complexity scenarios for emerging techno-science

Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008

COMPLEXITY SCENARIOS FOR EMERGING TECHNO-SCIENCE: ADDRESSING STRATEGY-CONTEXT FIT BY PROSPECTING LEVEL DYNAMICS OF GOVERNANCE Douglas K. R. Robinson STeHPS and TA-NanoNed, University of Twente, the Netherlands FRONTIERS Network of Excellence for Nanotechnology [email protected]

Summary Potentially breakthrough innovations stemming from emerging fields of technoscience (such as nanotechnology and genomics) are high on the agenda of the FTA1 Community. In this paper I address the issue of strategy-context fitting in a special case of strategy articulation for research and R&D management, i.e. under early stage and ‘hot’ conditions of the emergence of technoscience. Complexity scenarios, as opposed to other scenario approaches, have the objective of providing a handle on the complexities of emerging and evolving networks of actors, and make credible projections of such evolutions as the first step to structuring en route to strategy articulation. Such approaches, which rely heavily on knowledge of the context of the innovation(s), can incorporate large amounts of heterogeneous data into prospective innovation journeys in a credible/plausible way. This is essential when preparing the ground for a multistakeholder interactive event where, amidst the uncertainty of ‘hot’ conditions, achieving outcomes is the goal. This need is further emphasised when the strategy relates to potentially radical and breakthrough innovations such as those promised by nanotechnology. Non-linearity and uncertainty are central here to my notion of innovation, and thus the innovation journey metaphor in the technology management literature is very useful. The metaphor can be combined with other insights from the sociology of science, technology and innovation (STI studies). Such insights can give details of emerging structuring and shaping factors and ‘endogenous futures’. Here I describe the approach in the context of a specific FTA project, housed in an international R&D network, which targets the broader issue of nanotechnology governance. The paper will describe in brief the ancillary concepts that I propose augment the innovation journey model (path emergence and endogenous futures) and show how they can be used to articulate the history of a possible trend in nanotechnology governance2 labelled ’Responsible Research and Innovation’. These articulations can be used to create prospective innovation journeys presented in the form of complexity scenarios. I present summaries of three scenarios and show one in full and unpick its’ seams to reveal the key constituent elements. The scenarios were used successfully and were recognised as being relevant combining both participant anticipations, multiple perspectives and my own analysis. At the time of writing, the project is in the follow up

1

Future Oriented Technology Analysis.

2

I use a broad notion of governance here where regulation is one element in a range of governance activities and arrangements, which operate at the interface between nanotechnology and policy/society and which add up to a governance ‘landscape’ (see Kearnes and Rip 2008).

THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -1-


phase which is combining elements of the three scenarios with the opinions and positions that came out during the workshop interaction.

1

Managing for Complexity :

Managers of innovation in the world of nanotechnology, as in other field of techno-science that promise radical and breakthrough innovations, have to develop and execute strategies in rapidly changing contexts with dramatic shifts in the roles, responsibilities and strategies of an everchanging network of stakeholders. These shifting networks of multi-actors cross multiple levels of action (i.e. of research communities, networks and national innovation systems) and can cross many industries and value chains (such is the case of nanotechnology – an enabling technology). The complexities linked with this high uncertainty during the nascent stages of such a promising field make conventional roadmapping (suitable for strategic orientation in more stable fields of innovation) unsuitable as a tool for anticipatory assessment and coordination. As has been stated elsewhere in the product development literature managers would do better by embracing the complexities related to the context of emerging innovation prior to closing down options in a more reflexive strategic orientation process. In the world of nanotechnology, governance/management arrangements are evolving, part of their direction is captured by the phrase ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI) 3 where these large re-orientations and arrangements are co-evolving and co-shaping emerging innovation chains even at such early stages. There are anticipations that the governance arrangements will/should change. Actors are becoming pro-active and engaging in the emergence of RRI. The idea of including complexities in FTA process is rapidly becoming recognised as useful, but puts more pressure on FTA systems (types of knowledge and skills to create, use and understand such complex inputs). The key challenge is to do so effectively by tying FTA more tightly to the innovation context(s), in so doing remaining sensitive to the many changes and shifts so characteristic of early stage ‘hot’ situations. In the previous seminar FTA 2006, Robinson and Propp presented an alternative to roadmapping which gets closer to such contexts of emergence, which embraces some of the complexities and integrates them into an alternative visualisation: the ‘multi-path map’, which could enable more flexibility in strategic alignment whilst still enabling the closing off of options and executable strategies. That tool was developed in a context of a specific approach to FTA (the interactive multi-stakeholder workshop type approach) as part of a broader project4 of defining a system of tools to optimise such interactions (e.g. in a workshop) both in terms of

The phrase ‘responsible innovation’ refers to innovation activities in which societal aspects, desirability and acceptability are taken into account. Innovation actors will be responsive and may be asked by societal actors to account for what they do, and in this way responsible innovation is the responsibility of innovation actors, in interaction with various societal actors. While the phrase ‘responsible innovation’ occurs occasionally, it is now becoming more common, especially in nanotechnology. Other phrases are used as well, for instance Renzo Tomellini has mentioned in recent meetings a “Culture of Responsibility” in Nano research. 3

4

The broader PhD research (Robinson forthcoming in 2009) concerns mechanisms of Constructive Technology Assessment (cTA) inserted into the world of nanotechnology R&D. For an overview of the programme of activities in which my work is embedded (including my earlier work in cTA based on technology innovation chains) in Rip and te Kulve. 2008.. Major lacunae exist in combining knowledge of emergence with a set of tools to conduct cTA effectively. For the key notions of cTA see Schot and Rip 1997.



providing good strategic intelligence, facilitating the interactions, and effecting knowledge exchange, creation and strategy development. This paper will present a further tool for improving strategy-context fitting of FTA. Complexity Scenarios add socio-technical complexities to nano research & innovation processes prior to the multi-path mapping phase presented previously. The project I use to demonstrate this tool is focussing on the broader shift in governance of nano and how it effects innovations stemming from R&D. Complexity Scenarios are important to frame multi-stakeholder workshops interactions closer to the context. Note that participants may come from different communities with little experience of activities occurring in other actor groups. I have developed this approach through five projects so far5 and the paper will present details of the technique, examples of scenarios and results from a specific workshop held at MESA+, Twente University (The Netherlands) on 18th December 2007 on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). I will first describe the building block of my approach, which give insights into innovation journeys in context. In section 3 I will set the scene describing the emergence of RRI up to the time of scenario development. Section 4 will give summaries of the three scenarios and unpick their seams to reveal their constituent elements (I provide one full scenario in the appendix). Section 5 will return to the issue of strategy-context fitting of FTA in ‘hot’ situations and open up the discussion concerning possible agendas for the FTA community.

2

Building blocks of FTA tools grounded in contributions from science technology and innovation (STI) studies

To further improve, for those wishing to manage innovation processes with the support of futureoriented technology assessment tools (FTA), the innovation-journey metaphor can be supported with other insights from the sociology of science, technology and innovation (STI) studies. Although this paper is practical in nature, this section will combine a number of concepts from STI studies to give insights into emerging structures and endogenous futures that can be integrated into complexity scenarios for prospecting plausible innovation journeys.

Figure 1: The linear model of innovation as a rhetoric entity, despite widespread recognition of its limitations, is still widely used to frame innovation analysis, management strategies and policies. (Godin 2006)

5

Also, a further use of this approach is currently being used and further tailored by Alireza Parandian in his own FTA exercises during 2008 focussing on extending Deuten et al. 1997 work on societal embedment. See his poster in this meeting entitled “How to improve anticipation and societal embedment of emerging and potentially breakthrough technologies in the healthcare sector?”



2.1 Models of the ‘innovation journey’ There is increasing recognition that innovation emergence is a non-linear process, not only in technology management and STI-studies, but also, the OECD has recognised the non-linearity of innovation. They describe the first phase being "characterised by a ‘linear’ view of innovation as an automatic spill-over process between basic knowledge and technological application" and the second phase being ‘non-linear and recursive interactions between a variety of actors participating in the quest for innovation’; see Braun 2008: 227). To capture this non-linearity of innovation processes, the metaphor of the ‘innovation journey’ was used to capture the complex twists and turns in the emergence of a new product (Van de Ven 1999). The innovation journey idea of Van de Ven, which has been picked up elsewhere in technology management circles and in STI studies, is a way of re-framing notions and premises of innovation dynamics: innovation is not linear but non-linear, and characterized by learning processes of actors about artefacts and actants.

Figure 2: Schematic innovation journey in Voss 2007

Figure 2 shows a schematic innovation journey (Voss 2007) highlighting key elements, (multiple) origins, coupling, forks, shifts setbacks (up to halting the journey) and projections. This diagram is quite useful but it also makes clear a tension for FTA. From an observational standpoint we have recognized that innovation is de facto recursive, learning etc, but from a management point of view it still needs to be managed efficiently. How to reconcile?

The first step is to embrace these complexities with a deeper understanding of innovation journeys. The second step is to identify loci for influencing (or exerting some shaping force based on reflexivity on) the dynamics of innovation emergence. These have been core research lines in the field of constructive technology assessment (Rip and Schot 2002).6 A prerequisite for managers wishing to shape emerging S&T such as nanotechnology is to understand the innovation journey better by capturing the complexities of the 2nd phase of innovation and linking these to those strategies which become operational in the 1st phase, or linear, perspective of technology developers. One can then seek loci for intervention in the prospective innovation journeys to enable deeper reflexivity of the content of emergence. If we claim that the linear view is currently a necessary fiction to allow strategy articulation and action, it can be made more reflexive by opening up the black box of stages of innovation processes (cf. figure 1) and be informed by the so called second phase of innovation. If ongoing and reflexive

6

This has also been extended through a form of constructive technology assessment known as Strategic Niche Management (SNM) (Schot and Geels 2008). However, the prospective nature of cTA for early stage and potentially radical innovations has been somewhat lacking.



FTA processes could be embedded in such a broadened linear view, we could reconcile the tension between non-linearity of innovation journeys and management. This is the drive for context fitting and leads us to articulating a number of key requirements for FTA dealing with prospecting innovation journeys.

2.2 Requirements of FTA tools and state of the art As this paper is practical in nature I will suggest adaptations or new creations of FTA tools but can discuss these lacunae only in passing (a follow-up paper is to be more theoretical in nature). So for brevity, putting my claims upfront, I propose that there are two clear gaps in the literature so far which need to be resolved when operationalising for approaches to context fitting FTA: 1 Transition from unarticulated and open-ended situations to more structured and well articulated situations (so called HOT and COLD situations). There has been limited investigation into transition issues between hot and cold (Callon et al. 1991). SOCROBUST was an attempt at creating anticipatory management and assessment tools for analysis and improving the societal embedding of innovations. Contexts were captured in term of ‘TechnoEconomic Networks’ (an Actor-Network Theory notion). Socrobust emphasises the difference between unarticulated and fluid "HOT" situations and more articulated and stable "COLD" situations. However, it has paid little attention to the latter, and more importantly the process of getting there: what has been seriously "neglected is the processes of solidification and partial irreversibilisation turning the fluid into the stabilised"(Laredo et al. 2002). Socrobust builds on assessment tools other than TENs, e.g. Future Scripts (De Laat 2000), which have also neglected these processes. This transition is important as it gives indications of what is more open and what is not, this effects the projections we wish to make with our prospective innovation journeys (indicated as scenarios in Figure 2). 2 Capturing the shifting natures of the selection environments and mechanisms of action (described by Nelson and Winter 1982, and further articulated by Van der Belt and Rip 1987 and Deuten et al. 1997). As Rip and Schot 2002 noted, there is a lack of models that can capture this, with little or no focus on the actual shaping dynamics on the innovation journey in the innovation journey literature. The authors suggest to acknowledge and embrace these dynamics. The value for the practitioner here would be an awareness of the evolution and the selective nature of environments which is an important factor in the successful emergence and societal embedment of innovations. In other words, it is not the promises or the performance criteria of the new product alone that decide upon success but rather, a combination of artefactual and contextual factors. Cf. Rip 1995 and Deuten et al. 1997. For prospecting possible innovation journeys, scenarios are an attractive FTA option, since they can capture lots of complexities in concise story lines. However, there is little in the literature on (A) inserting important patterns, dilemmas and anticipations relevant to the innovation journey metaphor let alone (B) indications on how to create such scenarios. Rip (forthcoming) goes a way in filling this gap through an argument for the inclusion of emerging irreversibilities (see later) to the innovation journey model. The paper culminates in number of recommendations for identifying ways of bringing the innovation journey “in context” suggesting to include indications of path emergence (or alignment and potential lock-in) and feed these back to actors.



Alongside these two lacunae, another line of investigation I wish to build on stemming from STI studies is that of the endogenous futures (however tentative) in the present. For the creation of scenarios representing plausible innovation journeys there is a need for methods of capturing endogenous futures in current dynamics to enable credible extensions from the present into multiple possible (and credible) futures – I propose two elements of endogenous futures, drawn from STI-studies, which can help the structuring of the complexity scenarios: the sociology of expectations and emerging irreversibilities. It is along these three lines that I develop a means of creating scenarios which remain sensitive to (1) the transition from Hot to Cold situations, (2) the shifting nature of selection environments and mechanisms of action and (3) endogenous futures. To capture these elements I need to have (A) models of transition from hot to cold, (B) perspectives of both linear and non-linear processes of innovation and (C) a further specification of endogenous futures such as emerging irreversibilities which crystallise out of the transition from hot and cold and which can be used as indicators of trends.

2.3 From two notions of ‘path’ to two perspectives of activity in the innovation journey For the first of these lines, the transition from hot to cold, knowledge of path dynamics can help us. Robinson and Propp give some details of the literature mainly from evolutionary economics 7 on path dynamics, dependency and creation and draw on the notion of socio-technical path in its two forms: paths as macro-level paradigms characterised by socio-technical alignments and entanglements at the sector level; and path as actor strategies focussed around innovation chains projected towards a future paradigm. With respect to the first notion a path lies at the domain level. The forward-propelling dynamics of incremental innovation act as a disincentive or even boundary to radical options. Entanglements of socio-technical actors and factors are both causes and effects of these dynamics. The second notion of path is from the perspective of an actor making decisions, developing strategies and taking action. In this case path is like a business model, a plan to connect the present to the future. In both cases managing for the most desirable path is the goal. They go on to show how both notion of paths can be used to prospect possible routes for innovation actors. For brevity I will not repeat this work and assume that point (1) of the three lines of interest in 2.2 is covered – Robinson & Propp 2006 is available on the JRC-IPTS FTA 2006 website.

7

Evolutionary theories of technical change propose that technical innovations stem from variation (novelty creation), selection (such as markets, regulation etc.) and retention. Unlike in biology Rip and van der Belt 1987 emphasise that variation is not blind but directed. Technology developers not only anticipate on selection environments but attempt to shape them. These anticipations can drive the creation of special programmes of activities or lead to expectation envelopes – see later.



Figure 3: Innovation Chain perspective. Moving from left to right, emerging innovations pass through different arenas of action (represented by bubbles) and related selection environments. The large bubbles represent generic stages, the smaller bubbles represent those which are specific to certain types of innovation, or bypassed by technology developers. The (non-exhaustive) list of selection forces in the figure shape the arenas-of-action to varying degrees, but are themselves shaped by other dynamics .



To address point (2), “the shifting nature of selection environments and mechanisms of action”, we can build on these two notions of path. Paths are after all outcomes of actor strategies and their actions and co-shape them. To evaluate and devise strategies for innovation, developers of new technology/product options project a linear view of innovation processes, where responsibilities for transferring new knowledge from the lab, into product-into society are distributed along an innovation (or value) chain in a deterministic way (see figure 1). There are milestones to achieve, and there are recognisable distinct spaces for action (research, manufacturing, testing, markets) etc. and developers anticipate on these spaces and devise strategies based on them. Figure 3 shows a perspective for nanotechnology innovations chains, with distinct loci for action, as well as a non-exhaustive indication of selection forces which shape these bounded arenas for action (the bubbles in the diagram). These bubbles also contain selection environments which the technology/product must navigate through. This linear model of an innovation chain and bounded spaces for action link up with the actor-centric notion of path mentioned in Robinson and Propp. By shifting the linear view to a perspective based on sites for action we create an opening in the linear model to non-linear dynamics whilst still enabling strategy articulation. So we have a perspective which shows arenas/spaces for action and selection environments as a broadened (but still) linear perspective. Moving to the paradigm path model of Robinson and Propp we can identify other levels of interaction and mechanisms of action (both of which will shape the selection environments located in the bubbles and selection forces shown in figure 3). The lowest (or micro) level shows individual R&D projects in public and private R&D, this could be the exploration of a nano cantilever array or retinal implant. This would be the specific product innovation journey (as described by Van de Ven et al). Management and coordination stays at the level of research team, and included in the project. The middle (or meso) level describes collective developments of consortia. Coordination attempts at this level include the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. Networks of Public research centres and industry consortia could act at this level. Management and coordination stays at the network level. The top (or macro) level describes governmental and more formal regulation, it is at this level that regulation is made, NGOs lobby, societal debate occurs, consumers choose to consume or not to consume (market governance) etc. Management and coordination lies at the governmental level and consumer level, with the many actors such as NGOs, regulatory agencies, consumer groups, citizen associations etc. shaping agendas.

Time

Figure 4: A framework for multi-level dynamics. Each level has its on dynamics, but can link up with each other (for example through institutional entrepreneurs) and overtime become entangled and aligned (see Rip et al 2007, Delemarle et al. 2005) Figure 6 shows this framework put to use (p 15).



Such a model was developed by Rip et al 2007 in the form of a multi-level perspective. Building on the work of Fujimura 1987 and incorporating other insights from STI-studies, they identify three distinct arenas/levels for action. This multi-level approach8 is shown in figure 6 for the innovation journey of RRI. In short the levels represent different arenas of action, actors can act at different levels but must do so inline with the mechanisms specific to those levels. Therefore certain forms of actor (i.e. individuals, consortia, firms etc.) can be more successful in these arenas than others (see figure 4 above) 9 For RRI this model is useful to track the evolution of emerging governance arrangements in nanotechnology and can provide insights into the dynamics which shape the selection environments in innovation chains (represented in figure 3). Combined these two frames for observing mechanisms of action, strategies and shaping (+ selection) forces. help in multistakeholder interactions (such as my workshop) since they remain sensitive to the types of activities and strategies of both technology developers (figure 3) and those which determine the selection environments.10 These two perspectives are directly relevant for both informing scenarios that will be read by a variety of stakeholders AND as representations of arenas for shaping innovation journeys that can be explored in workshop conditions – useful visualisations as well as models.

2.4 Actor anticipations and emerging structures: the notion of ‘endogenous futures’ By ‘endogenous futures’ - in contrast to futures that are created by brainstorming – I mean scenarios of possible futures that emerge from within the present, that are located in the present. Here I draw on two elements, one (A) linked with anticipation and the other (B) dealing with emerging constraining/enabling factors that shape path emergence. (A) The sociology of expectations11 Due to the immaturity of many nanotechnology fields, expectations and promises play a dominant role by mobilising resources and action in the shaping of an emerging S&T. Over the last 15 years, the sociology of expectations has argued about the structuring of action by expectations, especially at early stages where the situation is fluid and there are opportunities to create new ties and positions (van Lente 1993, van Lente & Rip 1998, Brown & Michael 2003, van Merkerk & Robinson, Borup et al. 2006). In nanotechnology, one can argue that 8

This work is being done in parallel with other work on path dynamics as part of my PhD project. Some reporting of multi-level dynamics and its relation to emerging socio-technical paths in nanotechnologies can be found in Rip, Robinson and te Kulve (2007) and Rip and te Kulve (2008). 9

Sociological analyses within the macro-level have extended the innovation journey metaphor and applied it to the uptake and shaping of policy instruments – see the PhD thesis of Jan-Peter Voss, whose interests lie in the emergence of policy instruments and shifts in governance arrangements and heterogeneous networks. 10

Rip (2006), building on the work of Garud and Ahlstrom (1997) defines actors in these frames: enactors (those pushing and creating technological innovations) and comparative selectors (those who both shape the selection environments and compare, contrast and possible select between different product lines). Further development of this distinction is beyond the scope of this paper but is a key notion in the current developments of constructive technology assessment in the TA NanoNed initiative, of which my work is a part. 11

This small section draws heavily on Propp T. and Moors E. (forthcoming) Strategic policy impacts of the uptake of genomics-related expectations: The case of the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy. I also draw on my other works on expectations with Tilo Propp (Robinson and Propp 2008) and Rutger van Merkerk (van Merkerk and Robinson 2006). I thank Tilo Propp for allowing me to paraphrase his forthcoming work.



expectations are particularly important, since resources are being mobilised into investing in nanotechnology based on promises rather than concrete products or proofs of principle, and in so doing structuring and guiding action. As Propp and Moors state: “An expectation is an anticipation of the kind of future that may be ‘on its way’ from within the present. Anytime we speak of a ‘trend towards (x, y, z)’, we actually extrapolate current events into the unknown ahead; experience may tell us in some instances which outcome is likely, but the results have not occurred yet and are uncertain. However, expectations also have a performative function (Brown et al 2003:3) in that they are part of camouflaged strategies of mobilizing the support of other actors for these ongoing activities (van Lente 1993:51). Actors simultaneously talk up the deterministic momentum of current developments and suppress uncertainty and alternative futures, hoping for alignment of other actors – and the resources they have or can distribute – around these expectations. “

Thus expectations are a key ingredient for complexity sensitive FTA. They give insight into emerging trends, patterns, and structures and also they give an insight into actor strategies and attempts at shaping emergence. This is key to the understanding of emerging innovation journeys, but also can be integrated into scenarios. Box 1 shows the type of expectations I look for in my analysis of RRI and integrate into scenarios.

Box 1 – Three types of expectations Propp and Moors (2008) further adapt Van Lente (1993) who identified three types of expectations categories, which are located in concentrically layered horizons around an ongoing or intended activity of whatever duration, such as an R&D project. These adaptations were made so as to be applicable to expectations in fundamental research (specifically the impact of genomics on life sciences)’. 1. ‘Search expectations’ are statements about promising strategies of research in order to elucidate a particular problem. An emerging field can with respect to search expectations accumulate a ‘track record’ of certainty about strategies that work, and thus gain credibility. Thus they are not arbitrary, only uncertain to different degrees.

2. ‘Product expectations’ are related to product outcomes (diagnostic tools, therapies) of research activities in different life sciences and other fields. Due to the need for new actors (spin-offs, start-ups, or multi-national corporations) to engage in knowledge transfer, the innovation journey is uncertain; it can be enabled or hampered by contextual factors such as regulation and societal approval. Fundamental science is with respect to time and actors involved far from application, but expectations of applications articulated by researchers often compress for performative reasons the nonlinearity of innovation into a linear, sequenced connection.

3. ‘Paradigm expectations’ are related to visions of future healthcare - a combination of technological and societal factors transcending and surrounding research activities and products. Genomics can potentially change paradigms - existing ways of thinking about disorders and health, prevention and treatment, individual and public health responsibility, of organizing, financing & enacting medical care.

These three type of expectations can contribute to expectation-envelopes which can drive agendas through hype and promise-requirement cycles and create niches (see Figure 5).

THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA - 10 -


(B) Emerging irreversibilities – elements in the transition from HOT to COLD situations This growing body of literature (investigating the sociology of expectations) is proving quite fruitful in linking anticipation (in the form of expectations) with emerging structures. For example in an earlier work my colleague and I investigated the linkages between expectations, agenda setting and actual activities and how the mutual shaping of this triad could add up to indications of an emerging path (van Merkerk and Robinson 2006). These add up to the notion emerging irreversibilities. Robinson and Propp 2008 describe emerging irreversibilities in the following: "Researchers working with the concept of socio-technical paths have recently taken up the notion of emerging irreversibilities. Increasing alignment and entanglement in the concept of socio-technical paths can be linked to emerging irreversibilities (Rip 1995, Callon 1991, Callon 1992, Rip & Kemp, van Merkerk & van Lente 2005, van Merkerk & Robinson 2006). Emerging irreversibilities are punctuations in the evolution of a technological field, which both guide and drive it. They can be defined as ‘sociotechnical entanglements which over time enable and constrain alignments and activities of persons, institutions and artifacts. As these entanglements become tighter, options are reduced, facilitating certain paths whilst inhibiting others.’ Irreversibilities grow over time, shaping and being shaped by the historical affordance structures which guide path dynamics."

So emerging irreversibilities can act as indicators in the continuum between hot and cold. More details of this approach can be found in the references above, but again for brevity I will move swiftly on to the how these all add up to inform Complexity Scenarios.

2.5 Tying these concepts together to inform complexity scenarios I have made the distinction between models of emergence (actor-centric and paradigm), perspectives on innovation processes (Innovation chain and multi-level dynamics) and elements of endogenous futures (emerging irreversibilities and expectation dynamics) of path emergence and its dynamics. The two models of path have not changed from Robinson and Propp. Since paths are an outcome of actor interactions and both shape their interactions, I needed a perspective of spaces for interaction and mechanisms of activity. This is where the innovation chain and multi-level figures come in. The 1st perspective is a broadened linear view, which shows spaces of activity and how they are placed in terms of actor-centric strategic planning (note the time axis does not exist – it is part of the deterministic nature of the diagram that time is replaced by stages to pass through, milestones to achieve). The 2nd representation of multi-level model shows three levels of types/mechansism of interactions and are conducive-to/populated-by certain actors but can have actors acting at multiple levels, tying them together (Delemarle et al.2005, Rip and te Kulve). I have drawn on endogenous futures in the form of expectations and emerging irreversibilities, which can provide indications of emerging paths. One must still handle these indications of endogenous futures with care as they are tentative and ever changing, however as part of an ongoing assessment process, they can be used effectively in real-time to prospect possible innovation journeys using today’s endogenous future.



All these elements add up to the schematic below which now shows the innovation journey in context. The representation of the ‘expectations envelope’ is based on previous research done by Brown, Rip and van Lente. Voicing expectations and making promises is a key aspect of new technology projects/programmes, they mobilise resources and are related to the promiserequirement conversion, where accepted promises create and maintain a protected space (or niche) around search processes (van Lente 1993) – a ‘requirements envelope’ (Rip, 2002). The envelope protects technological opportunities that start out as ‘hopeful monstrosities’; specifically, work is geared towards establishing functionality and proof of principle (Rip 2003). In addition, future scripts are stabilized around this set of expectations (Brown et al. 2000), so that the envelope has both internal and external functions. However, the expectations stacked up to a ‘house of cards’ can break down when the efforts at maintaining them become too heavy. This then leads to repair work and/or shifts in direction (Rip 2003).

Figure 5 Innovation Journey combined with expectations and path dynamics.12 This schematic turns into a table (see Table 1 in section 4) where possible innovation journey elements can be created informed by knowledge of endogenous futures and positioned in the two representation frames for action.

12

This diagram was an outcome of interactions with Tilo Propp following our mutual interest in paths and expectations, and thus he should be credited for this image.



2.6 The FTA Exercise After building up a framework/scaffold for my FTA exercise and scenarios I will now describe the content of the exercise. Ideas of responsible development of nanotechnology13 have been in circulation for a while now, but only recently are they solidifying into policy and regulation. With current explorations of possible means of achieving a responsible approach to nanotechnology (EU Action Plan & EU Open Consultation) FRONTIERS14 thought that it was time to take stock and look deeper into the notion of responsible research and development along the innovation chain. The proposed codes of conduct are the tip of an iceberg of a larger movement towards responsible innovation, increased political and public scrutiny, and the need to explore and develop recommendations for what one could call good nano-practice. There is a current emphasis on societal impact and embedment of nanotechnology applications, a general acceptance that potential environmental and health risks of nanomaterials exist and a call for (self) regulation. The Frontiers NoE initiated an FTA programme to probe this emerging trend and to explore what elements should be in RRI, how to implement them and what to expect from it? What can be done and should be done, particularly from the side of researchers and research organisations like the Frontiers Network of Excellence? Who should take the lead? And in what form? Different actors will have different visions and expectations, and one can imagine different futures. Thus the aim was to bring together knowledge and perspectives from across the spectrum of potential stakeholders in RRI. This set the stage for our FTA project. A key challenge was to capture not only multiple perspectives, opinions and strategies, but to include knowledge on how these strategies are put into practice (which loci and with which objectives). At the very least, developments in RRI should be understood better, and be taken into account in strategic decisions. That will be a minimal level of ‘responsible’ research and innovation, and could be further developed into best practices in the nano-world.15 So the FTA programme was initiated by actors in the first two bubbles of Figure 3 and in an organisational form (R&D network) located in the meso-level of Figure 4. Such FTA is timely, because of the fluidity of the situation – no lock into a particular governance configuration. There is an opportunity to shape what will eventually be the governance landscape.

It is important to note that ‘nanotechnology’ is a label that covers quite different scientific and technological developments with the only commonality being that they involve nanoscale manipulations and dimensions. In public policy and in more broader societal debate and media coverage it is often the label that is discussed – leading to a black boxing of the actual constituent nanotechnology activities and trajectories. 13

14

Frontiers is a European 6th Framework Network of Excellence of 12 public funded research institutes focussing on nanotechnology and the life sciences In fact, there is external pressure to do so, with the inclusion of (still undefined) requirements for “responsible innovation” and “inclusion of societal impact assessments” in EU and US science policy as well as in statements by organisations such as insurance companies and NGOs. 15



The FTA exercise comprised of a number of stages: 1: 2: 3:

4: 5:

Deep case research by the FTA practitioner Creation of a preparatory report giving a diagnosis of the situation (the innovation journey so far) and three complexity scenarios. 1 day (6 hour) Workshop looking bringing together key stakeholders (current and potential) to explore these scenarios, identify key issues and dynamics and make first round recommendations Development of a composite picture of the results of the workshop by the FTA practitioner, and feedback to the participants. Combine feedback from participants with some further analysis to derive recommendations or points of interest stemming from the workshop.

In this paper I focus on step 2. In the following I present the emergence of RRI. I will identify key actors and some of the dilemmas that are important (or anticipated as important). I use some of the descriptors ("entanglements", "innovation journey" terminology etc).

3

The innovation journey of RRI16

The early days of nano saw promises of molecular manufacture as total control of the nanoscale c.f. Drexler building up fantastic visions, and although there was grumbling on the speculative nature voiced from across the research community in the micro-level there was little objections since the promises of Drexler boosted interest at the macro-level from both policy makers and in scientific funding agencies e.g. the initiation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). An article in Wired magazine sparked the debate about nanotechnology (“why the future doesn’t need us” – Bill Joy 2000) and became referred to as representative of concerns of nanotechnology and control. Building on the pioneering ELSI programme of the Human Genome Programme, where a percentage of research funding was set aside for identifying the ethical, legal and social implications of human genetics R&D, early nanotechnology policy documents spoke of nanotechnology as a ‘rare opportunity to integrate the societal studies and dialogues from the very beginning and to include societal studies as a core part of the [nanotechnology] investment strategy’ Roco and Bainbridge 2001. Following this, the RRI innovation journey began to take shape in 2003 on a number of fronts. Bio-ethicists began to call for inclusion of ELSA issues in nanotechnology R&D anticipating on the societal acceptance problems and backlash of genetically modified organisms (Mind the Gap Mnyusiwalla et al. 2003). Meetings such as the International dialogue on Responsible Innovation 1st meeting 2003 were begin organised by the US and EU. High profile figures began sharing their opinions on the issue e.g.. HRM Charles Prince of Wales.

16

Here I have restricted myself to a reduce version of the emergence of RRI. More details will be in Robinson (forthcoming in 2009) o for a deep analysis at the multi-level evolutions see Rip and van Amerom (forthcoming 2008)



Figure 6: Shows some of the elements of the evolution of RRI. We can see the importance of “new actors” in the shaping of emerging governance patterns and industry structure, of NGOs such as the ETC-Group, and of re-insurance companies shaping the emerging path of RRI. Dynamics are visible at all three levels (although there is little alignment yet) in the coupled evolution of nano-particles (research and production and use) and risks of nanotechnology. The repeated occurrences and acceptance of acronyms such as ELSA (Ethical, Legal, Social Aspects) and HES (Health, Environmental, Safety) in discourse on, and governance of, nanotechnology research and in the mobilisation of funding, indicates emerging alignment between societal concerns & allocation of resources.



When the issue of health and environmental risks of nano-particles was raised, and further highlighted by the NGO the ETC Group (2003), the immediate response was negation (in all senses of the word), and fury about the ETC proposal for a moratorium on nanoparticle development. By the time the (so-called) Royal Society Report appeared in July 2004, with its message to be cautious with introduction of nanoparticles in the environment because of the knowledge gaps about health and environmental impacts, it had become more difficult to just claim that nanoparticles were no cause for concern. The balance shifted, irreversibly, with the appearance of re-insurer Swiss Re’s report in April 2004. Discussing (and researching) risks of nanoparticles then became fully legitimate. By the end of 2004 there are an increasing number of reports on nanoparticle specific toxicity issues in the scientific peer-reviewed journals. In response to the Royal Society recommendations, a number of ad-hoc nano publicengagement exercises get underway – e.g. NanoJury UK and Nanologue17. The projects did receive some attention but it is unclear how they have affected nanotechnology policy. In a meeting run by The Innovation Society, Swiss Re proposed risk dialogue and self-regulation as the solution with adaptation of governmental laws only desirable for longer term issues. The discussion of the risks of nanoparticles began to become locked into the RRI debate. The immediate effects of this lock-in were two-fold: more risk research is done, and regulatory agencies start moving (one question is whether existing regulation can be used to address the issues of nanotechnology). That creates a focus, almost a lock-in, on HES issues), and backgrounding of broader questions about the actual use of nanotubes, and nanoparticles in general. A subsequent meeting organized by Swiss Re and the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) in Zürich in July 2006 saw the attendance of a wide variety of actors such as governmental and industry actors from around the world, scientists, social scientists and NGOs. The meeting discussed a risk governance strategy for nanotechnology (leading to a report). Clear was the anticipation of public reactions to nano and how to engage.18 Following this, a broad coalition of civil society, public interest, environmental and labour organisations created the “Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials.” which was promoted at risk discussions it’s members such as Greenpeace.19 In parallel, firms started to have second thoughts about flagging nano for their products. If something untoward would happen under the label nanotechnology, that might then also reflect on their products, even if there was no cause for concern. Some firms stepped out of the nanomaterial business altogether, others proceeded, but more prudently. By the end of 2007 (the time of creation of the scenarios and the workshop) funding agencies (such as those in the Netherlands, Norway and the UK) were creating special programmes on

17

An 18-month European Commission-funded project designed to support dialogue on ELSA implications of nanotechnologies. Public engagement can have a number of motivations as Stirling (2003) – I return to this in the first scenario in Section 4. 18

19

The document declares eight fundamental principles that they propose must provide the foundation for adequate and effective oversight and assessment of the emerging field of nanotechnology, including those nanomaterials that are already in widespread commercial use.



ELSA and societally responsible innovation 20 and soft law was becoming dominant in the discussions of nano governance.21 What was clear from the December 5th meeting in Brussels was that there is an opening for consideration of soft law due to actors (firms in the main) anticipating (and thus proceeding with caution) and also that regulators recognise that there are openings but are unclear on how to target nano broadly beyond the current focus on nanoparticles.22 Firms are reluctant to start reporting DEFRA voluntary reporting initiative was mentioned as having limitations – but there are voluntary initiatives in development and new ways of managing them e.g. the Risk Framework for Nanotechnology put forward by the alliance of DuPont and Environmental Defense. Also there are specific nano codes of conduct (such as the one formulated by BASF to broaden it’s corporate responsibility programme to include societal aspects. The European Commission also proposed to circulates its Code to Member States. The code is now available and makes clear the to governance: Good governance of N&N research should take into account the need and desire of all stakeholders to be aware of the specific challenges and opportunities raised by N&N. A general culture of responsibility should be created in view of challenges and opportunities that may be raised in the future and that we cannot at present foresee. Another recent initiative toward a ‘Responsible Nanotechnologies Code’, led by the UK Royal Society, an Insight Investment, the Nanotechnology Industries Association, and through the UK Department of Trade and Industry, which is much broader than safe handling of nanotechnology, it is not clear if and how it will be taken up and the final report is planned for autumn 2008. To summarise the situation at the time of the stakeholder workshop I have created figure 7 which combines the multi-level perspective (figures 4 and 6) with the phases of innovation (figure 3) into a backdrop where one can combine/locate actor strategies and emerging governance elements (pink bubbles). It is not an analytical framework, and was not circulated to the participants, but is a way of co-locating activities in diagram that can inform my scenarios in the form of actors’ activities, strategies and emerging irreversibilities.

This is an interesting turn as such ‘third parties’ now have a shaping power based on anticipation of later stages of innovation. What is more, other such third parties could play a role – indeed insurance companies have been playing a role, and one could think of others who may require responsible development criteria - such as investment banks. 20

21

In particular a day long meeting held at DG Research of the European Commission on 5 th December 2007 saw soft governance options being offered and discussed. Scientists, Social Scientists, Investors, Regulators, Public Policy makers, Law firms, Insurance companies, Industry consortia representatives, NGOs were in attendance and much formal and informal discussions on the menu of soft law options occurred. 22

Personal communication with a technology firm representative specialising in regulation and standards.



Figure 7: In this snapshot of the activities occurring in RRI, I have put key actors (both currently and potentially) in appropriate positions and in the pink bubbles I have placed potential elements of responsible innovation currently on the table and where they originated. As a backdrop in the micro-level, the large grey arrow represents the direction of the innovation chain. Full arrows are actual actions (responses to pressures), dashed lines are pressures to do something and the dotted (thin) arrows represent pressure attempts that have shown little effect so far.



4

From the present to multiple futures – examples of ‘Complexity Scenarios’

The scenarios hang together by emphasising tensions occurring up and down the innovation chain and in the multi-level perspective. They place in context possible playings out, based on expectations ‘out there’ and path dependencies that are crystallising out of the HOT situation (emerging irreversibilities). They not only provide a platform for positioning the tensions, but also the perspectives (shown in figure 2 and 3) allow for location of actual selection forces and mechanisms of action. This is important, especially in this workshop due to the focus on governance. What mechanisms should be modulated or augmented? Can we include forms of anticipatory actions or FTA mechanisms that are reflexive of the wider complexities of new and emerging technologies? Who should be involved and when? Below I summarise the three scenarios developed for and in the workshop in the form of key threads and storylines. For reasons of space only one example (scenario 3) is explained in more depth in the appendix. The example helps to illustrate elements such as ‘paths’ and ‘endogenous futures’. I provide a table describing 12 critical events in the prospective innovation journey at the end of this section. The three scenarios that were an input to the workshop start from Figure 6 and frame and innovation journey dynamics in the Innovation Chain and Multi-Level perspectives combined with elements of endogenous futures coming from my case research – this emphasises the transition from present into multiple futures. Contrary to many traditional scenario building techniques, these complexity scenarios do not present mutually exclusive futures. In this way they are similar to the functions of expectations – the scenarios can be read and discussed as anticipations (1st order learning), but they also have a performative function in that they can lead to 2nd order learning on how to build more contextfitting scenarios – I will come back to this in the discussion in section 5. Introduction of scenario 1 In the main one can argue that public engagement initiated in R&D focuses more on enlightening the general public on the potentials of nanotech R&D – engagement as a lubricant against public friction. Stirling (2003) identified three motivations for engagement which I adapt slightly below: (1) Instrumental motivations – legitimising R&D activities as a policy to ensure that technology is not held back by public scepticism (Kearnes and Wynn 2007); (2) Normative motivations – participation is a good thing in itself; (3) Substantive motivations – can lead to a better end product.23 The scenario in box 2 revolves around these three meanings and links them up with overall strategies in motivations for engagement around nanotechnology.24

23

For a more detailed analysis of the framing and motivations of public engagement with reference to nanotechnology in the Grenoble region see Brice Laurent (2007). 24

NanoDiaBlog crosses all three motivations for engagement. The normative motivation is set down in the EU Action plan and leads to instrumentalist approaches being used when engagement is operationalised for R&D activities. This approach to engagement stems from an anticipation by nanotech developers of public friction, which leads to enlightenment and legitimisation strategies. NanoDiaBlog provides a space for other actors to shape the context from instrumental to constructive criticism (whistle blowers have a space to proclaim and civil society to discuss and mobilise opinion). One technology entrepreneur uses the NanoDiaBlog with a substantive motivation for engagement



Box 2 – Scenario 1 summary Nano umbrella term becomes more specific (in funding mechanisms) - now defined in terms of potential sectors that will be impacted by R&D lines. In turn, potential consumers (and other impactees) can now be identified (the general public translates to specific publics) and technology developers begin to start anticipating on societal acceptance of products. Proliferation of engagement/communication approaches at the micro-level allows justification of "societal awareness" as a strategy for ensuring "societal acceptance". Concerns are voiced by media, by civil society on effects on Food, Lifestyle, Health, Privacy and Human rights – an outcome of the increased specificity of nano. At the micro-level these broad discussion are termed as “a separate issue for longer term speculation”. Ad-hoc public engagement exercises act as a lubricant to continue nanotechnology developments across the board. However, one project in particular captures people’s attention, named “NanoDiaBlog” - it is created as a web-based discussion forum (based on a Wikipedia model transparency is enhanced). Over time, the NanoDiaBlog project actually fulfils the promise made by its initiators (much to their surprise) as creating an informed general public, in addition it forms a community of scrutiny and debate, both positive and critical. Although not an official body, the NanoDiaBlog community is deemed a high quality indicator of the populace (in any case the populace who take an interest) and principles such as precaution, inclusiveness (transparency), integrity (protection for whistle blowers), ongoing assessment (constant vigilance), and the need to interface promoters and selectors, arrive on governmental agenda. Thus perfunctory Public engagement exercises have the unintended outcome of creating a sustainable forum for engagement and action. Taking advantage of this, a firm developing food-packaging sensors uses the blog to collect date on user preferences allowing targeting strategies. One outcome is with Radio-Frequency Identity Devices (RFID) tracking of goods through food packaging contains labels, similar to health risk labelling with the privacy risk label “This product is system tracked” placed on food packaging (a response to bloggers’ insistence on transparency). Acceptance of the label was initially turbulent but general agreement of labelling and the “right to choose” (the label could be peeled off and so no further tacking possible) enabled wider uptake.

Introduction of scenario 2 The scenario in box 3 looks at a specific cluster of innovations in nanoparticle based drug delivery. Tensions in this scenario include: when to incorporate actors? Early stage technologies are fragile and too early selection may inhibit novel solutions. The same for regulation – nanocodes enable in this scenario but the lack of regulation and eventual loss of the support of public organisations means limited access to the novel therapy.

– to improve the product. Using the space to probe concerns, he incorporated the option of peel off RFID labels to empower the consumer with “the right to choose”.



Box 3 – Scenario 2 summary Promise of drug delivery as a key driver in nanotechnology. Rapid developments in nano means the consequent burgeoning number of delivery methods leads to increasingly bewildering regulatory protocols. Anticipation on further regulatory delays sees shift in private investments from nano to other promising nd technologies. NGOs, concerned about 2 generation effects of nanoparticles argued for a moratorium on nanoparticles for medical purposes until toxicity tests tailored for these particles would be done. In reaction to these concerns Würzel argues on the ZDF TV news show that successes have outweighed the fatalities: “Fatalities occur all the time! My staff are combating a serious disease which causes hundreds of thousands of deaths per year in Europe alone. It would be unethical to stop clinical trials for a drug that works better than others.” The following spring, as a response to the prior press coverage and the ZDF new item, many patients with lung cancer go to the lab. As ever more patients converge on his lab, coverage shifts towards headlines like “From battling disease to battling the health authorities”: regulatory authorities become the enemy, obstacles to patient therapy. In the meantime, for the health authorities, the issue of proper clinical trials became an ever-increasing issue. Lack of lifecycle thinking in nanoparticles and engineered tissue causes real concerns by both environmental agencies (the former) and clinicians (the latter). Production, storage and distribution in both the manufacture of nanoparticle based therapeutics and use in the clinics is an ongoing concern, as well as quality control of nanoparticles and bioaccumulation uncertainties (particularly in liver, spleen and bone marrow). Public funding agencies form a blanket ban on financing nanoparticulate delivery systems. Private sector continues, voluntary reporting prevails but confidentiality of development hampers transparency (issues of competition) and thus watchdogs find it difficult to access data to assess practices. SME’s, already severely hampered by lack of public financing (linked with university ties) can’t cope on own with voluntary regulations, bypass it (for purposes of survival). By 2012, health care authorities would not certify the approach without clinical testing. This leads to precaution by health insurance companies to cover the procedure. The further effect is that this medical option becomes available only to those who can obtain it in another way through private clinics.

Introduction of scenario 3 Scenario 3 (box 4) emphasises the dominance of soft law in current discussions of near-term nanotechnology governance. Some key tensions in this scenario revolve around the codes of conduct should firms sign up. They enable in the sense that they provide some sorts of rules for the game whilst remaining broad; however some actors are cautious due to possible openings for litigation if the majority of actors sign up (similar to customary law). Another tension addresses early alignment (here in the case of Finnish government acting at the macro-level).



Box 4 – Scenario 3 summary By mid 2008 the patchwork of codes of conduct, best practices and measures of responsible innovation remains misaligned, but allows progress in technology development through self-regulation and self quality control. The codes are particularly enabling for medical devices, providing some guidelines for nano alongside existing regulation of medical devices and so self regulation of new nano-enabling components can continue. A case of focussed alignment of R&D agendas in national initiatives can be seen. One example, Finland begins to invest in nanotechnology for paper processing (a major contributor to the Finnish economy). The specificity of the case related to opportunities to cut costs, reduce use of chemicals and improve manufacture. The lack of standards helps this growth and large investments are made leading to positive gains. Early engagement exercises and high profile projects such as Nano Jury UK and others lead to the inclusion of “engagement programmes” in technology R&D programmes to inform and communicate the benefits of nanotechnology. There is a proliferation of such projects across (and initiated by) the nano R&D domain focussing on enabling public acceptance. Although no linkages between the projects occurs there the ethical and risk debate, begins to separate to “real issues” (of health, environmental and safety issues of nano production) and speculation on broader ethical debates around Human Enhancement, Justice, and theological issues. Monitoring signatory compliance becomes a major issue. Code initiators attempt annual monitoring through direct contact to signatories, by asking them to volunteer time to report. Comparative and systematic methods do not exist. There is a lack of watchdogs; self-regulation and voluntary reporting go unchecked. The Precautionary Principle is promoted within codes but framed by self-assessment mechanisms (degree of precaution unclear). Innovation actor’s quality not assured. Voluntary codes align best practice but have little effect on worst practice due to regime of patchwork of codes (so good become better, worst remain worst). Gaps in regulation widen as nanotechnologies become increasingly more complex – existing laws which could be applied to products (medical devices) are less equipped to oversee products and processes such as active nanostructures which cross many sectors and can be applied in many settings. The accident with the Finnish worker opens up nano governance once again and a number of lines of R&D grind to a halt pending further investigation. Those wishing to exact change are faced with an entangled web of best practices, codes with varying degrees of transparency in how they are acted upon. By 2014 the proliferation of nano and its increasing complexity hits home when consumer organisations try to target concerns, no inroads. Liability becomes the issue. When problems begin to occur with certain products secondary effects, lack of regulation means it’s difficult to find who is liable. Public remains sceptical, voicing failures such as “lack of transparency” and “unclear accountability”. Governmental watchdogs begin to emerge and the clamour to catch up leads to numerous temporary moratoria. Regulatory actions retroactively cover all Nanomaterials and products on the market become identified and recalled pending certification.

The table at the end of this section unpicks some of the seams in scenario 3 (see full scenario in Appendix). Using Van de Ven’s notion of critical event as the row header, with a description of the event – e.g. fork, branching, setback etc. In the columns I make explicit whether the event has elements of endogenous futures (in the two meanings discussed above, e.g. [1] an expectation that has come to light during my case research, or [2] an emerging entanglement/irreversibility element) and which path dynamics/perspectives25 are visible in this event.

25

This is important for the workshop interaction in order to bring to light the different types of perspective on the emerging issue of RRI. For example those who are enacting innovation chains (developers of technology) will be looking with the actor-centric perspective, but other actors (such as regulators and policy makers) will be observing



4.1 Reporting on how the scenarios fitted into the workshop process The scenarios showed various actors and their mechanisms of action. Participants of the workshop could agree/disagree and moderate the scenarios…up to outright rejection (which did not occur in this case). Discussions could focus on actors, arenas of action, selection environments and forces that shape them, the legitimacy and desirability of various expectations (and their niche building characteristics) and also on emerging irreversibilities that are structuring, guiding and driving the transition from hot to cold. In the workshop the scenarios set the scene as somewhere between fiction and reality. People recognised patterns and picked up on threads throughout the workshop. Analysis of these threads, and opinion forming was part of the outset of the workshop day, moreover, rather than pressing participants for their views on the current situation (where they are accountable as actors in the real world) they were free to discuss these hypothetical but plausible playings out. Thus complexity scenarios enabled the interactions to move away from participants announcing their stances in a meeting, to a first round attempt at making dynamics, patterns, issues and actor strategies explicit in a concise way. This could stimulate broader and deeper exploration of the issues. Complexity scenarios also allow preliminary analysis to be used effectively but by balancing it with possible playings out of innovation journeys. The workshop moved from analysts’ collection of data (presented in the scenarios) to shared construction of a composite scenario of the future. A composite scenario was the immediate outcome of the workshop, which can provide the basis for closing down options and developing more articulate further scenarios, multi-path maps and/or roadmaps.

different planes of developments with many innovation chains emerging at different stages and with different potential impacts. To understand actor strategies (both mechanisms and intentions) both perspective need to be drawn upon in the discussion, and the complexity scenario approach allows this combination.


Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 24 2008

Innovation Journey “critical event” 1

Fork: some actors agree to codes of conduct, others are suspicious/cautious and do not agree to sign up.

2

Patchwork of codes enables novel medical device development (reinforces existing regulation). Lack of regulation for Nanomaterials is not a point of focus. Nano for paper picked up as a key driver for nano investment in Finland

3

4

Limited attempts at public engagement. Fork occurs: (1) RRI focussing on “Real issues” of HES and (2) Broader speculations on ethics and philosophy of Human enhancement, justice and theology.

5

Monitoring Code of Conduct signatory compliance becomes a major point of contention. Lack of watchdogs.

6

Nanotechnology booms. Some issues of worker safety raised but has little effect (early signal lost in the noise of the boom)

7

Platform technologies with applications in multiple sectors begin to emerge.

Informed by endogenous futures Entanglements and Emerging Expectations that come to pass in Irreversibilities text

Path dynamics/perspective Multi-level &/or actor-centric dynamics

Patchwork of codes of conduct and best practices here has meant no overall alignment. Also, there is lock out of alternative approaches. This is not mentioned in scenario but acts as an entrance point for discussion in workshop – picked up by participants or highlighted by the animateur. Current medical device developers aligned in more or less stable innovation chains – no pressure for new relationships. Nanomaterial innovation chains set up with no triggers from regulators or potential consumers/users.

From my case research, some large pharma-ceutical industry actors anticipate an opening for litigation and liability due to vagueness of codes. This “product” expectation of undesirable regulatory environment changes means some enact power by abstaining. The “Paradigm” expectation of the nano promise helps mobilise resources, but for the time being does not effect the “Search” and “Product” expectations, which remain the same (nothing new for nano). All three types of expectation are reshaped and become foreceful through the backing of strong government support.

Meso-level: industry consortia initiate code of conduct. Macro-level: Government initiated voluntary reporting scheme makes little progress. I purposefully reduce emphasis on micro-level activities. EU code for researchers left out, also purposefully

Two paradigm expecations are emphasised here. One on improved industrial processes and products (Fork 1) and the other on tranhumanism and broader ethical issues of nano (Fork 2). Discussions consolidate around each path. Those issues lying between these two are not picked up. Some concerns in numerous discussions concerning a number of codes is that self-regulation is fundamentally flawed.

Micro and Meso-level focus on HES Macro focus on broader ethical issues. Ad-Hoc or no linkages between Macro and other levels with regards to nano specific responsible innovation.

Large sunk investments in nano for paper processing constrains non paper related nano but gives impetus to those inline with the programme – emerging irreversibility in Finnish nano technology trajectories/path. Those contributing to Responsible Innovation begins to separate into two communities, one industry dominated focussing on HES, the other public actor based looking at Ethics and Philosophy (academic and political)

Gradual “Lock out” of governmental organisations (GOs) and NGOs as nano specific governance focuses on codes of conduct (soft law) rather than changes in regulation (hard law). Industry consortia self impose best practices (patchwork) becomes locked in. NGOs and labour organisations find it difficult to raise issues. Enabling nanotechnologies now capable of affecting multiple sectors. Previous actor arrangement and innovation chains under strain as one nanotechnology can be regulated in numerous ways (as a medical devioce, drug or biomaterial for instance)


The soft law option prevails and allows nano technology to grow rapidly (a paradigm expectation pushed in market reports and used in policy circles – in this scenario by Finland). This increasing complexity issue is a shared expectation and has been described in the IRGC as a driver for adaptive governance,

Multi level alignment remains the same. Business as usual for medical technologies, which are now integrating micro/nano. Nanomaterials remains unfettered and unnoticed by governance arrangements There is multi-level alignment around these goals based on the promise of this type of nano for the Finnish economy. Anticipation at the macro-level (top-down governance mode).

Meso-level dominance in nanotechnology governance mechanisms. This dominance is observed but is difficult for macro-level actors (GOs and NGOs) to intervene. Meso-level dominance in nanotechnology governance mechanisms leads to fast growth and large economic returns on nano investments. Micro-level starts giving signals across and between levels that nanotechnologies are becoming more than extensions of existing technology developments, but complicated enabling technologies that can be used in a wide range of sectors.

Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 25 2008

Innovation Journey “critical event” 8

Unclarity in codes and lack of watchdogs mean soft law has little effect

9

Increasing nano complexity coupled with an accident initiates a renewed look at governance arrangements

10

Trigger at micro-level (nanoparticle aggregation in workers liver) creates opportunities for actors at the government level to reshape industry consortia alignments around soft law and create alternative mixes of governance modes. Lack of nano specific regulation causes setback for medical devices attempts to enter the clinic

11

12

Health Insurers withhold their backing for new nano-enabled medical devices, whilst regulators scramble to catch up. The general public calls for transparency and accountability.

Informed by endogenous futures Entanglements and Emerging Expectations that come to pass in Irreversibilities text

Path dynamics/perspective Multi-level &/or actor-centric dynamics

Patchwork of code aligns innovation actors and reduces pressure to go for regulation. So soft law + non-nano-specific hard law. There is growing recognition that regulation of nano is increasingly difficult due to the enabling nature of the technologies – why regulate nano? Better regulate the nano-enabled product? GOs, NGOs & CSOs (civil society orgs) attempt to change governance arrangements. Is made difficult because of the complex patchwork already in place – no clear entrance point for change (be it path deviation or pathcreation). Lock-In of governance arrangements remains strong until a key event provides impetus for coordinated mobilisation across and between levels. Entanglements already in place start being affected.

Anticipation by labour organisations that some form of accountability be made clear

Lock out of NGOs, stabilisation occurs. N macro change and soft law dominates at meso level. Soft law followed selectively at the micro-level

Expectation that governments should start the process now (see Principles of Oversight

Macro-level initiated investigations (mainly by government) reveal gaps in legal framework for active nanoparticle based technology platforms.

Here I include the effect of a path creating event (Garud and Karnoe 2002) where a window of opportunity allows the mobilisation of resources and mindful deviation from a current path.

Macro-level was impotent due to meso-level alignement. However, micro-level trigger creates a window of opportunity, which is seized upon by government actors.

Nano-enabled medical devices working on the model that nano deserves no unique form of governance acts a setback as nano becomes specific. Misalignments between technology developers and the new selection environment causes bottlenecks and major hurdles (both financially and organisationally) Unanticipated shift in selection environments cause issues in the development side of the innovation chain.

Lack of anticipatory action on the part of medical device manufacturers causes regulatory bottleneck in the innovation chain.

New shifts in governance modes across and between levels means delays for some product innovations. Actors within the affected sector attempt to shape regulatory frameworks, but long time frames cause major delays – fatal for a large number of high-tech start-ups.

Public outcry as potential (unexplored) risks are identified. Large nano promise burst (product and paradigmexpectation loses forcefulness and protective quality)

Macro-level activities begin to dominate as civil society voices opinions, and health insurers (medical device innovation chain gate keepers) wield their power against the medical device manufacturers due to the regulatory vacuum which soft law filled initially but overtime caused an unsustainable innovation paradigm.



5

Discussion and Outlook

5.1 Complexity Scenarios and the FTA deployment cycle for Hot situations The complexity scenarios described in the above incorporate endogenous futures and tensions in innovation journeys within the framework of the Innovation Chain and Multi-level perspectives. In this way they link up with and contribute to (emerging) path analysis which can lead to multipath mapping or roadmapping. This provides the basis for possible a deployment cycle of tools for HOT situations (see figure 8). These FTA tools contribute to strategy-context fit by allowing for flexibility relative to evolving circumstances, and operativeness allowing for action in the present context – a reflexive FTA support system. With this in mind, a complete, context-sensitive ‘deployment cycle’ of assessment tools for ‘hot situations’ would thus be read as: analysis - complexity scenarios – multi-stakeholder interaction – composite scenario26 - multi-pathmapping – strategy articulation (and potentially, transition to a new, emerging technology trajectory).

Figure 8 – The FTA Deployment Cycle

I have located my work in the first two bubbles of the Innovation Chain (those actors located in and around universities such as researchers and techno-start-ups) and to aid strategy articulation of a R&D network in the meso-level (Frontiers). Anticipations look up and down the Innovation Chain and multi-level (necessary for probing possible future evolutions and to have an accurate strategy-context fit. One can see that the deployment cycle could be modified with additional tools and approaches for other arenas in the innovation chain and in the multi-level perspective. Other explorations elsewhere can be framed in this schema. For example, Strategic Niche Management has been designed for radically new technologies27 prototype technologies facing where radically new technologies confront very harsh selection environments (Regimes are 26

Composite scenarios are the first combination of results of multi-stakeholder workshops. Since the interactions during the day picked up on specific threads deemed relevant for the future of (in this case) RRI, the key elements are presented and feedback to participants for further additions and connecting up with other key elements (leading to the next stage of multipath mapping. 27

In the sense that they are hopeful monstrosities (Mokyr 1990) which need to align (or be aligned to) selection environments.



locked into place and a new technology option needs strategic protection whilst the regime is reconfigured based on technology push or user-producer interactions and realignments). Such work is also embracing the innovation journey concept (Schot and Geels 2008) and attempts at a context fit (although FTA approaches are limited to the general thrust of SNM without going into too much detail).28

5.2 Discussion and Outlook: A future agenda for FTA? The objective of this paper was to show the thrust of complexity scenarios. As opposed to other scenario approaches, the objective of complexity scenarios is to provide a handle on the complexities of emerging and evolving networks of actors and make credible projections of such evolutions as the first step to reducing complexities en route to strategy articulation. I have used the generally acknowledged premise (non-linearity and uncertainty of innovation); non-linearity is highlighted in the ‘journey’ metaphor. I have highlighted the basic tension between (A) observational knowledge of the non-linearity and (B) the managers’ need at the micro-level to steer the journey. Rather than simplifying, I suggested that one should stay alert to dynamics. How to do this? I propose ‘endogenous futures’ since the future unravels from the present - it does not fall out of the sky. This unravelling is half-way open; neither one route to go, neither complete chaos but rather path creation (Garud and Karnoe 2002) which leads to path dependency. Managers need to be able to use path indicators. To capture some of the complexities, I have drawn on the literature of science, technology and innovation studies and have used a model which refers to a number of selection environments (forces that shape the successful progress of innovation development). I have given a nonexhaustive list (shown in the Innovation chain diagram) based on specific issues relevant for the emergence of Responsible Research and Innovation. However such a list can serve as a good argument for the necessity of STI/FTA studies: these generate fields of inquiry into/engagement with actors (in research, R&D). I propose that the FTA community become proactive in strategy-context fit. I have provided a heuristic for broadening the linear view (see figure 2) and for my own case here of RRI have added the multi-level view. Other perspectives can be useful at other stages of the Innovation Chain (SNM for example and their niche, regime, landscape frame). My PhD work has been firmly located in the first two bubbles of the innovation chain, and the programme of activities located at the Meso level of an R&D network. In this way I contribute to what I claim should be additions to the FTA agenda: 

Selection environments and their interactions with innovation journeys.



Loci for strategic modulation of innovation journeys



Tools for integrating complexities of emerging innovation journeys with anticipation in goal oriented FTA.

Positioning FTA in the different arenas, described in brief in this paper, and remaining sensitive to the context is a challenge for FTA. Locating forums for probing these dynamics up and down the innovation chain and the creation of conduits for knowledge exchange and learning between Also SNM is at a much ‘cooler’ stage of emergence where the technology prototype is a hopeful monstrosity which can make attempts at path creation at the regime level. 28



these arenas and the actors that work there would be the next step in making innovation journeys more reflexive and manageable. That is a mode-2 type agenda (or even script): defining research projects (inc. PhDs) on specific facets of multi-actor interfacing, as my PhD has become over time through proactive engagement with Frontiers at the Meso-level and moving around in the micro and macro levels etc.).

6

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Tilo Propp for his substantial feedback on earlier versions of this paper, and his informative and enlightening input during my own innovation journey with this paper. In addition, Arie Rip has also been very influential with my FTA methodology and its execution. I would also like to thank Marloes van Amerom for sharing data with me during her sojourn into the evolving nanotechnology risk landscape during 2006 and 2007. Finally I would like to thank Vinod Subramaniam and Rolf Vermeij of the MESA+ Institute of Nanotechnology for having faith in my PhD project and FTA projects by supporting their integration and execution within the framework of the Frontiers Network of Excellence. References Braun D. (2008) Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 35(4), May 2008, pages 227–239 Brown, N., Rappert, B. & Webster, A. (eds.) 2000 Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective TechnoScience. Aldershot: Ashgate. Brown N. & Michael M. (2003) A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2003 Callon, M. (1991) Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology and domination, ed. J. Law, 132–61. London: Routledge. Deuten, J. Jasper, Arie Rip & Jaap Jelsma. 1997. Societal Embedment and Product Creation Management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 9 (2): 131-148 De Laat, B. (1996): Scripts for the future technological foresight, strategic analysis and socio technical networks: the confrontation of script-based scenarios, PhD thesis, Ecole des Mines, Paris. Delemarle A., Robinson D. K. R., Mangematin, V., Rip, A. (2005) Building a nanodistrict: Technology platforms and institutional entrepreneurship, Paper presented at the Triple Helix Conference, Turin, 18-21 May 2005 ETC. 2003. The Big Down: Atomtech - Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. Ottowa (Canada): Action group on erosion, technology and concentration Fujimura, Joan H. 1987. Constructing 'Do-Able' Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment. Social Studies of Science 17(2): 257-293. Garud, Raghu and David Ahlstrom. 1997. Technology Assessment: A Socio-cognitive Perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14: 25-48. Laredo, P., E. Jolivet, E. Shove, C.E. Garcia, E. Moors, H. Penan, B. Poti, S. Raman, A. Rip, G.J. Schaeffer (2002): Final Report of the SOCROBUST Project. (Supported by the EU TSER programme, Paris: Ecole des Mines (available on the website: www.ensmp.fr). Laurent Brice (2007). Engaging the public in nanotechnology? Three visions of public engagement.Paper presented at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California at Santa Barbara, July 16, 2007. Mokyr, J. 1990. The lever of riches: technological creativity and economic progress. NewYork: Oxford University Press.



Nelson, R.R., and S.G. Winter. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Propp T. and Moors E. (2008) Tools for mapping and managing expectations. Working paper. University of Utrecht. Copernicus Institute. Propp T. and Moors E. (forthcoming) Strategic policy impacts of the uptake of genomics-related expectations: The case of the Netherlands. Science and Public Policy. Rip, A. (1995) Introduction of new technology: making use of recent insights from sociology and economics of technology Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 7, no. 4: 417–31 Rip A and Kemp R (1998) Technological Change. In Rayner S and Malone EL (eds) Human Choice and Climate Change, pp. 327-399. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. Rip and Johan W. Schot, Identifying Loci for Influencing the Dynamics of Technological Development’, in Knut Sørensen and Robin Williams (eds), Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy; Concepts, Spaces and Tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002, pp. 158-176. Rip, Arie. 2002. Challenges for Technology Foresight/Assessment and governance. Final Report of the Strata Consolidating Workshop, session 2: Sustainability – R&D policy, the precautionary principle and new governance models. Brussels, 22&23 April 2002. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research, Unit RTD-K.2 – “Science and Technology foresight; links with the IPTS”. June 2002 Rip, Arie. 2003. Technological Innovation - In Context. Background text for a key-note lecture at the meeting of the Lowlands Innovation Research Network, Louvain, 14 January 2003 Rip A, Robinson D. K. R., and te Kulve H (2007). Multi-level emergence and stabilisation of paths of nanotechnology in different industries/sectors. Paper prepared for International Workshop on Paths, Berlin, 1718 September. Rip A, and te Kulve H (2008). Constructive Technology Assessment and Sociotechnical Scenarios. In Fisher E, Selin C and Wetmore JM (eds) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, pp. 49-70. Springer, Berlin. Rip A. and van Amerom M (forthcoming 2008) Emerging de facto agendas around nanotechnology: two cases full of contingencies, lock-outs and lock-ins. In Maasen S, Kaiser M, Kurath M and Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Deliberating Future Technologies: Identity, Ethics, and Governance of Nanotechnology. Springer, Berlin. Rip, A. Processes of Technological Innovation in Context – and Their Modulation, in Bart van Looij & Chris Steyart (eds.), Relational Organizing. Festschrift for Rene Bouwen. Elsevier, Advanced Series in Management Robinson D. K. R., Rip A. and Mangematin V. (2007) Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology.Special issue on Nanoscale research. Research Policy 36 (2007) 871–879 Robinson D. K. R. (2008) Complexity Scenarios for Emerging Techno-Science: Addressing Strategy-Context fit by prospecting level dynamics of governance. Paper to be presented at the third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – Seville 16-17 October 08 Robinson D. K. R., Ruivenkamp M. and Rip A. (2007) Tracking the evolution of new and emerging S&T via statement-linkages: Vision Assessment of Molecular Machines. Douglas K. R. Robinson, Martin Ruivenkamp and Arie Rip. The Journal Scientometrics, Vol. 70, No. 3. Robinson D. K. R. and Propp T. (2008) Multi-path roadmapping as a tool for reflexive alignment in emerging S&T. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 75 517–538 Robinson D. K. R. (forthcoming Spring 2009) PhD Thesis. Working title: Embracing Complexities in the Constructive Shaping of Emerging Technology Paths. University of Twente.



Roco, M. and Bainbridge, W. (2001). Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Schot J and Rip A (1997) The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54, 251-268. Schot J. and Geels F. W. (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Vol. 20, No. 5, September 2008, 537–554 Van Lente, Harro. 1993. Promising Technology - The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. Ph.D Thesis, University of Twente. Delft: Eburon Press. Van Lente, Harro and Arie Rip. 1998. Expectations in Technological Developments: An Example of Prospective Structures to be Filled in by Agency. In Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order. Ed. Cornelis Disco and Barend. E. van der Meulen. Berlin - New York: Walter de Gruyter. Van Merkerk R. O. and Robinson D. K. R. (2006) The interaction between expectations, networks and emerging paths: a framework and an application to Lab-on-a-chip technology for medical and pharmaceutical applications. Rutger O. van Merkerk & Douglas K. R. Robinson. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, -4/July-September 2006, pp. 411-428(18). Van de Ven, A.H., D.E. Polley, G. Garud, and S.Venkataraman (1999) The innovation journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Voss J-P. (2007) Designs on Governance – Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. PhD Thesis. University of Twente.



Appendix






complexity scenarios for emerging techno-science

complexity scenarios for emerging techno-science

Suggest Documents

Decentralization and emerging political scenarios: implications to

Emerging Liability Risks: Designing liability scenarios

Emerging Liability Risks: Designing liability scenarios

Technoscience - Society for Social Studies of Science

Challenges Emerging from Future Cloud Application Scenarios

Ethernet QoS Modeling in Emerging Scenarios

Scenarios for peerrtorpeer learning in construction with emerging

Patterns for Emerging Application Integration Scenarios: A Survey - CS

article - Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience

article - Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience

The emerging complexity of climate adaptation ...

Socio-technocratic Discourse of Technoscience

article - Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience

Evidence for cultivar adoption and emerging complexity during the mid ...

Feminist technoscience studies - SAGE Journals

The Role of Storage in Emerging Country Scenarios - Core

Present State and Emerging Scenarios of Digital Rights Management ...

Insider Threats in Emerging Mobility-as-a-Service Scenarios

Challenges Emerging from Future Cloud Application Scenarios - switch

Internet of Things: Emerging and Future Scenarios from ... - CiteSeerX

scenarios to collaborate with emerging markets - Springer Link

Feminist Technoscience, Gender, and Digital Play

Gender and Technoscience: A Historical Perspective - SciELO

Gender and Technoscience: A Historical Perspective