The EU introduced missions as a new instrument in Horizon Europe. Mission Boards were appointed to elaborate visions for the future in five Areas: Adaptation to Climate Change, Including Societal Transformation; Cancer; Healthy Oceans, Seas, and Coastal and Inland Waters; Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities; Soil Health and Food. Starting in autumn 2019, five Foresight on Demand projects supported them with foresight expertise and methodology.

This report provides the work in support of the Mission Board on Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities. Starting with a systemic analysis, the project identified urban challenges in existing forward-looking studies in order to determine the thematic scope together with the Mission Board. It collected data about consolidated external and internal drivers, trends and practices as well as weak signals, potential disruptive events or incremental changes with a potentially substantial positive impact on cities.

This final report summarises the results of the actions to support the Mission Board for “Adaptation to Climate Change, including Societal Transformation” with forward-looking evidence.

In accordance with the Request, the proposed services, approaches to be adopted, and the concrete nature and form of the outputs have been shaped and validated through close interaction with the Mission Board (MB) via the Mission Secretariat, run by relevant European Commission (EC) services, throughout the implementation of the action.

As a result of the interactions with the Mission Secretariat, the following actions were taken:

1. Preparing a short paper Input to Mission Board on scoping activities & tasks
   (Deliverable 1)
2. Analysing national and regional funding programmes of selected countries for
   projects on Climate Change Adaptation, and conducting interviews with selected
   Mission Board members in preparation of a foresight workshop.
3. Preparing an input paper for the foresight workshop Input Document FoD CCA
   Workshop, 23 January 2020 (Deliverable 2).
4. Holding a foresight workshop (23 January 2020) with Mission Board members,
   European Commission representatives (Mission Secretariat), and foresight experts,
   and summarising the results of the workshop. The workshop served to identify
   barriers and solutions, enablers and impacts of climate change adaptation in a variety
   of thematic fields, including health, water, food and agriculture.
5. Developing and implementing a Delphi survey on assessing key aspects of the draft
   paper of the Mission Board. The survey addressed climate experts. They assessed
   future targets in thematic fields (e.g. financial risks, health, social infrastructure), and
   ranked related measures and R&I fields for importance.
6. Preparing and analysing the results of the Delphi survey: Delphi Survey results,
   July/August 2020 (Deliverables 3 and 4).

The report is structured along these deliverables.

This report provides the findings from the ‘Foresight on Demand’ project supporting the Horizon Europe
Mission Board for Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters in its task of defining specific
Mission(s) to be addressed in Horizon Europe. The overarching goal of the project was to support the
reflections of the Mission Board from a forward-looking perspective.

The team of experts was set up by the ‘Foresight on Demand’ consortium to provide the Board with wellversed
expertise in both foresight methodology as well as thematic developments on the future of
oceans and water. The objective was to think along with the board and to stimulate the debates by
raising surprising and challenging issues based on forward-looking analysis and exploration. The project
provided the Mission Board with new information, (systemic) insights and/or alternative future visions
that connect the extremely multi-dimensioned topics tackled by this Mission Board.

The project had started with the scoping phase of identifying focal areas of which results were discussed
in the meeting with the Mission Board. Subsequently, the foresight team explored further future
uncertainties and knowledge gaps via a real-time Delhi survey to stakeholders. The scoping phase
began with the scanning of 33 foresight reports looking towards 2050, foresight databases and news
feeds to address long-term developments and emerging signals of change. In particular, the foresight
expert team developed five focal areas, which were presented to the Mission Board to provide
interconnected insights as well as challenging and provocative ideas to enrich their work. The five focal
areas are summarised in the table below:

After the initial phase of scanning and analysing emerging issues and synthesising the findings into five
focal areas the results were discussed with the Mission Board. In the meeting the discussion led the
Mission Board request the foresight team to continue the foresight work and identify further data and
knowledge gaps related to oceans and waters, the recovery of oceans and waters and their role in
climate change mitigation.

In line with foresight practice as well as with the Mission Board’s explicit desire to involve a wider public,
the study engaged stakeholders via a real-time Delphi method highly suitable to address future
uncertainties. The Delphi method is a structured group communication process, dealing with subjects,
on which often unsure and incomplete knowledge is available, that are judged upon by experts. The
idea is that the respondents can learn from the views of others, without being unduly influenced by the
hierarchies or other societal structures and power relations.
Invitations to the survey were sent to stakeholder groups in different sectors of society, in particular:
research and development, policy, industry and civil society. Approx. 3000 European stakeholders were
invited. The survey platform was open two weeks in February 2020 leading to the total of 238 registered
participants of which 138 finished the survey.

Participants assessed the total of 15 future statements and proposed new ones to be considered by the
Mission Board, in three areas: i) oceans and other water ecosystems, ii) the recovery of healthy oceans
and waters and iii) the role of oceans and waters in climate mitigation. The results of the assessments
presented in mean values are summarised in the following table in each of the three areas.

The findings form the survey can be summarised on each of the areas as follows:

• Oceans and other water ecosystems: In this area, all proposed issues are accepted as
  important but, with the current attitude towards marine and water ecosystems, respondents
  believed that actions will not be sustained properly. The reason for this lack of consistency
  between “right things to do” and what is actually done probably resides in cultural gaps that
  make it difficult to pass from theoretical analyses and legislation to action, with the reversal of
  current trends. Nonetheless, the survey indicates consensus about the adoption of the
  ecosystem approach, recognising that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an
  integral component of ecosystems and emphasizing the need for collaboration between the
  scientific community, the economic sector, policymakers and the public at large.
• The recovery of healthy oceans and waters: In this area, the survey showed a remarkable
  consistency, from all stakeholders, on the actions contributing to healthy oceans and waters.
  This point could almost guarantee the success of the mission as it seems that the society
  understands the enormous contribution of healthy oceans and waters on the planet earth.
  Although the list of what can be achieved in the near future could be endless, the fact that we
  have to include society at large in addressing challenges, should be our first step.
• The role of oceans and waters in climate mitigation: The respondents provided a global
  impression that Europe can be leader in several fields of climate mitigation. If, however, the
  rest of the world is not addressing these efforts of climate mitigation, the role of Europe will not
  have significant impact. There is no single major technological solution that, alone, would curb
  the climate change, a goal that might be achieved by a mix of technologies and regulations, at
  the right geographic scale, and as early as possible. Furthermore, positive and negative
  impacts of each technology have to be assessed carefully as very little is still known on the
  mid-term and long-term impacts of the different technologies available today. Much more
  research and stakeholder cooperation are required to select the right technologies and
  the optimum strategies on time, in order to avoid unmanageable trends.
• Further areas to be explored: Next to the topics proposed by the foresight expert team,
  stakeholders were asked to suggest other topics that should be understood better and acted
  upon in the EU. Three main topics emerged: research and research infrastructure, civil
  society, and corporate social responsibility.

Final remarks and recommendations

The first part of the foresight study led to the descriptions of five possible focal areas for European
innovation action in the realm of oceans and waters: 1. Climate-resilient coastlines, 2. Clean water for
the blue planet, 3. Vital aquatic ecosystems, 4. Open digital twin of oceans and waters, 5. Humans at
sea. All these focal areas have similar magnitudes, notably if we consider an extensive view of "humans
at sea" not only as an island network but as a continuum between a vulnerable and densely populated
low elevation zone and a potentially harmful but also rich coastal ocean. In view of addressing the focal
areas or their elements in the future actions towards sustainable development in Europe, it is worth
prioritising such efforts in relation with the general theory of systems that establishes the hierarchy of
systems in three spheres showing that human activities and economy are nested into natural systems
and must obey their laws. Traditional illustrations of sustainability, however, show only a small overlap
of the three spheres, this overlap representing sustainability.

The real-time Delphi survey confirmed that there is a need for a holistic approach leading to more
structured actions. This is widely recognized but seldom satisfied. Too specific actions, undertaken while
ignoring the behaviour of the rest of the ecosystems, may lead to temporary success but will surely not
improve the overall situation. This calls for enhanced efforts in improving ocean literacy at all levels,
from the scientific community (too focused on reductionistic approaches) to the economic, social and
industrial sectors. Furthermore, the conceptual landscape embracing water ecosystems (linking oceanic
and inland waters) is very fragmented, with the high risk that while fixing specific problems other
problems are created. Hence, we conclude with three recommendations.

1. Adopt a holistic approach for balanced actions that calls for improving water literacy at all
   levels of society.
2. Create networks of interest using a common (not too technical) language embracing water
   ecosystems (including both oceanic and inland waters) to overcome fragmentation in society.
3. Conduct holistic impact assessments and establish monitoring mechanisms of measures
   implemented to fix specific problems to avoid creating in parallel new problems in complex
   ecosystems.

COVID-19 has led to a global public health crisis and changed the course of lives for billions with ensuing social and economic damage. A foresight study was commissioned by the European Commission DG RTD in June 2020 that used Dynamic Argumentative Delphi method to explore experts’ views on what Europe may look like in 2023, in the domains relating to medicine, public health, and socio-economic conditions. Using expert responses to the survey, the points of consensus and the areas of divergence (uncertainties) were analysed, and five plausible 'exit scenarios' were developed. The report draws conclusions for EU R&I policy, but together with its data annex, it can support strategic discussions across many different policy fields.

Link to the report: http://doi.org/10.2777/293413

This report documents the process and findings of a horizon scanning exercise, part of a series under
the FUTURINNOV (FUTURe-oriented detection and assessment of emerging technologies and break-
through INNOVation) project, a collaboration between the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the
Joint Research Centre (JRC), aiming to bolster the EIC's strategic intelligence through foresight and
anticipatory methodologies.

The workshop, held on 17 September 2024, had as its primary goal the evaluation and prioritisation
of trends and signals on emerging technologies and breakthrough innovation, across all technology
readiness levels (TRLs), within the EIC's Medical Imaging and AI portfolio.
Signals for the workshop were gathered from experts, literature review, and text/data mining of pa-
tents, publications, and EU-funded projects. These signals were then scrutinised for their significance
to the field's future by a diverse group of sector experts which led to the identification of eight key
topics: generative AI for healthcare; digital twins; multimodal data analysis; explainable AI in medical
imaging; application of AI to specific diseases/conditions; XR - augmented and virtual realities; tensor-
valued diffusion encoding, and AI-generated synthetic data for training AI. Furthermore, the workshop
identified additional wild cards with high novelty and disruptive potential such as: blockchain, edge
computing and differential privacy for secure, AI-driven medical imaging and collaborative healthcare
optimisation and quantum medical imaging.

Participants also highlighted various factors that could influence the development, adoption, and pro-
motion of these emerging technologies, which can be grouped under the following categories: Tech-
nological advancements and cross-sector applications; data infrastructure, AI models, and regulatory
frameworks; workforce, education and societal factors; clinical efficiency and patient outcomes; trust,
ethics, and AI adoption; financial pressures and industry investment in AI healthcare.

THE FUTURE OF GREEN SKILLS AND JOBS IN EUROPE IN 2050: SCENARIO AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS - CONSEQUENCESS FOR THE PREVENTION OF OCCUPATIONAL RISKS

In the context of European research and innovation policies, a strategic foresight process has been implemented by the European commission with a view to guiding futures needs and identifying common priorities. INRS and other European experts were invited to participate in a foresight network focusing on green skills and jobs in Europe by 2050. This article presents a summary of the discussions, with a special emphasis on the consequences for the prevention of occupational risks.

This is the short English-language Policy Brief from the research project Foresight and Future Generations in Law-Making (FORGE). FORGE examined issues of future-regarding lawmaking in an interdisciplinary manner, combining expertise on futures studies, political science, and jurisprudence. The aim of the study was to analyse the status of future generations and their rights in current legislative processes, and to map and compare practices for foresight and consideration of future generations in different political contexts, nationally and internationally. The purpose of the project was to increase understanding on i) how future generations can be better taken into account in policymaking; ii) how foresight can be better utilised in lawmaking. 

The FORGE-project was unique – there had not previously been a study with a similar scope in Finland and comparable international examples are, to the best knowledge of the authors, extremely rare. FORGE supported the preparation of the second part
of the Government Report on the Future. The project was funded by the Government’s analysis, assessment and research activities (VN TEAS) and was conducted during 1/2022–11/2022 by researchers of the University of Turku, Åbo Akademi University and Tampere University.

Findings:

From an international comparison, Finland already has an advanced national foresight system and can be regarded as a pioneer in futureregarding policymaking. However, there is still room for improvement in terms of using foresight and considering future generations as a part of lawmaking. Such improvement could be achieved by developing and upgrading the existing institutions and practices and by making more incremental changes in practices, modes of interaction, and attitudes. For example, foresight should be conducted more as a continuous activity, and future generations’ interests and rights should be considered more systematically in legislative processes, while acknowledging the plurality of future interests.

Development proposals:

Full lenght-report available in Finnish

In addition to the 12-page Policy Brief summarising the FORGE projects' finding in English, The Prime Minister's Office has published the full 203-page report in Finnish. This can be found here below.

The Covid-19 pandemic has shattered our sense of ‘normal’, and amplified uncertainties and issues at the core of what the future may hold. The project ‘After the new normal: Scenarios for Europe in the post Covid-19 world’ examined possible futures of 2040 for the EU emerging from the crisis of the pandemic, as possible contexts for EU R&I. The five scenarios described in this report chart different possible post-Covid-19 evolution paths, creating new perspectives on key EU R&I policy issues.

Control over technological development

Across all scenarios, the ability of the European Union to exert control over future technological development - through regulation, standardisation, and the enforcement of policy - entails wide ranging socio-economic implications for the broader society.

The EU share of global R&D is shrinking, and there is an unavoidable, growing EU dependence on technologies developed and produced elsewhere in the world, most notably in the US or China. There is also an ever-increasing influence of private firms on technological development, including large multinationals, which remain largely outside public control as regards potential societal consequences of the deployment of those technologies. The challenges these trends may pose to the ability of the EU to exercise control over technological development will depend on the speed of the recovery from the Covid-19 crisis and on the character of the relationships that will be built during the recovery effort.

Resilience, adaptability and preparedness for future crises

Resilience, adaptability and preparedness require an anticipatory R&I policy including ways of identifying, monitoring and addressing threats and developing new emergency response capacities that involve science in systemic roles: as a generator of advice, as a capacity for quick analysis, monitoring of the challenge and evaluating the efficacy of responses, as well as a generator of new responses and tools against the crisis. Preparedness should include:

1. ‘Wind-tunnelling’ new plans, policies, and institutions through worst-case scenarios for alternative crises.
2. Exploring regularly new modes of assessing threats and trialing emergency responses, which offer the possibility to explore hidden opportunities.
3. Engaging research with all branches of government to share findings about threats and opportunities, and to foster more integrated and coordinated responses.

The key role of education

The Covid-19 crisis precipitates the introduction of a new wave of educational technologies, opening up new possibilities and engendering new challenges and risks. This could be heralding new opportunities for improving the relations
between science and education, and therefore strengthening the contributions of science to society, as well as new challenges of fracturing value and belief systems, populism and fake news. The availability of public funds for education and the role that private companies will play in new educational developments will be critical. EU R&I policy can contribute to improving the links between science, technology and education by supporting local experimentation in education in a framework that could help diffuse good practices across the EU.

EU level financing for R&I

After nearly 50 years of Framework Programme, EU direct funding for R&I projects has become part of the institutional backbone of the EU. The scenarios remind us that this is not given and that the EU budget is subject to political negotiations despite its importance for the maintenance of R&I capacity in different Member States. There is a continuous need for ensuring that the EU gets value for money out of its investments in R&I including the recognition of the benefit that Member States and EU policies across the board gain from the EU Framework Programme.

Regional disparities in R&I performance

The persistence of regional disparities in R&I performance has been a problem for the EU for a long time, and one that the EU has yet to resolve. The scenarios remind us that such disparities can develop into deep divide across the economy and politics of the European Union. Furthermore, the scenarios demonstrate how some modes of recovery can be better suited for enabling the more equitable generation of economic and social value from R&I, particularly in those regions facing greater present day challenges. Emphasis in social innovation, social entrepreneurship and frugal innovation in the EU instruments may make important contributions to overcoming regional disparities.

Defining future priorities in R&I policy

R&I policy priority-setting processes and the extent to which R&I priorities are driven by concerns with the past, current and future challenges vary across Member States of the EU. This affects the definiton of joint priorities as well as the diversity and vibrancy of the EU innovation ecosystem. Scenarios that explored conditions of challenging polarisation between different national interests and between public and private interests, highlight the importance of public engagement and especially of engagement with new actors, such as social-purpose companies, in the definition of future priorities of EU R&I policy as well as in the governance and implementation of the R&I effort.

Other emerging issues of relevance to EU R&I policy

Additional emerging issues that may deserve particular attention in the coming years include:

• Several scenarios suggest that there will be both a greater need and stronger willingness for Member States to collaborate closely on matters of R&I policy.
• The widening of the range of actors as well as of policies that matter for R&I, linked to the growing policy attention to system change will become an important challenge for coordination of efforts and policy coherence.
• With their strong emphasis on competitiveness and growth objectives, the established rationales underpinning EU R&I policy are increasingly out of synch with the needs of societal and world challenges.
• As the landscape of European knowledge systems continues to evolve, R&I policy must realise its influential role in shaping broader change and adopt socio-economic disparities and environmental concerns as guiding principles.

All scenarios suggest the need for stepping up collective capability and willingness to actively engage in open and collaborative R&I relationships, both within Europe and with the world beyond Europe. This is obvious in relation to some of the global challenges Europe is aiming to address, but also with regard to emerging technologies where international alliances are decisive for establishing common standards and regulation. In order to ensure a relevant global role of Europe in the world, it is essential to build upon a strong, stable and coherent home base in R&I.

This report is also available on Zenodo.  

This is a synthesis report based on 130+ interviews conducted as part of the Strategic Foresight for Sustainability (SF4S). The synthesis report concludes the project’s Work Package 2, led by Finland Futures Research Centre, which had as a central objective to identify “key skills and good practices on the basis of interviews with the key community actors”.

Nine SF4S consortium partners – DKSD, EDC, EDHEC, FFRC, GEA, HMKW, ISPIM, IZT, and TalTech - carr ied out 91 interviews in situ or via digital communication channels from September 2022 to March 2023. In addition, 47 interviewees or discussants participated via focus group discussions (November 2022) and a public webinar (January 2023). 

The interviews map out sustainability, digitalisation, and foresight skills and practices in organisations around Europe with an emphasis on the project’s three target clusters: Agri-food, Health, and Mobility. In addition to industry representatives, experts in foresight, policy, consulting, and education have contributed their views to the project. 

For more information on the report, see the project website.   

A new series of 'Foresight Starter Sets' is an an essential part of Finland Futures Research Centre's (FFRC) contribution to the Eye of Europe project. One starter set component is a set of short videos. The videos introduce and clarify futures thinking and foresight, what to expect from a foresight workshop, and a variety of foresight workshop methods. The videos could serve as promotional material but also help organizers calibrate participants expectations prior to their participation in a foresight workshop.

Finland Futures Research Centre is developing the video series to help participants prepare to participate in foresight workshops. The videos immediate use is related to the Eye of Europe Pilot Foresight Activities which will run through 2025 and 2026, but the videos will be freely available as a useful resource for foresight organizers outside the scope, and beyond the lifetime, of the project. 

Reaching target audiences with foresight beyond text

As the Work Package lead of Eye of Europe, the FFRC targets two unofficial ambitions underpinning all project activities: First, lowering the bar for organizing and participating in foresight workshops. Second, moving foresight beyond text. That is, finding new audiences via new formats compared to the classic domain of long text-based foresight reports. The set of Foresight Starter Videos aims to achieve both of these premises, as it uses a format of short videos (3-8 minutes per video) to introduce foresight, futures thinking, and futures methods to new audiences with a playful and welcoming tone. 

The video set has two introductory videos that can be used in advance of any foresight workshop, while the ambition for the following videos relate to specific methods and approaches. The presumed use case is that foresight organizers can provide links to the introductory videos for foresight workshop participants in advance of their participation. We have found at the FFRC that sometimes people, even if they are domain experts in other fields, can be apprehensive prior to foresight workshops, as this may be unfamiliar territory for them (and for people used to being experts, unfamiliar can mean uncomfortable). 

Foresight Starter Set Video Roadmap

Launching the first videos

The series of videos are developed by Martyn Richards and Zainab Yasin at the Finland Futures Research Centre. The videos will be hosted on the Finland Futures Research Centre’s YouTube Channel as well as feature on the Futures4Europe platform’s upcoming Toolbox, a set of useful methodologies and resources for advancing R&I foresight. 

As of December 2024, the first video on “Untangling Futures and Foresight: An Essentials Guide” is now available on YouTube.  

What lies ahead for universities? A new futures research study from the University of Turku maps multiple pathways and tensions that could transform how universities teach, research, and serve society.

Introduction
Researchers of the University of Turku have published a comprehensive report "Future directions and possibilities for the university: Report on literature review and Delphi study" (Virmajoki et al. 2024) about the possible future trajectories of the university of Turku. The report, which is uploaded here and also available on utupub.fi, is part of a larger project - Strategic Foresight and Futures Thinking Initiative.   

The report, conducted by the Strategic Planning Unit of the University of Turku together with Finland Futures Research Centre (FFRC), contains the results of the analysis of the operating environment of universities. Operating environment here refers to the broader context of trends, challenges, and conditions - both nationally and globally - that affect how universities function and perform their core activities in teaching and research. While the report has as its scope the University of Turku, its findings and especially the approach are more broadly relevant, particularly in Europe.

Analysis of Operating Environment as Research
The analysis of the operating environment was primarily based on a literature review and a subsequent Delphi survey. We reviewed over 200 scientific texts relevant to the subject. It quickly became evident how multifaceted and unique universities are. Scenarios—a common tool in foresight—would not be sufficient on their own to understand the possible futures of universities. Therefore, we first categorised universities into 10 different dimensions, such as societal purpose, international orientation, and educational organization, and identified different directions for development for each dimension. This allowed us to create a multidimensional description of possible development paths for universities, yielding in total 30 different paths and their combinations. The reality is somewhere between the idealized end-points.

In addition to helping understand various possible futures, the analysis where several dimensions and their paths are explained also provides a tool for the university units to examine their own position in relation to these possible developments. University units can differ significantly from one another, and no analytical tool that accounts for these differences can be sufficient. Our report offers such a tool by enabling discussion – with agreements and disagreements – of different development trajectories from the perspectives of diverse traditions and practices that can be found within any university.

Possibilities and Desirability – The Delphi Study
It was not only important to understand the possible futures universities may face. Equally crucial at the University of Turku was to understand what university members – researchers, students, administration, and other staff – think about these futures. To achieve such understanding, we conducted a Delphi study to ask what university members consider probable and desirable when it comes to the future. The statements were designed to provoke thoughts and bring out views that might not emerge in more traditional discussions. In addition to the probability and desirability assessments, we gathered valuable insights from the open comment sections, which often reveal perspectives that might be overlooked in the literature review.

Some Key Results
While the most interesting results cannot all be included in this text, some should be highlighted to provide a sense of the nature of the study.

First, universities are continuously balancing societal impact, economic goals, and fundamental research. The demands from the side of the wider society often pull in different directions. The Delphi study showed that working towards a societal mission is seen as desirable, but market orientation is expected to be more likely. A common thought and worry seems to be that universities are likely to shift towards more commercial interests, despite the tension this creates with their social responsibilities not measurable in economic terms.

Second, global research collaboration and local relevance create a significant tension. Universities aim to be part of global networks, while also expected to contribute to their local communities. The Delphi study revealed varying opinions on this balance. Some see global engagement as essential, while others stress the importance of local ties. Whether a university can succeed in both areas or must focus on one is a central question. The geopolitical tensions and the regional clusters this might create adds another path that might make the question between local and global even more difficult and multidimensional.

Third, in teaching, the main tension seems to lie between scalable, mass-oriented education and more personalised, tailored teaching. Scalable teaching allows universities to reach more students, but the Delphi study showed that personalized methods are considered more desirable. Yet, the study also indicated that standardised models are, according to the members of the university, more likely to prevail due to the scarcity of resources. Technology and its development will be an integral part of both scalable and personalised teaching paths (and everything in between) but different technological solutions might be associated with different paths.

Significance for the University Sector
The project and the report highlight the value of combining an analysis of the university operating environment and a more detailed study of the views of the university community. On the one hand, an analysis of the environment and the paths therein provides a tool to navigate the prospects and risks. On the other hand, the analysis of the members’ perspective helps the university understand where we stand now and what are the paths that the members recognise. Together, these two provide a robust view on the strategic status and importance of different possible trajectories for universities’ operating environment.

The research has broad applicability across universities worldwide. Through its dimensions and models, any higher education institution can map out and discuss likely trajectories, desired directions, and concerning paths ahead - regardless of their unique features. By combining extensive research literature with a Delphi study, the report opens a window into the possible futures of universities – or rather a map that can be used to navigate the long-term issues that these long-standing institutions face.

References
Virmajoki, V., Ahokas, I., Witoon, S., Ahlqvist, T., Kirveennummi, A., & Suomalainen, K.-M. (2024). Future directions and possibilities for the university: Report on literature review and Delphi study. A Report by University of Turku Strategic Planning Unit in collaboration with the Finland Futures Research Centre (FFRC). ISBN 978-952-249-617-1.

This report presents the results of a the project S&T&I for 2050: science, technology and innovation for ecosystem performance – accelerating sustainability transitions. The project’s overarching goal was to identify and map future scientific and technological developments, which can radically improve ecosystem performance.

The project was conducted along several phases:

• Based on literature review, the project team developed three perspectives on future relations between humans and nature and humans’ role in the flourishing of planetary ecosystems. The three perspectives are: i) protecting and restoring ecosystems, ii) co-shaping socio-ecological systems, and iii) caring within hybrid collectives
• A two-round Dynamic Argumentative Delphi (DAD) online survey explored the most dynamic scientific and technological developments. The survey engaged over 600 experts globally in enriching, assessing and prioritizing STI directions in terms of their potential to contribute to the capability of planetary ecosystems to flourish from now to 2050.
• Drawing in on the three perspectives and the results of the DAD survey, six case studies on core sustainability issues explored the three perspectives. Reflections on implications for R&I policies in the context of the European Green Deal conclude each of the six case studies: i) Law for Nature; ii) Land Use Futures; iii) Soil to Soul; iv) Accelerating transitions to regenerative economy; v) Ecosystems and Micro-and Nano Cosmos; vi) Data as Representation

This study builds on a previous study (namely The future of work in 2030. An argument-based top of emerging professions). The set of emerging professions identified has then been the subject of a series of participatory exercises:

- Through over 40 interviews and focus groups with over 100 stakeholders (employers from different industries and coordinators of academic programs relevant to the dynamics of the professions presented) we aimed to integrate diverse perspectives and interests in the debate on future labor developments and options in shaping the educational offer.
- Subsequently, the space for debate expanded with a broader Dynamic Argumentative Delphi online consultation on the dynamics of demand for each profession in 2030 and the adequacy of the current educational provision.

In addition to these prospective approaches, the study proposes an analysis of specializations in the Romanian higher education that are relevant for these “professions of the future”, which takes the form of graphical visualizations depicting the dynamics of university graduates in Romania who could access the inventoried professions.

***
The study was published in Romanian as part of the project POCU INTL - Quality in higher education: internationalization and databases for the development of Romanian higher education.

Project webpage: pocu-intl.uefiscdi.ro

The report provides a brief overview of the insights captured during the second Mutual Learning Event (MLE2) which was held online on September 26, 2024.
The MLE2 addressed topic of policy oriented communication of foresight results.
The topic brought information on:
• The strategies for effective communication of foresight results to policymakers and gaining stakeholders buy-in,
• The role of clear communication in translating foresight into actionable policies,
• Fostering foresight in R&I policy making process,
• Translating of complex foresight results into clear, concise and policy relevant messages,
• The identification of key stakeholders in policy making process,
• Tailoring engagement strategies.
The format of the Mutual Learning Events is designed with an emphasis on the interactive sessions where all participants can share their experience, ideas and questions. As part of the last event, group and plenary discussions in three interactive sessions were framed by five keynotes.

The following MLE2 highlights emerged from the discussion:
• Forward-looking activities face a range of challenges in communication,
• Presenting data only seems to be insufficient for the modern communication of foresight results,
• The rapid evolution of digital technology including generative AI and social media offer for foresight practitioners new approaches to communicate,
• Different media can be used for targeting different groups of audience,
• Tailoring forward-looking messages for different audiences is an approach to avoiding misunderstanding or misinterpretation,
• Uncertainty may also depend whether the forward-looking activities can predict future risk and benefits., therefore is always necessary to rely on evidence-based materials.
Five MLEs are planned in the Eye of Europe project, a Horizon Europe project which aims to enhance the integration of foresight practices into Research & Innovation policy-making across Europe and to foster a vibrant, cohesive R&I foresight community that contribute significantly, as a collective intelligence to shaping and guiding policy decisions. The third Mutual Learning Event “Integration of Foresight into the Research & Innovation Policy Cycle will be held on January 21st, 2025 also in an online format. The event will open a discussion on the need for adaptive and flexible policy frameworks to respond to rapidly changing technological, economic and societal landscapes.

All Eye of Europe MLEs are organized by the Technology Centre Prague (TC), Eye of Europe partner and key Czech national think tank and academia based NGO with a rich experience with knowledge-based policy making support and participatory as well as expert based foresight activities.

The National Strategy for Research, Innovation, and Smart Specialisation (SNCISI) 2022–2027 represents Romania’s comprehensive approach to fostering a modern, sustainable, and impactful research and innovation ecosystem. Coordinated by the Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Digitalization (MCID), this strategy aligns with Romania’s national development goals and its commitments under the European Research Area (ERA). SNCISI is designed to address pressing societal challenges, stimulate economic transformation, and elevate Romania’s global standing in research and innovation.

This strategy highlights the pivotal role of research, development, and innovation (RDI) in driving sustainable growth, advancing scientific discovery, and creating new technologies that directly enhance quality of life, productivity, and economic competitiveness. At its core, the SNCISI aims to integrate the principles of open science, ensure inclusivity in research priorities, and align Romania’s efforts with global and European benchmarks.

Through SNCISI, Romania emphasises a dual commitment: first, to support foundational and applied research excellence by creating favourable conditions for researchers, institutions, and private stakeholders; second, to catalyse public-private collaboration that addresses challenges like climate change, digitalization, and health crises. The strategy views science and innovation not merely as tools for economic growth but as vital contributors to societal well-being and global problem-solving.

SNCISI’s development is rooted in an extensive consultative process involving regional and national stakeholders, ensuring that the strategy is representative of Romania’s diverse socioeconomic landscape. It integrates input from academia, government, industry, and civil society to outline actionable pathways that connect research activities with tangible societal and economic outcomes.

The strategy is framed around four major objectives (OGs) and five smart specialisation domains that align with regional and national strengths. These axes ensure a coherent alignment of resources, infrastructure, and expertise to drive both regional and national priorities forward.

Objectives include:

OG1: Developing the research, development, and innovation system.
OG2: Supporting innovation ecosystems tied to smart specialisations.
OG3: Mobilising towards innovation by enhancing collaboration with the private sector.
OG4: Increasing European and international collaboration.
The SNCISI underscores a commitment to modernising infrastructure, attracting and retaining talented researchers, and fostering an innovation-driven economy. Through its structured framework, it also ensures that public funds are allocated effectively to stimulate high-impact, sustainable outcomes.

This guide has been produced within the European Commission funded project “Research Infrastructures: Foresight and Impact” (RIFI) aimed at developing a comprehensive methodological framework for assessing socio-economic (SE) im-pacts of future RI projects on hosting regions and communities. The main product of the project is the FenRIAM (Foresight enriched Research Infrastructure Impact Assessment Methodology) framework, presented in this guide.

There is a fascination with the future, as a repository of both opportunities and threats that affects all of us. Concern for what we call "the future of work" is part of this mosaic. Regardless of their geographical space, people think of their work as being, in varying doses, a source of material well-being, but also a component of their identity. Uncertainties about how will people work in the future – how will they earn income and build a purpose, a meaning through their work – is an important topic, and often a source of concern.
What are we heading for? What kind of future is desirable? What is possible, respectively probable, from what we deem desirable? What can be done to get there? All these are legitimate questions that deserve our attention.
In the context of recent waves of technological progress, the future of work is the subject of intensive controversy. Often in the public space there is an overwhelming emphasis on the impact of new technologies on work, neglecting other shaping forces relevant to labor market dynamics. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to open a wider conversation about the future of work on the 2030 horizon.

The perspective used in this paper is a causal and hierarchical one: from drivers of change towards their impact on labor. Most studies on labor market developments start from a context modeled by several global megatrends. Following this logic, the second chapter describes the four main trends identified in literature: i) technological developments, especially automation; ii) globalization, especially cross-border flows and widening inequalities; iii) demographic changes, in particular the ageing population in the global North; iv) climate change, environmental degradation and the development of the green economy.
Within these trends, ongoing or likely transformations have been identified that have or could have an impact on global labor market dynamics. The section describing each megatrend is accompanied by a box with what we call "signals of change" - contextualizing empirical data that serve as justifications/explanations of the phenomena described in that section. In the context of the global transformations we outline here, the fourth chapter presents a catalogue of emerging occupations, by which we mean both existing (highly dynamic) or incipient occupations and occupations that do not yet exist but are likely to exist in 2030 or beyond
The third chapter was added later in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and is a brief overview of the transformations in the global labor market – some already visible, others likely - due to this global crisis.

***

The study was published in Romanian as part of the project POCU INTL - Quality in higher education: internationalization and databases for the development of Romanian higher education.

Project webpage: pocu-intl.uefiscdi.ro

The FOReSiGHT project
FOReSiGHT - Flexibility and Resilience in Digital Transformation and Intelligent Automation - Advanced Skills and Tools for Academia and Entrepreneurs is a 30-month roject implemented between 2020 - 2023 by a consortium of 7 partners universities, SMEs, NGOs) from 5 countries: Romania, Germany, Italy, Croatia and Belgium.
Overall, FOReSiGHT aims at creating a digital collaboration platform between universities and companies to anticipate and deliver future skills on intelligent automation, digital transformation & algorithmic governance, and foresight, thus fostering resilience and flexibility.

The Foresight Kit for Entrepreneurial Minds
This generation of students needs to embrace the idea of the future with a sense of activism and design. We encourage them to regard the future as a malleable and constructible set of possibilities. This attitude is in stark contrast with people- the youth included- feeling they are witnesses to the future unfolding, or merely in the position to adapt to change as it occurs. Future minded students are the ones exploring, imagining and deliberating potential futures. Students with entrepreneurial ambitions are invited to use the tools in this kit to go even further than imagining and debating the future; they are invited to co-create futures that are desirable for the ecosystems/communities/ clients they aim to serve.
We trust this foresight kit for entrepreneurial minds will provide useful guidance for young people interested in shaping the future. While this is an intellectual journey aimed at university students, the kit is meant to support facilitators in organizing and running a foresight experience. Thus, the kit describes the procedural steps for organizing a foresight process for students interested in generating entrepreneurial ideas that may address the challenges and opportunities of the future, as opposed to merely speculating the opportunities of the present.

The report outlines three scenarios of possible futures for Research and Innovation (R&I) policies in the Western Balkans in 2035. Using a Strategic Foresight approach, the report supports policy makers in creating an enabling environment for R&I policies to thrive and in deciding on priorities for strategic investments for the future. 

The scenarios in the report are based on an extensive co-creation process with more than 700 R&I experts from the Western Balkans, representing academia, civil society, the private sector, international organisations, and central and sub-national governments. To provide inspiration for the implementation of future-proof R&I policies, the report also includes initial roadmaps. 

These are designed to inspire decision-makers by setting targets and the actions needed to develop their R&I systems for the benefit of all citizens in the Western Balkans. The project was launched in July 2020 and the final study was presented at the EU-WB Ministerial Meeting in October 2021.

This is the final report from a foresight study that aimed at supporting the development of the Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe (2025-2027). The study lasted for 18 months and involved a wide range of activities that this report aims at presenting.

These activities aimed at providing early-stage strategic intelligence and sense-making contributions – issues, trends, perspectives, ideas - that could contribute novel elements to the more structured processes of strategic planning that were to follow. The work followed two important directions that were recommended by EFFLA (2012)1 as core elements of bringing foresight into EU R&I policy: knowledge-based review and broad engagement.

Knowledge based review was conducted with the help of the 40 experts who constituted the team that worked on the project. All these experts have contributed as authors to the authorship of the different chapters of this report. About 300 additional experts contributed to the project through its numerous workshops that helped shape the scenarios and ideas about their policy implications, and through membership in the on-line platform of the project at www.futures4europe.eu, which reached 307 people. Last, we acknowledge the 943 experts who responded to our final consultation survey on the implications of our foresight for the directions of EU R&I policy.

The foresight process
The foresight process in support of the 2nd Strategic Plan comprised a wide spectrum of activities:
• As a reference point for the exploratory work, the explicit and implicit impact assumptions of the 1st Strategic Plan were identified and visualised with the help of a qualitative system analysis and modelling tool for causal loop analysis.
• An exploratory analysis of forward-looking sources (e.g. foresight reports, web-based horizon scanning) was conducted to identify relevant trends and signals of unexpected developments. These were discussed in online workshops and on www.futures4europe.eu.
• An outlook on emerging developments in the global and European context of EU R&I policy was developed drawing on a major online workshop in autumn 2021 with some 60 participants, experts and policy makers, who worked with multi-level context scenarios and specific context narratives about emerging disruptions.
• On that basis and in close consultation with the European Commission involving another major workshop in February 2022 which brought together 80 participants, Expert Teams were set up to develop disruptive scenarios in five areas of major interest. Each team ran several internal workshops but also involved further experts and Commission staff in their work, both through the online platform and through a final policy-oriented workshop. The foresight work within the areas of interest resulted in five deep dives on the following topics:
> Climate change, Research, and Innovation: Radical Options from Social Change to Geoengineering
> Hydrogen Economy – A radical alternative
> The EU in a Volatile New World - The challenge of global leadership
> Global Commons
> Transhumanist Revolutions
• Further areas of interest identified since were explored through review papers aiming to capture major trends, developments and scenario sketches in relation to further disruptive developments
> Social Confrontations
> Artificial General Intelligence: Issues and Opportunities
> The Interpenetration of Criminal and Lawful Economic Activities
> The Future of Health
• A third major workshop took place in October 2022 bringing together all the thematic strands of work and addressing possible R&I policy implications from this work. Participation in this workshop reached 250 individuals over 2 days.
• Building on the workshop, the online Dynamic Argumentative Delphi survey Research4Futures collect suggestions from further experts and citizens about the implications of this foresight work for the priorities of EU R&I policy.

This foresight study has been the most widely engaging foresight exercise yet aiming to support EU R&I policy. Through this broad engagement, the study did not only develop intelligence for the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe but also contributed to the development of an EU R&I foresight community, one that is an asset for future R&I policies across Europe. 

Background

An increasingly volatile global geopolitical context is emerging with growing threats not only to global security and governance but also to the EU and neighbourhood countries. Developments in the world and NATO point to Europe’s vulnerability – one that has long been explained, but had yet to be taken seriously. The Russian invasion of Ukraine brought home the realization that the world system is at a crossroads. Talk of multi-polarity, turbulence and possible configurations of the global system has combined with the concern about the future actorness of the EU, or as the 2021 Strategic Foresight Report of the European Commission puts it: “the EU’s capacity and freedom to act”.

If new international blocks and confrontations emerge, this disruption might even go beyond Europe, threatening traditional values, as well as lives and material prosperity of many. While the sudden changes are pushing the EU to reassess its defense capabilities and take a military stance by providing weapons to Ukraine, they must also be seen against the backdrop of an accelerating climate crisis. Impacts of climate change are a direct threat to many regions in the EU, but they also put indirect pressure on migration and the economy. As the war is fueling climate change drivers, many Europeans are torn between contradictory moods: indifference and solidarity, fragmentation and cohesion, empowerment and desperation.

A important driver affecting the EU’s capacity to act is the US foreign policy. Will the US maintain its military influence in Europe, delivering weapons, personnel, and intelligence, as well as pursuing its interests in Eastern Europe or will it take a post-hegemonic position, withdrawing from the continent and leaving conflict resolution up to the EU and the rest of NATO? Such geopolitical reconfigurations are closely entangled with the domestic developments in the US. The EU’s dependence on the transatlantic partnership and NATO is both a source of strength and weakness. As the recent period has shown, an un-cooperative US President and an ambivalent US-China relationship might put the US in a position of dictating terms to the EU in the context of major geopolitical upheaval and reconfigurations, where the rise of new regional powers and the emergence of new actors create uncertainty about future coalitions.

However, the EU is vulnerable along several further dimensions: from access to resources to insufficient capabilities in key technologies including military technologies and dependence on the US for military deterrence, as well as on China for some basic communication technologies. The EU is faced with the urgency of reducing its economic and technological dependencies but the situation remains
delicate in the view of possible shifts in the US government policies and continued dependence on natural resources from other parts of the world. In taking on a more ethical global stance, the EU opens itself up to criticism about double standards and inconsistencies in its policy narratives.

There are already efforts underway to improve the preparedness and make the EU more ‘futureproof’, for instance by anticipating consequences of, and testing responses to, possible shocks and crises. While the EU is frequently assumed to be in a position to claim technological leadership, the arising key question is whether it will rethink its investment focus towards specific dual-use technologies, thus creating capabilities and becoming competitive in the domain of military technologies and industry.

These (and other) uncertainties feed the fear of the future and gives rise to the new geo-political realism: weaponization of everything, increased budgets for deterrence and budget cuts on sociopolitical matters. Accompanying energy shortages and reversing climate neutral energy policies are contributing to the looming economic crisis and societal fragmentation. A central question of the
near and long-term future is: what will the geopolitical power distribution look like?

This report sketches some alternative scenarios of how the geopolitical reconfiguration might evolve in the coming 15 to 20 years. It is based on the work of a team of experts, covering different aspects of geopolitical reconfigurations and future challenges for the EU’s positioning. Next to individual papers as inputs to this report, several virtual and one in-person workshop were organised for further developing and consolidation of the main drivers as well as for developing diverging scenarios on the future of geopolitics and the role of the EU. Additional experts were included in the work as well and consulted to give feedback. A dedicated workshop with EU foresight experts from the Commission services and the member states, helped to provide important insights to complete the scenario development and outline some key policy options.

Green Hydrogen offers a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, changing the world of energy supply completely – geopolitically (some countries depend on their own Renewable Energy sources for their energy supply and not on other countries) and in terms of market structure (no more dependence on a small number of all-powerful oil, carbon and gas companies). Despite today’s inefficiencies in converting energy from nature to Hydrogen and back to power, Hydrogen could be a versatile energy carrier and a central element for energy storage in more abundant but more volatile renewable energy systems. Hydrogen needs to be produced, stored, and transported. Scientific and political discourses range from “hydrogen technology will provide us with the abundance of energy” to “building up hydrogen infrastructure including the necessary renewable energy sources is inefficient and will not lead to any kind of abundance.” For sure is that a fundamental change toward hydrogen as an energy carrier will have deep consequences for consumption and production patterns, global trade, and the reconfiguration of infrastructures.

***

Climate change and the limitations – physically and politically/economically - of fossil fuels foster the need to decarbonise and change to alternative energy production, storage, and carrier systems. Technology in renewable energy improves, and in general, energy efficiency is increasing, but currently, absolute demand for power is increasing.

The technology to form Hydrogen is improving, and more units are built. Also, catalyst technology is advancing. One must expect strong opposition from current stakeholders in fossil and nuclear technology. Although, there is also the option to use nuclear power to form Hydrogen, which many people see as critical. Investments in the infrastructure are high. While mixing Hydrogen with methane for heating is almost feasible today with minor adaptations to the gas pipelines, building up an entire parallel infrastructure for handling pure Hydrogen safely is a massive adaptation in infrastructure. It remains unclear how a transition can be managed and financed and if access to critical raw materials is given. Before hydrogen technology could enter the market in full force, the low efficiency in converting power to Hydrogen power needs to be improved or compensated.

Renewable energy production and catalyst technologies require rare earth metals, precious metals, and large amounts of copper, aluminium, and even sand for construction. Most of these raw materials cannot be found within the EU. How to secure access to these raw materials when there is a race for these resources? In addition, the EU has only limited potential for renewable energy production. Harvesting consequently, e.g., solar energy potentials, would transform the infrastructure significantly. One challenge might be that there could be a mismatch between the availability of solar or wind energy and water. Conflict regarding the use of water is likely in these areas. The electrolysis of water in massive quantities will also put pressure on the water system, which climate change impacts can worsen. In general, water might be scarce when there is more abundance of renewable resources.Any burning (also Hydrogen) under ambient air will lead to the formation of nitrogen oxide, which is a significant cause of air pollution (PM, acidification and eutrophication, precursor for ozone).

Social confrontations signify the struggle about how we want to shape our futures. Rooted in different narratives represented by different social groups they are often competing for the sovereignty of interpretation of what a particular future may look like and how we are to achieve it. These diverging perspectives are usually rooted in past collective experiences and value systems and their interpretations and constitute a point of reference for a personal identity that reinforces a person belonging to a certain group. Social confrontations are not a singular phenomenon; instead, we live in a world of multiple social confrontations, and they co-exist, overlap, and compete. The divides social confrontations create can go across all spheres of life: education, care, health, nutrition, energy, mobility, communication, race, gender, political power, migration, etc.

This policy brief explores how these developments have been perceived in science and society and how they are likely to impact the futures of democracy in Europe. To this end, we present four scenarios that chart diverging pathways on how social confrontations could evolve in the next 15 years under various drivers and trends and what role they could play for the democratic development in the EU. Finally, the policy brief presents conclusions implications for R&I policymaking from the scenarios.

The four scenarios discuss various development paths - they are intended to explore divergent possibilities and do not constitute a normative position. They do not always depict a preferable future. From our view, scenario 1 (“A Resilient and Consensual European Confederation”) is the most positive one of the four and it is helpful to filter the preferable developments that can be influenced by R&I policy making. But also, for the other three, less preferable scenarios (“European Democracy defending itself against totalitarian tendencies”, “The European Fortress”, “Cultural Hegemony Through Global Capitalism”) it is necessary to identify negative developments that could be contained or prevented by R&I policy making. Each scenario is equally important, however, in that it explores alternatives.

In concluding we present implications for R&I policy making in four categories. The first category raises the question how R&I policy on the macro-level can have an impact toward more equity and equality and can shift the benefits of R&I investment more towards society as a whole. This part discusses option on how to apply social criteria for public R&I funds, such as human dignity, solidarity and justice, environmental sustainability, transparency and co-decision-making and their relevance for projects and companies. A further option is to combine social innovations with technological innovation in order to give marginalized groups a chance of participating from the benefit of innovation outputs.

The second part is dedicated to the notion of more democratisation and participation in the process of R&I priority setting and how different social groups can be involved. This includes, for example, structures that prepare decision making on R&I investments. New approaches to democratize the decision-making processes on how investments in R&I are taken may lead the way forward. Tu such end, it might be important to include employees and other social groups in the decision-making process, so to have a better representation of people who will be affected by the consequences in the future, e.g. the younger generation. An additional set of suggested changes involves the governance structures of decision-making processes as such: new procedures need to be learned and taught to achieve results that are acceptable for society as a whole and for social groups in particular.

How R&I policy could be geared towards the stimulation of more socio-ecological transformation is the focus of the third part, discussing the point on how to limit the footprint of R&I outcomes. The climate crisis will be a major cause of adversity and desperation in oursociety in the future. It will bring about more inequity, more inequality and more social confrontation. Accordingly, containing and mitigating the effects of the climate crisis needs to be the focus of socially responsible R&I policy that gives answers to the question if ecological transformation and economic growth are contradictions or if they can be reconciled.

The fourth and final part of the policy implications looks into some future European R&I focus areas of relevance to the four scenarios, especially on artificial intelligence and technology platforms as well as on the future of housing and living. The latter one is discussing options of affordable housing that respond to the changing lifestyles and climate change paradigm. Topics for Artificial Intelligence and
Information Technology include new approaches to assess the quality and reliability of information and sources as well as socially responsible products that pay tribute to our diverse populations and cultures.

The report provides a brief overview of the insights captured during the second Mutual Learning Event (MLE2) which was held online on September 26, 2024.

Big Tech is rewiring the world. These very large private companies are leaders in research and development (R&D) and now wield unprecedented and unparalleled influence in the economy and beyhond. In this redefined world, Europe faces a number of agenda-setting questions. This policy brief aims to anticipate the implications of ‘Big Tech’ for Europe’s future by 2040.

The future(s) of Big Tech: Questions, challenges, strategies for Europe

Big Tech are here to stay. But they do not stay the same. They have a hunger for innovation. In terms of R&D, the top 5 US Big Tech spend in a single year more than the double of what the EU-27 committed collectively to the Horizon Europe, which runs for seven years. Big Tech corporates leverage cloud infrastructure, digital platform business models, and increasingly AI technologies to capture expansive market positions and to achieve superior performance. Another obvious fact is that these economic titans are not from Europe.

A set of questions thus suggest themselves: In a market-driven economy, does it matter for Europe? If it matters, will conventional remedies like regulation and competition policy be enough to cope with the ramifications? Is it time to go post-neoliberal phase and engage in informational industrial activism of a disruptive kind? Or, on the contrary, will bottom-up decentralised entrepreneurial incrementalism sort out any temporary European competitiveness and governance failures?

In a new report to the European Commission, these four questions are dealt with by means of a scenario-building exercise. Four authors, who also counted with inputs from 30 experts from industry and academia, make an attempt to anticipate how the European Union can regain its edge in a world re-wired by Big Tech.

Four scenarios put forward alternative challenges for the year 2040 from a Research & Innovation perspective (see Box). Scenario 1 ‘Winners Tech All’ is a world of high openness and mega-economies of scale and scope. In contrast, scenario 2 ‘Pax Technologica’ could be seen as a robustly negotiated multipolar environment. Scenario 3, ‘Re-matching’, envisions the recovery of a mixed tech economy where alternatives to incumbent Big Tech are viable. Finally, Scenario 4 is called ‘Closet Liberalism’and portrays a low-obstruction/wide-arena world where self-organised economic dynamics propel Europe back onto the global competitive map.

The policy implications are considered. The policy posture across scenarios and strategic stances for each scenario is rooted in three basic premises, i.e. the imperative to: protect pluralism (economic and societal), maintain a cosmopolitan outlook (in world affairs), and safeguard natural commons (including Earth and orbital resources). Based on these assumptions and the scenario analysis, number of strategic conclusions are drawn.

Out of the general and scenario-specific portfolios that were generated, a number headline policy options can be considered:

- The EU should reinforce and develop its own regulations and anti-monopolistic actions to constrain the market power of Big Tech Companies, but these are not sufficient to ensure autonomous economic development and well-being in the EU;

- It is needed that a new generation of European productive actors emerges to generate a productive capacity of the old continent in new infrastructuring fields, and if these are built as cross-European state-owned entities this is an option not to be disregarded.

- The EU Framework Programme and national research and innovation (R&I) budgets should be benchmarked not only against their past performance but also compared to the spending and strategies of Big Tech;

- ‘Big bet’ investments are needed in Europe, coupled with more serendipity-inducing experimental approaches.

Scenario sketches

Scenario 1: Winners tech all

This is a story of modernisation orchestrated around digital high-tech. The economy is not run by Big Tech but on infrastructures these private companies own and hone. Growing dependencies can be tolerated because benefits are shared and businesses are empowered to pursue their plans. The operating framework inherited from Globalisation assures a modicum of stability, namely informal institutions like the G7 or the G20 and formal institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. The US remains the sole superpower and maintains its role as agenda-setter. The room for manoeuvre for the EU is limited and it takes its place in the international division of labour.

Scenario 2: Pax technologica

The economy is a negotiated tension between pro-global business interests and pro-local (local referring to groups of countries with aligned interests cooperating and competing with each other, forming coopetitive clubs) political constraints. The drive to take advantage of economies of scale and scope has been tamed by enhanced regulation and hardened borders. Supply-chains are splintered and directed towards suppliers within the mega-regions composed of preferential partners, increasing costs but reducing uncertainty. Existing large tech firms must accommodate each other. Existing platform models are entrenched but are forced to grant access to their digital and logistic facilities, leading newcomers to not investing in their own subversive infrastructure. Stability is a value, not so much efficiency. The US retains its role as an economic-financial and political-military switchboard, but for a diminishing part of the globe. China is still challenging the dominance of the US both politically and economically. Other regional powers emerge. The EU is a switchboard of external and internal pressures, and this is the “Brussels Consensus”.

Scenario 3: Re-matching

What shapes the development of individual nations regions is their own path in a pluralist international scene. Pro-active productive policy makes sense, especially if coordinated among players. After years of blitz-scaling the tide turned, and Big Tech went into a fizzdown. Cross-regional/trans-sectoral innovative players gained mass and found expansive growth niches at key intersections of a complex (mix) economy with an active role of the public sector associated to national governments and international organizations. Commons governance generate citizen engagement and global fragmentation is controlled. An overstretched self-consumed US has to divide protagonism with other world powers. The EU is a network builder, it supports the catalysing and protection of the new core-inputs of the modernising economy.

Scenario 4: Closet liberalism

In this world commercial and financial integration proceeds and power continues to trespass national borders and overwhelm States. Large multinationals are seen to have a large impact in public governance, but tech monopolies matured becoming expensive and bad quality. There is a mesh of networks and competing authorities create an opportunity for decentralisation, especially at the local and city levels. The US serves its own interests and is more reluctant to assume its responsibilities in global public good provision. The EU preaches the superiority of the market order, but inside the EU everyone tries to re-interpret the rules of the game in its own benefit (fiscal responsibility is for the population not for businesses).

How important is the EU Framework Programme for Europe’s ability to respond effectively to potential future disruptions that could unfold from now to 2040?

What are the implications of those disruptions for the directions of EU research & innovation in the period 2025-2027?

These are the questions posed by the Research4Futures Dynamic Argumentative Delphi survey, carried out between 6th – 18th of December 2022 by Institutul de Prospectiva, which engaged almost 950 contributors from Europe and beyond.

The disruptions explored in the survey were drawn from recent foresight work performed by the Foresight on Demand consortium on behalf of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD), namely two projects: Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan for Horizon Europe, and project S&T&I FOR 2050. Science, Technology and Innovation for Ecosystem Performance – Accelerating Sustainability Transitions. These projects delivered so-called foresight scenarios at the time horizon of 2040, but the scope, methodologies and final results were different.

The case studies developed in the two projects are rather extensive texts, so for a better user experience in the Research4Futures survey, these contents were clustered and significantly condensed, resulting in eleven domains, each presented in a one-page text. In the survey, each domain page was structured under three sections:
i) a brief description of the disruption(s) in the respective domain; where the disruptions encompass both crises and opportunities, hopes and fears;
ii) a set of brief future scenarios that explore different ways the disruptions might unfold and their consequences,
iii) a final section on implications for R&I, in light of the disruptions.

The figure below showcases the way respondents assessed the importance of the EU Framework Programme for Europe’s ability to respond effectively to the potential future disruptions within each of the domains explored in the survey.

Notably, respondents regard the EU Framework Programme as an important vector of the EU in addressing challenges and opportunities brought forth by future disruptions, casting an average score between 4 and 5 (on the scale from 1 to 5) with regards to all domains, with a minor exception.

Second, contributors to the survey view the EU Framework Programme to be of utmost relevance and importance in connection to the future of Artificial intelligence; suggesting a significant role of research and innovation in improving AI applications and establishing ethical frameworks for AI developments, in shaping the nature of human–AI collaboration. The top R&I directions stemming from the survey are:

• AI improvements for specific applications
• The nature of AI and human intelligence
• AI in medical applications
• Understanding cooperation between humans and AGI systems
• Ethical standards, AI regulatory sandboxes

To explore the full results of the Research4Futures survey we warmly invite you to consult the report below.

Results for the working group Water are available at: http://foresight.cnr.it/working-groups/wg-water.html

Results for the working group Complexity are available at: http://foresight.cnr.it/working-groups/wg-comple-xxi.html 

Results for the working group Models, Algorithms, and Data for the Future are available at: http://foresight.cnr.it/working-groups/wg-mad4future.html 

Results for the working group Materials are available at: http://foresight.cnr.it/working-groups/wg-materials.html 

Article "STEM materials: a new frontier for an intelligent sustainable world" by Pier Francesco Moretti is available at https://bmcmaterials.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42833-019-0004-4 

Results for the working group Health are available at: http://foresight.cnr.it/working-groups/wg-health.html

Results for the working group Food are available at: http://foresight.cnr.it/working-groups/wg-food.html 

Results for the working group Energy are available at: http://foresight.cnr.it/working-groups/wg-energy.html 

Europe is facing major societal challenges (climate change, demographic trends, cultural shifts induced by technology, new geopolitical balances, among others), which are radically changing the landscape of the European Union. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the instability of the markets and the economy and the difficulties of national and European public administrations in responding to the priorities of the citizens, have contributed to the increased detachment and lack of trust among citizens. While this poses risks to the
formal structures and institutions traditionally framing and holding together the European social system based on democracy and the free market, the EU is pursuing major transition programmes in order to respond to the major societal challenges. Its concerns with resilience extend to both, the structures and institutions that hold Europe together, and to the transition programmes that it wishes to drive.

We consider civic resilience, as the ability of a community, city, or society to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to adversities, challenges, or disruptions. Civic resilience is a core concern in crises as well as in transitions. It is about civil society surviving changes (disruptions, tipping points, crises etc. whether they are abrupt or founded in long-term developments). It calls for local commitment, preparedness beyond the support of the public administration and the private sector. It´s about civil society, both the community (social organizations) and the individuals (citizens), taking the initiative – as a key actor framing any social system –
to lead social change.

Exploring alternative futures addressing radical changes in society can help better prepare for future crises and strengthen the resilience of civil society today. Therefore, in this policy brief, we aim to assist policymakers by devising four possible future scenarios in 2040 and by considering their implications for today. While the challenges considered are global, policy implications are addressed especially about the European research and innovation policy. Four alternative scenarios were identified around two main axes (technological and economic adaptation and social & environmental stewardship):

• The first scenario, where both techno-economic adaptation and socio-environmental stewardship are high, represents an ideal future. This scenario (best of worlds) would be featured by low levels of community and individual resilience (welfare annihilates survival instinct): civil society would not be ready to face an unexpected event, totally devoid of self-protection mechanisms.
• The second scenario, where techno-economic adaptation is low but socio-environmental stewardship is high, means institutional void but strong community consensus. Here the risk -in terms of civic resilience- is that if the community prevails totally, then individuality is cancelled. Citizens are subordinated to the collective, which means the coexistence of a high level of community resilience and a low level of individual resilience.
• The third scenario, where high techno-economic adaptation meets low soc-environmental stewardship, represents a risk of rupture in the social fabric due to ubiquity and omnipresence of technology (AI, Singularity, Transhumanism?), an anomic society where community resilience is low -or even maybe annulled- even individual resilience may be high: in a homogenised alienated society
  where social institutions are annulled the only possible resistance may come from the individuals (a minority).
• The fourth scenario, the worst-case one, represents the survival mode where the menace is extreme, total and constant. Low techno-economic adaptation meets low socio-environmental stewardship, producing a vicious circle of desolation characterized by the fact that the social fabric is broken. It would be a radical context where both community and individual resilience may be high because
  hostile environments reinforce survival instinct (both individual and collective)

Each scenario provides a different point of view towards the situation in the EU today and what could and should be done by EU R&I policy, and by related policy fields that will affect the efficacy of the R&I policy pursuits towards civic resilience.

Luxembourg Strategy, the Directorate for Strategic Economic Foresight was part of the Luxembourg Ministry of the Economy from 2021 to 2023. Luxembourg Strategy's core accomplishment is ‘ECO2050’ – a strategic economic vision for Luxembourg by 2050, published in Sept. 2023 and funded by the Ministry of the Economy. To ensure its relevance, the vision is adaptable to varying economic growth and population projections and to other similar countries than Luxembourg. It prioritises a balance between technological, natural and social solutions, while fostering private sector participation alongside public investment.

This vision anticipates three possible future scenarios – Socio-economic Sleepwalking, Bio-regional Circularity and Techno-digital Optimism – alongside a potential disruptive wildcard, the ‘Red Queen’ scenario. 

At the core, it argues in favour of a human-centered, nature-positive economy, with business-led clean technologies and climate adapted infrastructures and carbon services. 

The Foresight Vision ECO2050 is structured in 10 building blocks:

1. Strategic autonomy since boosting domestic production reduces dependence on imports and decouples the economy from shocks on international markets 
2. Circularity and sufficiency since saving energy and raw materials makes it easier to keep with environmental and financial constraints 
3. Focusing on people, knowledge and wellbeing since societal and organisational innovation creates new businesses, attracts talent and preserves a high quality of life 
4. Reconciling the digital, ecological and social transitions since building a competitive economy that manages the environmental and social footprint of new technologies facilitates social and ecological progress 
5. Critical redundancy and strategic storage capacity since duplicating solutions and building up reserves of essential goods and services ensures greater resilience and adaptability for the economy 
6. Administrative simplification since improving the environment for entrepreneurs, investors and researchers by streamlining procedures boosts the economy by making it more agile 
7. Economic diversification since adapting key sectors to new challenges in the name of the general interest strengthens the preservation of common goods and the capacity of the existing economic system to turn transitions into business opportunities 
8. Sustainable economic diplomacy since forging close diplomatic and commercial ties with partners who share the same ecological and social values creates synergies of strengths and assets, while cementing the global governance of resources 
9. Sustainable and solid public finances since guarding against budget imbalances will help financing transitions and efforts towards greater sustainability 
10. Anticipation and speed since planning for the long term, constantly adapting to increasingly rapid change and keeping an eye on developments gives a comparative economic advantage by defusing threats and reinforcing opportunities. 

The governance of the ECO2050 foresight process was as diverse and rich as was possible with the means at the disposal of Luxembourg Strategy and concerned 1300 persons, encompassing public administrations, national thematic observatories, research, business, federations, municipalities, citizens, youth organisations, foresight experts... 

Luxembourg Stratégie greatly benefited from international support from the EU Commission Vice-President for Foresight Maroš Šefčovič's team and the SG Foresight Unit, the OECD SG Foresight Unit, as well as from France Stratégie and Futuribles. Please read the full report and the condensed brochure ECO2050 here: https://luxstrategie.gouvernement.lu/fr/publicationsbis/rapport-vision-eco2050.html

In this brief, we explore practices and processes by which information should be exchanged between knowledge actors and policy-makers with the intention to produce scientifically informed policies in Europe. We can see an increasing prominence of science in many public debates and the increasing willingness of governments to mobilize scientific and other advice mechanisms in the context of public debate.

The aim of science for policy is to produce actionable science, however, the level of control over those producing the knowledge and their responsibility for the consequences of the action is a matter of important societal dispute. Debates and interactions in the political and public space encompass interest-driven channels of communication, including scientific advice but also lay knowledge.

Therefore, science for policy needs to integrate knowledge from different sources and this requires building connections and relationships between actors from different scientific disciplines and across public administrations, affecting both the nature of science and the nature of policy-making. Science for policy may face adjustments in its modes of operation and its formats of interaction, which – at times – may well be at odds with the dominant empirical-analytical perception of science.

We make a deep dive into developments which are currently underway in the realm of research and innovation policy, and which can take us to different futures, including events largely unpredictable and decisions bound by constraints of diverse nature. We identify possible policy implications based on five scenarios of the future (in 2030), which highlight different types of science for policy ecosystems:

• Scenario A on societal-challenge-driven and mission-oriented research and policy provides the context for advice mechanisms to policy. Such a context can be amenable for scientific advice but it also entails risks for science.
• Scenario B on participatory science and policy support ‘under construction’ opens up the discussion on broadening the sources of evidence; why and how to include new types of actors beyond the ‘usual suspects’ (well-connected experts). This has implications for how to promote science and develop the policy support system. 
• Scenario C on data enthusiasm and AI overtaking scientific policy advice illustrates the role of data, AI and international governance challenges and it alarms about over-reliance on multinational data providers, which may lead to a loss of transparency, autonomy and (normative) reflection in scientific advice. We should ask whether technology can be neutral, and whether scientific advice can be normative. 
• Scenario D on open science and policy support points out that open science is not the same as open scientific advice whereby experts can speak frankly. Useful scientific advice has characteristics of a protected space where also unpopular (but well-founded) opinions can be voiced. 
• Scenario E on policy-based evidence-making in incumbent-driven industrial policy increases weight on advice mechanisms and embedding data, evidence, and experimentation within government agencies, and government research and regulatory organisations. 

The study focuses geographically on Europe and looks toward 2050, on regimes of stewardship of land and sea and address the role of ownership, access and use rights in rural areas (cities excluded), multiple uses of spaces (both land and sea), biodiversity, food (both aquaculture, fisheries and agriculture), energy (use of renewables), raw materials (mining etc.), carbon removal and storage, adaptation to climate change. While the challenges are global, they are addressed especially from the European research and innovation policy perspective. 

The immense social and technological evolution of the Anthropocene continues transforming the Earth’s surface and its dynamics through extensive (mis-)use of its resources, both on the land and in the sea. This policy brief develops scenarios on rural and marine areas in Europe in 2050 and subsequent implications to today’s R&I policy in Europe. Each scenario considers i) Economy and technology, ii) Demographics, lifestyles and values, iii) Governance and iv) Environment.

In Scenario A, European Civic Ecovillages pursue self-sufficiency and contribute to establishing a cooperative, locally oriented, caring economy restoring the ecosystem carrying capacities in land and sea. In Scenario B on Sustainable High-tech Europe, European businesses enjoy global leadership in regenerative and multi-functional high-tech solutions for energy, aquaculture and agriculture. In Scenario C on the United States of Europe, centrally planned Europe is divided between intensive use of land and sea and large conservation areas. Scenario D on European Permacrisis portrays Europe in a post-growth and politically scattered context that leads to low rates of innovation and fragmented use of land and sea.

None of the scenarios features a decisive solution to the global climate and biodiversity crises. Scenario A forcefully targets the resolution of the biodiversity crisis in Europe, by aligning human practices with nature, but provides little support to global climate and biodiversity crises. Scenario B proactively tackles the biodiversity crisis both in Europe and internationally but struggles with the fragmentation of efforts and with scaling up good practices and wider impact to curb the crisis. Scenarios C and D with intensive use of nature reduce biodiversity. Thanks to European-wide coordination Scenario C can protect vast areas with positive impacts to biodiversity, whereas Scenario D also struggles with the major fragmentation of conservation efforts and its detrimental impact on biodiversity. Such challenges illustrate the importance of balanced approaches in developing both local and global solutions to climate and biodiversity crises.

All scenarios depict a future of rural and marine areas in the context of extreme weather events and ecological crises, all be it with different intensities. Social developments, instead, range from major social confrontations to more collaborative and inclusive practices. Their policy implications include, among others, the need to address major risks of patchy land use that hamper the sufficient size of ecosystems and diminish resilience. The scenarios also touch upon integrated spatial planning of urban, rural and marine areas, and how the effective use of spaces can benefit from the further extension of user rights. Future research could explore if and how land ownership models in some rural areas could be replaced or complemented with public ownership and user rights. Furthermore, policy implications include a need for balancing sustainability with food affordability and security in different modalities of agriculture and aquaculture. The challenges of climate and biodiversity crises addressed by the scenarios suggest that balanced approaches are needed in developing both local and global solutions.

This brief is the result of one of eight Deep Dive Foresight Studies in the project ‘European R&I Foresight and Public Engagement for Horizon Europe’ conducted by the Foresight on Demand’ consortium for the European Commission. During the spring of 2023, an expert team identified factors of change and organised two scenario and one policy implications workshops also engaging experts from academia, business and public administration around Europe. The process was also supported by discussions in the Horizon Europe Foresight Network.

This study considers the interpenetration of criminal and lawful economic activities, with new technologies and unregulated terrains offering new opportunities for new types of interpenetration. We explore the possibility of differentiating, regulating, and controlling criminal and legal activities and markets, the level of control technically feasible and socially and economically desirable, among other relevant issues.  We analyse the following issues, among others:

• Is there a possibility of differentiating and controlling criminal and legal markets and economic activities? 
• What level of control is technically feasible and (at the same time) socially and economically desirable?  
• To some extent is it possible to establish the lawful origins of funds used in every transaction?  
  
  The study is relevant for several reasons:
• Crimes have wide-ranging, major impacts on the economy, society and environment, when connected to lawful economic activities.Quite often these connections (“interpenetrations”) are not detected  - or not reported for various reasons.
• Economic hardship and crises are likely to reinforce the incentives for committing criminal economic activities.
• New technologies might offer new opportunities for new or “refined” criminal economic activities.
• Economic criminals are often innovative and enter unregulated terrains (e.g.,some commons, metaverse, etc.).
• Lack of resources and skills to fight economic crime is a major hurdle.

This report summarizes the results of a foresight process that started at the end of 2020 with the goal to develop reference foresight scenarios. Foresight scenarios are a tool to improve strategy development and decision making in a context of turbulence, uncertainty, novelty, and ambiguity. Recent events, such as the COVID pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, made clear that being prepared for the unknown and unexpected becomes increasingly important. The reference scenarios presented in this report aim to help decision makers to increase the preparedness of their organisations under increasingly unpredictable circumstances.

Airborne transmission is considered one of the most common ways of transmitting respiratory viruses. The reach of airborne pathogens and persistence of aerosolized particles suspended in the air are a significant concern for the spread of pandemic and seasonal respiratory diseases. This is particularly relevant in indoor spaces where most respiratory infections occur. Controlling the transmission of airborne pathogens is therefore a cornerstone of public health efforts to manage and prevent the spread of infectious diseases, ensuring safety and health for individuals and communities. Technologies that allow such control are essential to address the challenge.

This report is the output of a comprehensive study which evaluates the potential of the current technology landscape for suppressing indoor airborne pathogen transmission. The analysis outlines two main technology groups: those for detecting airborne pathogens and those for decontaminating air and surfaces. It identifies several key technologies in each group, and assesses their maturity, impact, and potential priority for funding. It outlines the drivers, enablers, and barriers for the development and adoption of these technologies, providing insights into factors that may influence their future implementation. It also explores forward-looking perspectives with scenarios for future health crises and offers recommendations for policy and research to address the challenges and leverage the opportunities in the field of indoor air quality.

This report, part of the FUTURINNOV project—a collaboration between the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency—provides the second literature review of third-party reports, in a continuous workstream that surfaces periodically cross-sector emerging technologies and breakthrough innovations.
It summarises findings in a final selection of 30 signals and trends through an iterative methodology focused on their potential impact and novelty.
These findings are categorised and analysed across the 10 critical technology areas defined by the European Commission, as well as through other frameworks such as the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform and the EIC’s portfolios and specific taxonomy.
The report concludes with a cross-cutting analysis and offers recommendations to support the EIC’s strategic intelligence, particularly in prioritising innovation funding.
Additionally, it aims to raise awareness among EU policymakers about technological developments that may not yet be widely known.

This report documents the process and findings of a horizon scanning exercise, part of a series under the FUTURINNOV (FUTURe-oriented detection and assessment of emerging technologies and breakthrough INNOVation) project, a collaboration between the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), aiming to bolster the EIC's strategic intelligence through foresight and anticipatory methodologies.
The workshop, held on 13 May 2024, had as its primary goal the evaluation and prioritisation of trends and signals on emerging technologies and breakthrough innovation, across all technolo-gy readiness levels (TRLs), within the EIC's Advanced Materials portfolio and with a particular fo-cus on their use in the Energy sector.

Signals for the workshop were gathered from experts, literature review, and text/data mining of patents, publications, and EU-funded projects. These signals were then scrutinised for their sig-nificance to the field's future by a diverse group of sector experts which led to the identification of nine key topics: accelerated material design/synthesis; biomaterials as part of the circular economy; advanced materials allowing new applications; closed loop battery recycling; innova-tions in catalysis; organic batteries for sustainable energy storage; design to performance bat-teries; design to cost batteries; and electrochemical water treatment. Furthermore, the workshop identified additional wild cards with high novelty and disruptive potential such as: circularity of materials (safe and sustainable by design); membranes / separators; process optimisation; 3D printing of electrode materials for energy and environmental engineering applications; and use of AI for the study of materials.
Participants also highlighted various factors that could influence the development, adoption, and promotion of these emerging technologies, which can be grouped under the following categories: governance and compliance frameworks; funding; collaboration and knowledge exchange; sustainable and efficient development; infrastructure and technological advancement and limita-tions; industry and market dynamics and constraints; innovation and risk management; supply chain and raw materials; and talent development.

Stories and narratives are a powerful tool of Futures Literacy and Futures Thinking. In recent years, they have been fighting for attention next to scenarios and trend research within the Foresight discipline, and there is a good reason for it. Adding up to 21 stories, the narratives in this booklet deal with the planetary emergency, the existential threat of climate change and the biodiversity crisis, which are driving the European Green Deal. They were built on ideas by people from all around the world. Some were experts in the field, some purely engaged citizens with a story to tell. Stories from 2050 range from plausible sci-fi stories of the future to fictional fairy tales that provoke abstract thinking. Some stories are hopeful; others are concerning. They are going to stimulate your thinking by providing different perspectives and layers of understanding.

Innovation is changing in several dimensions. First, the initially closed innovation processes are complemented by various forms of open innovation. Second, consequently, innovation is not only performed by companies, but other actors, like users or non-governmental organisations get involved. Third, the dominance of product innovation based on hardware components is not only complemented but also partly substituted by digital components including software. Finally, the initially envisaged impact of innovation on firms and countries; economic success has been significantly widened in its contribution to sustainable development. Consequently, the existing IP regime is challenged by both its processes and its products, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

We explore how these changes in several dimensions of innovation might influence the IP regimes, its processes, and products, including their implementation and impacts in the future.

This framework supports the ethical preparation, implementation, and evaluation of participatory processes in research funding and (applied) research & innovation (R&I). It is intended to help the user understand the context within which they undertake participatory activities and guides them through mapping and addressing ethical challenges and limitations that might arise in the process. 

The framework has been developed with a focus on the activities of research funding organizations (RFOs), including participation in strategy development and agenda setting, call topic definition and formulation, (project and proposal) evaluation processes, and R&I projects. 

It addresses different contexts, resources, and (stakeholder) needs that impact decision making to ensure that participatory processes are carried out in an ethical manner. It also provides guidance to implement stakeholder participation while upholding principles of fairness, transparency, equality, privacy, and sustainability. Our guidelines have been set up to support ethics review and evaluation procedures that assess the planning and implementation of participatory processes and provide a frame of reference for stakeholders to discuss and understand participation in R&I.

Commissioned by the RCC, the DLR-PT study "Unleashing the Potential for Competitiveness: Trends in the Western Balkans". It presents trends that are likely to shape the region's competitiveness until 2035. It examines the potential impact on inclusive growth and provides examples that could be useful for the economies of the Western Balkans (WB). Based on desk research, expert interviews and an online trends workshop, the DLR-PT's Foresight team prepared the study in March and April 2023. It provides stakeholders with evidence-based insights to prepare for future developments and help formulate effective policy options and strategies. The study focuses on four key areas defined by the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2020: the enabling environment, human capital, markets and the innovation ecosystem. Through desk research, qualitative interviews and expert workshops, it identifies trends that provide a comprehensive view of the likely evolution of competitiveness over the next 12 years, enabling policymakers to anticipate future challenges. 

The study provides a methodological overview of Strategic Foresight and delves into the trends within the identified pillars, providing a summary of findings and recommendations for future action. By highlighting the trajectory of competitiveness and its implications, the study provides policymakers with valuable insights to effectively navigate the evolving landscape and foster sustainable growth in the Western Balkans.

Welcome to "Global Futures of Climate”, the first Course in our series on Global Systems designed for individuals and organisations committed to facing global challenges and finding solutions.

This self-paced, online Climate Education Course is scientifically-based, and incredibly well researched to give you a deep understanding of our emerging world, providing a solid basis for you to build your personal, professional, and family futures. The innovative solutions offered align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Course Content includes 12 Lessons across 3 Modules: Climate Change, Energy Systems, and Ecosystem. There are two lessons in each, examining the challenges, and addressing the alternatives. 

The Course Content incorporates over 100 learning resources, including:

• 12 Lessons over 3 Modules: Climate Change, Energy Systems, Ecosystem.
• 12 Lessons over 3 Modules: Climate Change, Energy Systems, Ecosystem.
• Four lessons per Module, two on the challenges, two addressing the solutions.
• 12 Instructor videos (one per Lesson) to guide you through the Course Content and Resources .
• Over 40 expert videos (climate and ocean scientists, EC, UN, OECD, European Parliament, Carbon Brief, WWF, World Bank, Universities)
• Over 50 expert articles/reports (NASA, UN, IPCC, UNFCC, UNSDGs, State of the Planet, Blue Carbon Initiative, Greenpeace,
• Universities, UNDP, Global Commission for Adaptation, to name a few).
• 36 reflection questions to journal your progress.
• 60 fun quiz Qs to test knowledge gained.
• Certificate of Completion.

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Center (JRC), the European Commissions's science and knowledge service.

It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. This report is based on research of the JRC. It does neither include any information or data collected in the context of the EU Observatory of Critical Technologies, nor does it prejudge the future work of the Observatory. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

FAO’s Office of Innovation is working with partners on an FAO Chief Scientist initiative on Foresight on emerging agrifood technologies and innovations, aligned with the UN 2.0 process and the FOFA 2022: engaging all key actors of agricultural innovation systems in the foresight on emerging technologies and innovations to better prepare for alternative futures, feeding it into anticipatory action, and convening the global community for constructive dialogue and knowledge exchange. The aim is to support policymakers, investors and innovation actors in their approaches and decision-making. The study assesses a selection of technologies and innovations, which potentially could be of paramount importance in addressing agrifood challenges until 2050, as well as the most important trends and drivers that will influence the emergence of agrifood technologies and innovations and their triggers of change, including some regional aspects. The goal is also to build plausible future scenarios for the evolvement of the emerging technologies and innovations in the future with the time horizon of 2050 to inform future-oriented policymaking. The report is built with inputs from a multistakeholder Delphi survey and online workshops with experts.

The chemical industry is a significant contributor to the EU’s economy. It is simultaneously instrumental to the green and digital transition and exposed to its effects. A steady supply of (green) chemicals is required to deploy renewable energy generators, insulate Europe’s building stock and create reusable and recyclable consumer goods. On the other hand, chemical synthesis is an energy-intensive process inherently dependent on carbon-based feedstock (currently derived almost exclusively from fossil fuels). In addition, chemistry is a global industry with international value chains, where the EU both collaborates and competes with other countries for materials, knowledge and skills. Transforming the European chemical industry into a sustainable motor for the green and digital transition will require investments in infrastructure, assets and skills. Focus should be placed on chemicals that are crucial to this Twin Transition, Europe’s resilience, or both. The long lead time required for the deployment of infrastructure and the development of skills means that such investments must be made now to achieve targets set for 2050. In connection with these issues, the report at hand aims to give insights into a number of value chains that are strategic to EU economy. It considers which chemicals and innovations are vital to transforming these value chains as well as rendering them more resilient and future-fit. To this end, a participatory workshop-based foresight approach was implemented to provide a unique set of insights from stakeholders and translate them into actions and policy recommendations.

This report documents the process and findings of a horizon scanning exercise, part of a series under the FUTURINNOV (FUTURe-oriented detection and assessment of emerging technologies and breakthrough INNOVation) project, a collaboration between the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), aiming to bolster the EIC's strategic intelligence through foresight and anticipatory methodologies.

The workshop, held on 24 April 2024, had as its primary goal the evaluation and prioritisation of trends and signals on emerging technologies and breakthrough innovation, across all technology readiness levels (TRLs) and within the EIC's Quantum technologies portfolio.

Signals for the workshop were gathered from experts, literature review, and text/data mining of patents, publications, and EU-funded projects. These signals were then scrutinised for their significance to the field's future by a diverse group of sector experts which led to the identification of nine key topics: quantum sensing; quantum algorithms for lattice-based computational fluid dynamics models; materials for quantum; Artificial Intelligence for quantum; error correction; solid-state scalability; quantum for Artificial Intelligence; quantum as a service – metacloud; and quantum computers. Furthermore, the workshop identified additional wild cards with high novel-ty and disruptive potential such as quantum sensing AI on edge and molecular spin qubits.
Participants also highlighted various factors that could influence the development, adoption, and promotion of these emerging technologies, which can be grouped under the following categories: technical advancements; investment and infrastructure support; cross-sector collaboration; regulatory navigation; talent acquisition; market maturity; and application utility.

This report provides a literature review of publications authored by numerous external organisations. It summarises 34 signals and trends of emerging technologies and breakthrough innovations across the 11 primary categories of a taxonomy defined by the European Innovation Council (EIC). The authors investigate not only what is deemed most novel in multiple application domains but what is worth the attention of European Union (EU) policy audiences involved with priority-setting and decision-making.

This work that has led to this literature review (1) reviews and evaluates 186 reports and articles on emerging technologies, (2) captures 489 signals, of which 86 have been short-listed and 34 selected for this report, (3) creates an internal database of signals which is used to digest and analyse the evolution of signals and novel technologies (4) connects signals with EIC portfolios and other European Commission (EC) initiatives such as policies surrounding critical technologies and Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) investments that, together with the primary and secondary levels of the EIC taxonomy, provide multiple types of analysis and insights (5) draws conclusions that aim to support the EIC’s funding prioritisation and additionally, provide reflections on EIC portfolio setting.

By using the best publicly-available data to produce a harmonised internal database, along with an appropriate filtering and selection methodology, the authors aim to provide a support platform for future-oriented technology analysis of relevance for other EU policy-making initiatives.

Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to the European Union and to the world. As a response, among other things, the European Green Deal aims to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050, boost the economy through green technology, create sustainable industry and transport, and cut pollution. The transition towards greener and more sustainable economies is a game changer in the EU labour market alongside digitalisation and automation. Skill needs will change with impacts far beyond the key occupations driving them, affecting all economic sectors.

Europe needs to promote and support green employment, address the skilling and reskilling of workers, and anticipate changes in workplaces of the future. In order to get a better grasp on potential future outcomes, and better anticipate their potential policy implications, a foresight Deep Dive has been carried out. The Deep Dive uses a broad conceptualization of skills that encompasses the full palette from scientific and engineering skills to vocational and crafts-like skills. All are needed in the green labour market, although the scenario-led focus here for the most part is on skills of vocational professions. This policy brief presents the main findings.

A set of four different scenarios for the futures of green skills and jobs in Europe in 2050 were crafted:

• Scenario A: Green technology-intensive Europe: Struggling to fill all the green jobs
• Scenario B: Apocalypse Soon: Fighting skills mismatches in a degraded environment
• Scenario C: Feeling the pain: A workforce left behind in a non-green world
• Scenario D: Green leapfrogging: Old, mismatched Europe surrounded by new green giants

Climate change impacts are one of the main threats to human society and natural ecosystems. Even though natural dynamics also have a substantial effect on climate, there is no doubt that current alterations of climate with the correlated impacts are manmade. Alongside continuing efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, there may be possibilities to geoengineer climate systems to reduce or mask the impacts of climate change. There are also strong arguments for large-scale changes in social practices for adapting to and mitigating climate change. The big challenge comes with the necessary scale of interventions as those changes need to be large-scale and global, putting new challenges to all levels of governance from local to global.

Many present drivers seem to indicate a gloomy future for the climate. The current individualistic mindsets drive overconsumption and overproduction. The offsetting of carbon emissions is sometimes used to compensate for dirty activities. Intense competition for natural resources is not safeguarding their sustainability. Bio-holistic worldviews confront anthropocentric views, but climate delay has emerged as the new denial and the lack of courage to address climate supremacists, i.e. the global wealthy, shows little change of direction. According to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the wealthiest top 1% were responsible for 15% of global emissions, nearly twice as much as the world’s poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7%. Overly optimistic beliefs in tech or social transformation to solve it prevail, and there is a wide reluctance to consider broad system change.

There are also drivers towards desired futures. Improved understanding of climate and global change and the capacity and knowledge to purposefully shape nature and society provide better means to address climate change. Climate anxiety and perception of government inaction have triggered, for instance, the ‘Fridays for future’ movement, which contributes to the emergence of global conscience on the climate and biodiversity crisis and the need for justice. New understandings of human purpose and fairness also encourage the development of a wider range of responses like de-desertification, seaweed permaculture, ocean fertilization, carbon capture and storage, and solar radiation management. We may learn to protect the global commons, including indigenous cultures and atmospheric commons.

Economic growth in societies based on individual material gain, here-and-now-thinking, short political cycles, and lack of broad political agreement on alternative paths seem to keep us on the path to the climate crisis. Furthermore, exacerbated social inequalities may lead many to have no willingness or ability to participate in transitions. While we are overconfident with systems’ design, we underestimate natural forces and ecosystems. Emerging options for large-scale ‘geoengineering’ interventions in the climate system promise new opportunities and new risks, including novel geopolitical tensions.There are diverse perceptions on geoengineering and possible social change towards potential acceptance or societal rejection. The planet lacks a fair and appropriate governance structure providing a framework on who might be entitled to carry out geoengineering projects in the name of the planet and what their responsibility is. There is no sufficient dialogue on what it means to be a responsible company, researcher, research organisation, or policy-maker in this context.

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project.

The concept of the global commons refers to resource domains that fall outside national jurisdiction, to which all have access, including high seas, airspace, outer space, and cyberspace. Given the growing significance of these domains and related resources for states and other global and local players across a range of purposes, defining the concept of the global commons has become more complex. The Global Commons Alliance network of concerned organisations refers to two definitions of the concept.

The first is based on geopolitics, where the global commons are areas whose potential economic resources lie beyond national jurisdiction: the atmosphere, the high seas, Antarctica, and outer space. The second definition has its roots more in economics and how shared resources can be overused by some at the expense of others, regardless of national jurisdiction. The strategic access and use of resource domains for military/commercial purposes put pressure on their status. Recent geopolitical developments highlight the need for exploring appropriate forms of global governance or stewardship to ensure responsible (sustainable) management to benefit present and future generations.

This deep dive aims to address the following questions:

• What constitutes a global commons? How do global commons differ? How is the concept of global commons likely to evolve up to 2040? Adapting a taxonomy of global commons for the emerging geopolitical, environmental, and economic context.
• What are the main emerging disruptors of global commons up to 2040? What could change and upset established global commons regimes? How can laws be introduced and implemented in emerging global commons? The emphasis is on geopolitics and how legal frameworks can survive technological change. How can innovation reinforce the commons?
• How is the economics of common property evolving (from Hardin's very influential work to the massive critique of Hardin by Elinor Ostrom)? linking to major policy debates such as privatisation. Can Ostrom’s approach be scaled up to the level of states? and extended to the common property of the atmosphere or oceans? What would be necessary for such a large-scale negotiation process?
• How can we govern the commons as a different type of ownership? The emergence of global commons-orientation in innovation? In particular mission-oriented innovation. Exploring the rights and personality of ecosystems and other entities as right holders. Ecological services as transversal.
• How can we make the global commons work? - the need for cooperative behaviour if global commons and sustainability are to be achieved. Multilateralism 2.0. and emerging role of science diplomacy up to 2040. Ukraine war as an epochal war: the dangers of the war (state of permanent cold war) for acting seriously on the global commons. Potential split with China and new hegemonies in Africa (e.g Belt and Road debt).
  
  
  The aim is to identify cross impacts of the global commons areas and key drivers.

The twelve scenarios in this deep dive are informed by transhumanism, portraying futures in which the human condition – our bodies, functions, and lives – and the features of societies are fundamentally transformed by technology. Even though scenarios are built along the lines of particular scientific and/or technological advancements, the discussion spreads over sociotechnical ensembles and the re-conceptualization of the relationship between technology and society by 2040.

The work leading to this report started with a horizon scanning exercise to identify a series of technological innovations and scientific breakthroughs that may be considered key factors towards re-engineering human nature. In parallel, the authors explored diverse narratives regarding the human condition and significance in the world, dreams and fears embodied in the so-called collective imaginary, echoing through myths and fantasies to literature, cinematography and the wider culture. At the intersection of these explorations, twelve topics were selected and further expanded into scenarios. They are not intended to cover the full spectrum of themes regarding human enhancement, but present a relevant ‘sample’ of potential future trajectories.

We propose these narratives as exploratory scenarios, describing futures where both positive and negative consequences are palpable. They are not normative, outlininga vision of the future deemed desirable. We invite readers to regard them as devices for imagining the future and debating the future. They aim to nurture a reflection on the dynamics of change, future opportunities and potential threats, and in doing so they contribute to future preparedness.

Three types of scenarios were developed:

• The first type describe futures where scientific and technological advancements enhance embodied experiences: Sensory augmentation: extending human senses beyond the natural limits and adding sensorial modalities which are not native to humans. Sensory and brain stimulation, psychedelic microdosing: inducing altered states of consciousness, for healing purposes or for fostering new perspectives on being human. Molecular therapies for delaying aging; and new artificial reproductive technologies allowing people to be fertile until much older age.
• The second type explore futures where human capabilities are extended by embodying non-biological means: a significant share of elderly people using exoskeletons for prolonging active life, for maintaining their mobility or as a form of assisted living; brain-computer interfaces leveraged in semi-automatized work environments, to improve learning outcomes, and to control smart devices; Brain to brain communication supporting cognitive and emotion sharing, leading to the creation of ‘hive minds’ covering multiple aspects of life.
• The third type focus on the simulation and replication of the human body and mind: Digital body twins allowing alert signals for disease prevention and the simulation of the short- and long-term effects of a person’s behavior on their health and body; Digital twins of the brain allowing testing hypotheses in cognitive science, in mental health studies, responses to different types of treatments; Digital immersive worlds – gaming/ fantasy worlds or ‘mirror worlds’ that are replicating real-life environments – hosting interactions among people and automated entities; Digital replicas of the deceased changing the socio-political understanding of grief; and Artificial agents with complex underlying computational procedures (including e.g. self-reflection, development of value system, affective computing) and sophisticated interfaces calling for new theoretical frameworks of consciousness.
  
  
  ***
  The twelve scenarios presented in this deep dive are part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project, which was conducted by Foresight on Demand Consortium on behalf of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD).

Successfully managing the green and digital transitions is a crucial factor that could increase the resilience and strategic autonomy of the EU and shape its future. Yet digitalisation of agriculture and rural areas raises vital questions about winners and losers, costs, benefits, and long term implications.


This foresight exercise explores the interplay between digital transition, policies and the resilience of the agricultural sector and rural areas, against the backdrop of potential disruptive and transformative changes. The report presents the outcomes of this exploration, proposing building blocks for an effective EU digital transition strategy for agriculture and rural areas supported by a hands-on policymaker’s toolkit

The blog post reveals the goals and steps of the foresight process and explains how visioning can support transitions. 

In times of growing uncertainties and complexities, anticipatory thinking is essential for policymakers.
Technology foresight explores the longer-term futures of Science, Technology and Innovation. It can be used
as a tool to create effective policy responses, including in technology and innovation policies, and to shape
technological change.

In this report we present six anticipatory and technology foresight methods that can contribute to anticipatory
intelligence in terms of public funding of innovation: the Delphi survey, genius forecasting, technology roadmapping, large language models used in foresight, horizon scanning and scenario planning.

Each chapter provides a brief overview of the method with case studies and recommendations.
The insights from this report show that only by combining different anticipatory viewpoints and approaches
to spotting, understanding and shaping emergent technologies, can public funders such as the European
Innovation Council improve their proactive approaches to supporting ground-breaking technologies. In this
way, they will help innovation ecosystems to develop.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC) conducted a series of Horizon Scanning exercises across six EIC programme managers’ (PM) portfolios as part of an ongoing collaborative effort to strengthen EIC strategic intelligence capacity through the use and development of anticipatory approaches. The fields covered include: Space Systems & Technologies; Quantum Technologies; Agriculture & Food; Solar Fuels & Chemicals; Responsible Electronics and Architecture, Engineering & Construction.

The main findings of this Horizon Scanning – the identification and analysis of ‘signals’ from nascent research, technologies, or trends on the periphery of the mainstream – show opportunities for investment in emerging technologies and breakthrough innovations that can advance EU competitiveness while also serving to support the EU’s long-term policy and societal visions.
Other insights were taken from this exercise, namely the identification of drivers, enablers and barriers to technology development and adoption, that could be the starting ground of further foresight exercises and policy initiatives.

The report highlights three main themes – sustainability, energy, and scalability, which are overarching across signals, drivers, enablers and barriers. And concludes with a series of recommendations to streamline Horizon Scanning activities in the specific context and needs of the EIC.

Growing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, present leading challenges in policy-making nowadays. Anticipatory thinking and foresight are of utmost importance to help explore trends, risks, emerging issues, and their potential implications and opportunities in order to draw useful insights for strategic planning, policy-making and preparedness.

This report is a part of the “Anticipation and monitoring of emerging technologies and disruptive innovation” (ANTICIPINNOV) project, a collaboration between the European Commission Joint Research Centre with the European Innovation Council (EIC).

The findings include a set of 106 signals and trends on emerging technologies and disruptive innovations across several areas of application based on a review of key reports on technology and innovation trends and signals produced by public and private entities outside of the EU institutions. Its goal is to strengthen the EIC’s strategic intelligence capacity through the use and development of anticipatory approaches that will - among other goals – support innovation funding prioritisation. Other insights were extracted, namely those related with the scope of the EIC Programme Manager portfolios.

The Eye of Europe (EoE) project has reached an important milestone: Using an interactive approach, the members of the consortium came up with eleven exciting topics that will be addressed in Foresight Workshops with experts, citizens, entrepreneurs, scientists, policymakers, journalists and many other stakeholder groups within the coming 16 months. In the workshops, Eye of Europe partners will apply both established and novel Foresight approaches to dive deep into topics of common interest to stakeholders across the European Research Area. These workshops will take place in cities such as Madrid, Prague, Berlin, Bucharest, Paris and Thessaloniki, as well as online.

The final set of topics for EoE pilot workshops is as follows:

• Democracy – a long term Project: This online workshop will gather domain experts to shed light on a large spectrum of future challenges to democracy.
• The Knowledge of our Civilisation(s) in 2040: In this two-day Berlin based workshop participants with diverse domain expertise will explore the future of knowledge in human civilisation in the face of multiple drivers of change.
• European Industrial Decarbonisation: This two-day workshop in Madrid will gather diverse stakeholders to debate alternative pathways of industrial decarbonisation for Europe in the face of different geopolitical scenarios.
• Emotion Ecosystems: This Bucharest based two-day workshop will investigate the impact of technologies like affective computing and brain-machine interface on individuals and collectives with different stakeholder groups.
• Democracy and Technology: In this workshop citizens in Prague will jointly reflect on democratic approaches to risks connected with new technologies and their impacts on various societal groups.
• Aging and Assisted Living Technologies: This workshop in Berlin with international research and policy actors is dedicated to future ways of integrating smart and digital technologies into assisted living and care for older adults.
• Fashion Futures: In two Thessaloniki based workshops citizens and domain experts will explore the future of sustainable fashion in interaction with values and identities both with a regional and international perspective.
• Public Policy and Change of Diets: In this workshop in Paris a diverse group of citizens will reflect on policy inroads into future pathways towards healthy and sustainable diets.
• Science and Conflicts: In this online workshop, experts and actors of the science system will jointly dive into possible implications of growing geopolitical tensions for science.
• Future of Knowledge and Emotions: This futures survey will provide input for the two interrelated topics the future of knowledge and the future of emotion ecosystems that will feed the respective workshops.
  
  
  These Eye of Europe Foresight pilot workshops have a twofold purpose.
  
  First of all, the workshops serve the project’s aspirations expressed by Eye of Europe coordinator, Radu Gheorghiu, namely to nurture the “vibrant community of individuals engaging in a conversation about our collective future” and to fuel the “continuous loop of dialogue, learning and inspiration”.
  
  Secondly, by addressing topics of common interest to R&I actors across ERA and major R&I challenges, they aim to mobilise collective anticipatory intelligence. In particular, we hope to shed light on the evolution of research and innovation and its contribution to a wide range of important future questions.
  
  How did the team arrive at these topics?
  
  The topic generation process involved three major elements:
  
• Analysis of R&I strategy documents from a range of different EU countries
• interviews with R&I actors from different positions in ERA’s research and innovation ecosystem,
• and interactive discourse among EoE partner organisations.
  
  It was important to the topic identification team, led by Pier Francesco Moretti from CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche in Italy, not to remain at the surface of the challenges that are expressed in key documents but to dive deeper into underlying root causes and dynamics. So when in the document analysis, topics like energy, artificial intelligence, digitalisation, health and security emerged at top positions, we strived to identify crosscutting underlying aspects.

Airborne transmission is considered one of the most common ways of transmitting respiratory viruses. The reach of airborne pathogens and persistence of aerosolized particles suspended in the air are a significant concern for the spread of pandemic and seasonal respiratory diseases. This is particularly relevant in indoor spaces where most respiratory infections occur. 

Controlling the transmission of airborne pathogens is therefore a cornerstone of public health efforts to manage and prevent the spread of infectious diseases, ensuring safety and health for individuals and communities. Technologies that allow such control are essential to address the challenge. This report is the output of a comprehensive study which evaluates the potential of the current technology landscape for suppressing indoor airborne pathogen transmission. 

The analysis outlines two main technology groups: those for detecting airborne pathogens and those for decontaminating air and surfaces. It identifies several key technologies in each group, and assesses their maturity, impact, and potential priority for funding. It outlines the drivers, enablers, and barriers for the development and adoption of these technologies, providing insights into factors that may influence their future implementation. It also explores forward-looking perspectives with scenarios for future health crises and offers recommendations for policy and research to address the challenges and leverage the opportunities in the field of indoor air quality. 

The study was conducted during 2024 by European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) and Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA).

This is the first episode of Futures4Europe conversations, initiated by the Eye of Europe project – a series of dialogues between Bianca Dragomir and professionals from all over the world, who engage in work that is future sensitive.

About this episode - On engaging meaningfully with futures

Often framed as a professional activity essential for 'planning', guiding 'decision making' or 'orienting strategies', futures studies could be more generously placed in the realm of humanities where, along other human capacities, imagination and anticipation should be nurtured and celebrated.

In this light, futures education is more like a tending a garden. Like doing the soil work that turns it into the fertile ground for seeds to grow into 'flowers' such as human creativity, a heightened awareness of the mechanisms of change, agency coupled with humility, a sense of taking part into shaping something yet non-existent.

Peter Bishop, founder of Teach the Future, argues that this garden should be welcoming everyone, including young people, or perhaps especially them.

The European foresight community has experienced remarkable growth in recent years. The newly published Eye of Europe report "Showcasing Perspectives: A Stocktaking of R&I Foresight Practices in Europe" provides an assessment of just that, namely the actors, preferred methodologies, success factors and bottlenecks for effective R&I foresight projects, as well as trends for future R&I foresight projects in Europe.

This stocktaking, carried out by the DLR Projektträger in the framework of the Eye of Europe project, is based on a comprehensive survey of 43 R&I foresight organisations in 16 ERA and four non-ERA countries. Interviews with renowned national foresight experts complement the findings. Similar response rates from government and academia, business and other organisations such as consultancies or NGOs allowed for a diverse snapshot of R&I foresight approaches in Europe.

Highlighting flagship projects

For the preparation of the study, European foresight actors submitted 54 different R&I foresight projects. These include projects that aim to anticipate technological and societal changes in order to inform national and regional R&I strategies and make them more robust, or foresight projects that address complex global issues such as climate change, cancer or sustainable food security. Others seek to understand new developments, such as the digital transformation, and analyse the social and economic impact of these changes, or to develop and design new products.

R&I foresight projects are not only carried out at European and national level. The report additionally highlights sub-national champions such as the Friuli Venezia Giulia region and Sardinia in Italy, the Helsinki-Uusimaa region in Finland, Ostbelgien and the Flemish government in Belgium, or Hauts-de-France, to show how they have used foresight methods to advance their R&I agendas.

What are critical success factors and bottlenecks for R&I foresight projects in Europe?

Here is what the R&I foresight experts believe contributed to the success of their projects: Top of the list of critical success factors - mentioned by almost all respondents - is high-level commitment and support from government representatives. Ensuring cross-sectoral stakeholder engagement was another frequently cited factor. Leveraging existing networks or databases of expertise was also cited as a critical success factor, as it enables the rapid mobilisation of the right experts. But how can we ensure that we reach the relevant people and keep them engaged?

Several R&I foresight experts stressed the importance of defining and communicating a clear purpose for the project and explaining why it is important and worth stakeholders' time, as well as demonstrating that foresight can add value in the context of today's R&I challenges. What can foresight achieve and what are its limitations? Transparency of methods also contributes to credibility. Facilitating direct interaction between participants in creative settings has the potential to be beneficial, allowing for more dynamic and contextually rich foresight outcomes. The R&I foresight experts noted that it is important to allow sufficient time for interactive discussions. Wherever possible, the setting should be face-to-face.

Yet, these R&I foresight projects have not always gone to plan. Bottlenecks identified include recurring ones such as insufficient time for comprehensive analysis and stakeholder engagement, or financial constraints that can prevent in-depth trend analysis and essential foresight activities. It can also be time-consuming to mobilise a diverse group of experts and policy-makers for participatory exercises, which can be a challenge in a time-critical project. Short-term thinking and a reluctance to challenge established beliefs can hinder the exploration of alternative futures and stifle innovative foresight efforts. Others reported the "impact gap" and their struggle to ensure that foresight results influence decision making, often exacerbated by an over-reliance on written summaries that lack engaging communication methods. Finally, maintaining objectivity in horizon-scanning activities and avoiding the pitfalls of techno-optimism can also be challenging.

What's next? Trends in R&I foresight

The report provides answers to those curious about the new frontiers and trends in the use of R&I foresight. Whether it's the integration of AI and machine learning technologies into foresight practices, the representation of future generations and nature in foresight processes, speculative and design-based approaches or debiasing techniques, the methods of R&I foresight are constantly evolving.

For those wishing to expand their networks, the report also provides an overview of international and European (R&I) foresight networks, national (R&I) foresight networks, networks focusing on technology assessment, and examples of regular (R&I) foresight conferences or conferences with sessions dedicated to R&I foresight.

This stocktaking report is a snapshot of the status quo of R&I foresight actors in Europe. However, new innovative projects are being implemented as you read this article. As the Eye of Europe project consortium, we are committed to strengthening fora for exchange among R&I practitioners interested in foresight methodologies. Let's continue the lively discussions on the Futures4Europe platform to shape tomorrow's R&I agendas together.

For more information, feel free to reach out to the author Simon Winter at simon.winter@dlr.de