Humans have internal clocks that clock vital biological rhythms. These are innate, but can be positively or negatively influenced by the environment. Daily rhythms are regulated by the “circadian system” (the internal clock).
The circadian system is inextricably linked to the regulation of the sleep-wake rhythm. Disruptions to the circadian system can therefore cause sleep disorders and associated cognitive impairment as well as various health problems. 

How do we humans influence our future by neglecting these rhythms? And what can we individually or as an organisation do to support our rhythmic life? Currently, we are de-synchronising ourselves, our organs and our lives... we are on an unhealthy way. What we need is a future chronobiologically enlightened society. 3 Policy Briefs and a final report describe the state of the art of our knowledge and many options for the future.

Today, there is broad consensus that it must be the task of politics to ensure justice and freedom across generations. Not only courts and social movements worldwide are calling for a strengthening of forward-looking and provident governance. Many political actors within and outside the German government are also demanding a strengthening of capacities for long-term thinking and action in order to better meet the major challenges of the 21st century. How can we succeed in making policy more forward-looking? How can we strengthen our ability to deal with uncertainty and complexity? How would processes and structures have to change to achieve this? What role can strategic foresight (SF) play here?
These questions were addressed in the study conducted by the Fraunhofer ISI Foresight Team together with Prof. Sylvia Veit (administrative scientist at the University of Kassel) on behalf of the Federal Chancellery.
The aim was to examine the status quo in Germany and to develop various options for institutionalising strategic foresight as a process, method and approach in the German government's policy and administration, and to evaluate their advantages and disadvantages. This should create a basis for discussion for the further anchoring of strategic foresight in government action.

4strat helps organisations to approach the future differently and with confidence in order to shape change and disruption in a sustainable way. With an interdisciplinary team consisting of futurists, designers and developers, we offer expert- and data-driven tools and services for strategic foresight.

Wondering about the European Union's future role on the world stage? 🇪🇺 On behalf of the Federal Foreign Service of Germany, the DLR-PT conducted a Strategic Foresight Workshop including a Futures Literacy Lab on the topic 'The European Union as a global actor in 2040?'! Together with experts and Federal Foreign Office staff, the DLR-PT explored innovative ways of thinking about the futures. 

Booklet on the Strategic Foresight Workshop

OrganicTargets4EU supports the Farm-to-Fork Strategy in achieving the targets of at least 25% of the EU's agricultural land under organic farming and a significant increase in organic aquaculture by 2030.

Activities

OrganicTargets4EU for reaching these targets and identifies key drivers and lock-ins affecting the development of organic agriculture and aquaculture in 29 countries (EU-27+CH+NO). 

Production and Market analysis of the identified scenarios to provide a picture of:

• Where increases in organic farmland can be achieved
• The socio-economic impacts of these increases at the level of primary production, value chains, and markets
• The mechanisms that can drive demand for organic food 

Knowledge & Innovation actions to:

• Identify opportunities to strengthen organic advisory services
• Stimulate the exchange of scientific and practical knowledge
• Increase and coordinate R&I investments in the organic sector 

Policy work facilitating a multi-actor policy dialogue to:

• Assess the feasibility of the organic Farm-to-Fork targets
• Supports the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), EU Organic Regulation, Organic Action Plan
• Provide short-term policy options (policy framework up to 2027) and policy recommendations in the next policy reform (from 2028 onwards).

The establishment of responsible innovation requires four key institutional changes. First, innovation must be value-driven. Second, an ethics of co-responsibility among stakeholders must be implemented. Third, innovation should be made directional and manageable. Fourth, market failures need to be addressed to facilitate necessary transformative changes, especially with regard to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This research project will take into account the evolution of Living Labs and various specialized Living Labs (e.g., urban labs, social labs, and responsible Living Labs) to assess to what extent they address these institutional requirements. On this basis, the concept of a new dedicated Living Lab: a Responsible Research and Innovation Lab for Engineering Practices will be introduced. Subsequently this dedicated Living Lab will be operationalised on a theme from the engineering sciences. We will consider innovations stemming from digital tech for Health issues, additive manufacturing or other engineering pratices. We will deploy participatory foresight, to enable a form of anticipatory governance of emerging new innovations.

This dedicated ling lab is contextualised in a broader context of a deliberative democracy: Living Labs can be seen as spaces for Organisational Learning and Collective Experimentation:Living Labs: ‘real-life test and experimentation environments that foster co-creation and open innovation among the main actors of the Quadruple Helix Model, namely: Citizens, Governmental Organisations, Industrial organisations and Academia’ (ENoLL 2024)It operationalises an important feature of Responsible Research and Innovation: Making stakeholders co-responsible and mutually responsive to each other by engaging them in an open co-creation/ co-enquiry process. (among other on the basis of participatory foresight of emerging technologies and innovations)The idea of 'openess' and 'mutual reponsiveness' as values of actors and institutions will also be subject of analysis.Science and innovation can be better fostered in an open, democratic society than in other types of societies. The norm of civic participation in a ‘democracy’ is a lived ideal for citizens, just as the norm of ‘communalism’ is a lived ideal for the scientific community. Both norms presuppose the values of ‘openness’ and 'mutual responsiveness' among scientist and citizens.This highlights ‘openness’ not as a prescriptive norm but as a value of the institution of science. Simultaneously, ‘openness’ is also an institutional value of a democracy. However, science and democracy are dependent on the extent to which scientist and citizens engage on the basis of these norms. How can we best encourage and incentivise those?