon, Reinventing innovation, in:
Eco-innovation Putting the EU on the Path to a Resource and Energy efficient Economy, 2009.9 J. Tidd, J. Bessant, K. Pavitt, Managing Innovation:
Philine Warnke is a researcher in the Foresight & Policy development Department of the Austrian Institute of technology (AIT) in Vienna.
and subsequently tracked through a series of special editions of multiple journals arising from the FTA conference series in Seville, for example, Scapolo 2;
Similar tendencies are visible in investigator-driven Research funding models in most countries evolved but only slowly towards accommodating more interdisciplinary thematic approaches.
but a counter hypothesis would suggest that deeply embedded institutions are equipped better to fight for survival (one thinks of the persistence of at best partially-reformed institutions from the Soviet-dominated era in some post-transition countries).
For science the need to demonstrate impact dominates the policy agenda in some countries and even the most responsive-mode oriented of European programmes,
For FTA ACTIVITY breakthrough science is less something to be anticipated 2 From the well-known quote by the former US Secretary of defense,
The lists given above for EU and US research policies consist entirely of well-recognised challenges in
with the aim of improving the robustness of EU research and innovation strategies and programmes. In slightly more familiar territory, FTA ACTIVITIES clearly have a role in articulating recognised grand challenges.
Towards integration of the field and new methods, Technological forecasting & Social Change 71 (2004) 287 303 2004.2 F. Scapolo, New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis the 2004 EU US
and R&i policy at the European and international level, serving on a number of EU expert groups. 470 L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 467
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011