Efficiency of innovation policies in high technology sectors in Europe (EPOHITE): final report ; [final report from STRATA accompanying measures
In: EUR 20904
In: Final report
14 results
Sort by:
In: EUR 20904
In: Final report
In: Science & public policy: SPP ; journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 31, Issue 5, p. 344-358
ISSN: 0302-3427, 0036-8245
Current advances in the emerging field of synthetic biology and the improvements in key technologies promise great impacts, not only on future scientific development, but also on the economy. In this paper we will adopt the triple helix concept for analyzing the early stages of a new field of science and innovation, namely synthetic biology. Synthetic biology is based on the creation and assembly of parts in order to create new and more complex structures and functions. These features of synthetic biology raise questions related to standardization and intellectual property, but also to security and public perception issues that go beyond the classical biotechnology discussions. These issues concern all involved actors in the synthetic biology field and affect the interrelationship between science, industry and policy. Based on the results of the recently finished EU FP-6 funded project TESSY (http://www.tessy-europe.de), the article analyzes these issues. Additionally, it illustrates the setting of clear framework conditions for synthetic biology research and development and the identification and definition of common goals for the future development of the field which will be needed for efficient science–industry–policy interaction. It was shown that it will be crucial to develop approaches that consider the needs of science and industry, on the one hand, and comply with the expectations of society, on the other hand. As synthetic biology is a global activity, the involvement of national decision-makers in international initiatives will further stimulate the development of the field.
BASE
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 28, Issue 5, p. 371-380
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology; Exploring Central and Eastern Europe’s Biotechnology Landscape, p. 13-35
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 31, Issue 5, p. 344-358
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 31, Issue 5, p. 385-395
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: Research Policy, Volume 23, Issue 3, p. 281-292
Calls for technology sovereignty in Europe were becoming louder even before the current Corona crisis. Growing geopolitical uncertainties and the threat of global trade conflicts are questioning the optimism of recent decades concerning the interdependence of our economies. In Germany, this is triggering a discussion about how independent a state or a federation of states must and can be with regard to critical technologies. It becomes clear that there is an increasing conflict between the call for technology sovereignty on the one hand, and the dominant economic model on the other, in which global specialization and the division of labor combined with open trade increases the welfare of all. Germany, in particular, as an export nation, and the EU as an economic area must consider the question of technology sovereignty carefully and in a differentiated manner. We present one conception of technology sovereignty in this position paper. Our intention is to enrich the current debate and improve differentiation. We develop the criteria and key analytical steps needed to determine the criticality of technologies and the degree of technology sovereignty. Building on this, we develop modified strategies to safeguard or to produce technology sovereignty. ; Nicht erst seit der aktuellen Corona-Krise werden die Rufe nach Technologiesouveränität in Europa lauter. Wachsende geopolitische Unsicherheiten und drohende globale Handelskonflikte stellen den Verflechtungsoptimismus der letzten Jahrzehnte in Frage. Dies löst auch in Deutschland eine Diskussion darüber aus, wie unabhängig ein Staat oder ein Staatenbund in Bezug auf kritische Technologien sein muss und sein kann. Dabei wird deutlich, dass die Forderung nach Technologiesouveränität in einem Spannungsverhältnis zum dominanten wirtschaftspolitischen Modell steht, in welchem weltweite Spezialisierung und Arbeitsteilung in Verbindung mit offenen Handelsbeziehungen die Wohlfahrt Aller erhöht. Gerade die Exportnation Deutschland und der Wirtschaftsraum der EU müssen deshalb die Frage nach Technologiesouveränität differenziert und mit Augenmaß bearbeiten. Mit dem Positionspapier stellen wir eine Konzipierung von Technologiesouveränität vor. Damit wollen wir die aktuelle Debatte bereichern und eine bessere Differenzierung ermöglichen. Wir entwickeln Kriterien und notwendige Analyseschritte, um die Kritikalität von Technologien und den Grad an Technologiesouveränität zu bestimmen und darauf aufbauend angepasste Strategien zur Sicherung oder Herstellung von Technologiesouveränität zu entwickeln.
BASE
Nicht erst seit der aktuellen Corona-Krise werden die Rufe nach Technologiesouveränität in Europa lauter. Wachsende geopolitische Unsicherheiten und drohende globale Handelskonflikte stellen den Verflechtungsoptimismus der letzten Jahrzehnte in Frage. Dies löst auch in Deutschland eine Diskussion darüber aus, wie unabhängig ein Staat oder ein Staatenbund in Bezug auf kritische Technologien sein muss und sein kann. Dabei wird deutlich, dass die Forderung nach Technologiesouveränität in einem Spannungsverhältnis zum dominanten wirtschaftspolitischen Modell steht, in welchem weltweite Spezialisierung und Arbeitsteilung in Verbindung mit offenen Handelsbeziehungen die Wohlfahrt Aller erhöht. Gerade die Exportnation Deutschland und der Wirtschaftsraum der EU müssen deshalb die Frage nach Technologiesouveränität differenziert und mit Augenmaß bearbeiten. Mit dem Positionspapier stellen wir eine Konzipierung von Technologiesouveränität vor. Damit wollen wir die aktuelle Debatte bereichern und eine bessere Differenzierung ermöglichen. Wir entwickeln Kriterien und notwendige Analyseschritte, um die Kritikalität von Technologien und den Grad an Technologiesouveränität zu bestimmen und darauf aufbauend angepasste Strategien zur Sicherung oder Herstellung von Technologiesouveränität zu entwickeln. ; Calls for technology sovereignty in Europe were becoming louder even before the current Corona crisis. Growing geopolitical uncertainties and the threat of global trade conflicts are questioning the optimism of recent decades concerning the interdependence of our economies. In Germany, this is triggering a discussion about how independent a state or a federation of states must and can be with regard to critical technologies. It becomes clear that there is an increasing conflict between the call for technology sovereignty on the one hand, and the dominant economic model on the other, in which global specialization and the division of labor combined with open trade increases the welfare of all. Germany, in particular, as an export nation, and the EU as an economic area must consider the question of technology sovereignty carefully and in a differentiated manner. We present one conception of technology sovereignty in this position paper. Our intention is to enrich the current debate and improve differentiation. We develop the criteria and key analytical steps needed to determine the criticality of technologies and the degree of technology sovereignty. Building on this, we develop modified strategies to safeguard or to produce technology sovereignty.
BASE
This survey is part of the study series "Security". This series of studies is based on a representative survey of security policy opinion-forming in Switzerland carried out in 1983. This survey was conducted at the Institute of Sociology Unitobler University of Bern by K. Haltiner and was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (NRP No. 11 "Security Policy", Project 4.419.0.81.11). Since 1991, opinion-forming in security policy has been collected annually since January/February and published under the title "Security". At the same time, the survey was expanded to include questions on foreign policy and the general feeling of security. The project is now being led by the Military Sociology Lectureship of the Military Academy at ETH Zurich and the Center for Security Studies of ETH Zurich.
The aim of these surveys is to identify trends and tendencies with regard to the general perception of security and threats, confidence in institutions and authorities, the degree of cooperation in foreign and security policy, neutrality in general and different views of neutrality, attitudes towards military defence and the interest in security policy. In addition to a core of questions that are asked at all times or at irregular intervals, they are also asked annually on current security policy issues.
In 2019, the focus will be on relations between the USA and Switzerland as well as the general global political situation, attitudes towards equal opportunities in the Swiss army.
In addition to the trend analysis, the series of studies also focuses on the question of the extent to which attitudes towards the three issues (general security, foreign policy and defence policy) are related to living conditions and political orientation.
In: Life sciences, society and policy, Volume 12, Issue 1
ISSN: 2195-7819
Die Jahresstudie "Sicherheit", die von der Militärakademie an der ETH Zürich und dem CSS jeweils gemeinsam publiziert wird, dient der Ermittlung langfristiger Trends in der aussen-, sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitischen Meinungsbildung in der Schweiz. Sie basiert auf im Jahresrhythmus durchgeführten repräsentativen Befragungen. Auch 2019 fühlen sich die SchweizerInnen im Allgemeinen wieder sehr sicher. Befragte beurteilen die Zukunft der Schweiz optimistisch. Dabei nennen sie vor allem die gute Wirtschaftslage und das politische System der Schweiz als Gründe für ihre optimistische Zukunftseinschätzung. Die zukünftige Entwicklung der weltpolitischen Lage wird allerdings signifikant pessimistischer als noch im Vorjahr eingeschätzt. Die Auswertung der Gründe zeigt, dass in erster Linie die Machtpolitik der USA, China und Russland als Gefahr für die Welt gesehen wird. ; The annual survey "Sicherheit", a joint publication by the Military Academy at ETH Zurich and the CSS, evaluates long-term trends and tendencies in public opinion on foreign, security and defense policy issues in Switzerland. It is based on representative surveys of the Swiss electorate conducted each year. The findings of the 2019 edition include that the Swiss generally feel very safe. Moreover, respondents are optimistic about Switzerland's future, citing the good economic situation and Switzerland's political system as reasons for their optimistic assessment of the future. By contrast, the future development of the global political situation is perceived significantly more pessimistically than in the previous year. The analysis of the reasons for this development indicate that, above all, the power politics of the USA, China and Russia are seen to be a threat to the world. ; ISSN:1424-5698
BASE