usa

Usa

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

A similarly linear perspective but from a different angle holds for the critical technologies"studies conducted in the US, in France and The netherlands.

'cf http://www. minacned. nl/nl/activiteiten/roadmap mnt food nutrition. php. 6 MANCEF is based the US Micro and Nanotechnology Commercialization and Education Foundation;

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.

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:

US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.18 Technopolis, et al. Using Logic models,

Second, a huge diversity can be observed among continents (note the differences among the broad models of higher education e g. in the US, Asia and Europe), across countries on the same continent,

following the Bayh-Dole Act of the US. 24 These S&t, societal and economic factors coupled with various policies

Currently, postgraduate courses offered by US universities are particularly attractive for foreign students, 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,

Policy 27 (6)( 1998) 569 588.46 K. Aiginger, Copying the US or developing a New European Model policy strategies of successful European countries in the nineties, paper presented at the UN

Land use transportation scenario planning projects have been carried out since the late 1980s in the US 37. In particular metropolitan transportation has moved from a supply-side focus siting facilities to meet projected demands toward a more 1152 E. Störmer et al./

A systematic and Fig. 2. A systemic framework for methods 10.1 For instance, the TA studies carried out by the US Office of Technology (OTA) in 1974 1995 primarily served to inform Congress

'and were based on US experience of the Delphi method. As a result, there are two general shapes to Foresight studies that flow from early decisions about their procedures and management structure.

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

The Centre is to be set up in cooperation between three US institutions, three Luxembourg public research centres,

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

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.

and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European commission. 2. The Academy of Finland is comparable to the US National science Foundation

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

In the simplest form, for example the US Critical technologies Program which ran from 1989 to 1998,

and Technology agenda that could be aligned with the US Department of Homeland Security as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North america.

Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology, Oakhill Press, Greensboro, 1997 (available at http://www. josephcoates. com/2025 pdf. html (accessed 29/07/2009)).

the case of‘Future',Seville, First International EU US Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, 2004 (available at http://forera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta/papers

so for example, James Hanson's presentation to the US Congress in 1988 about possible global warming on the horizon,

and response of the US toward China's growth Kyoto protocol full implementation Political resistance to economic globalization and deregulation Rising economies demand for energy, electricity drives modernisation

The majority of the respondents from the US (54%)considered low likelihood of occurrence for discontinuities.

R. Johnston, C. Cagnin/Futures 43 (2011) 313 316 314 The first FTA Conference in 2004 gathered predominantly the EU-US community together to take stock of the developments

Proceedings of the EU-US Scientific Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, 2004, European communities Technical Report EUR 21473 EN. 5 F. Scapolo, New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis:

The 2004 EU-US Seminar, Technological forecasting and Social Change 72 (9)( 2005. 6 Cagnin, et al.

R. O. van Merkerk, H. van Lente/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1094 1111 1100 Nantero (US Patent No. 20030165074.

''in this respect, has been used in the US to define the work of computer scientists in exploring data models that predict

and prioritizing the future areas of regulation. 6. These were the cases of the future-oriented technology assessment exercises conducted during the period 1974-1995 by the US Office of Technology assessment (OTA).

The US National science Foundation (NSF) shows forth on 42 of 1691 publications since 2009. The swiss NSF accounts for 35 of some 41 papers with Swiss funding;

US National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) is second with 4780, but much reduced activity recently;

and interactions. 2. Methodological approach 2. 1 Delphi method background Delphi was developed in the 1950s by the US RAND Corporation

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:

12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, US Naval War College, Newport R i. USA, June 19 21,2007, 2007, Available at:

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,

Futures research methodology, Version 2. 0 AC/UNU Millennium Project, American Council for the United nations University, Washington D c.,US, 2003.57 In:

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.

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,

the US and Germany started assessing the status and future trends in the area of nanotechnology early on 5,

The first set of national activities the paper analyzes is from the US, where FTA was used to create visionary concepts

In the context of the US Nanotechnology Initiative, four generations of products were envisioned: the first generation includes passive nanostructures (nanoparticles,

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

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,

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

as opposed to the US case. In 2003, the BMBF developed a national strategy for future funding and support of nanotechnology.

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,

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,

and in the case of the US a growing recognition to include a wider range of stakeholders

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,

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

Unlike in the US, the BMBF does not include the input from the social sciences in setting a future agenda.

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.

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.

Both in the US and Germany, actors conducting early FTA did not claim to have a broad impact on public policy,

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

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.

whereas an intuitive approach without any software support has been practiced for many years in the US 17.

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,

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

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

A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley US, Reading, MA, 1978.17 T. C. Garrett, D. H. Buisson, C. M. Yap, National culture

This International Seminar was founded on the success of the joint EU US Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) that was organised by JRC-IPTS in 2004.

, popular American fiction series are watched on the day that they are broadcasted in the US. The PP3 is also a very intensive internet user who uses multiple devices and screens (e g.,

The project was intended to increase the understanding of the US car market by having managers live with ordinary American families for a certain time

He maintains active connecttion with foresight organizations in Europe, Asia, the US and Brazil. Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 33 evaluation of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) should be based upon an assessment of foresiigh quality in terms of the conjectures produced,

Paper presented at EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assesssmen Methods, held 13 14 may 2004, Seville, Spain.

Paper presented at EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods, held 13 14 may 2004, Seville, Spain.

that furthhe develops into‘converging technologies'has emerged in the US and in Europe. It emphasizes producctiv interactions between previously separate fields of research and technological development.

In the US the term‘converging technologies'was used first at a 2001 workshop organized by the US National science Foundation and the US Departmeen of Commerce entitled‘Converging Technologiie for Improving Human Performance'.

since been held in the US (Roco and Bainbridge, 2002). In Europe the concept of NBIC was studied by A high-Level Expert Group

and the US for a number of years followed by administration of industrria research and of government science and technology (S&t) in Australia.

Paper presented at EU US Seminar: New Technollog Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, held 13 14 may 2004, Seville, Spain.

and towards linking STI efforts more closely with market forces and the private sector (US Embassy Beijing 1996).

which was inspired strongly by the US National science Foundation. The NSFC was a product of the official reform of the S&t system

They stressed the need to meet the challenges of the global technology revolution and competition and pointed to the US Strategic Defense Initiatives as well as Europe's EUREKA Program.

Implications for American Competitiveness'prepared for US China Economic and Security review Commission, <http://www. uscc. gov/researchpapers/2011/USCC REPORT China's program for Science and technology modernization. pdf>accessed 25 may 2011.

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.

all the companies producing Chinese herbal medicines followed the regulations of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

To comply with the US FDA regulations, each new herbaceeou medicine was made by a single composition extraacte from a particular herb.

) A group of Taiwanese scientists trained in US universities introduced modern molecular biotechnology to Taiwanese universities in the 1980s.

Giesecke, S. 2000)‘ The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany',Research policy, 29: 205 23.

This 13-year project coordinated by the US Department of energy and the National institutes of health aimed to discover all the estimated 20,000 25,000 human genes