of collective innovation. Yet the way in which intellectual property rights (including contracts and transaction/payment systems) are defined and managed is going to play a crucial part in these developments.
5.3.1.2 Uncertainties of the future
The evolution of KST could create more cooperation in AKST among NAE countries. The Lisbon Strategy recognizes that Europe is lagging behind the United States in terms of science and technology. A number of studies are being carried out in Europe to find ways to catch up. The United States and Europe are often seen more as competitors than as partners.
The involvement of users in research definition and execution is challenging the traditional research approach. Innovation is a process that integrates various forms of research, and the knowledge it creates, in a wide range of patterns. Users are increasingly expressing their needs, thus challenging traditional disciplinary research approaches and creating the need for a more integrated approach, which some researchers find difficult and which could become an obstacle to required innovation.
As far as models of knowledge production, there are a number of uncertainties concerning the future which can be formulated with questions:
• Will the "triple-helix" model that implies university-industry-government relations develop quickly?
• Will knowledge production and innovation become more user-centered? How diverse will the forms of knowledge be? Should knowledge be yoked strictly to industrial research imperatives? Will knowledge production remain highly conventional, with a strong hierarchical and disciplinary structure?
• Will research be harnessed to solving specific problems like health and environmental conditions? Will knowledge production become highly "socialized" with many institutions being involved?
• Will universities remain the arbiters of what is and is not legitimate scientific knowledge?
• Will intellectual property issues evolve as quickly as production modes and new modes of cooperation?
• How will the governance of the whole research and innovation chain adapt to a systemic approach? Will policies take into account the new forms and producers (including individual researchers) of knowledge looking at quality, trust and transparency?
The way these questions will be answered in the different regions of NAE will affect the AKST systems.
5.3.2 Transformation in models of innovation: trends and uncertainties
The innovation systems concept emerged through policy debates in developed countries in the 1970s and 1980s. The concept of national innovation systems rests on the premise that understanding the linkages among the actors involved in innovation is key to improving technology performance. Innovation and technical progress are the result of a complex set of relationships among actors producing, distributing and applying various kinds of knowledge. The innovative performance of a country depends to a large ex- |
|
tent on how these actors relate to each other as elements of a collective system of knowledge creation and use as well as the related technologies. These actors are primarily private enterprises, universities and public research institutes and the people within them (OECD, 1997). These systems developed in an institutional (often network-based) setting which fostered interaction and learning among scientific and entrepreneurial actors in the public and private sector in response to changing economic and technical conditions. Over time, the innovation concept has gained wide support among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (World Bank, 2006).
The innovation system perspective brings actors together in their desire to introduce or create novelty or innovation in the value chain, allowing it to respond in a dynamic way to an array of market, policy and other signals. Innovation capacity is sustainable only when a much wider set of attitudes and practices comes together to create a culture of innovation, including a wide appreciation of the importance of science and technology in competitiveness, business models that embrace social and environmental sustainability, attitudes that embrace a diversity of cultures and knowledge systems and pursue inclusive problem solving and coordination capacity, institutional learning as a common routine, and a forward-looking rather than a reactive perspective (World Bank, 2006).
The main sources of information on innovation systems are UNESCO, OECD, OST (Observatoire des Sciences et Technologies) and ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). For North America, the National Science Foundation is a source of information. For Europe, Cordis provides a lot of information. The Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI) has a research program on the Russian innovation system. These sources show that innovation systems vary in different regions of North America and Europe.
5.3.2.1 Number of researchers: trends
There were about 4.9 million researchers in the world in 2001. In Europe there were about 1.67 million (952,000 in the EU 15 and 503,000 in Russia) and 1.361 million in North America (1.271 million in the USA and 90,000 in Canada) (OST, 2006a). Between 1996 and 2001, the number of researchers decreased substantially in Canada and Russia. In Russia, the most worrying problem seems to be that the average age of researchers is going up. There seems to be an increase in the number of doctoral students, but this does not necessarily mean increased interest in science as a career. Doctoral studies in Russia fulfill several functions e.g., dodging military service and obtaining a scientific title that can also be useful in the business sector (Dezhina, 2005).
The situation has been summarized as: "the population of European researchers is currently facing a demographic problem. As in most sectors, this population is aging, in line with the general trend over the past sixty years. Consequently, huge numbers of researchers are expected to retire over the next few years. It will be necessary to rapidly recruit new researchers, whose numbers will obviously depend on the resources allocated to R&D, which are in part contin- |