FORESIGHT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY: THE CASE OF LUXEMBOURG Frank Glod, Carlo Duprel, and Michael Keenan Fonds national de la recherche, Luxembourg Manchester Institute of Innovation (PREST), University of Manchester Third International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making 16th- 17th October 2008

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY The Luxembourg Context Total Surface: 2’586 km2 Inhabitants: 455’000 (39% non-Lux) Multilingual Population: Lux, F, D, E GDP per capita: 56’600 EUR in 2005: –162 Banks, 366 insurance companies –ARCELOR, CLT-UFA, SES-GLOBAL, Ceratizit, GoodYear, DuPont, Delphi,… (2000 researchers) –Amazon, AOL, Microsoft 4 Public research centres, + others FNR (1999) 1 University (2003) 'OECD’ reform (2006) City of Science (2013, 1600 FTE, 600 M€) C. of Competence in Molecular Medicine (2008, 140M€) Public research Budget: –1999:~15M€ (0.08 % of GDP) –2005:~50M€(0.35 % of GDP) –2010 :~150M€ (0.58% of GDP)

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Public Expenditure on Public R&D (Lux )

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Aim of FNR Foresight exercise FNR to develop the next generation of programmes Call for programmes Forsight exercise and situable funding instruments Broadening of Scope by request of MCHER Broaden the scope from the ‘mere’ definition of new FNR programmes to the identification of nationwide research priorities Aim: ‘research domains in the public sector with short-term and/or long-term socio-economic interest for Luxembourg society’. FNR Foresight was to provide the basis: to assist the development of outstanding centres of science and technology excellence in Luxembourg, to ensure the specialization of public research centre (PRC) facilities into centres with a limited number of specific areas of high level expertise to determine appropriate investment levels through support instruments such as the FNR programmes.

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Phases and steps of FNR Foresight  Online Questionnaire  Young Res. Workshop  Exploratory Workshop  ‘Long list’ of research domains  Initial assessment  Selection of broad research fields  Stakeholder Workshops  No formal input  General Challenges for Luxembourg  Expert workshops per field  SWOT Analysis  Initial assessment of domains  Future trends  Luxembourg context  Research priorities candidates  Conclusion & recommendations Phase 2: Setting Context/ Identifying Priorities  Data collection  Bibliometrics  Interviews  International research trends  Evaluation of FNR programmes  Mapping of Lux. Research landscape  ‘Long list’ of possible research domains Method: Input: Results: Phase1: Creating a Baseline

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Generic priority setting dilemmas Scope of prioritisation Both thematic and structural priorities Total funding vs. new or marginal funds Institutional positioning of prioritisation Foresight has opened up priority-setting exercises But stand-alone and semi-detached from decision-making processes Granularity of areas to be prioritised Tension between identifying focused topic areas and avoiding long lists of areas Especially relevant for national priorities Criteria for prioritisation Breadth and depth (non-scientific, detail) Lack the requisite knowledge by participants Who prioritises breadth and depth of local expertise, not only scientific communities who should participate (representation)

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Scope of prioritisation —Variety and change in the meanings of Foresight FNR programmes (themes and instruments = thematic and structural) Changed scope = national and only thematic Misunderstandings : By FNR Board causing delays By research community causing hesitance and resitance Structural issues enter through back door but had to be supressed —Scope of funds implicated unclear (FNR Budget or more substantial amounts of public research Budget) Budget increases in public budget to be devoted to priorities Foresight to inform performance contracts of Research institutions?

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Institutional positioning of prioritisation Role of FNR and MHECR FNR executer of exercise with strong vested interest (new FNR programmes) Unclear what the MHECR will do with results although could inform many policy decisions (performance contract of CRPs, City of Science) Lack of identification of MHECR with Foresight results: –Unsatisfied with initial list of 18 priorities and subsequent regroupment –Tour of Ministries post-Foresight to validate results (no significant changes) –No implementation steps as yet

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Who prioritises? Deliberative Process Delays and tight deadlines limited process Phase 1 attempted prioritisation without due regard to the processes necessary for this to happen in a legitimate and credible way Second phase with a stronger deliberative process New challenges typical of group work: Concerns raised on overreliance on ideas and visions of existing researchers (‘hijacking’ by the special interests) stronger voice needed from knowledge users – both societal and commercial foreign experts to challenge existing views gave mixed results importance of ‘champions’ became apparent Difficulty in engaging in a visioning dialogue made difficult by high stakes For political entities more immediate issues prevailed ‘compacting’ of policy levels and many hats syndrome made exercise more difficult > defending of organisations’ interests

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Granularity of areas to be prioritised Definition of levels early on, to establish long list as discussion basis Establishment of the list problematic Level 3 most suited for FNR programmes What suits national research priorities? Can you have a niche at level 2 or 3? MHECR unsatisfied with repackaging of priorities Thematic field Level 1 Research area Level 2 Research domain Level 3 Research axis Level 4 Environmental sciences Global change and ecosystem Water managementDrinking water ICTInfrastructureTelecomsVoIP Social & human sciences Economy, policies, institutional framework Economy and finance Dynamics of financial wealth creation

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY National research priorities National Priorities (Research Areas) National Priorities (Research Domains) Innovation in ServicesBusiness Service Design and Innovation Fostering the Economic and Legal Environment for Innovation Performance and Development of the Financial Systems Information Security and Trust Management Telecommunications and Multimedia Sustainable Resource Management in Luxembourg Managing Sustainable Development Understanding Ecosystems and Biodiversity Sustainable Management of Water Resources Sustainable Uses and Sources of Energy Sustainable Agro-Systems Management Spatial and Urban Development Identities, Diversity and Integration Labour Market, Educational Requirements and Social Protection New Functional and Intelligent Materials and Surfaces New sensing applications Age-related Biomedical ResearchRegenerative Medicine in Age-related Diseases Public Health, including aspects of Environmental Health Translational Biomedical Research

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Foresight impacts —On FNR New programmes Reputation in matters of transparency and openness enhanced Strengthened link between research performers and research funder better comprehension of the Luxembourg STI environment benefited from a strong presence in the national media clarification of FNR philosophy — On research community Number of new domains lower than existing research domains Process benefits: networking and coalition building — On private sector unclear whether the private sector will find direct use for the results private sector clearly welcomed the opportunity for dialogue exploded myth that the private sector is interested only in short-term research

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Conclusions —Restricting to identification of thematic priorities only was a mistake consideration of structural aspects is necessary to set priorities isolation of the exercise from the other strategic initiatives (OECD etc) scope of implementation suggests identification of FNR priorities main aim identification of new domains or build on existing strengths? —Granularity level for FNR’s programmes ≠ ‘national’ priorities How are FNR programmes related to national priorities Challenge by the MHECR Expectations around competence niches dictated that national priorities had to be fewer in number

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Conclusions —Participations Importance of champions to channel a strong idea and to translate results into reality control the influence of such champions — Institutional positioning Expanded scope: FNR appropriate executor? or better MHECR? OECD: clearer distinction between policy formulation and policy implementation Decoupling of the foresight process not unusual, but risks associated: loss of some sense of ownership follow-up implementation uncertain FNR main driving force

FORESIGHT FOR S&T PRIORITY SETTING IN A SMALL COUNTRY Conclusions —More time should have been devoted to setting its objectives and agenda —More realistic timeframe —Better buy-in from MCHER —Exercise is widely viewed as a success (> 80% positive opinion; favourable press coverage) —Success due to the commitment of the FNR —Strong commitment from policy makers to build a more forward-looking and strategic culture across the public research base