& future technology of Korea-challenges and opportunities (Korea 2030) China's Report of Technology foresight 2004 Report year 2005 2005 2004 Project promoter/initiator Ministry of Education
, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan The Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of korea Ministry of Science and Technology agency or organization responsible for the foresight activity Science and Technology foresight Center, National Institute
and policy governance sub-systems in which FTA is embedded (or on the contrary, with which certain FTA APPROACHES would clash).
(i) the perceived policy needs/opportunities to be tackled by FTA,(ii) the chosen FTA APPROACH and its methods and (iii) the policy governance sub-system,
At the same time, they do not fit into current institutional and governance structures. In that sense dealing with grand challenges introduces new conceptual, methodological and operational challenges for FTA.
and governance levels 10. They typically involve complex and systemic relationships within and between social, technological, economic, environmental, and value systems.
The very nature of grand challenges in most cases requires co-operation and co-ordination across (i) policy domains and (ii) governance (policy) levels.
and demographic or environmental factors feasible in the current policy governance structures? do need we FTA (more precisely:
foresight as part of the broader set of FTA) on innovation systems and governance structures? To what extent the current decision-makers and other major‘gatekeepers'would be open to launch and finance such exercises,
Shaper-Rinkel 13 analyses future-oriented governance of emerging technologies in the USA and in Germany,
and perspectives from the outset of an endeavour in order to properly foster nanotechnology by establishing governance structures able to coordinate interactions of relevant actors.
Shaper-Rinkel 13 analyses future-oriented governance of emerging technologies. She explores the role that different types of FTA played in the development of nanotechnology governance in the USA and in Germany.
In the USA FTA was used to create visionary concepts and to promote co-operation between various actors.
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.
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), focused largely on science-industry relations, and moving from forecasting activities and expert-driven identification processes towards the inclusion of expertise from a broader range of disciplines, a wider range of stakeholders and sometimes also the knowledge of lay people.
either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation in order to address grand societal challenges.
and practice of FTA should consider the governance dimension from the beginning by acknowledging that monitoring
and its governance structure by including or excluding certain type of knowledge and expertise. This claim,
Defending Against the Unknown, the Uncertain & the Unexpected, Presidents & Prime ministers, vol. 11, Issue 2, 2002, pp. 33 36,(Mar/Apr 2 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas
13 P. Shaper-Rinkel, The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology, Technol.
He has advised national governments and international organisations on the above issues. Ozcan Saritas (Phd) is a Senior Research fellow at the Manchester Institute of Innovation research (MIOIR
Looking at collaboration in the wider context of collaborative governance, Ansell and Gash 76 conclude that collaboration between stakeholders tends to develop
Manage. 24 (8)( 2012) 735 751.15 J. Calof, J. E. Smith, Critical success factors for government-led foresight, Sci.
, Collaborative governance in theory and practice, J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18 (4)( 2008) 543 571.
it appears that if the Dutch government aims at a transition towards more sustainable generation,
Kristian Borch b, Ted Fuller c a SVR, Research centre of the Flemish Government, Boudewijnlaan 30, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium b Department of Management Engineering
and governments deal with international scientific developments in different ways through the policies they pursue 14.
a tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government and industry, Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Currently Peter works at the Research centre of the Flemish Government where he is in charge of foresight and sustainability assessment.
The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: 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
) have played in the development of nanotechnology governance. 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.
Especially the inter-organizational setting can be considered a crucial condition for maximizing the impact that participatory FTA can have in the future governance of nanotechnology. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Governance Emerging technologies Key enabling technologies Nanotechnology Public engagement Foresight Technology assessment Responsible research and innovation 1. Introduction As science and technology become more central to economic development,
the question of future-oriented governance of emerging technologies gets raised repeatedly. A decade ago, the question addressed how to maximize the contribution of such technologies to economic innovation with the intention of enhancing competitiveness 1, 2. Today,
to develop governance frameworks and to address national innovation systems. In the case of nanotechnology, a variety of FTA ACTIVITIES have been in use over the last quarter of a century to structure the field itself
and to establish governance structures in the field of nanotechnology. Compared with other countries, the US and Germany started assessing the status and future trends in the area of nanotechnology early on 5,
and howit is governed requires first focusing on the governance processes associated with its development and then recognizing that the Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 E-mail address:
The paper analyzes the role that different types of future-oriented technology analysis played in the development of nanotechnology governance.
and to promote cooperation between and among agencies, departments of the federal government, academia, and other stakeholders.
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.
How are specific governance measures related to FTA and to the establishment of focal organizations? What are the contributions of the distinct future-oriented approaches to the development of nanotechnology governance?
2. Analyzing the role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of nanotechnology 2. 1. Nanotechnology: the field, its definition and its governance The Technical Committee 229 on Nanotechnologies of the International Standardization Organization (ISO) issued a definition of nanotechnology in 2010
which contains the same elements as those used over the last decades: nanotechnologies include understanding and controlling matter
and processes at the nanoscale, where the onset of size-dependent phenomena usually enables novel applications.
although the impact of fta itself on the governance of nanotechnology has not been the subject of analysis. The scope of nanotechnology governance covers both anticipating
which is central to governance. Governance is broader than government covering non-state actors, and is characterized by continuing interactions among network members 15.
Today, future governance is seen as crucial for the development of nanotechnology 16.2.2. Approaching the future of nanotechnology:
the scope of future-oriented technology analysis Several distinct approaches toward anticipating the longer-term implications of nanotechnology have been taken.
Governments that established nanotechnology funding programs later, such as Denmark, used national level technology foresight processes to prepare
commid=381983 2 Nanotechnology and the governance of nanotechnology are intertwined furthermore with the discourse on converging technologies, referring to the synergistic combination of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences (NBIC),
where a similar governance framework as in the case of nanotechnology is discussed 10 (M. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies, J. Nanopart.
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
. 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 Development in The next Decade 1. Vision building at this stage was accompanied by early cooperation and coordination between and among agencies and departments of the federal government.
Over 150 participants and contributors from government, science, and industry were involved in developing the vision.
For its part, the government's role is to improve and accelerate the uptake of technology through funding, education and awareness-raising.
‘National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Leading to a New Industrial revolution',should approximately double the Federal government's annual investment in nanoscience,
the new report written a decade later focuses more on governance and on concepts to involve
The report emphasized the concept of anticipatory governance of nanotechnology that was introduced by social scientists at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State university.
and participatory governance, and real-time technology assessment 3. The report refers to the previous involvement of a broad variety of stakeholders
The need to increase multi-stakeholder and public participation in nanotechnology governance is stated as one of the main lessons learned after ten years 3. In 2011, the key architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
The related future governance will be oriented on a user-centric ecosystem which is expected to become increasingly participatory
The core concept for the future development is innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology 45, a concept rooted in 5 The NNI itself is not a funding program.
formal government planning as a main reason for this. In the case of nanotechnology, there was no centralized and formal planning process,
as in the case of emerging technologies, the diverse and dynamic environment enables the actors within the pluralistic system to use FTA to build up governance networks
included prospective studies of long-term opportunities as well as participatory activities such as building networks to access disparate sources of knowledge and to legitimate the governance of nanotechnology.
nanotechnology has been on the policy agenda of the federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) since the late 1990s.
a network of important actors was already in place revolving around one federal ministry. Priorities were set focusing on the positions, needs,
and science. 7 These early network activities did not involve other ministries or government agencies, as opposed to the US case.
7 These networks represent organizations that have been funded by the Ministry before. Especially industrial players such as Bayer, Degussa, Siemens, Zeiss, industry-oriented organizations of applied science such as Fraunhofer-Institutes,
they received funding from other programs of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)( e g.,
In 2006, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) established the Nanokommission a stakeholder commission on nanotechnologies as part of the federal government's high-tech strategy.
a women's association and a medical practitioners'organization, trade unions, churches, academia, industry and government bodies (such as federal ministries and agencies as well as ministries on the regional and state level) discussed their positions 51.
In 2007, the Nano-Initiative Action Plan 2010 emerged as an important part of the high-tech strategy of the German government.
However, the next strategic document, the Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015 refers to only some initiatives of other ministries and agencies (mainly with regard to regulation,
rather than future strategies) without mentioning past or future cooperation and collaboration among ministries and agencies of the federal government 52.
A concept for future governance of nanotechnology is also not part of the action plan. The work of the Nanokommission is mentioned
One of the recommendations published in the Nanokommission's final report in 2011 is that the German federal government should establish a national cross-departmental internet platform providing information on developments and activities in the field of nanotechnologies 51.
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.
such as other ministries and their agencies (for instance the BMU and the Federal Environment Agency) stepped in only after the funding strategy was established already.
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,
FTA in the governance of nanotechnology started with forecasting activities and expert-driven identification processes in which expertise was limited by involving actors exclusively from government,
science, and industry. Later processes included expertise from a broader range of disciplines and in the case of the US a growing recognition to include a wider range of stakeholders
or uninvited forms of civil participatory action. 8 The ministries involved were the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social affairs (BMAS),
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVG), Federal
Ministry of Health (BMG), and Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWI). 449 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 In this later stage, heterogeneous stakeholders beyond the actors of the early established nano-policy networks
, such as NGOS and representatives of the lay public, were involved often in FTA PROCESSES, although the role of these processes differs significantly with regard to decision making.
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
and ministries of the federal government and to pool the knowledge gained in stakeholders processes conducted beyond the BMBF.
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
and have influenced also greatly stakeholders and researchers outside the government. The vision-building process of 2010 served as an instrument to pool and coordinate FTA ACTIVITIES among government departments, agencies, and research communities.
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.
Other ministries, such as the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) focus on regulation issues relevant for their domain without being involved fully in the ecosystem of nano-related Innovation policy definition
and implementation is organized not by involving a broad variety of stakeholders and the policy system remains unchanged.
either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation to address grand societal challenges.
and practice of FTA should consider the governance dimension from the beginning by acknowledging that monitoring
and its governance structure by including or excluding a certain type of knowledge and expertise.
Coherent and powerful statements of what the future governance of nanotechnology should aim to accomplish can be seen as a precondition that could potentially lead to binding prioritization of the goals to be reached by using nanotechnologies.
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 inter-organizational setting can be considered a crucial condition for maximizing the impact that participatory FTA can have in the future governance of nanotechnology.
an inter-organizational governance framework is crucial to uptake the knowledge as well as the requirements derived from various stakeholders.
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.
unifying and transforming tools, AICHE J. 50 (2004) 890 897.10 M. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies, J. Nanopart.
F. Jotterand (Ed.),Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy issues in Bionanotechnology, Springer, Netherlands, 2008, pp. 43 63.13 P. Schaper-Rinkel, Governance von Zukunftsversprechen:
Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Springer, 2010.15 R. A w. Rhodes, Understanding governance: ten years on, Organ.
Res. 8 (2006) 153.43 D. Barben, E. Fisher, C. Selin, D. H. Guston, Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology:
Washington. 46 M. C. Roco, Environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology, How the U s. Government is Dealing with the Immediate and Long-term issues of this New technology, Environmental science & Technology, 2005.
Drucksache 15/2713,2004, p. 232 S, Berlin. 50 Nanokommission of the German Federal government, in: W.-M. Catenhusen, A. Grobe (Eds.
Report and Recommendations of the German Federal government's Nanokommission for 2008,2008. 51 Nanokommission of the German Federal government, Responsible use of nanotechnologies:
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), 2011, Berlin. 52 BMBF, Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015, BMBF, Bonn, 2011.53 T
constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements, Public Underst. Sci. 19 (2010) 403 419. Dr. Petra Schaper-Rinkel, political scientist, is a senior scientist and scientific project manager at the AIT Austrian Institute of technology in Vienna.
Her current research focuses on foresight, governance of emerging technologies, and methods and practices of futuring. 452 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452
Node of change covered Mini panel co-ordinator Visioning approach 1. Citizens role in innovation governance Anders Jacobi Danish Board of Technology,
new principles organising resource flows, different notions of learning, newworking patterns and differentmodes of democratic governance.
Governance of Innovation: Firms, Clusters and Institutions in a Changing Setting, Elgar, Cheltenham, 2010, pp. 19 32.6 F. Steward, Breaking the boundaries, Transformative Innovation for the Global Good, NESTA, 2008.7
As a mechanical engineer she has conducted various foresight projects on future prospects for industrial production and on research and innovation patterns on behalf of government authorities
government actions have been fundamentally gradualist in their approach since the1980s. Largely conceived in the light of market failure arguments that sat comfortably with the neoliberal economic paradigm,
Some reside in specialised ministries while others are devolved to agencies. This landscape has formed the demand environment for FTA ACTIVITIES
whether the luxury of this accumulation can survive the cold economic winds that are causing many European Governments to cut spending
and governance structures 12. For example, universities find grand challenges difficult to use as an organisational principle both because of their interdisciplinary nature
Similar reactions have followed epidemics (the institution of government horizon scanning in the UK was at least in part a reaction to the BSE epidemic.
The interdisciplinary nature of challenge-oriented results is difficult for traditional governance structures to absorb.
He is active in policy advice to governments and business and as Vice-president for Research and Innovation at the University of Manchester.
The paper stresses national governance culture as the most decisive contextual element to be taken into account in the design of policy oriented national FTAS.
and uncertainty-avoidance as the key dimensions of national governance culture and thereby critical for FTA design Rijkens-Klomp and van der Duin take a less interdisciplinary approach,
Foresight Governance National culture Policy making A b s T R A c T This paper addresses the influence of national traditions, styles or culture on the use of foresight in decision-making processes.
The Danish Government's Globalisation Strategy, from 2005, and the Danish research 2015 process, from 2008,
Countries'or regions'political culture might be closely related to national governance culture. Havas et al. use governance culture to distinguish between the innovation policies in Western European countries, on the one hand,
and Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) and newly independent states (NIS), on the other hand 3. However, Havas et al. do proceed not further into any systematic characterisation of the two traditions.
and national governance culture as decisive contexts for analysing and using foresight in policy-making. The paper argues that this concept provides a more useful approach to the decisive context of foresight than the size or regional affiliation of a country.
Empirically, this section is based on publicly available reports and internet information from relevant governmental bodies (ministries and agencies.
The Danish Government's Globalisation Strategy, from 2005, and the Research2015 process, from 2008. In both cases, the impacts have been significant and largely measurable in new legislation and budget allocations.
and discussed. 2. National traditions and governance culture as context for foresight In this section, we introduce a conceptual framework of national traditions
and governance culture for analysing foresight and priority setting in science, technology and innovation policies. 2. 1. Sociologists'and anthropologists'perception of culture Cultural differences and styles are very hard to quantify,
such as not only government but also influential stakeholder groupings and experts. Societies with lower power distance might be more likely favour interaction (citizen consultation) based foresight methodologies
Second, the strong traditions for central negotiation at the industrial level in Denmark between employer and employee associations for instance about productivity enhancing means make it more appropriate and convenient for the Danish government to include the industrial partners in the process of discussing
In two prospective plans (Perspektivplan I and II) from 1971 and 1974, the government analysed social trends and developments 15 and 20 years ahead for the public and private sectors, respectively.
and this gave such analyses a rather negative reputation among economists and planners in government.
the Danish research Council for Research policy recommended that the Ministry for Science consider utilising futures studies in affiliation with its strategy processes 28.
The council also recommended that the ministry assessed international experiences in this area and refer to foresight programmes in the UK,
A technology foresight programme was established with the centre-left government's 2000 business development strategy 30. The strategy contains the following statement:‘.
‘the Government will take the initiative to implement a project on technology foresight in Denmark. The aim is to increase knowledge
'1 Hence, technology foresight was seen to be part of the government's business policy and not, in particular, part of science policy,
Following the general elections and the change of Government in November 2001, the ministries were reorganised,
and the technology foresight programme was moved to 1 Authors'translation. P. D. Andersen L. B. Rasmussen/Futures 59 (2014) 5 17 11 the new Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
Also following the change in Government, the budget for the technology foresight programme was reduced to DKK 18 million (ca. EUR 2. 4 million).
Under this pilot programme, nine technology foresight exercises were carried out in three rounds. Following the second round, an additional two exercises were carried out by the Agency for Forest and Nature and the Agency for Environmental Protection.
First, the section describes the Danish government's 2005 Globalisation Strategy. The Globalisation Strategy aimed at a very broad range of policy areas.
Research2015 aimed to set priorities for the government's strategic research programme or at least, parts of this programme. 4. 1. The government's Globalisation Strategy In the spring of 2005,
the government launched a process that was to meet the Grand challenge of increasing globalisation. The aim was to meet this challenge by developing a vision
The work was set up in the wake of the government programme‘‘New Goals, ''which the reelected government presented after the general election in February 2005.
The government established an internal Committee of Ministers and a broad-based Council for Globalisation,
which was meant to advise the Committee Ministers on this strategy. The Globalisation Council consisted of 26 members,
labour market organisations, universities and the government. The Prime minister was Chairman of both the Committee of Ministers and the Council for Globalisation,
and the Minister on Economics and Business affairs served as Vice-chairman of the Globalisation Council. The latter also held the position as Vice-Prime minister in the twopaart coalition government.
In addition the Minister of finance and the Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation participated. From April 2005 to April 2006, the Globalisation Council held 15 meetings.
a discussion paper was prepared that contained the government's overall objectives for the theme and key data and prerequisites.
The background notes were prepared by senior staff in relevant ministries. On the first day of the meetings, a number of Danish and international presenters who were
and after each meeting, a press conference was held by the Prime minister and the Minister of Economics and Business affairs (chairman and vice-chairman of the Globalisation Council, respectively.
In light of the Globalisation Council's work, in April 2006, the government presented an overall strategy for Denmark in the global economy:‘
including both the three parties behind the government and two opposition parties. 4. 2. The Research2015 project One of the suggested initiatives for the Globalisation Strategy concerned a‘better basis for prioritising,
and dialogue processes with ministries, institutions and non-governmental organisations, for example. Every four years, such a process should result in a catalogue of important themes for strategic research.
Furthermore, ministries contributed 90 proposals 33. The evaluation found that 64%of all proposals came from the public research and education sector,
The members of the expert panel were appointed by the Strategic research Council based on nominations from Ministries
This phase consisted of dialogue meetings between the expert panel and the Strategic research Council, the Council for Independent Research, Individual Ministries,
Mapping OECD horizontal scanning Public hearing among all interested citizens Input from ministries 125 trends and challenges 432 suggestions 90 suggestions In principle, everybody interested in strategic research 2:
Final proposal Dialogue with stakeholder organisations, ministries and research councils Reduction to 21 themes for strategic research Strategic research council (14) Independent research council (18) Contacts in ministries (15
we have argued that national governance culture is a more decisive context for analysing and using foresight in policy making.
To qualify the concept of national governance culture, we have suggested drawing on the classical work of Geert Hofstede.
Even between culturally neighbouring countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, large differences exist in governance culture, in addition to differences in industrial structure, academic traditions and so on.
However, there is still much to be understood about national governance cultures'effects on foresight, and there is a need for more systematic research on this topic.
Strategy for Denmark in the Global economy Summary, The Danish Government, Copenhagen, 2006.32 OECD-DASTI Horizon scan, 2007.33 Teknologisk Institut, Evaluering af Forsk2015.
Et prioriteringsgrundlag for strategisk forskning, Danish Ministry for Science, Technology and Innovation, Copenhagen, 2008p.91. P. D. Andersen, L. B. Rasmussen/Futures 59 (2014) 5 17 17
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011