eu

Asia-pacific (26)
Austria (131)
Brazil (5)
China (196)
Country (511)
Eu (475)
Germany (222)
Luxembourg (118)
Russia (105)
Spain (297)
Switzerland (95)
Usa (120)

Introduction New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis The 2004 EU US seminarb Fabiana Scapolo European commission Directorate General Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

(DG JRC-IPTS), E-41092 Seville, Spain Received 20 february 2005 The contribution included in this special issue builds on material presented to the first EU US Scientific Seminar

Scapolo@cec. eu. int Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1059 1063 The seminar was organised to encourage cross-fertilization along six key issues of relevance for FTA research:

8 See in particular the online guide of the EU Forlearn project (http://forlearn. jrc. es/guide/0 home/index. htm),

the first two projects designed according to an embryonic version of the AF approach were ICTRANS16 and the Nordic Hydrogen Energy Foresight. 17 Also the priority-setting approach of the EU-project FISTERA adopted elements

and 2005 36.19 This approach was developed in the context of an EU-funded project SNM-T. See for instance 37,25,

These and yet other complexities are amplified by the many administrative options that can be pursued in the implementation of shared research agendas, ranging from the relatively weak coordination of national 3 http://cordis. europa. eu/coordination/era net

ERA NETS and other European coordination tools are indicative of the transformation of the EU innovation policy from financially oriented measures to the facilitation and monitoring of stakeholder processes

we have discussed the use of decision support methodologies in the development of a shared research agenda inwoodwisdom-Net, an ERA NET on wood material research that is an example of the coordination tools for EU innovation policies.

This is congruent with the ongoing transformation where the EU is seen increasingly as the facilitator of the international collaboration activities.

www. technology assessment. eu. 530 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 but then proceeded to outsource the further development of product

Prerequisites and potential benefits for assessing Nanotechnology, EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 2004, pp. 13 14.28 T. Fleischer, M. Decker,

U. Fiedeler, Assessing Emerging technologies Methodical Challenges and the Case of Nanotechnologies, EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 2004, pp. 13 14.29 S. Kuhlmann, et al.

In this paper, we argue that one higher level of reference is offered by a commonly agreed goal amongst the EU Member States

if emerging 2 Phd research will be complete by Jan. 2010.3 Strategic goal for 2010, set for Europe at the Lisbon European council March 2000 (http://www. europarl. europa. eu/summits

Seen in the context of a transition economy and a political system under extreme pressure to embrace change during the EU pre-accession phase,

4 in proceedings EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.10 A. Havas, Terminology and Methodology for Benchmarking Foresight programmes,

Sept. 2006.15 L. Georghiou, M. Keenan, Towards a Typology for Evaluating Foresight exercises, Paper 2 in proceedings EU US Seminar:

toward integration of the field and new methods, Preliminary Briefing Paper in proceedings EU US Seminar:

New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.17 M. Ladikas, M. Decker, Assessing the Impact of future-Oriented Technology assessment, Paper 1 in proceedings EU

using the case of EU universities as an example, to rectify these shortcomings. A set of‘cascading'visions are devised to demonstrate the close links between three levels.

First, alternative futures are developed for the EU by considering (i) the overall rationale of EU policies;

and (ii) the standing of the EU vis-à-vis the Triad. Second, the different directions are identified, in

Alternative futures for the EU; The European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) and universities; Trends and drivers for changes;

a striking example of that approach is the recent EU Green Paper on the European research area 3. Georghiou

but limited instances of clearly documented FTA3 activities (p. 2). Although the‘sponsors'of the reviewed exercises range from a single university to international organisations (the EU, OECD and UNESCO),

using the case of EU universities as an example, to rectify these shortcomings. As the above list of factors that shape the future of universities reveals,

the EU itself is still evolving; in part due to a number of internal factors e g. the recently initiated strategic processes and enlargement are the most visible ones,

The strategic responses of the EU would also determine the range and‘relative weight'of stakeholders to be involved in a participatory prospective analysis on the future of universities:

the role of university staff, students and the civil society at large, policy-makers or businesses might differ significantly in distinct‘futures'for the EU. Hence,

the starting point here is the EU, as the broadest socioeconomic context for universities, with its own science, technology and innovation (STI) policy tools,

and compete with other research actors active inside the EU. 6 Finally, futures are devised for universities. 4 The most visible ones are the so-called Bologna process, the regular meetings of education ministers,

Also indirectly and less manifestly the various EC funded projects and expert groups on higher education can also shape these policies. 5 ERIA is understood throughout this paper as the set of all relevant actors of RTDI processes in the EU

In other words,‘ERIA-policies'of the EU are just one element of ERIA, as it is composed of all other EU, national and regional policies affecting RTDI processes and performance, the activities of firms, various types of R&d units and institutes, higher education organisations, financial intermediaries,

as well as a host of supporting, bridging and service organisations, and most importantly the systemic features, i e. the interactions (competition, communication, networking, co-operation, etc.)

among these actors. 6 Non-EU universities and Business r&d units are already operating in the EU,

At the first level the overall rationale of EU policies, and its standing vis-à-vis the Triad regions are considered as major‘variables'of the alternative futures for the EU. At the second,

it is assumed that the European research and Innovation Area can evolve in different directions, depending on the main features of the EU to a significant extent,

but obviously having its own dynamics, too. 8 Finally, at the third level, the diversity of universities can be explored by devising futures for different ideal types of universities,

one should not overlook the significant diversity across the EU at least in three aspects: the balance of research activities between universities and other players;

As for the second one, suffice it to say that in some bigger EU countries e g. in Germany

as well as across EU countries, by taking into account the‘quality'and‘efficiency'of their research and education activities.

A recent, major attempt to analyse the performance of EU universities is 32.16 The term itself higher education clearly reflects this feature.

a huge variety can be observed among the EU (and OECD) members both in terms of their‘pool'of researchers,

Yet, a clear finding is that the business enterprise sector is a dominant one in the majority of OECD (and EU) countries,

including those from the EU. Nearly 60%of science and engineering doctoral students coming from EU countries have firm plans to stay in the US upon the completion of their studies,

instead of returning to the EU. This proportion has risen notably over the past decade: from 44.5%at the beginning of the 1990s to 57.5%at the turn of the millennium (43, p. 57.

Competition for talents both intra-EU, and globally is likely not merely to continue, but intensify significantly. 2. Increasingly stronger international co-operation in research

(and innovation) projects at a global level and an EU level, as none of the Triad regions let alone individual countries can be self-sufficient.

A possible backlash against globalisation can slow down this trend, however, given a growing scepticism among the population regarding internationalisation 4. It can be fed by fears of terror attacks and wars, concerns about the increasing immigration, loss of national identity and pride.

The overall rationale of ERIA, in which EU universities operate, is also likely to have an impact on devising evaluation criteria and methods.

The second refers to lists of priorities and proposed actions (for different stakeholders, in this case e g. university rectors and deans, regional, national and EU policy-makers, businesses and local communities as partners of universities), inputs

The use of the recommendations e g. strategy formation for a specific university, strategies for the higher education sector in a region, a country or the EU is up to the decision-makers.

and thus first visions are devised on the EU as a whole. Then the European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) is taken into account as a‘mezzo level'system.

The major underlying assumptions for building visions for EU universities should be spelt out before addressing the more detailed issues,

various EU polices under the label of the Lisbon Process, especially concerning the relative weight of competitiveness27 and cohesion objectives,

thriving EU can set aside resources to promote cohesion regions, while narrowing the gaps between advanced and laggard regions would enhance the competitiveness of the EU as a whole).

This paper takes the latter view, and thus attributes a great significance to innovation processes in the cohesion regions/countries,

advanced EU member states (given the significant differences among their regions),(b) for the four‘classic'cohesion countries,

and should not preclude competition among universities. 4. 1. Futures for the EU and ERIA The point of departure is a highly selective set of fundamental features of the EU:(

i) its main strategic intention/orientation in terms of putting the main emphasis on cohesion (societal issues) 26 The degree, to

but only subjective judgements could Table 1 Visions for the EU EU vs. Triad Internal strategy Cohesion (societal issues) Competitiveness(‘multi-speed EU')Successful EU A) Double success:

A carefully balanced development strategy of the EU, keeping the‘welfare'elements, too, at an EU level

but pursuing these cohesion/welfare policies in a more flexible way, and using more appropriate, refined policy tools a leads to an‘externally'successful and cohesive EU. B b) Successful multi-speed EU:

A number of the already successful EUREGIONS are promoted heavily by EUPOLICIES (funds) as‘engines of growth',making themeven stronger, leading to enhanced competitiveness of the EU vis-à-vis the Triad regions.

In the meantime, the gap between these successful EU regions and the less developed ones significantly widens, even inside the big,

advanced member states. c Laggard EU C) The EU development strategy is incapable of harmonising the requirements of competitiveness and cohesion;

policies meant to support the latter are not modernised, and thus take up too many resources, and hamper the processes required for an enhanced competitiveness.

D) Failed multi-speed EU: A multi-speed EU strategy in spite of ignoring cohesion fails to close the gap with other Triad regions,

while it widens the gap between the advanced and less developed EU regions. Ca) Shaky cohesion:

At least temporary achievements in terms of stronger cohesion (at the expense of external competitiveness, and thus being shaky).

e g. internal (inappropriate policies and/or poor implementation), external (improving EU performance, but an even quicker development of the other Triad regions).

In any case, it is highly likely that key players of strong EU regions would act together both at an intra-regional and an interregional level probably also with their counterparts outside of the EU. a The current success of Denmark,

or not a‘federal EU'.(See also two visions of the EUROPOLIS project, coined Federal Europe,

c Two types of EU behaviour can lead to this future state:(i) a conscious strategic choice to use available funds and other policy tools (e g. regulation) exclusively or excessively for boosting competitiveness,

In a radical scenario, not to be discussed here, the loss of most/all EU policy-making power to national, regional,

EU visions: Double success vs. Successful multi-speed EU ERIA EU Double success Successful multi-speed EU Rationale for EU RTDI policies Double-track:

tackle societal challenges, promote cohesion and enhance competitiveness Excessive emphasis on enhancing competitiveness Co-ordination of policies Intense and successful policy co-ordination among regions,

consciously supported by harmonised national and EU policies, with a specific aim to enhance competitiveness and advance cohesion‘Multi-speed'policy co-ordination:

intense and successful among advanced regions, supported by national and EU policies; ad hoc and weak co-ordination among laggard regions, between laggard and advanced regions, at best with halfhearted, reluctant EU efforts Location of major HE/R centres Widely distributed across the EU,

weaker centres are strengthened, and new ones are set up in laggard regions with a specific objective to promote cohesion Concentrated in already strong,

some (minimal) research efforts to tackle social challenges stemming from the widening gaps between flourishing and laggard EU regions Mobility of researchers, university staff and students Two-way traffic:

activities (across national borders) Widely occurring across the EU and globally; policies aimed at promoting the integration of RTDI activities have an explicit aim of fostering cohesion, too,

among other EU-wide issues Mainly among strong, successful regions across the Triad, driven by businesses,

EU funds earmarked for RTD infrastructure have an explicit aim of fostering cohesion, too Up-to-date equipment is concentrated in strong regions,

EU funds for RTD infrastructure do not pursue cohesion objectives Innovation systems, co-operation among key players a Strong, flexible innovation systems in a large number of regions (with their own specific strengths),

These different visions for the EU as a whole have strong implications for the ERIA, too. In principle therefore, different types of ERIAS can be derived from the above five visions. 30 In practice,

however, not Table 2 (continued) ERIA EU Double success Successful multi-speed EU Innovation systems, co-operation among key players a Intense communication among businesses, academia, policy-makers,

strong academia industry co-operation, mutually beneficial, intense links among large firms and SMES both inside and across flourishing regions Coordinated, joint efforts supported by EU funds

weak RTDI policy constituencies Insufficient, halfhearted EU-supported efforts at best to strengthen weaker innovation systems of laggard regions/countries RTDI services (information, consultancy, incubation, etc.

Widely distributed across the whole EU, sharing experience across stronger and weaker regions, geared towards specific needs not pursuing to diffuse‘one size fits all'type practices, supported by an appropriate, co-ordinatedmix of regional, national and EU

policies Mainly in the successful EU regions, sharing experience among themselves and with their partners in Triad regions, geared towards specific needs, supported by an appropriate, coordinated mix of regional, national and EU policies Financial infrastructure Conscious EU efforts (policies,

guidelines, networking, exchange of experience) to improve financial infrastructure across the EU No conscious EU efforts to improve financial infrastructure in the laggard regions Policy-preparation methods,

practices Conscious EU efforts (guidelines, networking, exchange of experience) to improve policymakkin practices across the EU No conscious EU efforts (guidelines,

networking, exchange of experience) to improve policy-making practices in the laggard regions a Co-operation with the relevant Triad partners is taken for granted,

i e. not discussed here as a distinguishing feature. 30 As already stressed, ERIA is understood throughout this paper as the set of all relevant actors of RTDI processes in the EU,

as well as their interactions. Therefore, by making a strong link between the EU structures and strategies on the one hand

and the ERIA, on the other, does not deny the possibility that‘ERIA policies'of the EU can enjoy some level of independence from the overall strategy of the EU. Yet,

it would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss when this potential‘discrepancy'(or‘mismatch')can be seen as a‘healthy, creative'tension, i e.

Moreover, devising 10 15 visions for the ERIA (2 3 ERIA visions times 5 EU visions) would introduce an unmanageable complexity into this exercise.

A) Double success and B) Successful multi-speed EU. What sort of ERIA would be needed to support an‘externally'successful, cohesive EU (Double success?

What sorts of policies are needed to bring about that type of ERIA (EU vs. national policies; STI and other policies, co-ordination of these polices?

In other words, how to set in motion a virtuous circle of‘external'success (competitiveness) of the EU and RTDI efforts?

and eventually enhanced external competitiveness of the EU as whole; that is part of the Double success vision. 31 The alternative approach would favour using the EU funds exclusively

or excessively for boosting already successful EU regions, which would diminish, or even‘dry',the Structural Funds,

and that would lead to a Successful multi-speed EU. Not all of these questions can be discussed here as appropriate answers to them would require a dialogue among the key players,

i e. any individual effort to come up with relevant replies is bound to fail almost by definition,

but the main features of the types of ERIA‘fitting'to the broad visions of Double success and Successful multi-speed EU are presented in Table 2. 4. 2. Futures states of universities

whether the emphasis put on cohesion goals would convince laggard EU countries/regions to consider RTDI as an important enabler of more efficient and faster catching-up,

regional, national or EU (ERIA) policies, a much more refined set of ideal types should be developed, based on a thorough understanding of the main features of existing and hypothetical future universities.

'As already mentioned, visions for universities are built on alternative futures for the EU and ERIA, that is, Double success and Successful multi-speed EU, respectively.

the alternative futures devised at EU and ERIA levels. Thus, their impacts should be discussed separately. As for legitimisation and validation of knowledge

intense interactions with other players in (regional, national, sectoral, international) innovation systems and with the society Universities do not understand/take on their role in addressing societal issues New activities to promote cohesion among EU regions

and the societal and technoeconnomi requirements of an ERIA in the Double success EU Universities understand the societal and techno-economic requirements of an ERIA in the Double success EU,

competition for talents Only a few‘world-class'EU universities can attract talents from advanced Triad regions A large (r) number of EU universities become attractive for talents from advanced

Triad regions Inside the EU, mobility is mainly a‘one-way street':'brain-drain prevails from laggard regions to booming ones,

promoted by grants offered by universities located in the advanced regions Universities located in advanced and laggard regions of the EU actively cooperate in promoting‘two-way traffic':

not even from the EU Integration of RTDI activities (across national borders) Only a few‘world-class'EU universities can join global networks at the forefront of RTDI activities Widely occurs across the EU and globally;

the full potential of multi-disciplinary research is exploited not Awidely used practice at universities across the EU;

which would also enhance their visibility and social esteem. 34 5. Conclusions This article considered alternative futures for EU universities.

Successful multi-speed EU Trends, driving forces Universities Largely unchanged universities Radically reformed universities The role/mission of universities The main emphasis is on teaching and‘basic research,

'not much interactionwith other players in innovation systems and with the society Excessive emphasis on enhancing the competitiveness of EU businesses;

competition for talents Same as in the Double success case A large (r) number of EU universities become attractive for talents from advanced Triad regions Conscious efforts on a‘one-way street'type

mobility inside the EU; brain-drain from laggard regions to flourishing ones, promoted by grants offered by universities located in the advanced regions Integration of RTDI activities (across national borders) Same as in the Double success case,

and supported by EU policies; laggards are left out Some EU universities actively participate in cross-border RTDI activities,

aimed at further enhancing the competitiveness of the advanced regions‘Elite'universities are active partners in these processes,

however, that universities are not predominant research performers in the developed OECD (and EU) countries. Not only several other players conduct research,

considering different future states first for the EU and the European research and Innovation Area, and then for universities themselves.

The benefits of this proposed method are discussed by using the example of the EU, ERIA and EU universities.

as well as for decision-makers in general, a main advantage can be that major strategic decisions in our case on the overall rationale of the EU policies

without taking into account the‘broader picture'would shape the EU, as well as the ERIA. This‘muddling through'might seem to be preferable for those,

'What is striking in this respect is the sheer lack of alternative visions in the 2007 Green Paper on The European research area 3. A major benefit for policy-makers (at the EU,

by changing the various‘parameters',e g. the overall rationale of the EU or national policies (i e.‘

‘switching'between different EU futures), or the actual STI policy tools, as well as the links between STI policies, per se,

e g. exploring the impacts of given polices on the mobility of researchers and students inside the EU or globally.

EU policy-makers might also use this structured way of futures-building as one of the tools assisting their initiatives to align national policies;

too, operated either in the EU or other Triad regions. Given the importance of strategic thinking in this field,

http://www. europa. eu. int/comm/regional policy/sources/docoffic/2007/osc/index en. htm. 581 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008

as well as on foresight and prospective analyses, been a member of several EU expert groups on foresight,

http://forera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2008/intro. html (2009-07-30). 2 F. Scapolo, M. Rader, A Porter, Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA:

totti. konnola@ec. europa. eu. Jack Smith Defence RD, Ottawa, Canada Annele Eerola VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland 1

Overview and Interpretative Framework, European Science and Technology observatory (ESTO), Paris, 2001.57 I. Miles, Appraisal of Alternative methods and Procedures for Producing Regional foresight, EU Kommission, Brüssel, 2002.58 R. Popper,

and scenario methods in a proactive risk assessment of telecommunication and electric power infrastructures was conducted in an EU funded project Integrated Risk Reduction of Information-based Infrastructure Systems (IRRIIS,

EFMN European foresight monitoring Network, 2009, Available at http://www. foresight-network. eu/files/reports/efmn mapping 2007. pdf (Read July 8th 2009.

http://reports. eea. europa. eu/GH-07-97-595-EN-C2/en/riskindex. html (read June 12th 2008.

1999.42 JRC and IPTS FOR-LEARN On-line Foresight guide in http://forlearn. jrc. ec. europa. eu/guide/4 methodology/framework. htm (read May 28th 2009).

References 1 Forlearn, http://forlearn. jrc. ec. europa. eu/guide/1 why-foresight/functions. htm, access:

axel. volkery@eea. europa. eu (A. Volkery. 1 See for more information the website: www. efmn. org. 2 See for more information the website:

The influence of the EU's Code of conduct (the Code hereafter) for nanoscience nano-technology and nano artifacts is a further matter shaping the future situation surrounding the nano-field.

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

The normative motivation is set down in the EU Action plan and leads to instrumentalist approaches being used

This was one vision of the future proposed by a number of codes of conduct tabled in the December 2007 EU meeting.

where researchers were anticipating that the EU responsible development code may affect funding..The codes are particularly enabling for medical devices,

but their structure varies significantly (EU DG Research 2005). It is difficult to obtain comparable statistics for research council funding activities on the scale of the European union (EU) or countries of the Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development (OECD). In Denmark,

approximately 20 25%of public research is funded through research councils and national research programmes (Forskningsstyrelsen 2003). Both national research councils and research programmes often channel money to new and important emerging research areas and topics.

In Proceedings from the EU US Scientific Seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting and assessment methods, 13 14 may, Seville, Spain.

EU DG Research. 2005. Final Report. Examining the design of national research programmes. Prepared by Optima Ltd, VDI/VDE-Innovation and Technik Gmbh, EC Contract Ref.

although the level of gross expenditure on r&d (GERD) in Luxembourg at 1. 25%of GDP in 2006 still remains one of the lowest in the Europeea Union (EU). Afuller reviewof the evolution of the Luxembourg research system is offered by Meyer

In Paper presented at the EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods, 13 14 may, Sevilla, Spain.

3) EU-policy;(4) Networking. These four crosscutting topics were regarded also as crucial for the future,

In this final phase, the role of the Municipal Department for EU Strategy and Economic development (MA 27) that was in charge of coordinating the entire foresight

5) 200 SMES taking part in projects of the EU's Seventh Research Framework programme (FP7;(

Paper presented at EU US seminar: the role of foresight in the selection of research policy priorities, 13 14 may 2002, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Seville, Spain.

idnews Letter=117&idsommaire=3, http://www. energy-enviro. eu/index. php? PAGE=394&node id=394&lang=1 and http://www. risoe. dk/rispubl/art/2007 203 paper. pdf 9. The respondents included 57 out of the 120 panellists.

In its first iteration in 2004 it was billed as an EU-US Scientific Seminar but the scope has widened

and the long wave, Futures 34 (3 4 april 2002) 317 336.5 F. Scapolo, New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis the 2004 EU-US seminar, Technological forecasting

luke. georghiou@mbs. ac. uk (L. Georghiou) jennifer. harper@gov. mt (J. C. Harper) fabiana. scapolo@ec. europa. eu (F