Foresight has become particularly important in science and technology policy 3, 4, but also in relation to sustainability and other long-term, uncertainty-ridden policy issues.
A predecessor project at national level was conducted in the area of transport technology policy 43.472 E. A. Eriksson
Technology policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London, 1987.45 B.-A. Lundvall (Ed.),National systems of Innovation, Towards a Theory of innovation and Interactive learning, Pinter, London, 1992.46 A. Bergek, S. Jacobsson, B
Dr. K. Matthiasweber is head of Technology policy Department at Austrian Research centres systems research. Over the past years, he has been contributing to and leading several foresight exercises at European, national, regional and sectoral level,
Change 70 (2003) 619 637.14 J. S. Metcalfe, Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework, Camb.
and policy-makers responsible for regulatory regimes but not for science and technology policy in the narrower sense to identify future requirements for regulations
and often part of larger foresight exercises driven by stakeholders of science and technology policies. Moreover national SDOS, including some in the USA
Ein Rückblick auf 30 Jahre Delphi-Expertenbefragungen, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998.43 National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP:
45 National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP; Science and Technology agency (1997: The Sixth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan toward The Year 2025, No. 52, NISTEP Report, Tokyo,(1993.
Improving Distributed intelligence in Complex Innovation systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science and Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP.
technology policy and innovation studies with a final thesis focusing on cosmonautics research in the former Soviet union with field research undertaken at the Cosmonaut Training Centre (Star City) and the Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow.
Since 1996 she held the position of Director of the Science and Technology policy Studies Unit at ATLANTIS Research organisation (Greece)
developed patents in the fields of pricing and promotion algorithms, been a research fellow at the Technology policy Assessment Center of Georgia Tech,
Pekka Pellinen is the Head of the Technology policy Department of the Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK. He, as well as his background organization is maintaining a sustained effort in developing new instruments for informed action for policy-makers.
of Technology policy, the Manufuture Secretariat Germany of the German Verband deutscher Maschinen-und Anlagenbauer (VDMA) supported the approach.
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kagakugijutsu no chûchôki hatten ni kakawaru fukanteki yosoku chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey Future science and Technology
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kyûsoku ni hattenshitsutsu aru kenkyû ryûiki chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey Study on Rapidlydevellopin Research area
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kagakugijutsu no chûchôki hatten ni kakawaru fukanteki yosoku chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey, Needs Survey
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Comprehensive analysis of Science and Technology Benchmarking and Foresight report no. 99, Tôkyô:
Improving distributed intelligence in complex innovation systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science & Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP), Karlsruhe, 1999.
National Institute of Science and Technology policy, Japan. www. nistep. go. jp/achiev/ftx/eng/mat077e/html/mat0771e. html (accessed September 2009.
Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination. Futures 31, no. 6: 527 45. Rask, M. 2008.
and co-directs the Technology policy & Assessment Center there//tpac. gatech. edu. Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1070 1081
At times the Technology policy and Assessment Center at Georgia Tech has accessed such sources through a gateway service,
What You Need from Technology information Products, Research-Technology management, 2004 (Nov 8 H. de Bruijn, A l. Porter, The education of a technology policy analyst-to process management, Technology analysis and Strategic management 16 (2)( 2004
and Technology policy Council of Finland (STPC) should develop by the end June 2006 a national strategy for establishing Strategic Centres of Excellence in Research and Innovation.
Science & Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP), Frauenhofer Institute, Systems and Innovation research, Karlsruhe, 1999.7 L. Mermet, T. Fuller, R. van der Helm, Reexamining
In science and technology policy an OECD report identified three types of priorities 8: thematic priorities referring to fields of science and technology;
A review of FISTERA by NISTEP underlined the relevance of FISTERA's approach to formulate national science and technology policies also in Japan 24.
Such a reflexive procedure surely would take into account the numerous demands from the debate on sustainable research and technology policies. 4. Roadmapping methodology as a tool for technology assessment of nanotechnology?
Huang a a School of management and Economics, Beijing Institute of technology, Beijing, China b Technology policy and Assessment Center, Georgia Institute of technology, Atlanta, GA,
and applying it to serve technology policy or management ends (Scapolo, Porter, and Rader 2008). Recently, Robinson (Robinson et al. 2011) has introduced the approach of‘FIP'.
and of Public policy, at Georgia Tech, where he continues as the co-director of the Technology policy and Assessment Center.
In Science and technology policy, ed. J. Haberer, 153 75. Lexington: Lexington Books. Appendix 1. WOS DSSC search terms No.
and many countries have shown a clear tendency to place special focus on science and technology policy in their innovation strategies.
Science and technology policy are discussed often including the creation of values in society, social or economic conditions for their promotion,
In Japan, the status of science and technology policy in the national grand strategy has changed significantly as its GDP growth rate stagnates in the face of intensified international competition and a falling birth rate and aging population.
10.1108/14636681311310105 Yoshiko Yokoo and Kumi Okuwada are based at the National Institute of Science and Technology policy, Tokyo, Japan.
Since 1996, science and technology policy has been carried out under the Science and Technology Basic Plans which are formulated every five years.
The exercise was conducted by the National Institute of Science and Technology policy from 2008 to 2010.
and selected 24 priority issues (National Institute of Science and Technology policy, 2009). The results of the preliminary discussion clearly indicated the importance of systematic integration in other words,
Driving Towards Sustainable growth and Quality Jobs, Executive Office of the President, National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology policy, WASHINGTON DC.
Securing our Economic growth and Prosperity, National Economic Council, Council of economic advisors, Office of Science and Technology policy, WASHINGTON DC.
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (2009),‘Emerging fields in science and technology for the 4th Science and Technology Basic Plan'',Research Material No. 168, National Institute of Science and Technology policy, Tokyo.
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (2010),‘The 9th Science and Technology foresight'',NISTEP Report No. 140-142, National Institute of Science and Technology policy, Tokyo.
and Technology policy-makers and politicians are keen to find an answer to the challenging question of where they should be investing their resources to produce economic, environmental and social dividends.
Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination'',Futures, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 527-45.
In the last ten to 15 years, Japan (National Institute of Science and Technology policy, 2010), Finland (University of Joensuu, 2010), the UK (Loveridge et al.
National Institute of Science and Technology policy (2010),‘The 9th Science and Technology foresight Survey contribution of science and technology to future society.
The 9th Delphi survey'',NISTEP Report No. 140, National Institute of Science and Technology policy, Tokyo. National research council Canada (2005),‘Looking forward:
Te-Yi Chan and Cheng-Hua Ien are based in the Trend Analysis Division, Science and Technology policy Research and Information Center (STPI), National Applied research Laboratories (NARL), Taipei
of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP) Foresight and Strategy Planning Team, Korean Institute of S&t Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP), The Science
and Technology policy Research institute (STEPI) Technology foresight Research team, National research Center for Science and Technology for Development Time horizon 2035 2030 2020 Original category Energy and resources Energy
PAGE 72 jforesight jvol. 15 NO. 1 2013 About the authors Hai-Chen Lin is now an Associate Researcher at Science and Technology policy Research and Information Center (STPI),
He is now an Associate Researcher at Science and Technology policy Research and Information Center (STPI),
She is now an Associate Researcher at Science and Technology policy Research and Information Center (STPI),
and of Public policy, at Georgia Tech, where he remains Co-director of the Technology policy and Assessment Center.
Adaptive Robust Design under deep uncertainty Caner Hamarat, Jan H. Kwakkel, Erik Pruyt Delft University of Technology policy Analysis Department, PO BOX 5015,2600 GA Delft
Technology policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2008, p. 285.37 E. Pruyt, J. Kwakkel, A bright future for system dynamics:
This started in 1998 when the National science and Technology Council (NSTC), the principal executive body responsible for coordinating science and technology policy,
represented a future-oriented relation of technology policy and society which can be characterized as a model of linear and science-driven innovation.
VDI, Düsseldorf, 1994.20 POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, in: Making it in Miniature Nanotechnology Report Summery, POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, London, 1996, p. 4. 451 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change
80 (2013) 444 452 21 I. Malsch, Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts'Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-areas, Brussels Luxembourg, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997.22 National science and Technology Council, Nanotechnology, in:
Shaping the World Atom by Atom, 1999, p. 12 S, Washington. 23 L. M. Pytlikzillig, A j. Tomkins, Public engagement for informing science and technology policy:
and Technology policy has as its first goal to: Ensure that Federal investments in science and technology are making the greatest possible contribution to economic prosperity, public health, environmental quality,
Luke Georghiou is Professor of Science and Technology policy and Management in the Manchester Institute of Innovation research at Manchester Business school.
and of Public policy at Georgia Tech, where he co-directs the Technology policy and Assessment Center.
Matthias Weber is the head of the Technology policy Unit at the Austrian Institute of technology in Vienna.
Mcluhan Tetrad Model) Define priority areas for technology policy Survey national technological development Stimulate development in priority areas of technology development and research;
and implementation of technology policy Understand the best methods and use of foresight Critical success factors for government-led foresight Science and Public policy February 2010 37 Results:
http://www. ingentaconnect. com/content/beech/spp Impact of Swiss technology policy on firm innovation performance: an evaluation based on a matching approach Spyros Arvanitis, Laurent Donzé and Nora Sydow This paper investigates the impact of the promotional activities of The swiss Commission of Technology
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 64 avoids the functional form restrictions implicit in running a regression of some type.
and provide a summary and some implications for technology policy. Conceptual framework Technology policy: public fiscal policies to support innovation Most OECD countries use large amounts of public funds to support activities that are intended to enhaanc innovation in the business sector.
These funds are used often to provide direct support for private sector research and innovation. A further way of supporting private investment in innovation is through tax incentives for R&d expenditures (see Jaumotte and Pain, 2005 for a survey of the main fiscal policies to support innovation.
Swiss technology policy There is a long tradition in Switzerland of refraining from directly funding business firms for innovation activities.
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 65 consensus not only among political actors but also among organizations representing business interests.
and a public partner, is fundamental to Swiss technology policy. To the best of our knowledge, it is unique in Europe as a main promotional policy. 2 Methods of evaluation of measures of technology policy Evaluating the outcomes of subsidized projects is difficult,
both because of the difficulties in estimatiin the wider social benefits that they generate and because of the difficulties in assessing
Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of technology policy Recent overviews of the empirical literature suggest that the empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of subsidies is not homogeneous (David et al.
and a public partner, is fundamental to Swiss technology policy. To the best of our knowledge, it is unique in Europe as a main promotional policy Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 66 either matching approaches (as in this paper) or selecctio
correction approaches. Most studies use contemporraneou data on the states of subsidized and non-subsidized firms (as in this paper.
+-positive (negative) and statistically significant effect at 10%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 67 find a positive policy effect but in some cases
%Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 68 significantly lower than the respective share of projeect of these scientific fields.
CTI database, authors'calculations Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 69 firms which are subsidized not out
G g a-=0 N a Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 70 (6) where and is the kernel7 at the point In a fifth step,
5%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 71 innovation performance than non-subsidized firms (at the 5%test level.
5%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 72‘low-subsidy'firms from that of the respective groups of non-subsidized firms.
All this is also in accordance with the general principles of The swiss technology policy tending to be‘non-activist',providiin primarily for the improvement of framework condittion for private innovation activities.
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 73 Appendix Table A1.
Italian (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 74appendix (continued) Table A3.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 75 Appendix (continued) Table A5.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 76 Appendix (continued) Table A7.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science
technology policy see OECD (2006b) and European commission (2008. Lepori (2006) gives a longteer analysis of public research policy primarily with respect to universities and public research organizations.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science
Ergas (1987) identifies two principal orientations of countries'technology policy: diffusion-and missionorienttation While Ergas'categorization is useful,
U s. Government Technology policies, 1969 2008. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Braun, D. 2008)‘ Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies',Science and Public policy, 35: 227 39.
Cantner, U. and Pyke, A. 2000)‘ Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective',Research policy, 30: 759 75.
Ergas, H. 1987)‘ The importance of technology policy'.'In: Dasgupta, P. and Stoneman, P. eds) Economic policy and technological Performance, pp. 51 97.
1996)‘ China's science and technology policy for the twenty-first century: A view from the top',<http://www. fas. org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/stpol1. htm>accessed 25 may 2011.
Wang, Y.-F. 1993) China's Science and Technology policy: 1949 1989. Aldershot: Avebury. Weinberg, A m. 1963)‘ Criteria for scientific choice',Minerva, 1: 159 71.
Freeman, C. 1987) Technology policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter: London. Giesecke, S. 2000)‘ The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany',Research policy, 29: 205 23.
Mcgraw-hill. Gassler, H.,Polt, W. and Rammer, C. 2008)‘ Priority setting in technology policy historical developments and recent trends'.
socio-technical transformation. 1. Introduction Since the 1960s, the results of R&d practices have increasinngl been approached as knowledge inputs in the construuctio of science and technology policies.
the more standard technology policies, such as public funding for R&d and innovation, support for technical standardizatiion intellectual property rights regulation and the provisiio of public technical infrastructure, can be applied.
and Technology policy, Javastraat 42,2585 AP The hague, The netherlands*Corresponding author. Email: amana@otenet. gr. Future-oriented technology analysis methods can play a significant role in enabling early warning signal detection and pro-active policy action
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011
