Figure 1 - Increase in internationally co-authored articles indicate the changing nature of science.
Bruce Don
ABSTRACT: Science is becoming increasingly international. Many nations now conduct some form of technology forecasting. In 1990 Congress mandated forming a "National Critical Technologies Panel" to produce a National Critical Technologies Review. It was to describe the U.S. technology base, highlight areas of concern, and consider strategies for improvement.
The S&T Policy Institute at RAND has supported the review as part of its mission. In the latest biennial review, we found that U.S. industry views five technology sectors as "critical": Software; microelectronics and telecommunications; advanced manufacturing; materials technologies; and sensor and imaging technologies. When asked why these were critical, industry leaders conveyed the view that these technologies were not well-defined commodities but rather provided the means for conveying a desirable type of functionality. Our interaction with industry persuaded us that the U.S. outlook must widen beyond "critical" technologies to view technology as both embedded in larger processes and in human capital.
To follow up on these insights, the National Science & Technology Council sponsored a National Summit on Innovation. It focused on the entire innovation system. The summit report will recommend initiatives to improve the innovation system. This represents a new framework for policy and planning. The U.S. focus in technology foresight seems likely to shift from a government technology assessment to an industry and government assessment of the innovation system.
As the examples in Figures 1 and 2 show, Science is becoming increasingly international, and industry is increasingly cooperating through international technology alliances.
Figure 1 - Increase in internationally co-authored articles indicate the changing nature of science.
Figure 2 - Changes in industrial cooperative agreements indicate the increasing internationalization of technology.
In this global S&T environment, many nations now conduct some form of technology forecasting as shown in Figure 3. In the U.S., forecasting originated in the 1980s with concerns about U.S. industry and may be seen as part of the global trend ? but with some differences.
Figure 3 - Many nations now conduct technology forecasting.
In 1990 the Congress mandated forming a "National Critical Technologies Panel" To produce a National Critical Technologies Review. It was to describe state of U.S. technology base, highlight areas of concern, and consider strategies for improvement. But it had no clear statement of purpose, definitions, or use. Specifically it did not answer the following questions:
The S&T Policy Institute at RAND has supported the review as part of its mission. Created in 1992 as the Critical Technologies Institute, the S&TPI mission is to:
The Institute may also play a role in a major change in the U.S. approach technology foresight.
The S&T Policy Institute's involvement in the Critical Technology Review has grown. As the Institute developed its capabilities, it has played a more formative role in the reviews:
| Year | Report | Role |
|---|---|---|
| 1991 | NCTR I | Not involved |
| 1993 | NCTR II | Helped organize NCTP |
| 1995 | NCTR III | Organization, substantive collation |
| 1998 | NCTR IV | Organization, substance, design |
In the latest review, we wished to address issues not sufficiently treated in earlier reviews. In addition to the Congressional mandate, we wished to focus on:
Figure 4 - Patricipants in the National Innovation Summit came from a broad range of backgrounds.
It had a Focus on process that results in success, and a Desire to understand entire innovation system.
The national summit brought together a wide range of participants in the innovation system. The summit addressed basic questions: What works? What should be fixed?
Some key themes emerged from the sessions: How to improve quality of the workforce? What data and information are needed for innovation? How to effect coordination and harmonization? How to address concerns about intellectual property How to leverage market forces? Infrastructure and infratechnologies play a key role. There are also concerns about socioeconomics and ethics. But one overarching question was common to all:
How does the innovation system work, and how does it affect the economy and quality of life?
Analysis of the summit deliberations identified six priority areas for near-term government action.
These steps may result in changes to U.S. policy and planning for technology and science.
The summit report will recommend medium- and long-term initiatives to improve the innovation system for new administration. It will also include consideration of education, regulation, information, and other aspects of the system as well as R&D investment.
This represents a new framework for policy and planning. Progress in creating such change is likely to be halting. The U.S. focus in technology foresight seems likely to shift from a national exercise to an ongoing industry and agency technology roadmap, many developed through industry-government partnerships, others through industry consortia. Coordination in science as a precursor to technology development seems likely to focus on a few major national initiatives, such as nanotechnology and high-performance computing. Existing agency-based planning will continue to be a factor, along with increased interest in understanding and using best practices for international cooperation in science.