RESEACH AND INNOVATION FUTURES 2030: FROM EXPLOATIVE TO TRANSFORMATIVE SCENARIOS

Research in Europe 2030:

DOCUMENTATION OF THE AMSTERDAM POLICY IMPLICATION HIGH LEVEL STAKEHOLDERS-WORKSHOP March 15th, 2013 Stefan Kuhlmann, Ellen van Oost, Kornelia Konrad, Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, Evelien Rietberg, Peter Stegmaier, , Inga Ulnicane, (University of Twente); Lorenz Erdmann (Fraunhofer ISI); Mika Nieminen (VTT); Wolfram Rhomberg, Matthias Weber (AIT), Ozcan Saritas (Manchester)

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

a. The RIF project

b. The scenario process in the RIF project

c. The five transformative scenarios of Research and Innovation Futures

2. Analytical framework for assessing the scenarios from a policy and stakeholder per-

spective

3. Agenda High Level Stakeholder Workshop Amsterdam

4. Reports from the morning sessions: discussing and assessing the policy implications

of the scenarios

a. Open Research Platforms

b. Knowledge Parliaments

c. Grand Challenges for Real

d. Knowledge Value Chains

e. Researchers’ Choice

5. Reports from the afternoon sessions: exploring strategic policy options

a. Open Research Platforms

b. Knowledge Parliaments

c. Grand Challenges for Real

d. Knowledge Value Chains

e. Researchers’ Choice

6. List of Participants

Annex 1: Five transformative RIF scenarios: elaborate description

Annex 2: RIF Scenarios on Research & Innovation nested in broader societal futures

3

1 Introduction

The RIF project

How will research and innovation be conducted and organized in the future knowledge society? How

will scientists and other stakeholders be affected by the upcoming changes in science, technology

and innovation? What kinds of opportunities do the changes open for them? What will these trans-

formations imply for the European Research Area?

The RIF project “Research and Innovation Futures 2030: from Explorative to Transformative Scenar-

ios” explores these issues. It focuses on analysing new and emerging ways of doing and organizing

research in universities, research organizations, companies and civil society. It will

systematise knowledge on emerging patterns, trends and drivers of change in science, tech-

nology development and innovation (STI)

provide an outlook on future developments in STI by way of scenarios,

identify and assess key issues against the background of the European Research Area (ERA),

and

establish a dialogue on strategic options for different stakeholders.

The RIF project concentrates on the dynamics of change resulting from the interplay of develop-

ments within STI systems and in their societal context. It is based on the assumption that current

trends and developments in STI are likely to give rise to challenges & opportunities that need to be

addressed if STI is to continue to play a key role for society. These tensions may be tackled within the

confines of current institutional settings, but they may also require a substantial transformation of

our STI systems as well as of our research and innovation practices.

The scenario process in the RIF project

The development of scenarios on future developments in research and innovation refers to two time

horizons: 2020 and 2030. In a first stage, medium-term explorative scenarios with a time horizon of

2020 have been developed together with experts (Workshop in Berlin, June 2012). These scenarios

are based on current trends and drivers, based on the assumption that the prevailing institutional

and organizational frameworks for research and innovation will by and large continue to be in place.

Thereby, this first type of scenarios serves to explore emerging tensions and dilemmas in the current

research and innovation system. The tensions are supposed to emerge because the strategic mis-

match of current institutional settings to the changing world of doing and organizing research tends

to grow over time.

The second stage of the process aims at debating long-term transformative scenarios with an ap-

proximate time horizon of 2030. These transformative scenarios may imply significant structural and

institutional changes in research and innovation systems.

The explorative scenarios from the first stage, which point to emerging tensions, dilemmas in the

research and innovation system, thus provide the basis for the development of transformative sce-

4

narios (see Figure 1 below). At a workshop in Karlsruhe in September 2012 the RIF project team,

supported by some external experts, drafted transformative storylines, referring to those emerging

tensions. These have subsequently been integrated and condensed into six transformative scenario

drafts that were discussed in the Vienna World Café Workshop, October 22, 2012. Based on the dis-

cussion, amendments and assessments raised in the Vienna World Café Workshop, the RIF team has

revised six draft scenarios into coherent, yet challenging set of five transformative scenario storylines

of research and innovation futures.

Figure 1: The scenario process in RIF 2030

5

The five transformative scenarios for Research and Innovation Futures

The transformative scenarios are the result of both an analysis of literature and previous Foresight

results (“stocktaking”) and the identification of emerging tensions in the explorative scenarios. These

scenarios form the basis for identifying and assessing key issues for future Research and Innovation

Policy (national and EU), as well as implications for the European Research Area (ERA) and the tack-

ling of the Grand Challenges. In the following chapter five transformative scenarios will be described.

At the end a schematic overview of core dynamics in each scenario is provided. This overview on the

transformative scenarios, points out the respective core tensions, the trigger of the transformation

and the main changes in RIF dimensions of “ways of doing research” described by the scenario.

Most scenarios focus on the research landscape – in line with the RIF project’s main research inter-

est. However each scenario provides glimpses of a future society that is intrinsically intertwined with

the evolution of the research landscape. In annex 2 one can find an impression of future societies

that could embed the respective scenarios on research and innovation.

The RIF 2030 project has developed five narrative storylines imagining possible future dynamics to-

wards 2030 of the practice and organization of research and innovation. The basis of each storyline is

the rise of tensions in the current research and innovation system that will – in some scenarios trig-

gered by a specific event - lead towards a dynamic of transformative change.

The five scenarios are:

1. Open Research Platforms: self-governance in a networked decentralized research landscape

2. Knowledge Parliaments: free negotiation of knowledge claims worldwide

3. Grand Challenges for Real: collective experimentation in socio-technical labs

4. Knowledge Value Chains: research for innovation in a specialized and stratified research landscape

5. Researchers’ Choice: autonomous researchers go for creativity and wellbeing

A one page summarizing overview of the core dynamics of each scenario in provided on the next

pages. In Annex 1 more elaborated scenario description can be found.

6

Open Research Platforms – self-governance in a networked decentralized re-

search landscape

Abstract: In 2030, the research

landscape with its research-

performing organizations (and

individuals) and funding mecha-

nism is fully decentralized, global

and open. Virtual communities

initiate research that is integrated

into virtual platforms and openly

accessible. Self-governance of

research around "Open Research

Platforms" (ORPs), fully open to

industry, individuals, foundations,

and society at large, is the norm.

Into the vast knowledge flows passing through these ORPs, governments of open societies worldwide

embed their soft coordination activities such as monitoring of research, assistance in connection of

research activities, and targeted provision of incentives for researchers to contribute to certain ORPs

of public interest.

Core dynamics

Condition of change

R&I coordination complicated by complexity, fragmentation & conflicting stakeholder strategies. Rising global cooperation & open knowledge sharing.

Core tension The fragmented research landscape hampered effective coordination of research findings in a global emergency case (a hardly understood deadly disease) and failed to deliver a solution.

Transformation trigger

Scientists worldwide integrated their findings on an open wiki platform and discovered a solution for the disease.

Transformation processes

Discovery & open-source protection of the solution. The emergency case gave a strong push towards self-organized research using open wiki plat-forms.

Global research collaboration and innovation too dynamic to allow for ef-fective IPR protection

7

Knowledge Parliaments – the free negotiation of knowledge claims world-wide Abstract: Around 2030 all kinds

of knowledge claims are raised

and negotiated in so-called

‘knowledge parliaments’. They

prioritise research topics and

provide ‘trading zones’ in which

actors with particular research

interests, topics and epistemolo-

gies compete for acceptance.

This form of forum also facili-

tates the building of research

consortia. Citizens and a variety

of other local stakeholders and

epistemic cultures (e.g., lay and indigenous knowledge) are incorporated. Neglected research topics

and unconventional knowledge domains are brought to the fore.

Core Dynamics

Condition of change

Inspiration & innovation expected from unconventional knowledge do-mains.

Epistemological wealth of regions & people defended globally against un-limited exploitation.

Increasing significance of non-European funding agencies.

Core tension Worldwide redistribution struggle between “modern” scientific & other knowledges (here: how far should research serve biotech companies or lo-cal communities?).

Despite Responsible R&I in Europe, corporatist representation in closed circle programming persisted, participation procedures perceived as too rigid & inflexible.

Transformation trigger

“Fair knowledge” movements emerged, the European branches linking up to allies across the world.

Transformation processes

Civil society quit participation & aligned with public research organizations & local initiatives worldwide to develop projects & seek funds for R&I on hitherto neglected or company “owned” issues.

The crisis of democratic representation, felt also in R&I programming, was overcome by increasing participatory negotiation.

Over time, the global research landscape with its plurality of knowledges, IPRs & research styles were reshaped.

8

Grand Challenges for Real –collective experimentation in socio-technical labs Abstract: In 2030, the research land-

scape in Europe is characterized by

making extensive use of collective ex-

perimentation. Research on Grand Chal-

lenges is organized around large

Knowledge and Innovation Communi-

ties (GC-KICs), each one overseeing

several socio-technical laboratories in

which a large number of different solu-

tions responding to Grand Challenges

are developed and tested. Diverse ac-

tors such as citizens, companies, univer-

sities, and social entrepreneurs engage

in collective experimentation. Experimentation, measurement of practices and impacts, and co-

creation go hand in hand so that real progress towards Grand Challenges becomes evident.

Core Dynamics

Condition of change

Grand Challenges are taken as R&I issues worldwide.

EU took them as “Grand Opportunities” & applied the KIC concept to foster economic growth.

EU's R&I actors adapted to the new headings due to increased public and private funding of Grand Opportunity R&I.

Core tension An ecological disaster (draughts in Southern Europe) turned out to be the acid test for collective experimentation & economically driven “Grand Op-portunity”-KICs.

Transformation trigger

In the new public climate the voices for taking Grand Challenges for real could not be suppressed any more.

Transformation processes

Reconceptualization of the KIC concept, putting real solutions at centre stage and opening-up to new actors, Social Science and Humanities, & new experimental forms.

EU GC-KICs set up under fierce multi-stakeholder lobbying.

Diffusion of the successful configuration over the whole R&I system under political pressure.

9

Knowledge Value Chains – research for innovation in a specialized and strati-fied research landscape

Abstract: In 2030, the public re-

search landscape is closely inter-

twined with the private research

landscape globally. Research in Eu-

rope proceeds at various national

and regional speeds aiming to im-

prove their competitiveness in global

markets through innovation. Re-

search is carried out in "Knowledge

Value Chains" (KVCs) organizing the

cooperation between three types of

highly specialized and stratified or-

ganizations: research integration,

research services and third-tier organizations. KVC actors interact according to management practic-

es. Research is closely tied to industry processes adapting the respective degrees of openness in re-

search and innovation.

Core Dynamics

Condition of change

Governments worldwide reinforced New Public Management (NPM) and funded fewer, but larger projects.

European governments reduced expenditure on R&I, and opened up to get the best value for money.

Europe lagged behind the USA and/or Asia in key future technologies and key enabling industries.

Core tension Stiff competition among research institutes and a boost in efforts for fund raising and evaluation.

Transformation trigger

In an EU program on electro-mobility consultancy-led (and similar) consor-tia proved their strengths.

Transformation processes

Consultancies and businesses took leadership in research aiming to im-prove Europe's position in the global innovation race.

Few organizations focused on system competencies & on professionaliza-tion, while others specialized & subcontracted.

Contractors became big and powerful, and they assembled consortia with specialized subcontractors.

10

Researchers’ Choice - autonomous researchers go for creativity and wellbeing

Abstract: Society is characterized by

highly individualistic values and strong

emphasis on individual wellbeing,

autonomy and creativity. Autonomous

researchers are at the heart of scien-

tific research. To realize their ambi-

tions researchers choose options with-

in a broad spectrum of models, rang-

ing from new forms of science entre-

preneurship to more collective forms

under the umbrella of “slow science”

with a strong orientation towards

local societal needs.

Core Dynamics

Condition of change

Increasing pressure and frustrating funding races in the academia.

Society became more sensitive to wellbeing, work-life-balance and empha-sized creativity & autonomy as core values.

Public trust in science dwindled & scientists’ reputation declined rapidly.

Core tension (Young) researchers increasingly left academia and looked for other jobs with a better work-life balance.

Severe identity crisis of scientists.

Transformation trigger

Individual researchers developed self-organized ways of doing research driven by individualism and techno-economic progress.

Transformation processes

Self-organized autonomous research was rising.

Science entrepreneurship developed targeted solutions for world markets.

Values of quality of life and work as well as sustainability and local embed-ding of scientific activities gave rise to slow science movement.

In many countries new measures of progress emphasized quality of life ra-ther than only economic growth.

11

2 Analytical framework for assessing the scenarios from a policy

and stakeholder perspective

The RIF 2030 project explores new and emerging ways of doing and organizing research. Based on

the analysis of emerging trends and driving forces in the European science system, the RIF team ex-

plored future developments. These future perspectives show various contradictory demands and

developments. Tackling such tensions may require a substantial transformation of the research and

innovation system, policies and practices. To enhance insights into possible future transformational

changes, the RIF2030 team has developed five distinct scenario storylines. These scenarios form the

basis for identifying and assessing key issues for future Research and Innovation Policy (national and

EU), as well as implications for the European Research Area (ERA) and the tackling of the Grand Chal-

lenges.

The Amsterdam high-level stakeholder workshop aimed to discuss and appraise policy implications of

the RIF2030 explorative and transformative scenarios and to reflect on strategic policy options from

various stakeholders perspectives. The workshop results will be fed into a deepened analysis and

subsequent development of options and strategies. For the structuring of the discussion on the poli-

cy implications we have developed the following framework.

Policy Implication Assessment Framework

Assessment Policy- relevant

dimensions

Stakeholder

Perspectives

Arenas

R&I system

Implications

Tensions and

Opportunities

Strategic Options

Type of research

Research practice

Role of governments

Key players

Research funding

Research careers

IPR regimes

Academia

Government

Industry

Civil society

R&I policy

ERA

Grand Challenges

12

3 Agenda High-level Stakeholder Workshop March 15th 2013

Day Chair: Stefan Kuhlmann

08.30 Registration & Coffee

09.00 Welcome

09.05 Introduction to the RIF project

By Matthias Weber (RIF project leader)

09.20 Introduction: policy implication assessment of the five transformative

scenarios: guiding questions and working methods

09.30 Working group sessions: discussing & enhancing the scenario implica-

tions for policy relevant dimensions Working Group (2 rounds)

11.00 Coffee Break

11.30 Synthesis of scenario implication assessment

Plenary presentations of working group results and discussion

12.30 Lunch (in restaurant downstairs)

13.45 Introduction exploring strategic policy options: guiding questions and

working methods

14.00 Working group sessions: exploring strategic policy options

Working Groups (2 rounds)

15.30 Coffee/Tea Break

15.45 Synthesis of strategic policy options

Plenary presentations of working group results and discussion

16.45 Wrapping up

17.00 End of workshop & drinks

Workshop venue: De Waag

The venue of the workshop is an inspiring

location: the Theatrum Anatomicum in De

Waag.

Located in the city centre of Amsterdam,

this 15th century city gate is currently

used by the De Waag Society, an innova-

tive Institute for Art, Science and Tech-

nology. Hence, the ultimate place where

history and future meet!

13

4 Reports of the morning session: discussing and assessing the

policy implications of the scenarios

In the morning sessions we had working group sessions in two rounds of each 45 minutes. In the first

round, the workshop participants were allocated to a scenario by the RIF team in order to secure a

spread of stakeholder background over the scenarios. In the second round participants were free to

choose the scenario of their interest.

At the discussion tables the participants were provided with the scenario abstract and a set of guid-

ing questions along the most important policy dimensions:

Dimensions and guiding questions for analysing and assessing the policy implications

1. Type of research What types of knowledge production are facilitated or constrained? (curiosity orient-ed/applied oriented/ social oriented)

2. Research practice How will the research practice look like? (individual/collaboration/coordination/groups/open research/methods)

3. The role of governments What role do governments (local, regional, national, supranational) have in the research and innovation system? (funding/steering/ monitoring/quality control/coordination/evaluation)

14

4. Key players Who are the key players in the research landscape, what are their roles and relations? (pow-er constellations/new actors/roles/interests/winners/losers)

5. Research funding How and by whom will research be funded? (type of funds/criteria and procedures for fund-ing/role of competition/national or international)

6. Research careers & mobility How will research careers be organized? (building & assessing scientific reputation/labour conditions/mobility)

7. IPR regimes What knowledge is protected, by whom, and how? What are conditions to access and shar-ing knowledge?

8. European Research Area (ERA) Will ERA missions be strengthened or weakened?

9. Grand Challenges Is research aiming at tackling the Grand Challenges strengthened or weakened?

10. Other relevant issues

Are there other dimensions on which the scenario might have serious implications?

15

Open Research Platforms – self-governance in a networked decentralized re-

search landscape

Abstract: In 2030, the research landscape with its re-

search-performing organizations (and individuals) and

funding mechanism is fully decentralized, global and

open. Virtual communities initiate research that is

integrated into virtual platforms and openly accessible.

Self-governance of research around "Open Research

Platforms" (ORPs), fully open to industry, individuals,

foundations, and society at large, is the norm. Into the

vast knowledge flows passing through these ORPs,

governments of open societies worldwide embed their soft coordination activities such as monitoring

of research, assistance in connection of research activities, and targeted provision of incentives for

researchers to contribute to certain ORPs of public interest.

Host: Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros Rapporteur: Lorenz Erdmann

Type of research

Public and private actors take part in the Research and Innovation continuum

Challenge-oriented research favoured while purely curiosity-oriented research (e.g. theoretical

maths) is potentially endangered

Excellence research combined with impact assessment. Open research will drive the end of “Ox-

bridge specialization“ (i.e. excellence delivered by a few, but all go for it) and give rise to numer-

ous, diverse long-tail research activities.

Rise of “post-academic research“ (e.g. data-mining, visualisation, supporting knowledge)

Attractiveness for business: frontier research, “the best wins“ peer evaluation

Research of economic short-term value could be discouraged

Research practice

Demarcation of useful knowledge and information pollution is a constant challenge: it is easy to

participate and exchange information, but difficult to do structured research; brokerage what is

good/bad expertise (data used, achievements) is required

Interdisciplinary research: technical integration via web 3.0 is no problem, but cognitive and social

integration requires physical encounters (cities, local clusters, etc.)

Network-based, qualitative assessment by communities for challenge-oriented research

Mutuality principle (Monsanto example: strict entry requirements – you have to be good and

provide good data to have access to rice DNA sequencing research)

Research is open, but not completely free (e.g. similar to small fees for i-Tunes and smart phone

apps)

Rise of new formats to address challenges (non-verbal internet to leverage e.g. 3rd world

knowledge to overcome language barriers, popular summaries on open access journals to bridge

science and society, publishing of negative results)

16

Research careers

Open research supports researcher careers across institutions and disciplines; researcher mobility

means they take their knowledge as assets with them; harmonized social security systems within

ERA required

Training for open research and science communication required: basic bachelor training, chal-

lenge orientation in masters and PhDs; only a small percentage will stay at university (15%?),

while the rest goes elsewhere

Human Resources for science in Europe will decline due to increased competition and labour in-

stability; scientists will go for the newly industrializing countries (NICs). Only some frontier re-

search institutions in Europe will be attractive enough for talent

Key players

The public wants to know what they are buying when funding public research. Civil Society Organ-

izations will formulate the “right“ questions for research compliance to those questions by next

generation companies will be their key asset

Universities will stay, but will have to seek diverse funding sources; they must make research

more understandable and useful for society

Rise of actors such as supporting infrastructures & processing companies (e.g. virtualization &

visualization, data management) and science communicators

IPR regimes (and research exploitation, commercialisation)

Revolution of business models in open R&I: participation in frontier research is key, societal chal-

lenge-orientation is attractive to businesses

Being faster and better than competitors in exploitation instead of living of fees for use of IPR-

protected knowledge

Access is open, not free (i.e. you may still have to pay)

Research funding

Crowd funding is likely to increase, but stable long-term funding required

Governments will fund NGOs and individuals if they perform well (i.e. deliver better solutions).

More and diverse actors will get public funding

Keep in mind: China funds Grand Challenges research; it is highly uncertain how open that will be

in 2030

In an open research world, industry may reduce expenditure which may lead to less research vs.

they have to invest (controversially discussed)

Role of governments (research funding: see above)

Less money provided for research, but efficiency is increased as redundancies are squeezed out

Reorganize knowledge and quality assurance into viable forms

Foster a better understanding of science and trust

Provide infrastructure to get people together and to share knowledge and resources

Rising issue: ensure evidence-based policies in open systems

17

ERA

ERA funding will be focused on cooperation, translation and platforms

Globalization of science drives scenario, ERA goals need to focus on strong global relations

ERA as an open space is the outcome of the scenario, variable geometry, rest of the world con-

nects, There is no alternative for Europe to compete in the world but by open research (top down

doesn’t work)

ORP scenario allows ERA to foster its top disciplinary groups, while lousy universities are not that

relevant any more

ERA mission is linked to Grand Challenges

Grand Challenges

Potentially effective on global challenges and solving of local problems (issue orientation)

Third world non-verbal Internet to facilitate communication and overcome language barriers

Rise of transparency of production and consumption as a key claim of civíl society

Other

Share foresight analysis with NGOs / civil society

18

Knowledge Parliaments – the free negotiation of knowledge claims world-wide Abstract: Around 2030 all kinds of knowledge

claims are raised and negotiated in so-called

‘knowledge parliaments’. They prioritize research

topics and provide ‘trading zones’ in which actors

with particular research interests, topics and epis-

temologies compete for acceptance. This form of

forum also facilitates the building of research con-

sortia. Citizens and a variety of other local stake-

holders and epistemic cultures (e.g., lay and indig-

enous knowledge) are incorporated. Neglected

research topics and unconventional knowledge domains are brought to the fore.

Host: Peter Stegmaier Rapporteur: Mika Nieminen

Type of research

The scenario raises several questions that could be linked to the type of research. One of the most

obvious ones relates to the finance of research as it usually also direct the orientation of research.

How should the finance of research be arranged in Knowledge Parliaments (KPs) realistically? Con-

cerns were put forward about long-term research: How to support long-term research? It was also

put forward that this mode is perhaps not challenging “traditional” knowledge production, but rather

would or even should be within the traditional knowledge production system in order to function. In

this regard it was also stated that there is perhaps no other option to finance and make it function

realistically. So the KPs would be a kind of addition to the existing research system and it’s steering. It

was also stated that KPs include an epistemic change from traditional science to a wider knowledge.

This, in turn, brings forward related knowledge production processes as learning processes, how to

combine various kinds of knowledge being the essential question. This relates also to the question,

how to assess various knowledge claims. As there are a number of various actors with different views

of knowledge and its value, the assessment may face a relativistic dilemma (“anything goes”). A bit

sceptically, it was also stated that KPs are more about money allocation, not about how research is

conducted or where.

Research practice

It was stated that most likely industry would not be acting like this as they always have vested inter-

ests in the ownership of knowledge. However, it was also agreed that this might serve also industry

in the fields where open science is a practice and in the areas of generic technology. In this context

one may also ask whether there would take place de-professionalization of science as new kinds of

knowledge practices are incorporated into scientific practices? At the same time traditional scientific

knowledge production is questioned. It was still, however, left open what would be the actual way to

produce knowledge in KPs? On the other hand it was also stated that KPs may include re-

professionalization as traditional knowledge is integrated into scientific knowledge production (pro-

19

fessionalization of indigenous and lay people knowledge practices). It was also recognized that the KP

development may lead to controversies among scientific communities as mixing science with indige-

nous knowledge is not easy.

Role of governments

KPs relationship with the public administration and the existing system was observed to be problem-

atic in many ways. It was, for instance, put forward that the institutional basis of the scenario should

be thought through more deeply: How can this kind of field/type of research be protect-

ed/legitimized against other forms of R&D? Is there a kind of market failure in this case that would

justify support to this kind of activity? Is there a need to renegotiate each time PPP? Involvement of

developing countries might also be difficult, as they have limited negotiation power and resources to

be used in this kind of activity. After all, all comes back to money and financiers’ power. It was also

stated that we need cross-sectorial platforms also on the administrational level, where various per-

spectives and interests may come together. This would support and make possible KPs’ activities.

Finally it was also doubted that KP would not really change current practices and roles of actors, but

would be rather a new way to organize current roles and relationships.

Key-players

It was seen that especially everybody with money would be the key-players. Thus governments and

EU would remain most likely as the major definers of action. It was stated that despite its initial out-

look, KPs actually are a very competitive scenario. For instance, what happens to the developing

countries, if a stock market will develop? Is the money talking after all (those who pay define the

agenda)? On the other hand, the nature of the KP as a parliament was pondered. In order to be a real

parliament, various stakeholders should have a representative there, how would the representative-

ness be organized? We come easily back to essential questions of democracy. Finally it was seen that

especially new small companies would be emerging to do this kind of research. This, in turn, may

lead to the question, how is the activity coordinated, as there are too many actors for simple agree-

ment arrangements and coordination of work.

Research funding

It was seen an essential question to ask, where is the money coming to fund these activities? It was,

for instance, asked whether political parties would finance KP activity for ideological reasons? It

would provide kind of think tank services for them. It was also discussed, how the combination of

funding would work. Especially it was discussed in the context of the relation between local and in-

ternational level. On the one hand it was seen that domestic sources may also finance international

research which has a local interest. On the other hand, for example, EU funding may provide addi-

tional funding for local initiatives. It was also considered rather clear that civil society organizations

would not have enough money to finance all KPs’ activities. Rather it would be so that citizens may

make initiatives, but public bodies (like EU) have to finance them. Combination of various sources

was considered, however, difficult.

Research careers KP would most likely support precarious form of working. There are neither traditional careers any-

more, because people take increasingly distance from the traditional institutions and practices.

20

IPR regimes Representatives of industry thought that if there is no clear IPR regime in the context of KPs, industry

will hide everything from the others as it protects its interests (profit making).

ERA It was brought out that EU is already now piloting focus groups to screen ideas from people for R&D

purposes (Voices-project). In this sense the basic principles of the KPs scenario are already taking

place albeit in small scale.

Grand Challenges It was thought that the scenario would strengthen the presence of marginalized groups in the solu-

tion of Grand Challenges. KPs make it possible to put forward and connect local interpretations of

GCs to more macro level interpretations of GCs (e.g. cities may have their own views of develop-

ments, what should be emphasized, and how they will tackle these GCs). Again, it was also brought

out a bit cynical view that whether the parliament would be discussing about (new) challenges or

more practically only on money allocations. There is always the threat that KPs will deteriorate into

mere money allocation procedure.

Other It was brought out

that in the US there

are going on already

quite some develop-

ments towards more

participatory science.

21

Grand Challenges for real –collective experimentation in socio-technical labs Abstract: In 2030, the research landscape in Europe is

characterized by making extensive use of collective

experimentation. Research on Grand Challenges is

organized around large Knowledge and Innovation

Communities (GC-KICs), each one overseeing several

socio-technical laboratories in which a large number

of different solutions responding to Grand Challenges

are developed and tested. Diverse actors such as citi-

zens, companies, universities, and social entrepre-

neurs engage in collective experimentation. Experi-

mentation, measurement of practices and impacts, and co-creation go hand in hand so that real pro-

gress towards Grand Challenges becomes evident.

Host: Ellen van Oost Rapporteur: Wolfram Rhomberg Type of research

In this scenario there is a need for combining knowledge and discipliners and to go clearly beyond

engineering knowledge. New knowledge is needed and also solutions on different technological lev-

els are needed. Not just “high-tech”.

At the same time the different types of research shall be balanced. Yet, what will happen to research

(e.g. basic research or “free” research) that doesn’t directly contribute to KICs? Moreover, the type

and content of research is also dependent on the type of KIC, respective the grand challenge the KIC

deals with.

Universities will still be important but solutions can come from “everywhere”. Contributions can also

come from “open portals” and open forms of knowledge creation.

The KICs will turn research also more towards experimental learning processes. Moreover, the edu-

cational dimension of the KICs has to be emphasised.

Research practice and researcher careers

The socio-technical labs in KICs can broaden scientific careers, can generate new career paths and

bring new incentives for scientist. It will enable to rethink how to address GCs, and will increase crea-

tivity. It brings different forms of research, innovations and practice together. Civil society groups

and user groups do the reality check. Therefore, the review and quality control of outputs is not pri-

marily done through peers but through deployment groups. Quality for use will become more im-

portant.

New interdisciplinary journals might arise that do not focus on disciplines but on “Grand challenges”.

Journals that are solution and problem based, not “domain” based. These journals are better acces-

sible and make more sense in the eye of the “user”. KICs have the potential to bring needs and op-

tions together for “real solutions”- in order to converge societal needs with industrial op-

tions/solutions. For scientists and researchers it becomes easier to explain what they are doing and

they are more accountable for what they do. However, what role do universities play in such KICs?

22

Role of governments

Key question: is it for government bodies just about funding or also about definition of tasks and

giving orientation in direction of search? At the same time the question how to address the GCs has

to come from bottom up from the community of practice and research. Proposals for research shall

involve citizens. Establish participatory calls, bottom up/open calls. New incentives have to be creat-

ed that are capable to change industry behaviour.

Key players

Industry: has to rethink what are good solutions and not just what is new. New combinations rather

than new things. Not just “high-tech”. Linking of GC and KICs to other actors as a key factor of suc-

cess. A key question stays in respect of how to involve industry when KICS are not primary “economic

growth led”, but “solutions led”? But: economy and societal challenges are no dichotomy, but on the

other must not go hand in hand by necessity. It will mean a learning process also for industry as in-

dustry might focus more on transfer of solutions and follows GC.

Research funding

Nowadays, the EU only funds 4% of RTI activities1; the majority of funding comes from national

states. Therefore where does the money for additional GC research solutions, for KICs, come from?

National sources? PPP? Private institutes? Therefore, there could be a need for multilevel, multi-

stakeholder perspective on funding structures. The funding question and the question how to organ-

ize funding might be a bigger challenge than the research itself. Additionally, funding has to consider,

that innovations do not come just from research and technological development but from “every-

where”. Therefore, a shift in funding eligibility is the consequence.

IPR regimes

Is an important issue, not to be missed, but in the future it can become less important as innovation

becomes more open and diverse in respect of sources and contributions from users etc.

Grand Challenges

What is a “Grand Challenge”? Who defines it? And from that: what are the right incentives and tools?

There is a need to (continuously?) redefine what actually are GCs. A general problem might be that

you also produce “ lock-ins” with these definitions: With the definition you produce “lock ins”: KICs

that are addressing only todays issues; KICs may “avoid” new approaches and solutions. In general,

maybe not every GC is “Kickable”, and therefore adequate to be addressed within a KIC.

Indicators, Impact

Socio-technical experimentation also means another forms of impact analysis and assessment, as

well as new forms of reliable indicators. What is quality, what is success?

1 The 4% is based on the total RTI budgets for research institutes. In the financing of research programs, the

share of the EU is significant higher (appr 30%)

23

24

Knowledge Value Chains – research for innovation in a specialized and strati-fied research landscape Abstract: In 2030, the public research landscape is closely

intertwined with the private research landscape globally.

Research in Europe proceeds at various national and

regional speeds aiming to improve their competitiveness

in global markets through innovation. Research is carried

out in "Knowledge Value Chains" (KVCs) organizing the

cooperation between three types of highly specialized

and stratified organizations: Research Integration Organ-

izations, Research Services Organizations and third-tier

organizations. KVC actors interact according to management practices. Research is closely tied to

industry processes, which implies different degrees of openness in research and innovation, depend-

ing on the industries IPR policies.

Host: Kornelia Konrad Rapporteur: Ozcan Saritas

General remarks on system implications, tensions and opportunities

There was a general feeling among many participants that this scenario is the one closest to current

structures – up to being accused of representing an out-dated mode of research --, but at the same

time also not very desirable. (There were other voices as well, but rather in the minority.) There were

general considerations about the appropriateness of the scenario, such as the remark that it might

be restricted to certain sectors, or - turned more normatively - that it should be ensured that it is not

becoming the only model to do research. For instance, it should be used in a few selected cases (e.g.

large research programmes – for instance Grand Challenges - energy, space, health, defence, etc.).

Somewhat contrary to this idea, there was also a concern that human wellbeing may not be appro-

priately considered.

A more radical critical remark was that the system might be too rigid to adapt to change, up to being

potentially self-destructive or in danger of being overruled by other systems. Put otherwise, the sys-

tem is too simple to adapt to the complexity of society. (It was suggested that there could be an

analogy with Nokia, which moved from growth to a hangover state.) Furthermore, the system was

compared to the Artemis model – which proved to be too complicated to construct and manage.

Ensuring some flexibility in how to structure the value chain might thus be helpful. More generally,

for this – and probably also other scenarios to flourish – a major precondition is that Europe has to

create an environment for highest quality research. It was also pointed to the importance of consid-

ering the global context, wondering if the rest of the world will follow such a model? It was men-

tioned that China is considering open platforms for the future.

Type of research

The research is likely to be mostly application-, respectively goal-oriented. An important question is

thus, who sets the goals. Most of it is public money, but public research and industrial research are

closely intertwined.

25

Research is likely to be oriented towards wealth creation and competitiveness. There is a danger that

curiosity driven research may be driven out. There may thus be a need to ensure curiosity-driven

research by way of separate funding. Potentially this may even be done by industry that is aware of

the need of curiosity-driven research.

There is furthermore a danger that creativity and diversity is lost in the long term. This might lead to

more vibrant parts of the world taking the lead. (For instance in biotech, Europe was leading, but

losing the ground. Lots of good quality research, but couldn’t be converted.)

Research practice

It is a very structural and systemic approach to do research. It’s strictly organized, which may be

problematic too. (See the concerns about lack of adaptability and flexibility of the system mentioned

above.) But at the same time efficiency oriented. It is primarily organized top-down. How to manage

bottom-up processes (still considered necessary) is a question.

Role of governments

This scenario does not foresee major changes in public policy. Government is the main funder.

Key players

Are supposed to be governments and industry. For the latter the situation may be ambiguous. While

in principle being assigned an important position, they might also consider the system as not attrac-

tive enough, if the system turns out to be too complex and not flexible enough. A key issue will also

be who in the end will be able to capture the value.

A core issue related to that is who will be eligible as partners. Multinationals, countries and which

ones? Will it be open to external partners or just for European companies (so far European partners

cannot participate in Chinese programmes – due to reciprocity they cannot be involved in European

research).

Society is a key actor, but not reflected in this scenario.

The hierarchical structure could result in the ones outside the hierarchy having to stay outside the

game – or only have to support the top 10% institutions. Power structures are likely to be main-

tained. A few strong RIO may dominate research agendas. Overall bigger competition between Re-

search Performing Organizations (RPOs) is to be expected.

Research funding

A mixture of public and private funding is expected to be common. Few large countries are likely to

fund the bulk of research. Supposedly large organizations will benefit particularly from this funding.

Researcher careers

For high-level research organization quite some mobility between research and industry would prob-

ably be possible (supposed to be attractive, not the least since (some, e.g. Nokia) industry can be

particularly attractive for young researchers). On the other hand, highly skilled people may move to

other places where they would have more flexibility, openness and curiosity-driven research.

IPR Regimes

A differentiated IPR system seems to be likely/important to ensure in this scenario. There was a feel-

ing that companies have been too protective so far, leading to an underuse of research results, and

see the need to open up and exchange more openly – at least partly. For instance, research around

26

Grand Challenges will be shared, but core competences will still be protected (i.e., policy discussions

will be open, technologies will be protected).

Grand Challenges

Implications for GC were considered somewhat ambiguous. In principle, this model may work well

for dealing with Grand Challenges, yet in a particular ‘Horizon 2020’ way.

ERA

Implications for ERA were not explicitly addressed, but there was a discussion about the regional

distribution of research activities. Here the assumption was that a clustering in particular regions

seems likely. On the other hand, via a form of smart distribution also a more inclusive distribution of

activities might be possible.

27

Researchers’ Choice - autonomous researchers go for creativity and wellbeing

Abstract: Society is characterized by highly individual-

istic values and strong emphasis on individual wellbe-

ing, autonomy and creativity. Autonomous research-

ers are at the heart of scientific research. To realize

their ambitions researchers choose options within a

broad spectrum of models, ranging from new forms

of science entrepreneurship to more collective forms

under the umbrella of “slow science” with a strong

orientation towards local societal needs.

Host: Matthias Weber Rapporteur: Inga Ulnicane

General remarks

A pre-condition for discussing the implications of the scenario is how the key concepts of “science

entrepreneurship” and “slow science” are understood. “Science entrepreneurship” is not only meant

in a commercial sense of mobilizing funds but also as attracting political support and launching net-

works. The relevance of conditions for enabling science entrepreneurship are also discussed, such as

providing entrepreneurial training for scientists and intellectual property rights. Focus of “slow sci-

ence” is on long-term perspectives, creative, thorough, in-depth and quality research. Wider changes

in society are needed to enable slow science.

There were some concerns that the scenario looks old-fashioned – like going back to Woodstock or

even centuries ago when scientists also were autonomous and entrepreneurs. However, it was also

agreed that the scenario could be a most likable future for Generation Y whose values are different:

more creative, high tolerance, willing to share, givers.

Type of research

If this scenario would be primarily driven by individualistic curiosity then there is a danger of research

becoming scattered and not being relevant. The outcome of curiosity driven research is unpredicta-

ble. However, it’s more likely that diverse types of research are being undertaken, also involving ide-

as from civil society, as the type of research undertaken is also influenced by the ability to attract

funding.

Research Funding

There were concerns about who would be willing to fund science in this scenario and what would

criteria for funding be. There will not be one central funder but more likely multiple funding sources

to be combined: public, online crowdsourcing, charities, wealthy young entrepreneurs. Multiple fun-

ders will have multiple criteria for funding. If acquisition of funding depends on branding of re-

searchers, “selling one’s research” to, e.g., research angels, what effects that would have on research

quality and topics?

There were concerns uttered that the need for science entrepreneur to look for own resources

would endanger some research topics, e.g., tradition of curiosity driven research; could fundamental

28

physicist become science entrepreneur or should he continue to do his research just as a hobby at his

home office without any funding?

Research practices

An important question is how will the autonomy relate to the need to collaborate in small or large

teams in many research fields; are autonomy and collaboration compatible and how? Individuals

would have high autonomy to choose with whom to collaborate, but in the end it will be crucial to be

able to realize larger scale research endeavours.

The issue of research coordination is important. For example, how will research facilities be funded

and organized in this scenario? It likely to have different solutions for different purposes but the sce-

nario works better for small-scale niche facilities. Regional cluster initiatives can be launched bottom-

up to mobilize diverse resources and organize access to user facilities like nanotech cleanrooms or

laser facilities. When such clusters are successful and attract global interest from scientists and in-

dustry, criteria for access have to be set and used in review or in computer-based decision support

mechanisms: e.g., financial, quality of research and proposal. Cities can set-up small-scale, localised

laboratories relevant for their communities, e.g., for food testing. For funding large-scale facilities

where some critical mass is necessary like at CERN, this scenario reaches it limits.

Coordination of research will shift form research subject to object, i.e., instead of organizing along

disciplinary lines research activities are rather organized with a certain research goal in mind, like lab-

on-a-chip, where many disciplines – chemists, physicists, biologists - have to collaborate to reach the

goal.

Role of governments

Have a limited role, mainly facilitating conditions for science entrepreneurship and slow science.

Local governments will be likely to be involved in supporting local research clusters.

Research careers & mobility

Tenured positions in research organizations will diminish and research will have more autonomy. An

important question is, how much job security is necessary or desirable? Fewer tenured positions and

long time needed to reach tenure can be a threat for the academia, however, this situation can also

be attractive for Generation Y who are very mobile, dynamic, hopping between different activities,

and don’t want to make a commitment in a form of tenure. An important question is what the prin-

ciples, the criteria for organizing research careers are? Flexible work organization, combining face-to-

face interaction with work from home, is likely to be attractive for female researchers.

IPR regimes

A post-patent era is likely, characterized by a combination of open spaces for sharing knowledge and

parallel closed spaces with IPR.

ERA

Increased mobility of researchers will be a most important goal for ERA. The main competition are-

nas for attracting talent will not be nations, but innovative, creative cities that accelerate careers and

reinforce mobility of researchers going back and forth.

The scenario seen as a “very European perspective” based on European values (e.g., wellbeing, quali-

ty of life). Other regions like Asia strongly focus on fast research. How would Europe interact with

29

other regions? Important aspect in slow science is embedding local platforms (niches, smart speciali-

zation) in global context; could ERA provide such links?

Grand Challenges

There is not one way of tackling Grand Challenges. Policy-makers often tend to assume that large

research collectives are needed for addressing and finding solutions for Grand Challenges. However,

autonomous individuals too can come up with important concepts for solving Grand Challenges. For

some Grand Challenges more coordinated research needed.

Whether Grand Challenges are solved will depend on a number of conditions: first, if scientists are

curious about addressing energy, climate and other Grand Challenges topics; second, if science en-

trepreneurs self-organize and sustain networks needed for tackling Grand Challenges; and, third, if

they manage to attract sufficient funding.

Other relevant issues

Online academic teaching was brought to the fore. The increase in online teaching from the world-

leading universities like Harvard can endanger future of middle rank universities, which mainly focus

on teaching. Middle rank universities can re-orientate themselves to become local or regional plat-

forms for bringing together stakeholders and providing research infrastructure.

30

5 Reports from the afternoon sessions: exploring stakeholders’

strategic options

In the afternoon the same format of working group session was used. Now the stakeholders’ strate-

gic options were discussion for each of the five scenarios in small working groups. Again two rounds

were held, the first one allocated and the second round free choice.

The guiding questions for the afternoon session were:

How would the scenarios affect academia, industry, government and civil society in 2030?

Who would be the winner/losers and why?

What would be the key strategic options?

What would be the key policy options?

31

Open Research Platforms – self-governance in a networked decentralized re-

search landscape

Abstract: In 2030, the research landscape with its re-

search-performing organizations (and individuals) and

funding mechanism is fully decentralized, global and

open. Virtual communities initiate research that is inte-

grated into virtual platforms and openly accessible.

Self-governance of research around "Open Research

Platforms" (ORPs), fully open to industry, individuals,

foundations, and society at large, is the norm. Into the

vast knowledge flows passing through these ORPs,

governments of open societies worldwide embed their soft coordination activities such as monitoring

of research, assistance in connection of research activities, and targeted provision of incentives for

researchers to contribute to certain ORPs of public interest.

Host: Lorenz Erdmann Rapporteur: Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros

The scenario in general

This scenario was mostly seen as a win, win, win, win scenario from the stakeholder perspective.2

However several conditions were considered relevant for this scenario to become real and some

strategic options would need to be taken into account. Key drivers of this scenario were globaliza-

tion, ICT and open knowledge sharing; i.e. the universities and businesses who actively embrace the-

se new trends.

Industry

From the industry perspective, and according to one of the participants, this scenario can be seen as

a “candy shop” or “ingredient shop” or “recipe shop” where knowledge is a key good to be supplied

and demanded in the framework of this scenario. This is even so, that the European Industrial Re-

search Management Association (EIRMA) would support it! The ICT industry has a particular interest

in this scenario as provider of virtualization, collaboration and visualization solutions.

The future business model of businesses (and some research organizations) must overcome tradi-

tional research exploitation via patenting. IPR regimes, logic and/or application practices would need

to be transformed for this scenario to play a role at all. In an open and collaborative research land-

scape not effectively regulated by IPR regimes, stakeholders would retain and disclose knowledge

tactically. The reason is that, for industry, knowledge is increasingly seen as a strategic asset that

provides competitive advantage to firms. Although in general patents will not be more important

than being faster and better in this scenario, they still are barriers and would need to be conceived

2 Losers might be innovation leaders that are copied fast and comprehensively by others. It was also argued, that research

groups at universities have more interest in the ORP scenario than their universities, which may lead to new tensions at universities.

32

by industry in a tactical and flexible way for this scenario to be desirable and viable at the same

time.3

Academia

Academic actors would also see this scenario as a “candy shop”, where they can offer their

knowledge products, especially RTOs and excellent groups. Under this scenario, and thanks to the

instrumental value of ITCs, universities could play a key role as connectors of the system, connecting

needs and opportunities. However, IPRs regimes again would need to be thought in such a way that

it would both guaranty of continued interest on research as a function of her primacy and originality,

and the openness implicit in this research platforms. Although this “barrier” could be somewhat

compensated by the change of the reward system of academic research where researchers would be

highly valued for her contribution and “generosity” to the stock of knowledge.

Society

Civil society will be one of the main drivers of this scenario because it increasingly has stakes in re-

search: as knowledge (“candies”) consumers, producers, and transferors. It will also be active re-

search agenda-setters. However, if such ORPs are exclusively conceived as current European Tech-

nology Platforms – with industry and RTO’s as dominant actors - then civil society’s role would be

mostly relegated to the margins and would be therefore underexploited.

Governments

Last but not least, governments would be mostly devoted to protect the principles of open research

and open (although not necessarily free) access to knowledge. Similar to current experiences with

KICs, the European Institute of Technology would highly support this scenario. However, due the

fragmented characteristics of this scenario, its coordination capabilities would be largely weakened

and therefore questioned unless it makes intelligent use of big data management and networking

capabilities. They would have a relatively smaller role as research funders in a space where crowd

funding, philanthropic funding, voluntary work, industry funding, and foreign funding will add to the

complexity of governance. In addition, given the open nature of the scenario, governments will be

asked to play a major role in supporting ORPs self-governance logic terms of quality control and ac-

creditation and to fight against fraud; as responsible of market approval and monitoring to avoid

safety and security issues; as providers of public goods and funders of neglected or orphan problems,

and as “police” of critical IPRs commonly agreed upon amongst the stakeholders in a diffused land-

scape where its implementation and enforcement will be extremely difficult. Governments may have

an interest in the ORP scenario if it proves to be more efficient and productive than the traditional

ways of doing research. On the other hand, governments may be reluctant to leave that much re-

search beyond their direct control and influence.

3 LE: I would not stress patenting too much. It was all about retaining and giving knowledge and about research exploitation

to uncertain routes.

33

34

Knowledge Parliaments – the free negotiation of knowledge claims world-wide Abstract: Around 2030 all kinds of knowledge claims

are raised and negotiated in so-called ‘knowledge par-

liaments’. They prioritize research topics and provide

‘trading zones’ in which actors with particular research

interests, topics and epistemologies compete for ac-

ceptance. This form of forum also facilitates the build-

ing of research consortia. Citizens and a variety of oth-

er local stakeholders and epistemic cultures (e.g., lay

and indigenous knowledge) are incorporated. Neglect-

ed research topics and unconventional knowledge domains are brought to the fore.

Host: Mika Nieminen Rapporteur: Peter Stegmaier Academia

With respect to individual researchers it was found they would certainly interested in third sector

research. Here, they could collaborate on new, distinctive, un-belaboured research issues within

new constellations of teams, cutting across even the usual partners in (smaller) research groups

or (larger) consortia.

With regards to academic, professional education and training each and everybody would need to

know more about many diverse issues. Boundary spanning stocks of knowledge and professional

skills would be required, and the ability effectively work across conventional boundaries of

knowledge and practice.

Advisory boards of participating organizations and of knowledge brokering organizations would

have to be filled with more diversity of stakeholders than usual. Mere economic and political

competence wouldn’t be enough anymore. Advisors would need regional and knowledge branch

specific, but also generalists’ comprehension of relevant issues.

Industry

How far industry is intrinsically ready to collaborate on a KP basis, may depend on the issue at

hand: take, for instance, nuclear energy, here rather no NGO would likely be promoted because of

too high political conflict potential; take green energy, here one could actually well imagine NGOs

working with industry and vice-versa.

However, there is not one single kind of attitude among business partners: some are pragmatic,

ready to take dual risk in highly innovative fields: the risk to fail with an innovation as well the risk

to fail with a research/business partnership; others political or rather a-political, and again others

rather inflexible in changing forms of collaboration, having rather conservative orientations. One

could imagine that here, too, a re-negotiation of market shares and alliances will take place.

In principle, it is expected that industry would want to take part if for no other reason then in

order to keep themselves up-to-date. Or industry could want to solve problems and, by the way,

sell their technologies.

35

For pragmatic business managers the fear of loosing time with all that voting etc. might be an

issue – but some may realise that time can also be won by earlier getting aware of other relevant

actors’ and consumers’ needs and practices, as well as of grassroots technological developments.

Governments

In general, the KP model would afford more governance and less government; governments more

in the role of creating framework conditions, less being actors themselves (take, for instance, US

states level policy-makers want interesting projects, whereas the top-level government wants

more impact on responsibility or general thematic issues, not so much concrete research topics;

the applies for the German sciencepolicy.de initiative of the BMBF, which is interested rather in

general policy). If government is no longer taking voice for public problems, some observers ex-

pect a supermarket of initiatives – which is in itself neither bad nor good, but a sort of deregulat-

ed market of ideas and initiatives. In this context, the question is also how effective would be ad

hoc populist turns in research orientation, if KPs would follow new fashions more erratically than

other kinds of regimes?

A well-known issue may also apply to the KPs’ process: how can here legislators keep up with new

technological developments?4 There may also be ethical problems arising, when KP initiatives lead

to things that help (some), things that hurt (others). Which “parliament” does then deal with the

(unintended, or neglected) consequences? A minimum governance framework might be needed,

in fact.

A KP regime would perhaps need new formal procedures by which less formalised processes can

be organized and governed. In general, a KP regime may lead to an own original set of governance

framework, rules, and procedures derived from practical experiences and necessities with KPs.

KPs may be nuclei for governance innovations. The working mode of the “parliament” needs fur-

ther reflection, would it be based on concerted process or vote?

Some have observed has a tendency to EU move into spaces not yet occupied. So, in one way or

another, the EU could be partner or competitor for new forms of collaboratively generating

knowledge.

Society

Societal actors in the broader sense may want to have a chance to define research in order to be

not simply drawn into the way the company structures their lives (patient organizations in collab-

oration with pharma industry).

There may be more third sector knowledge production stimulated: actors coming in (from public

& private) research; very different actors with non-market products; ways of producing

knowledge and perceptions of what knowledge is may develop.

NGOs might serve as mediators.

Scenario in general

The question remains for the scenario: what could be a game changer/change agent? Who would

be having such an influence on the research landscape that it would move towards the KP model?

Under which conditions?

How would the agenda-setting be organized and function?

4 This point was raised as critique that legal/regulatory issues are not (yet) problematised in the scenario.

36

KPs would perhaps require a culture of not playing out others (among all sorts of actors). How

likely is this? What would support such a change from a competitive culture to a more collabora-

tive one?

37

Grand Challenges for Real –collective experimentation in socio-technical labs Abstract: In 2030, the research landscape in Europe is

characterized by making extensive use of collective exper-

imentation. Research on Grand Challenges is organized

around large Knowledge and Innovation Communities

(GC-KICs), each one overseeing several socio-technical

laboratories in which a large number of different solutions

responding to Grand Challenges are developed and tested.

Diverse actors such as citizens, companies, universities,

and social entrepreneurs engage in collective experimen-

tation. Experimentation, measurement of practices and impacts, and co-creation go hand in hand so

that real progress towards Grand Challenges becomes evident.

Host: Wolfram Rhomberg Rapporteur: Ellen van Oost Academia

The position of freedom of research, quality of research and the room for basic research were men-

tioned points of concern to secure in this scenario. Basic research needs places that go beyond Grand

Challenge research. Research agenda’s too have to be driven by bottom-up dynamics from science

itself. The strong focus on Grand Challenges can work as a “trap for science”, preventing the rise of

new theories.

On the other hand, a strategy of “smart specialization” would be able to “squeeze” redundancy out

of the research system, and would very well fit the grand challenge for real scenario.

Small universities can profit from this scenario, as local cooperation with other stakeholders is crucial

to meet local needs. Universities can well work on their local reputation for problem solving.

In the second round, the convergence of academic research with industrial research was empha-

sized, as the realization of real solutions for grand challenges still will need a commercial/industrial

focus : “science follows money”. This would imply a rather strong convergence of the type of

knowledge produced: only relevant for practical solutions.

Industry

The rule for industry is: money talks. Industry can give incentives to stimulation competition. GC-KICs

with industrial partners are expected to trigger innovation, the question however is, what type of

innovation. Industry may use GC-KICs to gain profits and earn money. Focussing on GC is not a priori

incompatible with new knowledge, one can think of new materials fitting (re)cycles of production

with sustainability targets.

Companies are already very active in scanning scientific developments as well as markets for oppor-

tunities. Policy measures (e.g., in China tax credit system stimulating sustainable development) can

clearly influence industrial research.

In future, IPR and patents will disappear: the future will be a post-patent era. Markets will regulate

different ideas of property.

In the second round, it was stressed that industry has to make choices to stay credible to society.

The societal role of industry was stressed by the strategy to give society profit back from the profits

38

industry makes by fulfilling needs of citizens/consumers. A strong convergence of industrial and aca-

demic research is anticipated.

Governments

Have to jump in where markets fail. Knowledge scanning will increasingly become important. This

raises two challenges: how to scan knowledge globally, how to integrate locally?

Governments can stimulate open funding. Open sharing of knowledge is important and can be stimu-

lated by developing supportive digital decision aids. Supra national funding will become important.

However, one will need a way to integrate this type of funding locally/ nationally.

In the second round, it was stressed the governments can steer research by ranking their priorities:

first addressing regional challenges (e.g. harbour logistics for Antwerp). Bottom-up regional dynam-

ics will strongly influence research policy & funding. GC-KICs may make a new way of distribution of

funding possible.

Society

Civil society is expected to benefit in this scenario. Civil society actors will have more political power

and influence on funding and research goals.

New ways of organizing research allows for stronger social aspects addressed in technological devel-

opments. The question was raised whether this would lead to ‘better products’ as well (no definitive

answer was found

yet). It was too ex-

pected that North-

South relations and

cooperation is

strengthened and

mutually enrich each

other. Horizon 2020

still is oriented to

Europe, Horizon 2030

should be more glob-

ally oriented.

In the second round

similar issues were

raised. NGO’s and

CSO can strengthen

their influence on

research goals serving

societal problems.

Although people do

have to believe in the

developed solutions,

otherwise research

can be hampered by

loosing time with

inadequate consulta-

tions with societal stakeholders.

39

Knowledge Value Chains – research for innovation in a specialized and strati-fied research landscape Abstract: In 2030, the public research landscape is closely

intertwined with the private research landscape globally.

Research in Europe proceeds at various national and re-

gional speeds aiming to improve their competitiveness in

global markets through innovation. Research is carried

out in "Knowledge Value Chains" (KVCs) organizing the

cooperation between three types of highly-specialized

and stratified organizations: research integration, re-

search services and third-tier organizations. KVC actors

interact according to management practices. Research is closely tied to industry processes adapting

the respective degrees of openness in research and innovation.

Host: Ozcan Saritas Rapporteur: Kornelia Konrad

Governments

Governments have a dominant role in setting Research and Innovation agendas. The role of national

governments in identifying key research themes and creating knowledge value chains depend on the

availability of research funds, which become scarce. The distribution is usually made based on the

ideology of governments (free market, controlled or some mixture). Research and innovation are

directed toward particular industries, especially those related to security, including military and

space; public health and those likely to be the basis of wealth creation and political and economic

needs. Meanwhile, the EU plays a minor role in creating knowledge value chains while dealing with

IPR and open access remain troublesome. There is no balanced distribution in terms of Research and

Innovation performance. Only strong countries can afford large programmes. The others become

dependent on other countries or industries.

There are various strategic options for governments and policy makers at different levels. First of all,

it is the responsibility of policy has to create good conditions for research in Europe. They need to

make sure that they create an open and industry friendly environment. It becomes crucial to increase

consciousness about the importance of basic and applied research. Diversification of research system

to deliver both basic and applied research can be one of the solutions. Research and Innovation value

chains should be extended to cover wider parts of industry and society. Close engagement of indus-

try will increase the possibility of commercialisation of Research and Innovation. Meanwhile, extend-

ing the value chains towards society and increasing the number of SMEs involved will help to distrib-

ute the wealth in a more balanced way. This will help to ensure citizens’ trust to Research and Inno-

vation and their contribution through production, information collection, consultation, or more pro-

actively as citizen scientists, who are willing to take active part in Research and Innovation.

At the EU level, the Framework Programmes are moving towards application side. However, the bal-

ance between basic and applied research should be considered and one should not be sacrificed for

the sake of the other. In this regard, the distribution of funding between different disciplines and

40

areas should be considered more carefully by considering the priority areas and Grand Challenges

faced by Europe and wealth creation, while ensuring increased quality of life of citizens.

Academia

In an environment with limited funding provided by national governments, universities conduct more

directed research. There is less room for creativity, flexibility and curiosity-driven research. Universi-

ties do what is said of them. They supply information through any appropriate means to industry,

other commercial private research performing organizations and their public counterparts. Universi-

ties consider themselves to be exploited in terms of their research capacity.

Limited public funding pushes universities to seek for ways of attracting more money from industry.

In order to achieve this, they should have a better understanding of applications for industry. There is

a need to remove the borderline between academic research and industrial application. Besides

basic and applied research, another area where universities can potentially play an important role

and raise funding is service innovation, which will continue gaining more importance, especially in

the areas of education, health and financial services. Automated research with advanced technolo-

gies, for instance to analyse big data, might allow routine research activities to be undertaken by

machines and leaving more space for curiosity-driven research.

Industry

Industry conducts research, innovation and production in major fields identified by governments.

However, in pursuit of flexibility, simplicity, speed and higher profit margins they operate both na-

tionally and internationally through an appreciation of major themes in different parts of the world.

Industry will continue to be very keen to establish knowledge value chains. This is done through col-

laborators in particular themes among a swarm of relevant companies that create knowledge value

chains. Industry appreciates curiosity-driven research. This provides some leeway for universities to

conduct more creative research. Open research platforms to be built can be a good interface to facili-

tate this interaction. Industry is also able to provide opportunities for SMEs, which are empowered

through extended value chains.

Society

The scheme suggested in this scenario excludes society to a large extent. Institutions funding, per-

forming and using research are interact with each other, but not necessarily with society. However,

there is an increased awareness of Research and Innovation in society. The information and commu-

nications technologies enable society to express their needs and concerns about Research and Inno-

vation. The networked society has a desire to be involved in the earlier phases of Research and Inno-

vation development. The examples of GMOs and nanotechnologies have shown that society has

power to influence scientific and technological developments. Society may support “good research”

and may blockade certain research, which may contain some risks associated to public well-being.

Distribution of Research and Innovation by increasing awareness in society seems to be the key stra-

tegic option for societal inclusion. For instance public can be involved actively in concrete technology

assessment. Traditional “literary criticism” can be applied for techno-scientific criticism. This can be

taken up by science journalists as well as young “Facebook” generation as very effective ways of voic-

ing public opinion.

41

42

Researchers’ Choice - autonomous researchers go for creativity and wellbeing

Abstract: Society is characterized by high-

ly individualistic values and strong em-

phasis on individual wellbeing, autonomy

and creativity. Autonomous researchers

are at the heart of scientific research. To

realize their ambitions researchers choose

options within a broad spectrum of mod-

els, ranging from new forms of science

entrepreneurship to more collective forms

under the umbrella of “slow science” with

a strong orientation towards local societal

needs.

Host: Matthias Weber Rapporteur: Inga Ulnicane

General

In an ideal case this scenario is ‘win-win’ for all stakeholders if everybody accepts that it is bottom-

up, curiosity driven. Can take time to adjust and to reap the benefits. Many opportunities but entre-

preneurial skills are needed.

Academia

Big hierarchical organizations like universities will be losers because they are not able to adjust quick-

ly. The role of universities may diminish and shift to become platforms for local research embedded

in global context. If the position of universities changes, what will be the impact on the teaching of

future researchers? What will academic teaching mean, teaching tools & theory or triggering curiosi-

ty and train entrepreneurial skills? How will the evaluation of academic performance be organized?

Who will be the gatekeepers, defining criteria for quality and relevance?

Individual researchers leave universities to start entrepreneurial activities; slow scientists have more

time to be inventive, creative and have good ideas; they self-organize and define their codes of con-

duct; organizational and communication (YouTube, Google) skills become more important.

More autonomy and more creativity may facilitate frontier research. In future, not so much the dif-

ference between fundamental and applied research is relevant, but the difference between frontier

and non-frontier research; funding for frontier research tackling Grand Challenges has to be provid-

ed, i.e., ERC and FET OPEN for Grand Challenges. Slow science can very well be frontier science. It is

not slow in the colloquial sense, but rather a very thorough way of practicing science meaning that

researchers are engaged in deep, long-term science that includes complex issues and high-risk re-

search. However, it is difficult to predict result of such science in advance, and difficult to formulate

criteria for funding it.

More freedom and more pressure for researchers to network and attract resources from diverse

funding channels generates a paradox: while initially slow science and science entrepreneurship

emerge to counteract pressures from hierarchical organizations, conflicting demands and assessment

43

system, then later autonomy of researchers’ choice implies new pressure to self-organize and to

survive in a competitive funding environment.

Industry

Industry adjusts faster than hierarchical academic organizations. This scenario is likely to bring about

a very diversified world of knowledge production that can be tapped into; industry can embrace such

kind of open innovation as long as there are also closed spaces. Industry may provide access to its

labs when they are not used and give away patents that are not used. Industry buys knowledge

wherever available, has easy access; learns about trends; has more variations to pick from. SMEs get

more easy access to research. The question however was raised to what extent industry is equipped

to fully exploit this opportunity of more diversified knowledge: multiple knowledge producers and

diverse criteria make search processes more difficult and increase transaction costs. There is a need

for transparency, quality filters, intelligent search strategies, intermediaries and brokerage.

Governments

National and international governments may have difficulties to identify counterparts if large re-

search organizations become less important. If their main role is to support autonomous researchers,

science entrepreneurs, and loose, self-organizing networks then with whom should governments

talk? New roles for governments may come to the fore: formulate criteria and guidelines for decision

making on what valuable research is in a situation where quality and relevance criteria are diversi-

fied; policy making for guaranteeing researchers’ autonomy; moderation in cases of conflicts of in-

terests. National government funding may well decline in importance, and even be contested in

terms of legitimacy and credibility. Local governments will increasingly fund research among a variety

of other types of funders (SME, NGOs, crowd funding, etc.). The scenario can lead to abandoning

national approaches and policies/research nationalism. The role of supra-national institutions in link-

ing local and global levels may be strengthened.

Society

Civil society will find this scenario attractive because it can have a prominent role in shaping research

agendas, sensing new ideas and needs to be explored and in that way counteracting inertia. As civil

society is very heterogeneous, conflicts may arise between civil society groups; all civil society organ-

izations can turn to science for expertise needed to make their case. There are a number of mecha-

nisms for civil society to influence research: first, to organize and approach science directly to pro-

vide research ideas and express concerns; second, to do research themselves or in collaboration,

participate in funding; third, to influence indirectly by voting in elections for politicians who advocate

for certain types of research.

General

In general, the importance of interaction between diverse stakeholders was stressed. Stakeholders

with hybrid roles are crucial, like science shops bridging research and civil society, or institutes like

EIT and KICs involving stakeholders from research, education and industry and combining diverse

funding sources. It is difficult to coordinate consortia bringing together diverse stakeholders but one

can come to solutions faster.

44

45

6 List of Participants RIF Stakeholder Workshop March 15th 2013

Surname Name Affiliation

Boekholt Patries Technopolis Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Burgelman Jean-Claude European Commission

Chaparro-Osorio Fernando Colombian National Accreditation Council/Universidad Central, Bogota, Colombia

Demiddeleer Léopold European Industrial Research Management Association (EIMRA)/ SOLVAY, Belgium

Erdmann Lorenz Fraunhofer Institute of Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Germany

Ettl Christoph Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Germany

Laroche Giles European Commission - DG Research & Innovation

Fammels Mathea European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Feudo Fabio Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza – LSC (Laboratory of Citizenship Sciences)

Hinze Sybille iFQ Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance, Germany

Hull Christopher EARTO European Association of Research and Technology Organizations

Jahn Sylvia European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Jonge, de Jos Science System Assessment, Rathenau Institute, The Netherlands

Konrad Kornelia Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Kuhlmann Stefan Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Lehmann-Brauns Sicco National Academy of Science and Engineering, Germany

Loikkanen Torsti VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland

Macilwain Colin Journal ‘Research Europe’ and ‘Research Fortnight’, UK

Mango Carlo Cariplo Foundation, Italy

Mosoni-Fried Judit Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary

Mu Rongping Institute of Policy & Management, Chinese Academy of Science, China

Mulder Henk Science shop, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Neubauer Claudia Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, Paris, France

Nieminen Mika VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland

Ordóñez-Matamoros Gonzalo Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Ormala Erkki Nokia Corporation/Aalto University

Oost, van Ellen Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Pohjola Hannele Confederation of Finnish Industries, Helsinki, Finland

Rietberg Evelien Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Rip Arie Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Rhomberg Wolfram AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria

Saritas Ozcan Manchester Institute for Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, UK

Stegmaier Peter Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Steinhaus Norbert Science shop WILA Bonn, Germany

Stenros Anne KONE Corporation, Finland

Theis Dietmar European Industrial Research Management Association/TU Munich

Ulnicane-Ozolina Inga Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, NL

Wagner Caroline Ohio State University/Science Metrix Corporation (Alexandria, Virginia), USA

Weber Matthias AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria

46

Annex 1: Five narrative scenarios for research and innovation fu-

tures towards 2030

The RIF 2030 has developed five narrative storylines imagining possible future dynamics towards

2030 of Research and Innovation. The basis of each storyline is the rise of tensions in the current

Research and Innovation system that will – in some scenarios triggered by a specific event - lead to-

wards a dynamic of transformative change .

The five scenarios are:

1. Open Research Platforms: self-governance in a networked decentralized research landscape

2. Knowledge Parliament: free negotiation of knowledge claims worldwide

3. Grand Challenges for Real: collective experimentation in socio-technical labs

4. Knowledge Value Chains: research for innovation in a specialized and stratified research

landscape

5. Researchers’ choice: autonomous researchers go for creativity and wellbeing

Below one can find the narrative description structured along three phases:

1. From today to 2020 (the explorative scenarios based on current trends and drivers)

2. From 2020 to 2030 (transformation trigger and transformation process)

3. The research landscape 2030 (describing the transformed R&I practices and organization)

47

Open Research Platforms – self-governance in a networked decentralized re-

search landscape

Abstract: In 2030, the research landscape with its research-performing organizations (and individu-

als) and funding mechanism is fully decentralized, global and open. Virtual communities initiate re-

search that is integrated into virtual platforms and openly accessible. Self-governance of research

around "Open Research Platforms" (ORPs), fully open to industry, individuals, foundations, and socie-

ty at large, is the norm. Into the vast knowledge flows passing through these ORPs, governments of

open societies worldwide embed their soft coordination activities such as monitoring of research,

assistance in connection of research activities, and targeted provision of incentives for researchers to

contribute to certain ORPs of public interest.

From today to 2020

As public debates on relevance of research and efficiency intensified throughout the world, the EU

undertook substantive efforts to coordinate R&I policies. The coordination of R&I was complicated

by the exploding complexity of the system, where powerful conflicting stakeholder strategies (mem-

ber states, industry sectors, etc.) coexisted. Governments worldwide increasingly recognized the

limits to govern and coordinate research agendas toward a mission in the ever more fragmenting R&I

landscape. While demands for research to tackle the “Grand Challenges of our times” (e.g. global

pandemics) increased, lack of confidence on governments’ capabilities to deliver solution centrally

also grew at a rapid pace.

Meanwhile, globally open science communities were rising in a context where “closed science” was

still the dominant mode of knowledge production and communication. With the aid of digital media,

people took open knowledge sharing and research collaboration as a matter of course. Therefore,

open collaborative research and publishing flourished. Not without difficulty from persistent tradi-

tional behaviors, however.

From 2020 to 2030

At the turn of the year 2020 a hardly understood deadly disease was spreading at lightning speed

around the world.

Governments at all levels put up emergency task forces to coordinate governments, universities,

industry, intermediaries, and other actors to find countermeasures. EU member-state interests

stayed disconnected as a result of deepened fragmentation and isolation. The pharmaceutical indus-

try claiming exclusive exploitation of the research results was challenged by the prevailing openness

paradigm. By now, the actor landscape was fragmented into too many activities with too diverse

goals, interests and focus areas.

When the pandemics set in, thousands of scientists worldwide began integrating their research find-

ings into an open wiki platform on that deadly disease. Within a few months an effective drug was

discovered and protected by an open-source license. Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs)

paved the ways for manufacturing, licensing, marketing approval and dissemination of the new drug.

48

The emergency case gave a strong push towards self-organized research collaboration via open plat-

forms. Due to the fact that some actors (certain businesses, countries, etc.) specialized in exploita-

tion of research only, Intellectual Property Right (IPR) regimes were discussed controversially. Yet

open collaborative global research was too dynamic to let any regime effectively regulate IPRs.

The research landscape 2030

In 2030, research activities are fully decentralised and dispersed over the globe. "Open Research

Platforms" (ORPs) facilitate Web 3.0 collaborative research, each ORP focusing on a particular chal-

lenge. ORPs are open to society at large and dominate R&I activities of universities, RTOs and large

parts of industry in Europe and other open societies.

ORPs are predominantly self-governed. They constantly monitor research and automatically generate

patterns of new and interesting research thus creating their own research agenda. New ORPs come

into being bottom-up: from the initial idea, over analysis and representation of growth, until a critical

mass is reached. Funding agencies (public, commercial, charity, civil society groups, etc.) monitor

ORP dynamics by own tools to adapt funding policies and allocate funds to certain research groups.

ORP research uses semantic analyses and advanced data mining to generate new hypotheses from

open data (e.g., from laboratory research, pervasive sensing). ORPs match a researcher’s input con-

tinuously with the input of others, and link persons with similar research interests. Research overlaps

are notified in real-time thus disclosing research repetition. Next generation collaboration tools fur-

ther stimulate co-operations (real-time language translators, high-quality 3D virtual meeting rooms,

robotic tele-presence in practical laboratory research, etc.). ORP algorithms ensure target-oriented

collaborative research campaigns.

ORP research is vulnerable to cyber-attacks, for example insertion of misleading data into the open

data system. To prevent fraud all active ORP contributors have to identify themselves allowing for

tracing of research to an individual person. Deeper access to ORP research is bound to a certain level

of reputation that can be increased by network linkages and provision of high-quality data. Research

results can be published directly by self-authoring or mediated by peer review. The vast global exper-

tise tied to an ORP allows for broad reviews of contributions within a week or two incentivised by the

mutuality principle (i.e. who reviews quickly will also be reviewed quickly). The importance of scien-

tific publishers to public research organizations is minor as their performance is judged by their con-

tribution to ORPs.

Open-source principles dominate in research licensing. Thereby industry competes to be first in

transfer of ORP research into innovations. Some ORP domains are not open as proliferation could be

dangerous (e.g., parts of nuclear energy, synthetic biology).

In the decentralised world the importance of supranational governmental entities such as the EU is

limited while national governments remain more important. Worldwide national governments em-

bed their R&I policies into the massive and diverse flows of research through ORPs, namely by moni-

toring of research, assistance in connection with research activities, and targeted provision of incen-

tives for researchers to contribute to certain ORP activities of public interest. The EU’s R&I policy

focuses on topics of pan-European interest. National governments keep providing research infra-

structure, while higher education follows research into the Web 3.0.

49

Knowledge Parliaments – the free negotiation of knowledge claims world-wide Abstract: Around 2030 all kinds of knowledge claims are raised and negotiated in so-called

‘knowledge parliaments’. They prioritize research topics and provide ‘trading zones’ in which actors

with particular research interests, topics and epistemologies compete for acceptance. This form of

forum also facilitates the building of research consortia. Citizens and a variety of other local stake-

holders and epistemic cultures (e.g., lay and indigenous knowledge) are incorporated. Neglected re-

search topics and unconventional knowledge domains are brought to the fore.

From today to 2020

The scope of knowledge by “science-as-usual” more and more turned out to be too narrow to meet

all relevant societal needs and to find legitimation in a world progressively interconnected. Inspira-

tion and innovation were increasingly expected from unconventional knowledge domains (e.g., in-

digenous and local EU farmers knowledges).

In terms of collaboration between scientific and other knowledges, the decisive role of members of

the San tribe from Namibia as traditional trace analysts in the spectacular deciphering the 17,000

year old works in the famous French Volp caves in 2013, received with great interest in the EU public

at large, set the wheels in motion for a re-assessment of the value of non-Western non-academic

knowledge.

At the same time, a sort of counter-globalization arose through which grassroots movements and

alternative epistemologies from the global South and other non-mainstream-Western science hemi-

spheres sought to defend the epistemological wealth of their regions and their people against unlim-

ited exploitation (e.g., of Southern biodiversity, French association of patients with muscular dystro-

phy called “Association française contre les myopathies” AFM) through state- and enterprise-

promoted research programmes as the sole source of both scholarly justification and economic suc-

cess.

There was also an increase of (doctoral and advanced) research financed from agencies from non-EU

countries (like Colombia, China, etc.) that actually helped EU based research groups and institutions

to compensate severe cuts in national research budgets.

From 2020 to 2030

A worldwide redistribution struggle broke out: between “modern” scientific and traditional peasant

and other knowledges, modern technology companies and, e.g., regional biodiversity, and conflicting

definitions of intellectual property rights. The struggle basically went over how far research either

should serve the interests of biotech companies only or local/traditional communities and knowledg-

es equally. At home, EU grassroots initiatives started to link up with their natural allies across the

world, learning from them how to become partners for research meeting their local needs.

“Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) engaged the European public in debates on R&I topics

and ethical issues to account for societal knowledge claims on a local and global scale. “Fair

knowledge” movements took up thoughts known in public from the “fair trade” movement. Never-

50

theless industry, established science, governments still dominated the advisory boards. Public delib-

erations were perceived as burdensome and time consuming.

Civil society was dissatisfied with orthodox modes of policy-making based on corporatist representa-

tion and with too rigid and inflexible participation procedures in closed-circle activities, because the

best-organized interests (e.g., of large businesses and NGOs) prevailed over the interests of others.

Therefore civil society actors quit RRI participation and aligned with public research organizations

and local initiatives in the EU and world-wide in order to develop projects and seek successfully funds

(NGOs, philanthropic foundations, crowd-funding, civil society projects, etc.) for R&I on hitherto ne-

glected or company “owned” issues.

The research landscape 2030

Around 2030, a new science-in-society contract has evolved from these flourishing new networks of

practice, and governmental R&I budgets opened up for these research practices. All kinds of

knowledge claims are brought to the fore and negotiated in so-called ‘knowledge parliaments’ sum-

moned ad hoc, on demand, by interested parties.

The knowledge parliament is an open arena format that accounts for all research interests, topics

and epistemologies not adequately covered by governmental administration research agenda set-

ting. Knowledge parliaments operate through three main mechanisms:

1. Involved authorities at various levels leave a certain share of their R&I budget to allocation

by its citizens (available on demand). Regular voting decides over R&I topics to be equipped

with these funds.

2. The allocation of funds takes place in a “research stock exchange”. Research consortia com-

pete for “research stocks” that specify research needs and funding.

3. Marketplaces provide a sphere in which research interests, topics and epistemologies com-

pete for acceptance and facilitate the building of research consortia that may encompass any

kind of stakeholders, in particular advocates of unconventional knowledge. These consortia

go for “research stocks”, or other funds (e.g., foundations, crowd funding, societal research

beneficiaries).

Across all EU public R&I budgets, the knowledge parliaments’ overall share rises to almost 40 %. The

right to vote isn’t bound to citizenship, and all kind of actors from all over the world engage in the

marketplaces. The meetings are held in the EU and elsewhere when required, also using online forms

of gathering.

Research in the knowledge parliaments is initiated by civil society (e.g., patient groups, social enter-

prises) or by research consortia. A project’s culture is shaped by the latent cooperation practices in

the consortium that looks for suitable funding. The knowledge claims are preselected through free

negotiation in the building phase of representatives from all relevant knowledge domains. This brings

alternative knowledge domains to the fore.

Projects are characterized by a common framing of the task, but incommensurability of knowledge

and specialized expertise require a division of labour in the research process. Actors of the diverse

knowledge domains dispose of strong communicative and intercultural skills, as well as of transdisci-

51

plinary competences. The boundaries between citizens and experts in research projects have be-

come extremely permeable.

Most universities provide an umbrella for and enable fluidity of researchers between various epis-

temic cultures. Working under these open conditions is sometimes a bit stressful, but rewarded by

publicly accountable, politically correct, and, a not insignificant driver, offering interesting research

opportunities. Science shops, new kinds of media, and specialized mediators engage in bridging and

translating the different epistemic cultures into each other.

The shifting science-in-society contract in Europe made “orthodox science” incorporate RRI practices

more fundamentally, whereas knowledge parliaments produce knowledge that increasingly replaces

“orthodox science” solutions. While other democratic societies regulate diverse epistemic cultures

similar to Europe in knowledge parliaments, undemocratic societies regulate the legitimacy of

knowledge by administration or not at all.

Over time they reshape the global landscape with all its plurality of knowledges, intellectual property

rights, and research styles. The current crisis of democratic representation, felt also in the research

policy field, is overcome by increased participatory negotiation over which research shall be carried

out to which end, financed by which resources, and generating how much profit for whom.

52

Grand Challenges for Real –collective experimentation in socio-technical labs Abstract: In 2030, the research landscape in Europe is characterized by making extensive use of col-

lective experimentation. Research on Grand Challenges is organized around large Knowledge and

Innovation Communities (GC-KICs), each one overseeing several socio-technical laboratories in which

a large number of different solutions responding to Grand Challenges are developed and tested. Di-

verse actors such as citizens, companies, universities, and social entrepreneurs engage in collective

experimentation. Experimentation, measurement of practices and impacts, and co-creation go hand

in hand so that real progress towards Grand Challenges becomes evident.

From today to 2020

The world increasingly recognized the Grand Challenges (e.g., climate change, sustainable energy) as

a key issue for research and innovation (R&I). When China launched a massive investment campaign

in Grand Challenges R&D, European business sector organizations aligned with EU's R&I policy to

make Grand Challenges R&D a vehicle to foster economic growth in Europe ("Grand Opportunities").

EU R&I policy formulation and coordination bodies adapted the concept of Knowledge and Innova-

tion Communities (KICs) of the European Institute of Innovation & Technology to Grand Challenges -

in the end to stimulate Europe's economy. For example, a water-KIC was set up. These new KICs,

while still focusing on research and technology, higher education, and business, attracted more and

more public as well as private funds. Thus, the academic and research community reformulated their

profiles according to the new "Grand Challenges as Grand Opportunities" headings.

From 2020 to 2030

At the turn of the decade, Southern Europe faced several long-lasting and severe draughts. Harvests

were lost, tourism receded and industry branches collapsed.

The most resilient regions had experimented collectively, i.e. society tried out things and learnt from

it, long before. Shifting the accent from research on particular technologies to focus on collective

goals, stimulated experimenting with any idea - from new social practices over diverse high-tech and

low-tech solutions to combinations. The feedback cycle of trial and error, impact measurement,

learning and invention provided the evidence for real progress. Collective experimentation gradually

changed citizen lifestyles towards water-saving and engagement in novel collective practices. In con-

trast, the water-KIC taking "Grand Challenges as Grand Opportunities" developed sophisticated solu-

tions not working effectively in most European regions.

The European public, in particular Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and media, started to demand

serious citizen involvement and cost-effective solutions. In the inter-ministerial conflicts that fol-

lowed, the voices calling to take Grand Challenges for real could not be suppressed any more. The

KIC-concept on Grand Challenges was re-conceptualized in putting evidence of real progress at cen-

tre stage. Thereby it opened up to new actors (e.g., civil society), other science domains (e.g., ne-

glected social sciences and humanities), and new experimental forms without favouring any particu-

lar kind of innovation.

53

When the EU decided to assign a large share of R&I funding to a few GC-KICs, member states, re-

gions, industry, the academic and research community, and civil society began fierce lobbying with

regard to the choice, scope, tasks, and actors' roles. As a powerful supranational union the EU was

able to formulate a successful configuration and to diffuse it over the whole R&I system under politi-

cal pressure.

The research landscape 2030

In a multipolar world, Europe focuses on Grand Challenges solutions that may, but must not neces-

sarily foster economic growth, while the other world powers would take Grand Challenges for real

only if they foster economic growth significantly.

In 2030, large parts of R&I in Europe make use of collective experimentation. In particular research

on Grand Challenges is organized around some Knowledge and Innovation Communities (GC-KICs).

These GC-KICs receive large funds from the European Union and its member states to discover novel

solutions by collective experimentation, to provide evidence of progress, and to implement the nov-

elties in practice. These experiments take place in socio-technical laboratories that encompass physi-

cal and virtual, stationary and mobile infrastructures, and reality itself.

Each GC-KIC oversees a number of socio-technical laboratories in which different solutions are de-

veloped and tested. As an example, elderly-care concepts are pioneered in East Finland, Saxony

(Germany), and Northwestern Italy to ensure that research stays diverse. Agenda setting within the

GC-KICs is facilitated by multi-stakeholder committees installed by the EU, combining top-down and

bottom-up processes. The socio-technical laboratories are open to all stakeholders and results are

fully accessible to allow for adaptations in other contexts.

Socio-technical laboratories are equipped with sensor arrays measuring numerous parameters real-

time, augmented reality interaction technologies, play-like 3D design tools, and they are dynamically

modifiable. Diverse actors such as citizens, companies, universities, social entrepreneurs, and NGOs

take part in regional experiments. People (most adhering to post-material wealth lifestyles) use so-

cio-technical laboratories to test their behavior under real-world conditions and to generate condu-

cive inventions.

Doing research and idea generation are closely intertwined, as experimentation in socio-technical

laboratories, measurement of practices and impacts in the field, and co-creation go hand in hand.

That combined approach leads to a boost in number and variety of inventions. The integrated impact

assessment (covering problem-solving potential, acceptance, etc.) enables fast and goal-directed

selection of inventions.

Universities collaborate within the respective regional communities. Higher education links up to

collective experimentation in using the socio-technical laboratories for testing, teaching and learning.

Companies value GC-KICs for their insights into potential collaborators as well as customers' values,

lifestyles, and behaviour. They support experimentation by provision of technology, products, ser-

vices and systems, and they are encouraged to transfer experiences into open innovations. Public

socio-technical laboratory infrastructure stimulates the innovation capabilities in particular of SMEs.

User-organizations, design entrepreneurship and developer communities flourish.

54

Science provides approaches to tackling Grand Challenges at regional level that have to be adapted

to concrete regional circumstances. Design research becomes a leading science that integrates tacit

knowledge, arts, engineering, craft, prototyping, social science and other knowledge domains. Re-

search quality is assessed by the communities of practice in the GC-KICs. Excellence is redefined con-

sidering the facilitation of collective experimentation and the integrated impact assessments for in-

ventions. Regional development organization networks play a major role in interregional knowledge

transfer.

EU and member-state governments provide socio-technical laboratory infrastructure and frame-

works for conducting and controlling collective experimentation, and sharing of investments and

benefits. EU's R&I policy is a horizontal activity covering different sector policies, for example on de-

mographic change and infrastructure. EU member states fund basic research and higher education to

support the GC-KICs. Businesses and states copy and adopt successful collective experimentations

and inventions worldwide.

55

Knowledge Value Chains – research for innovation in a specialized and strati-fied research landscape Abstract: In 2030, the public research landscape is closely intertwined with the private research land-

scape globally. Research in Europe proceeds at various national and regional speeds aiming to im-

prove their competitiveness in global markets through innovation. Research is carried out in

"Knowledge Value Chains" (KVCs) organizing the cooperation between three types of highly-

specialized and stratified organizations: research integration, research services and third-tier organi-

zations. KVC actors interact according to management practices. Research is closely tied to industry

processes implying different degrees of openness in research and innovation, depending on the indus-

tries IPR policy.

From today to 2020

Governments worldwide reinforced “New Public Management” (NPM) to evaluate and govern the

ever more fragmenting landscape of research-performing organizations (RPOs). The administrative

bodies of research and innovation (R&I) increasingly funded fewer, but larger projects. Government

expenditure on R&I in Europe was reduced because of persisting economic constraints. Focussing on

results and efficiency led to opening up of funding programmes to non-European and other new ap-

plicants to get the best research services at the lowest possible price.

At the same time, Europe was lagging behind the USA and/or Asia in key future technologies (such as

energy storage) and in key enabling industries (such as microelectronics) by 2020.

From 2020 to 2030

At the turn of the decade, RPOs faced stiff competition among each other and a boost in efforts for

fundraising and evaluation. RPOs operating according to consultancies’ practices managed best to

comply with these conditions. Consultancy-led research consortia (or similar form of organization)

were generally encouraged as it had turned out that such consortia delivered the best results in a

large research program on electro-mobility involving EU, member-state and regional governments.

Therefore consultancies and businesses slowly took over leadership in research aiming to improve

Europe's position in the global innovation race.

Responding to the new conditions of R&I funding worldwide, only a small number of organizations

managed to focus on system competencies and on professionalization of project management, fund-

raising and marketing. They succeeded in fundraising regardless of declining public funds because of

close cooperation with industry, highly efficient project management and international sourcing.

Contractors were increasingly big and powerful to cover the commercial risk of research projects,

among them consultancies, RTOs, international universities and large private research organizations.

Most universities (departments) and smaller research institutes opted for specialization in certain

research fields and subcontracting. This division of labour now transforming the global research land-

scape had been forestalled in Life Sciences earlier.

The research landscape 2030

56

In 2030, the main purpose of research all over the world is to foster innovation for economic com-

petitiveness. Public and private research are closely intertwined. The desired system solutions are

realised by consortia comprising highly-specialized and stratified organizations of three types:

1. Research Integrating Organizations (RIOs) dispose of system and knowledge management

competencies, and insider knowledge of the research market. They are large, operate global-

ly, and have access to governments worldwide as well as to the management of internation-

ally operating companies.

2. Research Service Organizations (RSOs) provide in-depth knowledge in specific fields. They are

small- to medium-sized, agile actors with good networking competencies.

3. Third-tier organizations supply data and fragmented research contributions. They comprise a

variety of actors with field access, data appraisal and processing competencies (e.g., labora-

tories), or creative ideas (e.g., think tanks, freelancers).

The specialization binds all organizations to their position in the knowledge value chain (KVC). Like

the OEMs in the automotive value chain (e.g., Toyota), RIOs manage the co-creation of value with

RSOs and third-tier organizations, and sell research products to industry, government, and research

customers. KVCs rationalize research by generally applied management practices (e.g. Total Cost of

Ownership), and facilitate innovation-orientation of research in close cooperation with industry.

Research projects are initiated by RIO/industry or they respond to government calls that reflect their

research needs negotiated in closed circles. Overall, EU and member-state government expenditures

on research for innovation is equal to industry R&D investment. RIOs employ world class talent able

to understand innovation tasks deeply, ignite creative processes, and integrate various pieces into a

whole solution. Intermediaries assist RIOs in finding suitable partners for a KVC.

The majority of researchers worldwide work in one of the three organization types of KVCs. RIO re-

searchers are assisted by advanced knowledge management systems to monitor, track, and control

value creation in real-time and by diversity management systems to foster creative processes. Doing

research in RSOs at the speed of industry innovation is demanding which favours the development

and use of efficient research tools (e.g. seamless human-machine interaction) and performance en-

hancement measures (e.g. cognitive drugs). Third-tier suppliers of data use large automated data

appraisal and processing infrastructures to maximize economies of scale and extract innovation-

relevant meaning from data. Third-tier suppliers of fragmented research are active in time windows

to deliver a missing piece for the whole solution. All research is managed by the RIOs' assistant sys-

tems that set standards and define interfaces.

Research quality and impact is assessed by the flourishing evaluation organizations. Division of la-

bour and management practices in KVCs disfavour the development of holistic theories. All kinds of

knowledge (e.g., data-driven research, trial & error, tacit knowledge) compete with each other, but

the measurable ones are favoured as they can be translated into scores relevant for funding and

evaluation. RSOs publish to demonstrate competencies, though restricted by commercial exploita-

tion interests.

RIOs design research processes and access to results as open or closed, depending on the customer

seeking either for open innovation or for knowledge protection. RIOs (rarely RSOs) also set the mar-

ket- or power-based investment and benefit sharing rules within the KVCs. Industry itself conducts

57

own basic research for innovation beyond KVC research, while governments fund high-risk basic re-

search for breakthrough innovation.

As industry and RIOs drive the setting of R&I priorities, the importance of supranational unions (such

as the EU) is downsized. National and regional governments with favourable economic conditions

support their industry and RPOs to play an active role in KVCs. The specialization leads to a new de-

pendence on certain world regions to cover scientific fields. Higher education funded by national and

regional governments conveys competences that integrate the logics of research and value creation.

Purely curiosity-driven research is restricted to a few international, state- or foundation-funded or-

ganizations, disconnected from higher education and KVCs.

58

Researchers’ Choice - autonomous researchers go for creativity and wellbeing

Abstract: Society is characterized by highly individualistic values and strong emphasis on individual

wellbeing, autonomy and creativity. Autonomous researchers are at the heart of scientific research.

To realize their ambitions researchers choose options within a broad spectrum of models, ranging

from new forms of science entrepreneurship to more collective forms under the umbrella of “slow

science” with a strong orientation towards local societal needs.

From today to 2020

From 2012 on pressure on scientists kept increasing from a number of different directions. More and

more scientists felt torn between conflicting demands for scientific excellence, commercialisation,

competition for funding, and demand for societal contributions. Others were unsatisfied with the

current system of science quality assessment and evaluation, and with their career options. Working

hours kept increasing and the number of burnouts of scientists grew sharply. To many this felt par-

ticularly frustrating as societal framework conditions were changing in the opposite direction: more

and more people were becoming extremely sensitive to issues of wellbeing and work-life balance

and emphasized creativity and individual autonomy as core values.

On top of this, many scientists felt that strict regulations, loads of paperwork, increase of compe-

tences required and continuous assessments added to the number of cumbersome aspects making

their work ever less rewarding. At the same time, public reputation of science was deteriorating.

Many citizens felt that the established science system was ignoring societal needs. In spite of all the

efforts for strict quality assessment, the number of cases of science-fraud, conflicting lobby-driven

scientific-expertise, and fatal science errors grew steadily. Public trust in science dwindled and scien-

tists’ societal reputation declined rapidly.

By 2020 many scientists faced a severe identity crisis. In several universities protests were joined not

only by students but also by young and senior researchers. The number of young talents aspiring to a

carrier in science fell sharply and several researchers were on the lookout for better working condi-

tions in other areas of the globe.

From 2020 to 2030

In this tense situation more and more individual researchers take action and develop alternative self-

organized ways of doing research. A main driver of this movement is individualism; everyone tries to

promote and sell her/his own idea or asset as a way of self-expression and self-fulfilment. Another

backbone is the availability of affordable digital tools and web-platforms that are enabling individual

research practices as well as seamless self-organized collaboration of autonomous scientists. Virtual

science communities are becoming stronger.

Self-organized, autonomous research is rising in different forms: One increasingly prominent format

is competition-oriented autonomous science-entrepreneurship that is developing targeted solutions

for global markets. These are often highly creative, ambitious talents who are motivated by the

pleasure of seeing their numerous ideas turned into successful solutions and products and the aspi-

ration of earning high revenues in return to their hard and restless engagement. They work autono-

mously, sometimes from home-offices, sometimes from different places all-over the world and con-

59

nect to other science-entrepreneurs through virtual platforms for exchange and collaboration on a

project base.

Another phenomenon on the rise is the so called “slow science movement”. This nickname was

picked up from the “slow food” movement as – similar to the food activists - “slow scientists” strong-

ly advocate quality of life and work as well as sustainability and local embedding of scientific activi-

ties. Several slow scientists reduce their professional activities in order to be able to pursue other

activities such as arts, sports, friends and care for children and elderly.

The Slow Science movement and the new science entrepreneurship pave the way for a higher share

of women scientists. A silent revolution of women takes place, who find their way into science entre-

preneurship through micro-businesses, local research, and bottom-up science entrepreneurship.

Increasingly locally-anchored women scientists join their forces in a global network, which provides

support for top women scientists from all over the world.

While the science landscape is diversifying, society is undergoing changes as well. New indicators for

measuring progress emphasizing quality of life rather than only economic growth are being estab-

lished in many countries. As research emerges to be value-driven and oriented towards individual

values and interests, researchers increasingly put into question the established mechanisms of

measuring scientific excellence.

The research landscape 2030

In 2030 bottom-up innovation through self-organized research is the norm. Research is oriented to-

wards the new governance paradigm that shifted emphasis from measuring economic production to

measuring people’s well-being. Societal reputation emerges from individual efforts relating to the

fulfilment of societal needs. The autonomous researcher, coming forward as Slow Scientist or acting

as Science Entrepreneur, has gained acceptance and represents the prevalent researcher’s career.

Many ambitious young talents are working and striving for entrepreneurial success and societal repu-

tation through science-entrepreneurship and slow science activities.

The slow science movement has consolidated into a “glocal” network. Slow science hubs with a

strong local orientation have emerged all-over the globe. They are very well networked and in con-

stant exchange with each other. Some universities have strengthened their “third mission” and es-

tablished intense collaboration with the autonomous slow scientists. The quality of slow science ac-

tivities is measured by its contribution to society’s needs and goals that are assessed through the

virtual science communities and in close interaction with the local users. Slow science research is

supported by foundations, citizens’ initiatives, and individual activists through crowd-funding. Most

slow science communities publish research findings on special online platforms and request volun-

tary contributions for each download. Often local governments closely collaborate with slow science

communities to gather independent advice on local-level research questions. City and municipality

networks adopt new roles in the transfer and local adaptation of Slow Science solutions. For the de-

velopment of innovative system solutions to local demands slow scientists and science entrepreneurs

from different disciplines collaborate with local companies under the coordination of local govern-

ments.

Perpetual auditing, impact assessment and evaluations are no longer required and burdensome new

public management principles have been abandoned. Publication speed and extent is determined by

60

the interests of the researchers themselves, who are motivated by recognition in their peer commu-

nities and feedback from the users of their results.

Science-entrepreneurs offer their research services to various societal actors (SME companies, indus-

try, (local) governments, NGO’s, etc.). Many science-entrepreneurs also publish their results and live

of the fees per clicks and download. This kind of revenue generation has become an important

source of science funding with an impact on selection of research topics.

Governments nurture science entrepreneurship by lowering the entry-barriers to business start-ups.

There is an advanced entry-level feedback system to build a reputation of trust to come up with ide-

as. Thus they have an indirect coordination effect. Because of the wide variety of researchers’ choic-

es to deliver research-based solutions for markets and societal needs, ownership of research results

and intellectual property rights are very controversial. Negotiation of adequate framework condi-

tions for science entrepreneurship and slow science remains a constant challenge for international

councils, EU institutions, and for national governments.

61

Annex 2: RIF 2030 Scenarios on Research & Innovation nested in broader societal futures