Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'Michael Keenan1,,*Paul Cutler2, 3, John Marks4, Richard Meylan2, 5, Carthage Smith2 and Emilia Koivisto2, 6 1directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, and Honorary Research fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK 2international Council for Science, 5 rue Auguste Vacquerie , 75116 Paris, France 3present address: Division of Earth sciences, National science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA 4kort Galgewater 16,2312 BR Leiden, Netherlands 5present address Royal Society of New zealand, PO BOX 598, Wellington 6140, New zealand 6present address Institute of Seismology, P o box 68 (Gustaf Ha llstro min katu 2b), FI -00014 University of Helsinki, Finland*Corresponding author. Email: michael. keenan@oecd. org Over the coming decades, science will play a key role in society's response to emerging global‘grand challenges'.'The agenda-setting, coordination and conduct of science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge is diffused and used, are therefore critical. Increasingly, such issues need to be framed at a global level, reflecting both the international nature of science itself and the scale of the challenges it seeks to address. Longer-term perspectives must also be incorporated to reflect the time horizons of key global challenges and the uncertainties involved in future global governance regimes. Foresight offers a means to explore these dimensions of science. The International council for science (ICSU) has been applying foresight as a central component of its strategic planning. This paper describes the most recent ICSU exercise which has explored how two decades hence international collaboration in science could foster progress in science and address global challenges. Keywords: research foresight; international science cooperation; scenarios; International council for science. 1. Introduction Responses to grand challenges, if they are to be effective, will depend on science. Examples of grand challenges from climate change to increasing resource depletion emphasise the need for international, indeed, global responses. In turn, the complexity of grand challenges and the need for cross-country responses point to the signifiican role of international cooperation in science. But such cooperation will not happen by itself. Organisations, institutional norms and incentives, and financial and human resources need to be assembled and aligned in support of international cooperation in science, involving rule-setting and coordination. Existing international organissation and arenas have important parts to play in this respect but need to gain a good appreciation of possible future developments, particularly given the uncertainties around the dynamics and impacts of grand challenges. One such international organisation is ICSU. Founded in 1931, ICSU is a non-governmental organisation with a global membership of national scientific bodies Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 166 177 doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs019 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals. permissions@oup. com (121 members, representing 141 countries) and International Scientific Unions (30 members. Hundreds of thousands of scientists are affiliated with ICSU via their professional organisations. Because of this, ICSU is uniquely able to bring together the intellectual resources of the international scientific community to explore complex global issues at the interface between different disciplines. ICSU's long-term strategic vision is for a world where science is used for the benefit of all, excellence in science is valued and scientific knowledge is linked effectively to policy-making. This vision translates into a mission that sees ICSU working with strategic partners to plan and coordinate international research programmes that address major issues of relevance to both science and society. To this end a number of interdisciplinary bodies have been created, addressing various themes, including: global environmental change; hazards and disasters; ecosysste change; oceans; space research; and solar-terrestrial physics. ICSU also sets up committees to address particulla issues and is involved in a number of science for poliic activities as a representative of the global scientific community (e g. UN Commission on Sustainable development, Rio+20 Earth Summit in 2012. ICSU has been using foresight practices for some time to determine research priorities (Teixeira et al. 2002) and to develop mobilising visions of the orientation of whole research fields (ICSU 2010). The purpose of its current foresight exercise is to explore the potential development of international science over the next two decades in a changing economic, social, political and environmental context. From an organisational perspective, it is designed to test the role and mission of ICSU and guide long-term strategic choices aimed at strengthening internatioona science for the benefit of society. To this end, the conduct of the foresight exercise has been synchronized closely with the development of the ICSU strategic plan 2012 7 (ICSU 2011a) and it is expected to have a significant influence on the implementation of this plan. At the same time it is hoped that this exercise will have wide applicability beyond ICSU and that, for example, that it will be useful to ICSU members and partners in developing their own longer-term vision and strategic thinking. Accordingly, the process was designed to engage many stakeholders, while the issues covered and various scenarios developed can be adapted and updated to suit the needs of multiple users. This paper sets out to describe the conduct of the ICSU foresight exercise with a view to identifying lessons for future foresight exercises carried out in international arenas. It begins with some background on the past and current arrangements for international science cooperation before accounting for the various choices made in designiin and implementing the exercise. The three phases of the exercise are described then briefly and their results outlined. A final section draws some preliminary conclusiion on the design choices taken, the peculiarities of conducting foresight in international arenas, and the scope for using foresight to further international science cooperation in the future. 2. The past and the present of international science cooperation Before thinking about the futures of international science cooperation, it is essential to appreciate something of the past and the present. In this section, a short‘potted'history of international science cooperation since the Second world war is provided, followed by a snapshot of the current landscape. 2. 1 A short history of international science cooperation Large-scale international science cooperation really began after the Second world war and was catalysed by a combination of factors including the postwar spirit of cooperation, easier air travel, the significant technological advances made as part of the war effort and the setting up of the UN in 1945. A number of specialist agencies were set up including UNESCO. The creation of UNESCO meant that there was now an organisation with a specific remit to link with governments in the international science area. Other science related organisations were also set up by the UN including the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Metrological Organisation (WMO. This period also saw the emergence of international research institutions, like the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), that were regulated by inter-governmental agreements. CERN was established by UNESCO and came into being in 1954 after being ratified by 14 European countries. The conventiio that established CERN stated that it: shall organise and sponsor international cooperation in research, promoting contacts between scientists and interchange with other laboratories and institutes. CGIAR grew out of the international response to widespread concerns that many developing countries would succumb to hunger. It included in its objectives to‘harmonise international, regional, and national efforts to finance and undertake agricultural research'.'It was set by the World bank with the FAO and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) as cosponsors, subsequently joined by the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957 8 was the first large-scale international field study. It was sponsored jointly by ICSU and the WMO and built on advances in instrument technologies that had occurred during the Second world war. This IGY heralded a new era in collaborative earth sciences research. Taking place at Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.'167 the height of the Cold war, it demonstrated that even during tense political times scientists from around the world could work together for the betterment of society. It was unprecedented an initiative involving thousands of scientists across more than 60 countries. It provided major new scientific insights, influenced inter-governmental policies and provided a prototype for subsequent internatioona research planning and coordination efforts by ICSU. A number of international coordination structures such as the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and the World Data centres were established as a result of the IGY. In the mid-1980s following signals of potential climate change as a consequence of increasing CO2 emissions, the scientific community, under the aegis of ICSU, established the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. This large-scale global programmatic framework complemennte the World Climate Research programme of WMO. Characteristic of these global programmes later complemented by the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP), addressing the human dimensions, and DIVERSITAS, addressing global biodiversity is that they provide a scientific framework with internationalll agreed scientific priorities. Research projects are submitted then for funding at the national level by individual (groups of) researchers. ICSU cosponsors all four prograamme and in this way is responsible for the planning and coordination infrastructures. In the area of climate change the International Panel on Climate change (IPCC) was established also by the WMO and the UN Environment Programme in 1987 to carry out integrated assessments of scientific evidence. It has engaged over 3, 000 scientists and has produced four assessment reports since then. Another example of modern international research collaboration is the Human Genome Project (HGP), completed in 2003. 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 and make them accesssibl for further biological study. During the early years of the HGP the Wellcome Trust (UK) became a major partner. Additional contributions came from Japan, France, Germany, China and others. Beyond these institutional and, in some respects, top-down examples of international science cooperation, the vast majority of international linkages have been initiated by individual scientists on an ad hoc basis. 2. 2 Contemporary international science cooperation Today, more than ever before, science is an international endeavour. The exchange of scientific information and sharing of ideas across borders have been essential to the progress of science. The increasing ease of international exchange coupled with the recognition that many scientific problems from climate change to AIDS, are inherently international in nature, has led also to a new global approach to research in many areas. Truly global science is an evolving and complex concept and there are just a few organisations involved in organising this space at present. UNESCO plays an imporrtan role at the governmental level while ICSU coordinaate international programmes across its scientific unions and national members. The Interacademy Council produces reports on scientific, technological, and health issues related to global challenges, and provides advice to national governments and international organisations. In addition, a number of large discipline-based professional associations have an international membership and perspective in their work. There are also a number of inter-governmental bodies based at the regional level that are working on international science issues. CERN continnue to be a successful example of an inter-governmental research infrastructure for particle physics, expanding its scientific reach through cooperation agreements with countries across the globe. Regional initiatives, particularly the development of a transnational European research area, are having a signifiican effect on international science cooperation (European commission 2008. 1 The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) may provide the impetus for a similar cooperative effort in that region. Strong regional alliances are also developing in Latin america and the Asia-pacific region. Whilst such regional actions are dictated frequently by economic interests, they can have a considerable impact on the funding and structuring of science. Nevertheless, the vast majority of financial support for science continues to be at the national level. The USA, Japan and Europe continue to dominate in terms of national investment and performance. Whilst several countries such as Brazil, China and India are making rapid progress (Royal Society 2011 others such as some of the former Soviet Republics are struggling to maintain previous strengths. There remain a large number of poorer countries where investment in science is negligible (UNESCO 2010. These inequalities are reinforced by a net outflow of trained scientists from poorer to richer countries. Funding for international science is more difficult to obtain than for national science. Nationally oriented research projects are often easier for politicians to justify to their taxpayers. This is a particular challenge in times of economic constraint where countries look to science to address their immediate needs for national growth. Related to this are issues around intellectual property regimes in different countries and restrictions on access to data for science. These conditions mean that internatioona science is often reliant on corporations trusts, individuals and inter-governmental organisations for funding. Yet, such funding mechanisms are often set up in a way that makes it difficult to provide support for the 168. M. Keenan et al. interdisciplinary science that is needed to address complex global issues. The value of international research programmes, such as the global environmental change programmes, materialises through the coordination of the research and the integration of the results. However, these programmes are subject to a lack of coordination between funders, who tend to be less than eager to support international coordination structures. This makes it more difficult to carry out major international science initiatives. Thus international science cooperation faces a spectrum of challenges and opportunities. To address these, there is a need for institutional leadership and mechanisms for planning, coordination and funding that are respected by the science community, understood by national governments and capable of addressing societal issues through interdisciplinary research. Since its creation in 1931, ICSU has played an important role in facilitating major international science initiatives. However, as the issues become more complex, more urgent and truly global, it will need to further adapt if it is to continue to play a leadership role for the global scientific community. 3. Foresight approach and results ICSU is no stranger to using foresight approaches. In 2002 it commissioned a meta-analysis of the results of several existing national foresight exercises with the aim of identifying future priority areas for international science cooperation (Teixera et al. 2002. More recently, ICSU has started to use foresight approaches in some of its thematic work. For example, it has been carrying out a visioning exercise On earth systems research with a view to identifying a single strategic framework for global environmental change research and its policy relevance (ICSU 2010. In contrast to these earlier foresight approaches, the exercise described in this paper neither attempted to identify research priorities nor did it focus on any particulla research field. The 2002 foresight exercise had explicitly set out to identify priority areas of science for ICSU to focus upon in its new strategic plan (ICSU 2006. This exercise reinforced the continued importance of ICSU's historical areas of interest, mainly focused around the environment, and helped in identifying new programme topics, such as disaster risk and urban health. It also highligghte a number of areas, such as cognitive neuroscience and nanoscience, in which the role of ICSU was less obvious but where ICSU member organisations, could make a significant contribution. These areas were considdere to still be valid in 2009 and are being carried mostly over into the new strategic plan (2012 7). Therefore, the new exercise set out to focus on the exploration of possible futures of international science cooperation and the roles ICSU might play. Given the uncertainties involved a scenario approach that captures multiple futures was embraced. The exercise was led by ICSU's Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) and was started in October 2009. The sub-sections that follow begin with a discussion of the considerations and choices concerning the exercise's design, followed by descriptions of each of the exercise's three phases and the results generated. 3. 1 Scoping the exercise's design A number of important decisions were taken at the outset by ICSU regarding the scope and scale of the exercise. Following a foresight design framework outlined by Keenan and Miles (2008 these can be grouped as follows:.Purpose: The exercise set out to map the long-term uncertainties of developments around international science cooperation with a view to building greater agility vis-a vis disruptive change. The exercise was tasked also with developing a long-term vision for international science cooperation and the role ICSU would play in its achievement. Given these tasks, a scenario approach was preferred from the outset, allowing for exploration of possible futures and for articulation of a visionary‘success scenario'..'Scope: While the exercise was intended to increase ICSU's organisational agility and to develop a guiding vision for the organisation, it was realised quickly that these objectives required a good understanndin of the wider context of international science cooperation if they were to be met. In particular, an appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of current international science cooperation arrangements would be needed, together with an exploration of possible future developments that might offer opportunities or threats to ICSU. Given ICSU's position in the internatiiona science landscape, it is not a passive observer. It can help to shape improved international science cooperation arrangements. The scope of the exercise therefore oscillated between the narrower scope of ICSU's future organisational positioning and the future transformation of international science cooperation..Target: While the exercise was meant primarily to inform ICSU's strategic plan and long-term vision, it was recognised from the outset that the various results generated would likely be useful to other organisations, particularly the ICSU members, in their own strategy processes..Orientation: In order to create a desirable vision of the future that is somewhat grounded, it is first important to explore the so-called future‘possibility space'.'Acknowledging this highlighted the need for a multi-phase exercise, where the key drivers of change Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.'169 would be identified and explored before any attempts would be made to fashion a desirable vision..Resources: Foresight exercises depend upon a number of different resources, including financial, human and relational capital, for their success. Given the limited capacity in the ICSU Secretariat, the option of outsourcing much of the exercise to external consultannt was considered actively. This was taken the approach in 2002 but had resulted in some problems absorbing the results into the ICSU strategic plan. It was decided to internalise the process as far as possible. CSPR, advising the Executive Board, created a Task Team from amongst its membership with an independent Chair and including external foresiigh expertise. The project was supported by a project officer in the ICSU Secretariat who was able to give about one-third of his working time plus a temporary, dedicated secondment..Activities: The exercise was designed to be embedded partly across ICSU's existing activities. This approach was especially important in the first phase where numerous existing project meetings were able to set aside an hour or so to explore, in a structured way, future key drivers of change. On top of this, several dedicated activities were organised, including an online survey, two expert-led scenario workshops, and other consultation processes..Participation: Foresight exercises usually demand broad participation for their success . But the depth of this participation is also a significant success factor. On account of its reputation, ICSU is able to draw upon some of the best expertise, including Nobel laureates, and has developed, through its mission and activities, deep and extensive networks across the world. Its member organisations cover virtually all of the planet while its regional offices offer important channels for communication between global perspectiive (all too often dominated by the USA and Europe) and those specific to regions, e g. Africa and Latin america. This infrastructure provided a wide and diverse base for eliciting views during the foresight exercise. However with few dedicated resources, it was difficult for the exercise to deeply engage many of these people and organisations it would have proven too expensive to organise a series of dedicated face-to-face meetings, for example. In depth participation was confined therefore largely to CSPR members and, in particular to the Task Team set up to advise on the project's conduct..Time horizon: The time horizon of the foresight exercise had to be beyond ICSU's usual planning horizons of 5 10 years. The question was by how much longer. Many of the grand challenges that ICSU activities are focused upon, particularly climate change, involve change over relatively long time periods measured at least in decades. But this is too long for an exercise that is focused on organisational agility and a vision for international science cooperatiion Given the relative trade-offs, the exercise settled for a 20-year time horizon, which happens to coincide with the centenary of the founding of ICSU in 1931. The wisdom of this choice was exposed to a thought experiment: how have changed things over the last 20 years and to what extent were anticipated these? In some ways, a lot has changed since 1990, e g. the internet, but in others, many of the problems faced in 2010 were discussed already widely, e g. environmental concerns. While there is no guarantte that patterns of change will be similar in scope and scale over the coming two decades as they were in the previous and there is certainly reason to believe that some major disruptions lay ahead in the medium term, perhaps coalescing into a‘perfect storm'of major problems (Beddington 2009) this thought experiment served to lessen the remoteness of 2031 while highlightiin the fact that some changes are difficult to predict..Duration: Given available resources and the scope of the exercise, it was thought at the outset that the exercise would take about 12 8 months to complete from start to finish. This would give sufficient time for the project's final results to be generated and fed into the new round of strategic planning. This timetaabl was compromised, however, by delays due to changes in key staff. As a consequence, the results generated in the later stages of the project (essentially the visionary success scenario) have shaped perhaps not ICSU's new strategic plan to the degree that was planned originally though the intermediate products, such as forecasts around key drivers of change, were used extensively. 3. 2 The three phases of ICSU foresight The foresight exercise entailed three phases as follows:.Phase 1 october 2009 to April 2010: Gather perspectiive on the key drivers influencing international science in the next 20 years (from individuals in ICSU's membership, bodies, partners and other stakeholdders including young scientists, as well as from the literature)..Phase 2 april 2010 to March 2011: Build exploratory scenarios from the key drivers and conduct a broad consultation with the same range of parties identified for the previous phase..Phase 3 march 2011 to February 2012: Use the key drivers and exploratory scenarios to develop and validate a visionary‘success scenario'of where ICSU should be Going in the process, conduct a broad consultaation in particular utilising the ICSU General assembly as a forum for member opinions including 170. M. Keenan et al. views on regional differences on the success scenario and its implications for the ICSU. Sections 3. 2. 1 3 discuss the activities carried out under each of these phases. 3. 2. 1 Phase 1: Identifying key drivers of change. During Phase 1, perspectives were gathered on potential drivers of international science over the next 20 years. Three primary sources were used: insights from particiipant at ICSU-related meetings; a web consultation of ICSU members, bodies, partners, and early career scientiist (who had participated previously in a meeting marking ICSU's 75th anniversary in 2006); and a literature scan. The outcome of the web consultation was 174 separate ideas for key drivers from 82 individuals from more than 30 countries. The Task Team distilled these and the other submissions into a set of approximately 30 key drivers, a list that was considered too long for building exploratory scenarios. The CSPR applied the following selection criteria to arrive at a list of no more than 15 key drivers:.importance of the driver in shaping future developmeent over the next 20 years in international science. uncertainty around the direction and dynamics of the driver over the next 20 years and the impacts it is likely to have on international science The result of this selection was first the identification of six megatrends for which trends over the next 20 years are more or less clear at least in their direction of evolution, if not in their precise impacts, as follows:.Demographic change: this includes changes in global population size, spatial and age distribution, urban-to-rural balance..Growing natural resource scarcity: this includes water, food, energy, ecosystems, materials..Global environmental change: from oceans to ecosysteem to the cryosphere and atmosphere, the forecasts are consistent in suggesting broad changes with major impacts on society over the coming two decades..Human health and wellbeing: this includes trends in communicable and noncommunicable diseases, mortality..Technological change: while the nature and implicatiion of technological breakthroughs cannot be known in advance, there is a high degree of certainty that these will occur over the next two decades, probably in several fields..Enabling information and communication technoloogies this affects almost all aspects of society. These six megatrends were written-up and presented as a‘general context'to developments over the coming 20 years. In addition, a further 13 key drivers, for which trends are much more uncertain, were identified (see Box 1). 3. 2. 2 Phase 2: Constructing exploratory scenarios. The process of building exploratory scenarios provides a structure in which to explore and learn from the interplay of key drivers and their attendant uncertainties. The result should be a sense of preferences and of what should be avoided. Scenarios are intended also to offer a platform to expose and begin to address differing views among a large community about its shared future. For ICSU, such a process was intended to inform collective strategic choices about its future role. There are many different approaches to building scenarrio (for a useful short overview, see Bo rjeson et al. 2006). The approach used for building exploratory scenarios in the ICSU exercise broadly aligned with a process previouusl developed by former Royal dutch shell Group staff, which has been popularised in several publications (Schwartz 1998; Ogilvy and Schwartz 1998. The first step involved developing plausible forecasts for each of the 13 key drivers. Draft forecasts were prepared by the ICSU Secretariat with inputs from the Task Team. A two-day scenario workshop involving the Task Team was held in April 2010 in order to sharpen the forecasts and to use them as a basis for developing contrasting explorrator scenarios of the future of international science cooperation. In a following step, scenarios were developed within four distinct‘scenario spaces'framed by two axes selected from the list of key drivers (van't Klooster and van Asselt 2006. The selection criteria applied to the key drivers were as follows:.They should be highly influential (even over many other‘key'drivers..Their forecasts should have a plausibly large range of uncertainty..The two drivers selected should be as independent of each other as possible..They should generate distinct scenario spaces that are interesting, useful, and relevant with regard to the future of international science..All scenario spaces should plausibly be able to include positive and negative traits and thus be presented in a balanced manner. Using these criteria, the first selected scenario axis was based on the‘state sovereignty, regionalism, and globalissm driver. At one end of this axis, countries have oriented a nationnall outlook and tend to look inward and address issues unilaterally. At the other end, countries have a global outlook and favour international cooperattio when problem-solving. Thus, the axis toggles between‘national'and‘global'outlooks. The second selected axis was based on the‘science and society'driver. At one end of this axis science acts fairly Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.'171 independently from society (e g. in terms of scientists setting the agenda and the lack of strong engagement of science and scientists in decision-making processes. At the other end, science is engaged highly with society. These are referred to as‘detached'and‘engaged'science society relationships. While this approach to scenario building has some drawbacks, e g. a certain rigidity that can sometimes stifle creativity, it has the advantage of providing a clear structure that can be communicated easily to those not directly involved in the exercise. In the case of the ICSU exercise, the various forecasts developed for all of the Global agendas and arenas: The scope and scale of international relations could expand and become increasingly complex as non-state actors influence the international political and policy agenda. This, too, may influence the type of arenas where interaction will take place. The outcome of this will have implications for how international science engages and informs decision-makers. States and markets: The future preferences of states on socioeconomic development models will impact on international science. The present range of options extends from market-based economies to stronger developmental state intervention to communism, but new systems may develop over the coming two decades, possibly informed by greater consideration of the environment. State sovereignty, regionalism and globalism: The scale at which policy (such as that on the environment) will be determined is not clear. The outcome of these decisions will have implication for global organisations such as the UN. Models of state sovereignty may be challenged by regional groupings, which may in turn lead to the development of a strongly multipolar world of regional blocs. Science and society: The relationship between science and society is likely to have a significant impact on the future of international science. This includes the ways in which science receives its mandate from society and how science feeds back its knowledge to society especially at the policy level. The shape of these processes will also have implications for science education and how appreciation of and trust in science will evolve. Private sector/military science: The funding and settings for international science will be influenced by the proportions of science conducted in nonacademic settings where market economy, or national military or strategic advantage are dominant driving forces. Depending on the outcome of this, there could be a range of different impacts on international science, especially around security concerns. Scientific integrity and self regulation: The concept of the integrity of the scientist is very important in international science but this may be influenced by a range of external pressures, e g. political contexts, career incentive structures, etc. There could also be challenges to the concept of self regulation in the light of demands for new forms of public accountability. Spatial organisation/conduct of science: The spatial organisation of science is changing. The impact of emerging economies and possible new collaborations will see a changing international science landscape. Such changes could have impacts on the approaches to science and the balance between national-scale versus international-scale science. This is also likely to have impacts on those countries with limited scientific capacity at present. International collaborative research infrastructures: The types of future international collaborative research infrastructures will have a significant impact on international science, presuming that there is an ongoing commitment to such structures at all. How they will attract science investment in relation to national priorities and how committed countries will be to them are key factors in determining the strength of international science. Epistemic organisation/conduct of science: The places where science research will take place may change. Universities are presently key players but consortia of researchers, companies or new hybrid institutions may start to impact on this role. Within any of these structures the way science is organised could be different, as could the evolving relationship between interdisciplinary and disciplinnar based science. Nature of the scientific record: The last decade has seen significant changes in the nature of the scientific record. The move to open-access publishing is likely to have a number of impacts, in particular, on how journals and the peer review process evolve. Related to this is the issue of quality control and who will be responsible for this. The storage and accessing of large amounts of data that could be available to international scientists is another challenge. Values, beliefs, ethics: Values and beliefs are already impacting on science. How this will evolve in areas such as the relationship between knowledge-based and faith-based societies could have implications for the scientific process especially in the international science area. Even within cultures the way science will go about handling ethical issues and addressing controversial areas of science in areas of high public interest will be significant for the relationship between science and society. Science education and skills: The traditional path of science education could be challenged by the role of new organisations, business and communication technologies. The pattern of nationally based organisations training students could change. The very nature of what students learn, the balance of disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses and the importance of theoretical and applied experience could all evolve. The career path for young researchers is another area where a number of options could develop which would have impacts for international science. Scientific careers: The nature of the‘scientific career'could change. This could be impacted on by changes to the epistemic organisation of science, the science education process and special organisation and conduct of science. The traditional models of academic careers and ways of evaluating scientists may change in the light of changes to any of the above drivers. Box 1. Key drivers of change affecting international science cooperation. 172. M. Keenan et al. drivers in an earlier step were mapped now into the four scenario spaces to create coherent storylines. This involved a fair amount of trial-and-error and over the course of the months following the April 2010 workshop, the exploratoor scenarios were redrafted several times. The CSPR played an important role in further sharpening the scenarrio at its September 2010 meeting, after which they were distributed broadly for comment to ICSU regional committtees member organisations and other stakeholders. In this way, the emphasis of consultations shifted from predominnantl seeking individual perspectives to those of organisations especially ICSU member organisations. More than a dozen organisations responded, making several specific suggestions for improving the scenarios that were incorporated duly. The resulting explorative scenarios, which are outlined briefly in Fig. 1, offer four distinct, yet plausible images of the future‘world order'and of international science cooperation 20 years from now. They are intended not as predictions of the future. Indeed it is a near certainty that none of these scenarios will come to pass as articulated. Instead, the four scenarios offer subjective storylines intended to stimulate creative thinking and to expand the‘possibility space'on future courses of action. They put more emphasis on the multiplicity of futures and are meant to encourage the development of strategies that are appropriate to a variety of circumstances, an orientatiio that should help ICSU and other interested parties develop‘agility'to manage future uncertainties. 3. 2. 3 Phase 3: Developing a visionary‘success scenario'.'Phase 3 saw the exercise shift its focus from preparing exploratory scenarios to the development of Engaged National Global Detached Science for sale in a global market place Globalism driven largely by multinationals An international division of labour leads to intense specialisation of countries'economies Governments compete to host the R&d facilities of multinationals through large R&d investments Public science focused on basic research that multinationals are less likely to perform themselves Strong global networks of scientists guided by disciplinary agendas Public trust in science is low as it is viewed as a supporting institution to global capital Brain drain to leading scientific nations Rise of aggressive nationalism World marked by intense national rivalries for resources Efforts to address grand challenges through global collective action are weak Science largely detached from societal needs and instead serves powerful national militaryindusstria complexes Less developed countries are left isolated from scientific endeavours Mobility of scientists has declined A divided and dangerous world but also one characterised by exciting advances in science English declines as the lingua franca of science Triumph of globalism Reinvigorated global governance structures Active global citizenry that is science-savvy Global science commons including less developed countries Science is a global stabilising agent Greater mobility of researchers Internationally agreed data standards Global strategic research fund combining 2%of each countries public research spending Concept of scientific integrity expands to include wider societal role scientists expected to play Strong cooperation between natural and social sciences Science supplying national needs General backlash against globalism Global governance of science at the intergoverrnmen level is fractured Regional and South-South groupings flourish Science funding closely linked to specific national priorities High levels of societal engagement in science threaten some of its institutions, e g. peer review and other forms of self regulation Proliferation of local solutions to societal problems that also utilise‘traditional knowledge'Fewer opportunities for curiosity-driven Research funding for science is on a relative decline Figure 1. Exploratory scenario spaces. Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.'173 a more visionary‘success scenario'intended to help guide the long-term direction of ICSU. The success scenario approach has been pioneered by researchers at the University of Manchester (see Miles (2005) for an overview) and extensively deployed in regional, national and international foresight exercises. It involves generating a vision of success that sets‘stretch targets'for key stakeholdders Crucially, participants are typically senior decision-makers who are in a position to influence policy strategy outcomes and to take action to implement the emerging vision. In the ICSU exercise, the success scenario was drafted by the ICSU Secretariat using the results of a dedicated one-day scenario workshop involving all members of CSPR ICSU officers, regional committee chairs and most of the ICSU Secretariat and the results of a more focused half-day workshop involving Task Team members. The four exploratory scenarios articulated in Phase 2 provided stimulus for more creative thinking on a desirable success scenario and encouraged a more rigorous treatment of the key drivers of change that are likely to impact on the future state and directions of internatiiona cooperation in science over the longer term. The resulting success scenario has a 20-year time horizon outlining the contours of a desirable state of international cooperation in science in 2031 and ICSU's role in its achievement. As the success scenario runs to several pages only its general contours are presented in Box 2. Through‘backcasting'from the future success scenario of 2031 to the present day, a number of practical steps were identified as milestones along the way to achieving this desirable outcome. These included key roles for ICSU to play in achieving the success scenario by 2031, which are summarised in Box 3. 4. Impacts and lessons In this final section, the impacts of the exercise and its reception are reported and the peculiarities specific to conducctin international foresight exercises are discussed. 4. 1 Reception and impacts The exercise is expected to have impacts both inside and outside of ICSU. Internally the results of the exercise have had already an impact in shaping ICSU's new strategic plan (ICSU 2011a. In particular, the megatrend and key drivers analyses have been important in framing and articulating the challenges to be faced by international science cooperation over the coming decades. The new plan also includes commitments to engage the ICSU memberrshi in continuing foresight analysis and to adapt ICSU's focus and structure, as necessary, in the light of the foresight findings. The internal impacts of the success scenario are less certain at the time of writing, since it is still in the process of being circulated among ICSU member organisattion for their formal feedback. That being said there is every likelihood that the success scenario will be adopted formally as ICSU's long-term desirable vision for internatioona science and the role it and its members can play in achieving that vision. The exercise and its results were debated extensively at ICSU's General assembly in September 2011, a gathering of the ICSU‘family'of member organisations that occurs every three years. Overall, the exercise was viewed favourabbl as a way of positioning and visioning science in society and to reflect on the organisation and activities of the international scientific community. Socioeconomic change is a major driver of science and it was considered that the exercise had captured this relationship rather well. Some commentators misunderstood the exercise as being concerned with predicting the future, but they were a small minority. More serious criticisms revolved around a perceived developed country bias, with the charge that the exercise says too little on how to support science in developing countries. It was claimed also that the use of exploratory scenarios leads to minority views being given the same status as established scientific knowledge. A small number of commentators also thought the results were too conservative and that the exercise should have been bolder in mapping the‘possibility space'for international science. Such comments were invariably related to the extent to which the exercise had tried to incorporate major shocks or extreme events (commonly known as‘wild cards')in its analyses. For the most part such shocks and events were excluded from the exercise on account of resource limitations, but could be introduced during future strategic planning processes, as is done often in business environments (Mendonc¸a et al. 2003). Shortlists of relevant wild cards can be assembled readily through a mix of group brainstorming and desk research for example, much existing information is already readily available from various horizon scanning activities going on around the world (e g. the UK Government's Sigma Scan) 2 and from the EC-funded iknow project dedicated to the collection and analysis of wild cards and weak signals (iknow 2011). 3 The impacts of selected wild cards can then be analysed by‘running them through'the success scenario. More externally, the various results of the exercise, including the key drivers of change and the exploratory scenarios, have been packaged as a resource for member organisations (and others) to use in their own strategic planning or visioning processes (ICSU 2011b). Already, there is evidence that some member organisations have started to use the exploratory scenarios in this way and ICSU hopes that more will follow now that the materials have been made formally available. On their first‘external'presentation outside of the ICSU‘family'(at the World 174. M. Keenan et al. Science Forum in Budapest in November 2011) the explorrator scenarios were picked quickly up and featured in an article in Nature (Macilwain 2011). This can be taken as a strong signal of the likely interest of the science policy community in the scenarios. 4. 2 Lessons in conducting international foresight Reflecting on the approach taken in the ICSU foresight, several lessons can be discerned, concerning the exercise design choices taken, the peculiarities of conducting foresiigh in international arenas, and the scope for using foresiigh to further international science cooperation. First, while the opportunist embedding of some of the exercise's activities in regular meetings was generally successful, greater human resources needed to be devoted to the exercise. The decision to conduct the exercise mostly in-house was with hindsight, probably a mistake, providing too little slack to absorb disruptions such as the departure of the project officer halfway through the exercise. While the exercise needed to be anchored within ICSU, some paid consultancy help would have smoothed out the disruption and better ensured that the exercise remained on-track. Second, conducting international foresight has some peculiarities that need to be taken into account. The most obvious challenge is limited the scope for bringing people together face-to-face on a regular basis on account of the costs involved. Current information and communicattion technologies (ICTS) can overcome some of these limitations e g. email and conference calls, but are not a substitute for face-to-face meetings. ICTS are also useful for eliciting views via surveys, an approach that was used early on. Another challenge concerns accommodating some of the regional differences in perspective that undoubbtedl exist on the subject of international science cooperratio for grand challenges. In this regard, ICSU has a regional office infrastructure that could be called upon to contribute regional perspectives to the exercise. This occurred to some extent but probably could have been better if a dedicated regional round of consultation had been built into the exercise. The visionary success scenario outlines what would be happening in international science in 2031 if it was operating in an effective and successful way Science is thriving and appreciated in all its diversity: By 2031 global science (natural sciences, social sciences, engineering and humanities) has played a significant role in helping to build a more sustainable world by working with society to address the major challenges associated with sustainable development. Responding to societal challenges is a key part of research agendas: Strategic international cooperation in science is focused clearly on themes of a global nature. An effective approach to addressing complex global challenges arose from the nexus between fundamental and applied science. The boundary between discipline-focused work and interdisciplinary science has become artificial. Scientific capability and resources are a truly global asset: Overall there is a more balanced global scientific effort as more countries perceive the benefits of investing in science. Brain circulation replaces brain drain and countries are more willing to subsume some of their national interests to ensure the success of global cooperative activities. A major driver in this changing landscape has been the recognition that no one country has the intellectual or financial resources to tackle the crucial scientific questions alone. Policy-making is more participatory and open with science making a valued contribution: New networks that are inclusive of governmment the private sector and civil society now play a key role in addressing complex global issues. These new fora have brought in a wider range of scientific expertise. Science successfully met the challenge of setting up more effective processes to ensure the consensus of the very best science was communicated to multiple stakeholders in a way that helps decision-making. New mechanisms have been developed for planning and funding science: Greater flexibility in international research cooperation is encouraged by the availability of flexible funding from multiple sources including public private partnerships, foundations and charitable donations. The new approach is symbolised by a global grand challenges science programme in which each nation agrees to contribute a minimum of 1%of its public research budget and further contributions are received from the private sector and foundations. This fund is for collaborative international projects with a focus on global sustainability challenges. Scientific integrity helps ensure public trust: The responsible practice of science was recognised as vital to the integrity of science and education, and training and mentoring for young scientists were adjusted to emphasise this. International principles for safeguarrdin scientific integrity have been adopted widely along with effective and transparent mechanisms to identify and deal with misconduct. Public appreciation and engagement have become integral to the way science operates: A higher level of science literacy has been achieved through a mix of measures around general education, e g. teaching critical thinking and better appreciation of risk and uncertainty. A wide variety of electronic and visual medium are used now routinely to ensure the work of scientists is communicated effectively to public audiences. This has been complemented by opportunities for interested citizens to routinely contribute to the research process. Scientific information is tailored to specific audiences, whilst at the same time making the whole process of science more open and accessible. Communication is recognised as an essential element of a research career. Box 2. Outline of 2031 success scenario for international science cooperation. Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.'175 Finally, the exercise and ICSU's other uses of foresigght e g. in the Earth systems visioning exercise have demonstrated the feasibility of using foresight in support of international science cooperation activities. In this regard, ICSU's systematic approach to international foresiigh is not unique, though the present authors have not found other examples that focus on mechanisms for internatiiona science collaboration. For example, experiences with international foresight using scenarios have been described by Cagnin and Ko nno la (2011) for the domain of intelligent and sustainable manufacturing, while the European Science Foundation (ESF) created a programme of Forward Looks in 2000 as an instrument for developing medium term perspectives on future directions of multi-disciplinary research in Europe. 4 In national settings, foresight has been proven to be a useful tool for bringing together different stakeholders in processes of mutual learning and exchange of expectations of the future, for delineating research directions, for contributing to the construction of advocacy coalitions in support of desirable change, and for improving organisatioona agility vis-a vis future unpredictable change (Miles et al. 2008). These are all qualities that that can benefit international science cooperation as it seeks to address many of the grand challenges of our time. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support of the CSPR in conducting the exercise, and particularly Task Team members Kari Raivio, Roberta Balstad, Nebojsa Nakicenovic and Lidia Brito. The exercise also benefited from workshop facilitation by Barend Van der meulen, A broad disciplinary base: The science base of ICSU has been expanded to include strong representation of health, engineering, humanities and social sciences. ICSU and the International Social sciences Council (ISSC) effectively function as a single organisaatio and speak with the same voice on many issues. Leadership in interdisciplinary global research: ICSU is seen as an independent platform able to bring together funders and the science community to co-design programmes, building on the success of the Earth System Sustainability Initiative, 2012 22. Working in partnership with its national members and building partnerships with research funding organisations, ICSU actively promotes interdisciplinary global science. Promoting science into policy: ICSU has insisted that the outcomes of international science are communicated in a way that can be understood readily and used by those working in policy. Furthermore, ICSU's research initiatives have been designed explicitly to feed into global assessment structures, e g. IPCC, and where such assessment structures have not existed, ICSU has advocated for them. ICSU has developed also a‘think tank'role, working with its members and other organisations, to rapidly assess new areas of scientific advance that have implications for the benefit of society. At the same time, ICSU's independence and unique ability to consult with the worldwide scientific community in conducting global foresight and forward look exercises has been exploited in a series of influential studies. Many of the ICSU membership have adopted foresight approaches to help them become more flexible and responsive. The universality of science is strengthened: ICSU has continued to expand the principle of universality to include responsibilities as well as freedoms. Maintaining the integrity of science was recognised as being critical to building an effective relationship between science and society, especially around global issues. The universality of science now includes reference to values and principles that underpin the relationship between science and society and the responsibilities that scientists have with regard to this relationship. Outreach and education: ICSU recognised that its effectiveness in addressing societies concerns about complex international science could be answered partly by ensuring effective outreach in the context of each of its programmes. In this context, ICSU now plays the central role in communicating the results of interdisciplinary global research to international fora. ICSU has played also an instrumental role in developing education materials and activities for schools and has promoted actively the involvement of practicing scientists in science education. Capacity building: Young researcher networks were recognised formally as ICSU associates, which helped them to attract financial support and to ensure their longer-term sustainability. ICSU also launched a high-profile prize scheme in 2015 to recognise achievement by early career researchers working in interdisciplinary research and communication. Furthermore, as part of its Initiative On earth System Sustainability, 2012 22, ICSU worked with funding agencies to encourage the development of internatioona courses targeted at developing the ability of young researchers to conduct interdisciplinary research. Better linkages to people and data: ICSU used its global and regional structures to establish and maintain comprehensive databases of individuals and institutions working on different global challenges. They were made also openly available to the research communnit and formed the basis for the development of many new international science networks, both North South and South South. At the same time, the ICSU World Data system was expanded in the Developing World after donors and national governments were convinced of the importance investing in data infrastructure. The vision for a global open-access library for scientific data is being realised. An evolving organisational structure for ICSU: With an expanded membership base (in terms of both countries and disciplines; an efficient head office structure; a strong regional structure; new partnerships and associates; and effective governance, ICSU is recognised as a key player in international science and has been able to attract new funding. Box 3. Organising for success:‘‘stretch targets'for ICSU. 176. M. Keenan et al. Luke Georghiou and Jennifer Cassingena Harper. The usual disclaimer applies. Notes 1. The German Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (2010) has developed also exploratory scenarios for the future of the European research landscape in 2025.2. See<http://www. sigmascan. org>accessed 10 march 2012.3. See<http://wiwe. iknowfutures. eu/>accessed 10 march 2012.4. In 2007 ESF evaluated the experiences with Forward Looks (Van der meulen 2007. Though the Forward Looks focus on science agendas, they do address issues of international collaboration. ICSU's lessons match the experiences of ESF. References Beddington, J. 2009)‘ Food, energy, water and the climate: A perfect storm of global events?''speech delivered at the conferrenc‘Sustainable development UK 09',held London, 19 march 2009. Bo rjeson, L.,Ho jer, M.,Dreborg, K.,Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. 2006)‘ Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide',Futures, 38: 723 39. Cagnin, C. and Ko nno la, T. 2011)‘ The challenge of global foresight: lessons from scenario and roadmapping process on intelligent and sustainable manufacturing systems, 'paper presented at the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, held Seville, Spain, 12 may 2011. European commission. 2008)‘ Opening to the World: International Cooperation in Science and Technology',report of the ERA Expert Group 5, Directorate-General for Research, EUR 23325 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European communities. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. 2010) Envisioning Future research Horizons: Scenarios for the European research Landscape 2025. Munich: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. ICSU. 2006) Strengthening International Science for the Benefit of Society: ICSU Strategic Plan 2006 2011. Paris: International council for science..(2010) Earth System Science for Global sustainability: The Grand challenges. Paris: International council for science..(2011a) ICSU Strategic Plan II, 2012 2017. Paris: International council for science..(2011b)‘ ICSU Foresight Analysis Report 1: International Science in 2031 Exploratory scenarios'.'Paris: International council for science. iknow. 2011)‘ iknow ERA Toolkit: Applications of Wild Cards and Weak signals to the Grand challenges and Thematic Priorities of the European research area'.'Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester. Keenan, M. and Miles, I. 2008)‘ Scoping and planning foresigght'In: Georghiou, L.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Keenan, M.,Miles, I. and Popper, R. eds) The Handbook of Technology foresight, pp. 342 75. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Macilwain, C. 2011)‘ Science's attitudes must reflect a world in crisis',Nature, 479: 447,24 November 2011. Mendonc¸A s.,Cunha, M. P. E.,Kaivo-oja, J. and Ruff, F. 2003)‘ Wild cards, weak signals and organizational improvisattion'FEUNL Working Paper 432. Lisbon: Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Miles, I. 2005)‘ Scenario planning',in UNIDO Technology foresight Manual, Vol. 1, pp. 168 93. Vienna: UNIDO. Miles, I.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Georghiou, L.,Keenan, M. and Popper, R. 2008)‘ The many faces of foresight'.'In: Georghiou, L.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Keenan, M.,Miles, I. and Popper, R. eds) The Handbook of Technology foresight, pp. 3 23. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ogilvy, J. and Schwartz, P. 1998)‘ Plotting your scenarios'.'In: Fahey, L. and Randell, R. eds) Learning from the future. New york: Wiley. Royal Society. 2011) Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st century. London: Royal Society. Schwartz, P. 1998) The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. New york: Wiley. Teixeira, A.,Martin, B. and von Tunzelmann, N. 2002)‘ Identification of Key Emerging Issues in Science and Society: an International Perspective on National foresight Studies',review report to the ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review Report. Brighton: University of Sussex. UNESCO. 2010)‘ UNESCO Science Report 2010: The Current Status of Science around the World'.'Paris: UNESCO. Van der meulen, B. 2007)‘ Looking Beyond the Endless Frontier, ESF Forward Look Scheme: Analysis and Recommendations',report to the European Science Foundation. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. van‘t Klooster, S. A. and van Asselt, M. B. A. 2006)‘ Practising the scenario-axes technique',Futures, 38:15 30. Orienting international science cooperation to meet global‘grand challenges'.

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011