Foreword
Editors: J.G. de Wilt, H.J. van Oosten, J.M.P. Papenhuijzen, H. Hetsen and H. Rutten (NRLO)
NRLO Report 99/1E, The Hague (Netherlands), July 1999
Annexes: (links to separate document)
1. NRLO-documents on S&T area foresight
2. Key points per S&T area
3. S&T debate (Main findings)
4. List of abbreviations
Foreword
Science and technology (S&T) are undergoing rapid development,
and this is creating new opportunities for agribusiness, rural
areas and the fishing industry. With this in mind, exploring the scientific
and technological dynamics is one of the three main lines of the
NRLO working programme, along with the exploration of social dynamics
and the dynamics of processes of innovation.
A large number of reports have been published and workshops have
been held in recent years as part of the science and technology
foresight by NRLO. A list of the reports is contained in Appendix
1. This has resulted in proposals for actions to reinforce strategic
S&T areas (Appendix 2). These proposals were generally well
received by the most important stakeholders. As a consequence
an important objective of these foresight studies, namely to stimulate
the strengthening of a number of strategic S&T areas, has
been achieved.
This S&T report has been drawn up to complete this S&T
foresight exercise. It provides a factual description of the approach
and results of the exercise. Examples of the topics covered are:
(1) What is the ambition of this foresight study; what means
have been used to try and achieve this ambition, and how successful
has the approach been?
(2) What is the nature of the S&T areas selected; what common
themes can be distilled from the strengths/weaknesses analysis,
and what points stand out when surveying the actions formulated?
(3)How desirable and feasible is a cohesive S&T policy for
agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry?
These issues were also discussed during a S&T debate with
financial backers and research managers (Annex 3; NRLO report
99/19).
A summary has been added to this report specially for policymakers,
setting out a vision of the role of S&T foresight studies
in the formulation of policy in the field of science and technology.
The predominantly positive reactions from participants at the
action conferences and in the S&T debate encouraged the continuation
of the foresight studies in other S&T areas. Studies of this
type are regarded by many as an important tool in the formulation
of S&T policy in the first decades of the 21st
century.
I am confident that the experiences documented here will contribute
to the further improvement of the foresight process.
Prof. A. Rörsch,
President, NRLO
Policy summary
1. New scientific and technological developments offer many opportunities for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry.
The NRLO study programme 1995-1999 devotes
a good deal of attention to the dynamics of society, resulting
in innovation challenges for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry.
The dynamics of processes of innovation have also been explored;
above all this study revealed the importance of radical innovations
at system level - 'system innovations'.
This report focuses on the third part of
the 1995-1999 foresight programme, namely the dynamics of science
and technology. Developments in various S&T areas are generating
innumerable interesting new perspectives and opportunities, based
on International Delphi studies and national surveys (OCV, EZ).
In the essays, background studies, interviews and workshops carried
out as part of this NRLO study, these S&T developments and
their perspectives are explored further. Bold and inspiring visions
create an image of a large dynamic system which offers the prospect
of breakthroughs in several S&T areas, as well as a wide diversity
of new opportunities for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry.
2. If these opportunities are to be grasped,
there is a greater need than ever for the formation of a common
vision and ambition by policymakers in public authorities and
societal organisations, captains of industry and scientists.
The dynamics in science and technology is
leading to increasing differentiation and subspecialisation of
S&T areas and to the emergence of new combinations of disciplines.
Developing new, multidisciplinary S&T areas is often possible
only through multilateral cooperation. The growing breadth and
complexity of the tasks in agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry
increase this need for collaboration, even where large conglomerates
such as Wageningen UR are concerned. Better coordination of the
work being carried out in the field of science and technology
is consequently becoming crucial for the exploitation of new opportunities.
In principle, this coordination between different players can be achieved in a variety of ways.
It is of course unrealistic to aim for binding
agreements between knowledge institutes for the entire national
S&T portfolio; and anyway, such an ambition would be counter-productive.
This does not however mean that binding agreements cannot be made
between specific parties in specific areas. This S&T study
sets the ball rolling in this sense by putting forward concrete
proposals for joint action.
3. The formation of a common vision and ambition demands a process-based approach, a good balance between independence and commitment, a mix of studies and social interaction.
The formation of a common vision and ambition
demands on the one hand commitment from the parties concerned,
whilst on the other ensuring that the independence of the process
is safeguarded. In view of this dichotomy, this S&T study
opts for a phased approach, a mix of interaction and studies and
the deployment of independent parties in certain parts of the
process.
In phase 1, on the basis of international
Delphi studies, essays, background studies, interviews and workshops,
a picture is formed of the most important possible developments
in a variety of science and technology fields and their significance
for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry. Based on these
two criteria - dynamics and potential - the NRLO (Bureau, Executive
Committee and Council) selected ten S&T areas which are of
strategic importance. This is a well-argued, partly intuitive
selection rather than the outcome of an objective scientific analysis.
In phase 2, a strengths/weaknesses analysis was performed for
each of the ten S&T areas selected; the analysis was performed
by the research institute TNO-STB using a method developed especially
for this study. The key elements of this analysis are: deployment
of resources (input), system characteristics (e.g. networks) and
performance (output). This produced a good impression of the relative
strengths and weaknesses. This profile proved to be an essential
aid in the discussion with relevant players (policy-implementers,
users and financial backers) on the strengths and weaknesses.
In phase 3, the actions to strengthen each
S&T field were generated in a four-stage process: first, TNO-STB
tentatively formulated a number of actions based on the strengths/weaknesses
analysis; these actions were then discussed with the stakeholders;
they were then worked out in more detail by an independent three-strong
committee, consisting of a member of the NRLO executive committee,
a staff member from the NRLO Bureau and an external expert. Finally,
the actions were submitted to "deciders" in action conferences.
This process-based approach enables a structure
to be imposed on the diversity of information on science and technology
and - without seeking to be complete - enables well-argued choices
to be made which enjoy wide support among the stakeholders.
4. The actions resulting from this process designed to strengthen strategic
S&T areas constitute a major source of input for the renewal
phase in the S&T policy of the various players.
Specific actions are needed for each of the
ten S&T areas in order to eliminate the weaknesses relating
to resources (input), system characteristics and performance (output).
These actions can be divided into five categories:
1. Pool and focus research capacity, e.g. in consortia or a top research institute.
2. Strengthening the networks involving agricultural
research and research outside the agricultural circuit by developing
joint programmes, workshops, platforms, clusters or more radical
forms of institutionalisation, such as an innovative centre or
a top research institute.
3. Strengthening the networks between research
institutes and users by forming platforms, clusters and alliances.
4. Strengthening the fundamental research
in a number of S&T areas through NWO programmes, the creation
of a number of new professorial chairs and the initiation of strategic studies.
5. Strengthening the ties between knowledge generation, technology development and innovation by training
programmes, case studies, innovation programmes and business start-ups.
Deciding on the actions and then detailing
and carrying out the actions selected is not part of the mandate
of NRLO, but is the task of the stakeholders. Their predominantly
positive reactions to the proposals engender confidence in their
ultimate achievement. Nevertheless, it has to be recognised that
the actions and actors are extremely numerous and diverse. Implementing
the actions and ensuring mutual coordination and cooperation will
therefore demand a considerable effort.
5. Foresight studies of S&T areas, strengths/weaknesses analyses and action
conferences are important tools for the formulation of S&T policy in the 21st century.
The complexity of S&T policy-formulation
will increase further in the coming decades, under the influence
of the increasing interdependency on all fronts. Examples include
the interdependencies between scientific and technological developments
outside and within agribusiness, between organisations in production
chains, between functions in rural areas and between the urban
and rural environments - as well as the increasing interdependencies
between agribusiness and other sectors.
Many players will influence the scientific
and technological developments and the future of agribusiness,
rural areas and the fishing industry in the first decades of the 21st
century. Creating a cohesive S&T policy at national or - even
more ambitious - international level in such a situation will
demand instruments which make the opportunities for the various
players visible and open to discussion, and which do the same
for strengths and weaknesses and potential actions. In short:
forward studies, strengths/weaknesses analyses and action meetings
will be core instruments for S&T policy making. If that is
the case - and the results of the S&T debate appear to confirm
this - then this S&T study has experimented and gained experience
with instruments which will prove to be crucial for the shaping
of S&T policy in the first decades of the 21st
century.
1. Introduction
S&T foresight studies have become increasingly popular in
a growing number of countries since the start of the nineties.
An important reason for this is the growing realisation that science
and technology are strategic resources, which have to be utilised
as effectively as possible. Science and technology foresight studies
have proved themselves to be a means of forging a common vision
and ambition among the implementers, users and financial backers
of research.
Foresight studies occur in many guises, reflecting above all the
wide variation in the objectives of the studies and the differences
in the knowledge infrastructures in different sectors and countries.
This means that the results of the studies cannot simply be transferred
between different sectors and countries. In some studies, the
emphasis lies on technology and industrial innovation, in others
it lies mainly on the scientific dynamics; some foresight studies
focus on a range of S&T areas, whilst others are highly selective;
and finally, a distinction can be made between analytical studies
and studies focusing on action [3]. Examples of recent studies
of a very diverse nature within The Netherlands include the Technology
Radar(EZ) and the work of the Consultative Committee on Foresight
Studies (OCV) [7, 11].
The aim of this S&T foresight study is to accommodate a process
which mobilises the stakeholders with a view to reinforcing a
number of strategic S&T areas for agribusiness, rural areas
and the fishing industry. This raises questions such as which S&T
areas are of strategic importance, what the strong and weak points
of the Dutch knowledge infrastructure are in those S&T areas,
and what actions are needed to strengthen these areas. And, at
least as relevant, how can the process be structured in such a
way that these topics can be addressed adequately? The Dutch knowledge
infrastructure, seen partly from an international perspective,
is the central focus of this approach.
This S&T study does not seek to provide an objective, all-encompassing
weighing-up of priorities between different S&T areas, as
a basis for putting forward "ex cathedra" proposals
for a redistribution of resources. This contrasts with many international
S&T foresight studies, which make wide use of Delphi studies
for this. It is also not the aim of this study to predict the
probability of certain scientific and technological developments
occurring within a certain timeframe - another thing which is
often a goal in international Delphi studies.
The core of the NRLO approach is to support the main players (scientists,
public authorities, industry, community organisations) in formulating
and achieving common ambitions. As part of this approach, a number
of strategic S&T areas are selected at an early stage of the
study, which are then examined more closely. Providing discussion
material and indicating actions in dialogue with the stakeholders
are important ingredients of this approach. Often these actions
have in practice already been put in motion before the final report
is published. Large-scale Delphi studies do not fit in with this
approach: brainstorming, essays, interviews, tentative strength/weakness
analyses, panel discussions and workshops, by contrast, do.
Many reports have been published and workshops held in the last
three years in the context of the S&T foresight exercise (see
Annex 1); these have resulted in proposals for action to reinforce
strategic S&T areas. These proposals have largely been welcomed
by the main stakeholders during the action conferences held for
each S&T field. This achieves an important aim of this foresight
study, namely to stimulate the strengthening of a number of strategic
S&T areas.
This report - the culmination of the S&T foresight study - focuses on two key topics:
Chapters 2 and 3 of this report present a factual summary of the
methods and results of the entire foresight study. Chapter 4 then
reflects on the methods used and the findings, and also considers
the need and possibilities for formulating a more cohesive science
and technology policy. The results of the science and technology
debate which was held with financial backers and research managers
at the conclusion of this foresight study (NRLO report 99/19)
are incorporated in these sections.
2. Goals and approach of the S&T foresight study
The S&T foresight study was carried out in the period mid-1996
to early 1999 and comprised three phases. In phase 1, the dynamics
and potential of a range of S&T areas were mapped out, to
form a basis for selection and demarcation. In phase 2, the strengths
and weaknesses of the national knowledge infrastructure with respect
to the selected S&T areas were evaluated; finally, in phase
3 actions were formulated to reinforce the knowledge infrastructure
(figure 1). Each phase is briefly described below.
Figure 1. Phasing of the S&T foresight
study
The potential number of S&T areas to be studied is very large:
international Delphi studies identify many hundreds of S&T
areas. A large number of these fields are of strategic importance
for the development of agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry.
An initial selection of 20-25 S&T areas was made on the basis
of interviews with a broad panel of experts. These experts were
asked to list the fields where "breakthroughs" could
occur in the coming years which could be of great importance for
the sectors in question. Thereafter, a group of leading experts
elaborated the possible developments in these 20-25 S&T areas
and their potential for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry
in the coming decades and given substance in the form of essays
and background studies (Annex 1). One background study and
a number of essays formed the subject of workshops. Based on the
information in the essays, the background studies, a large number
of international Delphi studies and national S&T foresight
studies [1, 5, 6, 7, 11], NRLO (Bureau, Executive Committee and
Council) selected ten S&T areas. The decisive criteria in
this selection were the assessment of the dynamics (new developments,
breakthroughs) in the S&T areas in question, and their potential
(significance, possible impact) for agribusiness, rural areas and
the fishing industry.
The selected S&T areas were then defined more closely in consultation
between NRLO, the policy research institute TNO-STB and experts
from the S&T areas themselves. This involved listing the most
important disciplines in each S&T field, the research themes
and chief trends in that research, as well as the main research
institutes. This information was obtained from annual reports,
websites and interviews.
In the second phase the strengths and weaknesses of the knowledge infrastructure for each of the ten S&T areas was mapped out using a method developed for NRLO by TNO-STB. This method adopts a system-based approach to science and technology. Resources on the input side are transformed in the knowledge infrastructure into products with a certain scientific value and a certain societal quality, i.e. a certain usefulness for target groups such as industry, public authorities and societal organisations. The core elements of the strengths/weaknesses analysis are resource position (input), system characteristics and performance (output) (figure 2).
These elements were translated into characteristics which can
be evaluated using a range of indicators (table 1). The usefulness
of this method was demonstrated in a number of case studies [13].
Table 1. Characteristics and indicators for the
analysis of resource position, system characteristics and performance
of S&T areas
The method was then applied to the ten selected S&T areas.
In addition to factual information drawn from annual reports,
inspection reports, websites, etc., wide use was also made of
expert opinions. Foreign experts were consulted for the evaluation
of scientific quality. Where possible the study built on recent
surveys by other organisations, such as STT Netherlands Studycentre
for Technology Trends (nanotechnology) and DTO (sensor technology).
The approach and results were reported by TNO-STB for each S&T
field (Annex 1). This basic material proved essential for the
development of joint, partially new insights into the strengths
and weaknesses of each S&T field in workshops held with those
concerned (researchers, policymakers and users of research). On
the other hand, it became apparent during the workshops that certain
elements in the basic material required adjustment.
Based on the results of the strengths/weaknesses analysis and
the workshops, actions were generated to reinforce each S&T
field. A phased approach was used here: first TNO-STB tentatively
formulated a number of actions based on the strengths/weaknesses
analysis. These actions were then discussed with the stakeholders
before being detailed further by a three-strong team consisting
of a member of the NRLO Executive Committee, a staff member from
the NRLO Bureau and an external expert.
The results of phases 1, 2 and 3 were summarised briefly for each
S&T field in NRLO advisory reports (Annex 1). These reports
were presented during action conferences and discussed with the
most relevant stakeholders for the implementation of the various
actions. The study was rounded off with an S&T debate, in
which participants reflected on the method and results. Figure
3 represents the process diagrammatically:
In selecting ten S&T areas from the hundreds available, two
criteria were applied consistently: the anticipated dynamics (rapid
developments, breakthroughs) in a given field and its potential
for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry. In other words:
what new opportunities do developments in a given S&T field
offer for meeting the main challenges in these three sectors?
Inevitably, this involved judgements of a somewhat arbitrary nature.
The explosive developments in a number of large generic S&T
areas are important driving forces behind the dynamics of science
and technology. These fields are molecular sciences, information
and communications technology (ICT) and materials technology.
The interaction of highly diverse disciplines at the interfaces
of these generic fields provides an enormous boost for the development
of a host of other S&T areas. A number of these interdisciplinary
fields which are closely linked to the key fields also have major
potential in the agricultural sector. Of these strategic S&T
areas, this S&T foresight exercise focuses closer attention
on molecular biology, sensor and microsystem technology, intelligent
data processing, nanotechnology and packaging and storage technology.
In addition, a few S&T areas were selected which are currently
developing rapidly - indirectly influenced by the strong dynamics
in the generic S&T areas - and which have major potential
for an innovative multidisciplinary approach to strategic tasks
in agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry. These fields include
production ecology, veterinary epidemiology, policy sciences and
ICT in rural areas, and aquaculture.
In addition to the expected dynamics in a given S&T field,
therefore, the potential of that field for contributing to the
achievement of major tasks in agribusiness, rural areas and the
fisheries also played a part in the selection of these S&T
areas. Among these major tasks are improving food quality, ensuring
food safety, penetrating new markets, reducing environmental impact,
promoting animal health, contributing to the world food supply
and revitalising the countryside.
Figure 4 gives a diagrammatic representation of the relationships
between the selected S&T areas and the dynamics in a number
of generic S&T areas on the one hand, and the key challenges
for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry on the other. The
figure gives an indication of the type of judgements which played
a role in the selection of each S&T field. The specific considerations
used in the selection of each S&T field are discussed in more
detail in Appendix 2. The complete argumentation for the selection
of each S&T field is given in the NRLO advisory reports for
each S&T field (Annex 1).
Of the selected S&T areas, sensor and microsystem technology,
intelligent data processing and nanotechnology are of strategic
importance for the entire agricultural sector, i.e. the whole
chain from supply, through primary production to processing and
distribution. The other fields are mainly of significance for
certain parts of the chain: molecular biology (molecular genetics,
developmental biology) for the distribution of plants and animals;
production ecology and veterinary epidemiology for the primary
production; and packaging and storage technology for the processing
and distribution segment (figure 5). Initially, the S&T foresight
study was to be targeted only at strategic S&T areas for the
agricultural sector; later, one S&T field was added for both
rural areas and the fishing industry.
The strengths/weaknesses analysis charted the resource position,
system characteristics and performance of the various S&T
areas and evaluated them on the basis of the indicators shown
in table 1. The performance was broken down into scientific aspects
and societal aspects; the latter characteristic relates to the
usability of the output for various target groups, such as industry,
public authorities and societal organisations. This section outlines
the main findings (table 2). For more detail and descriptions
of specific points in each S&T field, reference is made to
Annex 2.
In general, the position of the Dutch knowledge infrastructure
relating to molecular sciences and information and communications
technology is good to very good in terms of capacity, networks
and scientific quality. This is due in part to large-scale incentive
programmes, primarily emanating from the Ministry of Economic
Affairs, as well as systematic screening for quality via peer
reviews (NWO, KNAW). The Dutch position in the field of materials
technology was not examined explicitly. The degree to which this
very fundamental knowledge base is utilised in the agricultural
sector varies across the individual S&T areas. It is striking
that the networks of agricultural knowledge institutes and fundamental
knowledge groups outside the agricultural circuit are generally
weakly developed.
There are also specific strengths and weaknesses in each S&T
field. In the fields of molecular plant biology and molecular
and reproductive biology in animals there have been many successful
applications in the improvement of plant and animal species. The
rather fragmented capacity and the lack of sufficient focus could
however ultimately make it difficult for The Netherlands to (continue
to) play an international role of any significance. This S&T
field is becoming increasingly dominated by large internationally
operating pharmaceutical concerns and large research centres abroad.
Molecular and reproductive biology in animals encounters obstacles
in the Netherlands in the form of social resistance to advanced
methods such as cell regeneration and nuclear transplants, and
is in danger of falling behind on an international level.
In the fields of sensor and microsystem technology and
intelligent data processing and process control, too few
applications have yet been realised within the agricultural sector.
The networks for agrofood in these fields are poorly developed.
For nanotechnology, finally, the first applications are
only expected in five years' time, since this is an S&T field
which is still in its infancy.
Overall, it can be concluded for the five fields referred to above
that there is a gulf between the technological research groups
focusing on agribusiness and the leading international fundamental
scientific research groups in The Netherlands. The quest for national
and international matching is made more difficult by the fragmented
nature of the research focusing on agribusiness in these S&T
areas.
The other five fields are relatively small. Each has its own characteristic
strengths and weaknesses. Production ecology is an internationally
unique S&T field with a high scientific quality but relatively
few links with the domestic market: the national agricultural
sector and the national territory. Veterinary epidemiology
and packaging and storage technology, by contrast, are
characterised by close interaction with users, creating a danger
of fragmentation of the limited capacity across a wide range of
topics and jeopardising the underlying research. The S&T field
policy sciences and ICT in rural areas is also demand-driven.
The large number of diverse research groups and the lack of structural
networks are significant weaknesses in this field. Aquaculture
does have a solid fundamental research profile in the Netherlands,
but has a very limited capacity with wide, loose networks. The
four latter S&T areas are characterised by good relationships
with the innovative domain. However, the balance between scientific
investigation on the one hand and development of technologies
and skills on the other is somewhat disturbed.
Table 2. Summary of the results of the strengths/weaknesses
analyses
--: very weak -: weak 0: not particularly weak
or strong +:strong ++: very strong
To eliminate weaknesses related to the resource position, system
characteristics and performance, a range of actions are proposed
in this S&T foresight study (table 3). These actions are divided
into five categories on the basis of their primary focus. One
action can have several functions; for example, an NWO programme
may benefit both the scientific quality within an S&T field
as well as improving the interaction between agricultural and
non-agricultural research groups. The proposed actions and most
important campions are described in more detail in Annex 2.
Resource position
To strengthen the resource position - often needed because of
fragmentation of the capacity across locations and topics - a
physical and/or organisational pooling of capacity is recommended,
combined with a more tightly defined prioritisation. Pooling and
focusing S&T capacity is particularly important in S&T
areas which have exhibited strong growth in the last 10-15 years,
without the development of strong structural research networks.
This applies in particular for molecular biology in plants and
animals and veterinary epidemiology. It is recommended that a
top institute or consortium be formed for these fields. Increasing
capacity without taking additional organisational measures and
coordination of content would not contribute to reinforcing the
resource position for these S&T areas.
System characteristics
Many actions are geared to promoting formal networks, especially
between agricultural and non-agricultural research groups and
between researchers and users of research. Strengthening the networks
between agricultural and non-agricultural knowledge institutes
is necessary primarily in S&T areas having a direct relationship
with large generic technology fields such as sensor and microsystem
technology, intelligent data processing and process control, nanotechnology
and molecular biology in plants and animals.
Increasing the interaction between researchers and users of research
is desirable for most S&T areas, including those where close
contacts already exist between the two groups, for example in
the form of contract research or interactive research. The main
challenge in this situation is to secure structural commitment
and co-responsibility of users (industry, public authorities)
in the development of the S&T areas in question.
Strengthening and formalising networks can take many forms. For
example, the creation of new platforms or participation in existing
platforms can be useful, as can collaborative programmes or special
workshops involving participation of agricultural and non-agricultural
knowledge institutes. The formation of clusters of scientific,
technological and innovative activities can also be useful. More
far-reaching forms of institutionalisation of networks include
top institutes and innovative centres, as proposed for molecular
plant biology and packaging and storage technology, respectively.
Scientific performance
Improving the scientific performance by strengthening the fundamental
research is necessary above all in S&T areas where strategic
knowledge development and methodological innovation are under
pressure owing to the strong dominance of the short-term interests
of users. This situation occurs in veterinary epidemiology, packaging
and storage technology and policy sciences and ICT in rural areas.
It is proposed for these S&T areas that fundamental expertise
be built up within the agricultural knowledge system, for example
via NWO programmes, strategic studies and the installation of
new professorial chairs.
There is also a need to improve scientific performance within
the agricultural knowledge system in the fields of sensor and
microsystem technology, intelligent data processing and process
control and molecular biology. Opportunities for these S&T
areas lie in the strengthening of relationships with first-class
fundamental research groups outside the agricultural circuit,
for example in the form of joint NWO programmes.
Social performance
Improving the social performance is of particular importance in
those S&T areas where there is as yet too little success in
translating the research into practical applications in the agricultural
sector, for example in sensor and microsystem technology, intelligent
data processing and process control and nanotechnology. The usability
of the output can be increased by the addition of innovation programmes
and case studies, in which users are also involved. The creation
of networks between researchers and users of the research, as
described above, can also contribute here, as can the lowering
of thresholds for scientists to start their own business, possibly
allied to knowledge institutes ("start-ups"). Sometimes
the gulf between researchers and users is due to deficient communication
and gaps in knowledge, which can be accommodated by new, more
specific training programmes. Keeping track of the social debate
is particularly important in controversial areas, such as molecular
and reproductive biology in animals. A final option is the creation
of specific tools, such as a monitoring and surveillance system
for veterinary epidemiology, in which up-to-date knowledge is
brought together in a form geared to users.
Table 3. Summary of the proposed actions per S&T
field
The aim of this S&T foresight study is to mobilise stakeholders
to reinforce a number of strategic S&T areas. The ambition
of this study is not to break new ground and devise binding priorities
for S&T areas on the basis of a comprehensive rational planning
founded on objective analysis of opportunities, threats, strengths
and weaknesses. Apart from the impossibility in principle of such
a comprehensive approach (there is no scientific algorithm for
comparing diverse S&T areas), an integral weighing-up of priorities
would also not fit in with the way in which the S&T policy
is pursued in practice. In general, choices are made on the basis
of perceived opportunities in constituent areas, with objective
data - where these can be produced - playing a supporting role.
The design of this foresight study aligns closely with this heuristics
of policy practice. Characteristic of this approach is the ability
to impose a structure on the diversity of information on science
and technology and - without seeking to be complete - to make
well-argued choices which enjoy broad support among the stakeholders.
Phase 1: Dynamics and potential of S&T areas
The selection - on the basis of their dynamics
and potential - of ten S&T areas from a range of many hundreds,
using various international and national foresight studies in
combination with the opinions of experts, is unavoidably intuitive
to some extent. It is a well-argued, partly subjective choice,
not the outcome of an objective scientific analysis. Objectifying
this selection process is not only virtually impossible, but also
not desirable. The involvement of relevant actors in the choice
of S&T areas is of crucial importance for the success of the
subsequent process.
To promote the openness of the search process and create maximum
scope for visionary views of the future, authors with independent
and bold ideas were sought for the essays on the dynamics and
the potential of S&T areas. More so than the background studies,
this led to a number of very inspiring perspectives.
Crucial for the subsequent phase - the strengths/weaknesses analysis
- is a clear definition of each S&T field. In drawing up this
definition, the substantive developments and relevant actors for
each S&T field were mapped out, partly on the basis of the
input of experts. In new and relatively unstructured fields, in
particular, arbitrary choices were made concerning the themes,
disciplines and research groups forming part of that S&T field.
In view of the relatively small size of the S&T areas, formal
mapping and clustering methods, for example based on citation
analyses, were not used.
Phase 2: Strengths and weaknesses
For the strengths/weaknesses analysis, TNO-STB developed a method
for NRLO which was tested in three case studies. The experiences
gained in the application of this method during the case studies
and the S&T foresight studies were documented by TNO-STB [2,
13] and are briefly reproduced here. There are four core elements
to the strengths/weaknesses analysis: resource position, system
characteristics, scientific quality and usability (table 1).
The charting of the "resource position" (capacity/capacity
development, funding, continuity) was based primarily on information
from the research groups themselves (interviews, annual reports).
Research databases proved to contain few if any usable capacity
figures. Moreover, information on the amount of direct (governmental),
indirect (via NWO) and contract research funding (the "first",
"second" and "third" funds flows) was accessible
in only a few S&T areas and research groups. The quantitative
information, which consisted primarily of the size in terms of
number of researchers, was checked during the workshops.
To assess whether the resources for a given S&T field are
adequate, i.e. whether there is sufficient critical mass, capacity
data alone are not enough. Qualitative aspects, such as the diversity
of disciplines and themes and the cohesion within the networks
also has to be taken into account. Despite the lack of quantitative
criteria, it proved possible in collaboration with stakeholders
to arrive at an assessment of the available capacity.
The system characteristics were defined primarily on the
basis of their embedding in networks and the control mechanisms.
The lack of sufficient information on funding flows meant that
the control mechanisms could only be mapped out to a certain extent.
A reliable picture of the cooperation within networks could be
obtained via interviews, summaries of research programmes, annual
reports and websites. A distinction was made between disciplinary
and interdisciplinary networks of researchers, intersectoral research
networks, networks between public and private researchers and
networks between researchers and users of research.
The notion of performance was operationalised in two ways:
(1) the scientific quality and (2) the social quality of the output.
During the case studies it emerged that peer reviews (VSNU, scientific
audits by TNO and DLO, NWO and STW programmes) were the most reliable
source for assessing the scientific quality. Bibliometric
techniques can provide important supplementary information, but
are relatively expensive in time and money. For virtually every
S&T field, peer reviews, supplemented by the views of foreign
experts, provided a good picture of the scientific quality of
groups, obviating the need for bibliometric techniques.
The social usability of the output of an S&T field
cannot be measured objectively, since the criteria for usability
can vary per target group (businesses, public authorities, other
organisations). Moreover, no data are available on the matching
of S&T activities to the users, nor over the utilisation of
the results by the users. Based on information on the extent of
contract research and the most important clients, an attempt was
made to form a picture of the degree of client-orientation of
the activities of each S&T field. This information was obtained
mainly via interviews and then interpreted in consultation with
those concerned. In assessing the usability, the relevant information
on the resource position (extent of the applied research) and
system characteristics (networks between researchers and users)
was also taken into account.
All things considered, it can be said that the result of the strengths/weaknesses
analysis carried out by TNO-STB generated a profile of the knowledge
infrastructure, rather than an incontrovertible summary of the
absolute strengths and weaknesses of each S&T field. However,
this profile proved an essential tool in the discussion with the
stakeholders (researchers, users of research and financial backers)
on the strengths and weaknesses and the actions to be undertaken.
As a frame of reference for assessing strengths and weaknesses,
the LAT model developed in NRLO circles was used. This model distinguishes
between several domains: (1) knowledge generation; (2) technology
and skills development; and (3) innovation. A mature and well-developed
S&T field is characterised by developments within each of
the three creative domains and mutual interactions between those
domains [14]. The way in which this model was used in this S&T
foresight study is described in section 4.2.
Phase 3: Actions
The actions to strengthen each S&T field were generated in
a four-stage process: first TNO-STB tentatively formulated a number
of actions based on the strengths/weaknesses analysis. These actions
were then discussed with the stakeholders, before being elaborated
further by an independent three-strong team consisting of a member
of the NRLO executive committee, a staff member from the NRLO
Bureau and an external expert. Finally, the actions were submitted
to "decision-makers" in action conferences. This combination
of independence and involvement helps to ensure that the actions
formulated are both innovative and practicable, and avoids the
stakeholders from focusing primarily on obvious actions or actions
already planned. Given the predominantly positive reactions to
the proposals during the action conferences for each S&T field,
this structure can be described as successful. The foresight study
succeeded in its aim of mobilising the main stakeholders in a
number of strategic S&T areas for actions to strengthen the
field in question. The willingness among stakeholders to contribute
to that process was very strong.
International perspective
The dynamics of science and technology are clearly international
in nature; new developments are rapidly spread through international
contacts between scientists. The different phases of this S&T
foresight study therefore devoted attention to this international
perspective. In selecting S&T areas on the basis of dynamics
and potential, use was made among other things of Delphi studies
from the UK, Germany and France. In the strengths/weaknesses analyses,
leading foreign experts were asked for their opinion about the
scientific performance of Dutch research groups. An inventory
was also made of potentially interesting collaboration partners
in other countries. The actions were formulated partly in the
light of developments in the S&T field concerned in other
countries.
Naturally, the international nature of an S&T foresight study
can be easily extended, with the most far-reaching variant being
an analysis for each field of the international expertise, themes,
capacity, networks and output. This could then form a basis for
determining the position and strategy of the Dutch knowledge system.
Such a study should preferably be carried out in collaboration
with foreign foresight study organisations. Given the complexity
of this approach, it was decided within the scope of the present
study to limit the involvement of the international dimension.
As the study progressed, even this modest ambition proved to demand
a disproportionate amount of time and effort, partly because of
the lack of adequate information sources at this international
level. For the longer term it seems desirable to invest in international
networks between foresight study organisations, with the aim of
promoting information exchange and collaboration where this is
useful.
Phase 1: Dynamics and potential
The ten selected S&T areas show a strong relationship with
the international dynamics of science and technology, primarily
with the dynamics in a few generic S&T areas: molecular sciences,
information and communications technology and materials technology.
On the other hand, the selected S&T areas are expected to
make a crucial contribution to the realisation of key challenges
for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry in the 21st
century, such as raising product quality and food safety, development
of new markets, environmental protection, animal health, the world
food supply and rural development.
The choice of the ten S&T areas was a positive choice, not
a negative one. This means that the selected S&T areas are
of strategic importance, but this by no means rules out the possibility
that further study would result in other fields also having to
be designated as "strategic". Arbitrary examples of
possible strategic S&T areas are mechatronics, bio-informatics,
geo-informatics, bioprocess technology, hydrology, microbiology,
energy technology, educational technology, public administration,
communication and cognitive sciences. These and other fields could
form the subject of a future S&T foresight exercise.
Originally, this foresight exercise was to focus solely on S&T
areas related to agribusiness; later, strategic S&T areas were
also included for rural areas and the fishing industry. This explains
the imbalanced distribution across the three sectors. In a following
S&T foresight exercise, more attention would have to be devoted
particularly to S&T areas with a focus on rural areas. For
a number of these fields, essays on dynamics and potential are
already available (Annex 1). Another factor which played a
role in the selection of the S&T areas was the fact that arts
and social sciences are often underrepresented in international
S&T foresight studies.
Phase 2: Strengths and weaknesses
Surprisingly, expanding the capacity is not regarded as urgent
in most of the S&T areas included in this study. The degree
of cooperation and networking is regarded by those concerned as
being of more importance than the resource position for the performance
(scientific and social) and continuity of an S&T field.
In general, the disciplinary and interdisciplinary networks of
researchers within a given sector (agribusiness, rural areas or
fisheries) were the most strongly developed. Intersectoral networks
between researchers (e.g. agro/non-agro), public-private research
networks and networks between researchers and research users are
often much less strongly developed. This is clearly seen by those
concerned as a gap.
The scientific quality of the activities in the various
S&T areas is generally adequate to excellent. There are no
obvious weak groups.
The usability of the output varies widely between the S&T
areas. This characteristic displays a clear if not absolute correlation
with the development of networks between researchers and research
users.
The strengths and weaknesses of an S&T field were identified
in this study in an interactive process based on a mix of quantitative
and qualitative information and the perceptions of the stakeholders
themselves. A conceptual model - the LAT model - was used as an
aid here; this model is based on different creative domains and
assumes adequate mutual interaction between them. The core of
the LAT model is the distinction and the correlation between three
knowledge domains: (1) knowledge generation; (2) technology and
skills development; and (3) innovation. These creative domains
differ in terms of their products, leading actors and cultural
setting. Each of these domains has its own dynamics and the challenge
in terms of knowledge and innovation policy is to create conditions
for the optimum development of each domain individually, as well
as for the interaction with the other domains. This is discussed
in more detail in the essay by Verkaik [14].
There is no ideal configuration of the different creative domains.
Configurations can however be imagined which are clearly not ideal.
This applies, for example, for a situation in which there is no
interaction between the domains. In the longer term this leads
to stagnation in the developments in each of the domains. Another
extreme is a situation in which the three domains overlap markedly.
This can be highly effective in the short term, but ultimately
results in "inbreeding" and insufficient renewal.
In general, it can be said that a mature and well-developed S&T
field is characterised by:
The need for interacting knowledge domains is based on at least
two lines of thought. The first assumes that the increasing fragmentation
of S&T areas (specialisation in subdisciplines) and the ever
shorter innovation cycles are creating a growing need to adequately
organise the links between the knowledge domains [4]. The second
line of thought relates to the fact that each type of innovation
requires a combination of different kinds of knowledge: not only
scientific knowledge ("explicit knowledge"), but also
experiential knowledge ("tacit knowledge") [9].
Diagrammatically, this means that in a mature, well-developed
S&T field, there are three circles, each overlapping to some
extent, as shown in figure 6.
How suitable is the metaphor of the LAT model for illustrating
the strengths and weaknesses of the various S&T areas? Whether
the first characteristic, namely a certain development of each
individual knowledge domain (circles K, T and I) has been met
can be assessed on the basis of the resource position and the
scientific and social performance. The second characteristic,
the degree of interaction between the domains, can be determined
on the basis of the system characteristics (networks). The strengths/weaknesses
analysis charts both the resource position as well as the system
characteristics and performance of each S&T field.
The outcome of the strengths/weaknesses analyses, which are presented
diagrammatically in figure 7, show that none of the S&T areas
achieve the typical configuration of a mature, well-developed
S&T field as illustrated in figure 6. In the sensor and microsystem
technology and the intelligent data processing and process control
fields, for example, there are activities in all three domains,
but the mutual interaction leaves something to be desired. Nanotechnology
is in the phase of knowledge generation: technology development
and innovation have barely got off the ground yet. The situation
in molecular plant biology and molecular and reproductive biology
in animals is different again: the technology development and
innovation domains display the required interaction, but there
is room for improvement in the links with knowledge generation
at fundamental level. Production ecology is characterised by good
interaction between knowledge generation and technology development,
but the interaction with the innovation domain is weak. Veterinary
epidemiology, packaging and storage technology and policy studies
and ICT show a broadly similar pattern: intensive interaction
between technology and skills development on the one hand and
innovation on the other, but little deepening and methodological
renewal through knowledge generation. In the field of aquaculture,
the emphasis lies precisely on knowledge generation and innovation,
with the technology development domain being a weak and isolated
link.
Characterising S&T areas at national level using this method
and assessing strengths and weaknesses in the light of the metaphor
provided by the LAT model thus proves to be both feasible and
fruitful. It provides sufficient insight in broad outline to enable
the direction of the required actions to be determined.
Phase 3: Actions
Five different types of action have been formulated. A striking
number of actions are focused on the pooling and focusing of the
research and on the strengthening of the networks with research
outside the agricultural circuit and with research users. This
could create the impression that the formation of large R&D
conglomerates is the panacea for the future. This is absolutely
not the case. The multiplicity and diversity of research institutes
can also be seen as a sign of the wealth and power of the national
knowledge system, where mutual competition promotes scientific
and technological progress and cooperation arises where it is
fruitful. The mottoes "Competition is cooperation" and
"Making knowledge is sharing knowledge" reflect this
very aptly.
However, ongoing subspecialisation within S&T areas, increasing
costs of sophisticated facilities and the need to adopt a profile
on foreign research markets are further increasing the urgency
of concentration and focusing of the limited - in international
perspective - research capacity in the Netherlands. For example,
the research capacity of one single foreign research institute
often proved to be equal or even two to three times greater than
the total research capacity of the Dutch knowledge infrastructure
in the field concerned. The upscaling in industry, for example
in pharmaceuticals, also creates a need for the pooling of the
capacity and a substantive choice for a few strategic positions.
Strategic alliances with leading foreign institutes can only be
entered into from a strong starting position.
The nature and pace of the required adjustments must be determined
for each S&T field individually, partly on the basis of an
evaluation of earlier initiatives. For example, pooling and focusing
of research in one S&T field may entail a physical concentration
of the research at a single location, while for another S&T
field it may mean a virtual pooling in a consortium or technological
top institute, with the emphasis on better coordination and cooperation
under a single leadership. The strengthening of networks can also
be achieved in various ways: through the formation of platforms,
strategic alliances or virtual centres, as well as through cooperation
in actual research programmes.
Taking decisions on the actions and elaboration and implementation
of the actions selected does not form part of the NRLO mandate,
but of the stakeholders. Their predominantly positive reactions
to the proposals generate confidence in their ultimate achievement.
Nonetheless, a large number of very diverse actions and actors
are involved. Implementation of the actions and the mutual coordination
and cooperation will require a considerable effort on the part
of the policy makers.
Science and technology are highly dynamic. That offers many new
opportunities for agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry in
the 21st century. The question is how to achieve a
development in the knowledge infrastructure and S&T policy
in the 21st century which enables those opportunities
to be grasped. When reflecting on this question, two trends are
of particular importance [10]:
Against the background of these trends, it is no longer possible
for a single organisation to have all the ingredients for science
and technology development in its own portfolio; this is forcing
organisations to make choices between and within S&T areas,
and whilst doing so to take note of the choices made by other
organisations. The spectrum of relevant knowledge institutes has
increased drastically, again under the influence of the trends
mentioned above. This is reflected in the great diversity of stakeholders
in the various actions (Annex 2). In addition to Wageningen
UR, these institutes include universities, GTIs, consultancies
and a host of foreign knowledge institutes.
In an attempt to keep the S&T portfolio manageable at the
level of the organisation, mergers are being effected or alliances
forged. Examples include the incorporation LUW, DLO and experimental
research stations at Wageningen UR, and the formation of research
schools and technological top institutes. Even these large conglomerates,
however, have to make choices in their S&T portfolio, and
this increases their dependence on the choices made by other organisations.
Moreover, the interdependencies are increasing on all fronts.
This applies for scientific and technological developments outside
and within the agricultural domain; for diverse functions in the
rural environment; for town and country; and for agribusiness and
other sectors.
It can be concluded that many parties will influence the scientific
and technological developments and the future of agribusiness,
rural areas and the fishing industry in the first decades of the 21st
century. Adequate coordination between these parties in terms
of the S&T portfolio is increasingly becoming a common interest
if the opportunities offered by science and technology are to
be grasped.
How can the coordination of policy between diverse actors be achieved
in the development of strategic S&T areas at national - or
more ambitiously, international - level?
However, there is also a fourth option, and
one which enjoys broad support among the stakeholders, judging
from the outcome of the S&T debate organised by NRLO in April
1999. It is an option in which a process is created involving
the formulation of a common vision and ambition in which no single
party - policymakers in public authorities, captains of industry,
opinion-formers in community organisations, or scientists - dominate.
It is an approach in which, in an atmosphere of dialogue and intelligent
interplay between those involved - with each retaining their own
decision-making powers - agreements are made on the division of
tasks and cooperation in the development and utilisation of science
and technology. This process is shown diagrammatically
in figure 8. It would of course be unrealistic to aim for binding
agreements between knowledge institutes for the entire S&T
portfolio; and anyway, such an ambition would be counter-productive.
This does not however rule out the possibility of binding agreements
between specific parties in specific areas.
Many players will influence the scientific
and technological developments and the future of agribusiness,
rural areas and the fishing industry in the first decades of the 21st
century. Creating a cohesive S&T policy at national or - even
more ambitious - international level in such a situation will
demand instruments which make the opportunities for the various
players visible and open to discussion, and which do the same
for strengths and weaknesses and potential actions. In short:
foresight studies, strengths/weaknesses analyses and action meetings
will be key instruments. If that is the case - and the results
of the S&T debate appear to confirm this - then this S&T
study has experimented and gained experience with instruments
which will prove to be crucial for the shaping of S&T policy
in the first decades of the 21st century.
The foregoing considerations and reflections lead to the conclusion
that a more cohesive S&T policy at national level is desirable
and - to a certain extent - also possible. A range of activities
is needed for the further development of this.
Core elements
Resource position · Capacity (development)
· Funding
· Continuity
· Number and size of groups
· Funds flows
System characteristics
· Embedding in networks
· Control
· Number and strength of networks
· Co-publications and quotations
· Central actors in network
Performance · Scientific quality
· Societal quality/usability
· Publications and quotations
· Peer reviews
· Centres of Excellence
· Contract research
· Licences, patents
Phase 3: Actions
Figure 3. Summary of the various phases and products of the S&T foresight study
3. Results in broad outline3.1. Phase 1: Dynamics and potential of S&T areas
Figure 4. Sources of dynamics for the selected S&T
areas and their potential for key challenges for agribusiness,
rural areas and the fishing industry.
MBP: Molecular plant biology
PE: Production ecology
MBD: Molecular and reproductive biology of animals
VE: Veterinary epidemiology
SMT: Sensor and microsystem technology
VB: Packaging and storage technology NT: Nanotechnology
AC: Aquaculture
IDP: Intelligent data processing and process control
BICT: Policy science and ICT
Figure 5. The selected S&T areas and their relationship
to agribusiness, rural areas and the fishing industry
3.2. Phase 2: Strengths and weaknesses
Sensor & microsystem technology
Intelligent data processing and process control
Nanotechnology Molecular plant biology
Molecular & reproductive biology in animals
Production ecology
Veterinary epidemiology
Packaging and storage technology
Policy studies and ICT in rural areas
Aquaculture
3.3. Phase 3: Actions
1. Sensor and microsystem technology
2. Intelligent data processing and process control
3. Nanotechnology
4. Molecular plant biology
5. Molecular and reproductive biology in animals
6. Production ecology
7. Veterinary epidemiology
8. Packaging and storage technology
9. Policy studies & ICT in rural areas
10. Aquaculture
4. Reflections4.1. Reflection on the methods
4.2. Reflection on the results
1. dynamics within each of the three creative domains;
2. mutual interaction between these domains.
Figure 6. Configuration of the three creative domains in a mature and well-developed S&T field.
Figure 7. Characterisation of S&T areas on the
basis of the relationship between the knowledge domains Knowledge
generation (K), Technology and skills development (T) and Innovation
(I). (Dotted line = domain barely developed)
4.3. Reflection on cohesion in S&T policy
Figure 8. Formation of strategy after Mintzberg [8]
4.4. The way forward
5. References