Forecasting science and industry: Science forum approach

TECHNOLOGICAL

FORECASTING

AND SOCIAL CHANGE

13, 107-l 29 (1979)

107

Forecasting Science and Industry: Science Forum Approach ALEXANDER

N. CHRISTAKIS,

SAMUEL GLOBE,

and KAZUHIKO

KAWAMURA

ABSTRACT This paper describes a forecast of certain sciences and industries and the relationship between the two for the decade 1980-1990. The industries selected were chemicals, electronics, metals, transportation, and healthcare delivery. The sciences selected were chemistry and materials science. In addition to the forecasts per se, the project was intended to develop methodology for such forecasting. The science forecasts were extrapolative in character, while the industry forecasts were normative, in accordance with a middle-of-the-road scenario provided to the forecasters. The relationship between the two forecasts was explored through the technology needs of the industries and the technology contributions of the sciences. Details of the relationship were developed at a dialectical “science forum” involving a dialogue among all of the forecasters.

Introduction

The world between now and 1990 will be confronted with an abundance of scientific and technological issues: food, materials, and energy problems; industrial opportunities for innovation; technological advances and scientific discoveries; and societal and institutional changes. Social, economic, cultural, and political trends and constraints will influence how science and technology activities affect society. The role of scientists and technologists in the future will be not only to contribute new knowledge, but also to participate in the creation, evaluation, and appropriate application of technology for societal needs. Governmental agencies, in an effort to protect the natural environment and improve the quality of life of the citizenry, have imposed regulations that have affected many ALEXANDER N. CHRISTAKIS is a Research Leader, Futures and Policy Research, in the Defense, Transportation, and Space Systems Department of Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories. He is a policy planner with wide international experience in both the academic and professional fields. As a Fellow at the Academy for Contemporary Problems from 1972 to 1975, he was involved in “futures research” and policy analysis on national and urban development issues, applying new methods for the exploration of the complexity of human settlements and assessing the state of the art of technology assessment. SAMUEL GLOBE is Director of the Research Council of Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories. His primary responsibility is management of the Research Council, which is charged generally with representing the Director of the Columbus Laboratories in technical aspects of research operations and in assuring and encouraging technical and scientific excellence. Prior to joining Battelle in 1962, he was Assistant for Research to the Vice President of the Research and Advanced Development Division of the Avco Corporation. KAZUHIKO KAWAMURA is a Staff Systems Planner, Futures and Policy Research, in the Economics and Management Systems Section of Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories. He has had over 10 years’ experience in conducting theoretical and applied research in systems science both in academia and research organizations. Prior to joining Battelle, he was a Lecturer at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and a research specialist at Ford Motor Company. @ Elsevier North-Holland,

Inc., 1979

0040-1625/79/02010723/$02.25

108

CHRISTAKIS,

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

sectors of U.S. industry. The National Science Board (NSB), for its Eighth Report to the President of the United States, conducted a survey of views regarding the major problems and concerns with the vitality of the scientific research enterprise in the United States [ 11. The purpose of the NSB report was to identify the issues as perceived by a selected set of persons responsible for the direction of research throughout the scientific community. The scientific community was divided into four “sectors”: university, industry, government, and independent research institutes. One of the most important findings in the NSB report was the commonality of interest and concern among these four sections about the lack of public confidence in the ability of science and technology to provide the foundations for the fulfillment of humanity’s hope for a better future. This paper is the outcome of a report prepared for the National Science Foundation (NSF). As part of its planning activities, the NSF is interested in anticipating the potential contributions of basic research to the resolution of industrial problems. The current study was undertaken in an effort to anticipate systematically the potential relationship between technology required for future industrial needs and forecasted technological advances from scientific research. More specifically, the objectives of this study were: l

l

l

l

To develop a methodological approach for forecasting the extent to which current and projected S&T knowledge will support the perceived needs of specific industrial fields for the decade of the 1980s. To develop a scenario-based forecast for five selected industries with emphasis on technological needs for resolution of anticipated problems in those industries To develop an extrapolative forecast for the expected advances in two selected branches of the science. To explore through a dialectical process the relationships between prospective scientific advances and technological needs in the selected industries.

From these objectives it is clear that the purpose of this study was to supplement existing techniques for examining and forecasting potential complementarities between scientific research and development (R&D) and the technological needs of industry. Although in theory R&D expenditures could be set through an application of cost-benefit analysis the formalized structure of cost-benefit analysis is, in practice, of little help in determining R&D budgets or in their allocation to sectors [2]. The uncertainty of R&D choices can be ameliorated by providing a more coherent frame of reference for the future, as through a scenario. Supplying such information was an essential part of the methodological approach for the study. The relationship between technological change and economic growth has also been the subject of in-depth study by a number of investigators [3]. Although knowledge about the relationship is somewhat limited, most of the available evidence suggests that R&D has been an important contributor to economic progress. The research that has been undertaken so far has explored this relationship at the level of the firm, the industry, and the economy as a whole, and has established that the contribution of R&D to productivity has been, on the average, positive and significant. However, as Rosenberg states in his report [3]: It is now generally accepted that there are severe problems involved in measuring real changes in GNP; in general, the longer the time span involved, the greater the possible margin of error. In large part these difficulties emerge because economic growth over time involves not only quantitative dimensions but

FORECASTING

109

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY

qualitative dimensions as well. These latter include continuous changes in the quality of existing commodities as well as the steady creation of altogether new commodities. These qualitative changes make the construction of price indexes, which are used in GNP time series estimates, extremely difficult.

Modem industry is popularly believed to be heavily dependent on science and technology. A more sophisticated view is that some industries are more involved with technology than others, and a distinction is then drawn between “high-technology” and ‘ ‘low-technology ” industries. High-techology industries are those that, more than lowtechnology industries, possess the following attributes: (1) they depend on recently developed science and technology; (2) they commit funds to research and development; (3) they have a substantial staff of scientifically trained individuals; and (4) they sell products that have newly come to the market place. Typically, for example, tbe electronics industry is high-technology, while retailing is considered low-technology. The popular perception concerning the pervasiveness of technology is by no means wholly in error. Even the retailing industry-or service industries in general-have not been immune to the effects of science and technology. Developments in communications and the application of the ubiquitous digital computer, with its various sizes, configurations, and peripheral equipment, have had revolutionary effects on these industries, even if their “products” have not changed. Furthermore, if in “science” we include the social sciences and their application as “technology” in the form of the management of large enterprises, one might argue that an industry like retailing has been directly affected by science and technology. The industries chosen in this study were chemicals, electronics, health-care delivery, metals, and transportation. They were selected to sample the variety of industries and varying technological intensity. For example, the metals industry was intended to represent an industry that has much technology associated with it and is yet in many respects classifiable as low-technology. The health-care delivery industry is a special case, in which the service delivered has high-technology content but the method of delivery has, at least until recently, relied on low technology. Furthermore, much of the technology involved in health-care delivery is based on the social and management sciences. Of the other three industries studied, electronics and chemicals represent industries generally regarded as high-technology, although the types of technology and the underlying sciences differ. Finally, transportation (equipment) represents a hybrid, in the sense that in one mode, namely, air transport, it employs high technology, whereas in another mode, such as marine transport, it uses much lower technology. The Historical View Neither science nor industry was born yesterday, and older than either is technology, which may be said to date back to primitive man’s first discovery of fire and first use of stone tools. To place this paper in perspective, it is useful to examine briefly the historical view. SCIENTIFIC

CONTRIBUTION

TO INDUSTRY

IN HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE

A popular, but rather simplistic, view is that there exists a linear and unidirectional chain of events by which industry makes use of scientific discovery. After all, the popular view goes, is not this the way the industries depending on nuclear energy, radar, and the transistor were born? Schematically, this chain is illustrated in Fig. 1, which shows the events as starting from (basic) science, progressing through applied research, develop-

CHRISTAKIS,

110

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

INDVSTRIAL APPLIED

BASIC SCIENCE

-

-

DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH

-

APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY

Fig. 1. Linear model for use of

science in industry.

ment, and culminating in industrial application of technology. If this model is simplistic, there is nevertheless some truth to it, but let us first examine its weakness. A more accurate representation of the actual situation is that, to a large extent, science and’technology develop along independent courses, but interact from time to time, each feeding the other. As Kranzberg [4] puts it, “The fact is that. . new technology grows mostly out of old technology, not out of science. Similarly, science has its internal dynamics, and scientists concern themselves chiefly with the problems posed by science and technology.” In this quasiautonomous relationship between science and technology, how do science and technology contribute one to the other? Kranzberg says: The great advances in both science and technology, though different, technologists. Let ustherefore temporarily arranged by dialectical and between the specific sciences itself.

and technology during the past century suggest that the aims of science are best served by a continuous dialectic between scientists and concede that certain unities, or something very much like unities, are processes between the technologies of a science and the science itself, essential to particular solutions in a technology and that technology

This model for the interaction of science and technology is valid not only today, but also, and even more so, for the earlier days of science, in the days of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Huygens, Camot, Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz, and others. The interaction (when it occurred) between the science and the technology of those days, the technology of Newcomen and Watt, Arkwright, Daimler, Diesel, Marconi, and others, is amply chronicled by Cardwell [5]. The dialectical model for the interaction of science and technology and their contribution to industry is displayed in simplified schematic form in Fig. 2. In an earlier paper Kranzberg [6] discusses the accelerated pace of and increased interaction between science and technology in the 20th century: With the advancing years of the 20th century, however, technology and science have come closer and closer together. In the newest and most sophisticated fields of endeavor, such as nuclear energy, space

Scientific Discovery 2

...

. . .

t The Dialectical Pro-

... Fig. 2. Dialectical

Time

model for use of science in industry.

. . .

FORECASTING

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY

Ill

systems design, materials, structures, computing, and engineering sciences, they are indissolubly bound in critical quality, and they correspond closely to our hypotheses about scientific discovery and technological invention as interacting trains of innovation. Increasingly, too, science and technology are coming together in methodology as well as in the complex problems they face.

In short, the dialectic becomes more intense, more immediate, and more productive. It is heuristically appealing, if not logically demanding, that so intense a dialectic approximates in the limit a modified version of the simplistic linear model of Fig. 1. The popular perception of the linear model may thus be said to have detected an overall structure without discerning the complexity of its details. INSIGHTS

FROM STUDIES ON TECHNOLOGICAL

INNOVATION

A subject, related to this paper, that has attracted considerable interest in recent years is technological innovation, by which is meant the complex web of activities, including R&D, invention, marketing, and entrepreneurship, by which a novel idea enters the market place and becomes a commercial success. The complexity of the subject has attracted the interest of economists, sociologists, historians of science and technology, research directors and management specialists. A considerable body of literature on technological innovation, including many case studies, has developed. Consensus has emerged on certain factors of importance. For example, the role of one or more dedicated individuals, known as “product champions” or “technical entrepreneurs, ” is acknowledged as being important in a large fraction of successful innovations. Likewise, there is consensus that the perceived need for an innovation (“market-pull”) is more important in promoting technological innovations than is available technology (“technology-push”). There are many other questions about technological innovation on which agreement is less prominent. And then there is one issue relevant to the subject of this paper, namely, the role of science in promoting innovation, about which there has been substantial disagreement. Unfortunately, the disagreement is of more than academic significance. It casts its shadow over the entire field on which technology and industry produce their benefits, and thus may influence both private and public policy related to research and development. Perceptions of the role of science in innovation are well summarized by Langrish, et al. [7] in their comprehensive book on innovation: There are marked differences of opinion, about the part played by science in innovation. Some insist on its importance as a source of ideas on which technology is based. In the United States, the Office of Naval Research sought to show that important technological developments derive from basic research, and more recently evidence pointing in the same direction was presented in a report prepared for the National Science Foundation.’ However, in Project Hindsight ]a Defense Department report] an attempt was made to isolate critical events in the development of certain weapons systems and little relation to basic science was found [p. 8 ff.]. The relation of science to the innovations in our sample is a matter we have looked into in some detail; our conclusion is that the input from science, though real, comes through indirect channels [pp. 33421.

The view expressed by Langrish is eminently reasonable and does not suffer from tendentious study design or restricted purpose of investigation. As an OECD report [g]

I The report to which Langrish refers is “TRACES,” a project sponsored by the NSF. A second project, also sponsored by the NSF, “Interactions of Science and Technology in the Innovative Process: Some Case Studies,” extended and widened the TRACES report, and presented additional evidence of the importance of basic research to innovation.

CHRISTAKIS,

112

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

puts it, “Both studies [Hindsight and TRACES] have been criticized for lack of statistical reliability and for a partisan approach.” Whether “partisan” is the correct term to apply to Hindsight may be debatable. However, the point is that Hindsight, in effect, seeks to determine an optimal way for allocating R&D funds in developing a technological system. In so doing it takes for granted that the body of basic science available at initiation of the development program will be utilized and assumes that any resources devoted to science will not likely produce results in time to be used in the program. But that does not imply, and should not be taken to mean, that science does not contribute to technology, and through technology, to industry. It does so, in the main, through the “indirect channels” to which Langrish, et al. 171 refer: Science, acts in rather mysterious ways its wonders to perform. we believe we can identify three broad classes of effects. First, curiosity-oriented science, practiced largely in academic institutions, provides techniques of investigation. Second, it also provides people trained in using those techniques as well as in scientific ways of thought in general. Third, science enters innovation already embodied in technological form. It may be relatively rare for a piece of curiosity-oriented research to generate a piece of new technology, but once this process has occurred, the technology can be used over and over again and developed into more advanced technology [p. 39 ff.].

Technological innovation is the wellspring for improvement and extension of modem industry, since industry of all types is affected by developments in technology. The foregoing discussion of the relationship between basic research and technological innovation demonstrates, then, the relevance of attempting to forecast both industry and science and, through a dialectical process, to explore the importance of the interrelation between science and technology in the operation of industry. Forecasting Framework The science of forecasting is not new. From the days of the oracle at Delphi and before, humanity has recognized the need for forecasting in order to reduce uncertainty about the future. Predictive “techniques ” and scientific theories have been invented from the dawn of history in a continuing effort to learn more about tomorrow in order to prepare for contingencies. CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK

OF THE STUDY

In recent years there has been an accelerating attempt to make forecasts of technological developments more open, rational, explicit, and quantitative. There are numerous techniques for accomplishing this. In fact, one survey identified roughly one hundred techniques related to technological forecasting [9]. The approaches most often used are the techniques of Delphi and cross-impact analysis. Olaf Helmer, the co-inventor of both of these techniques, in a recent article [lo] that attempts to analyze their strengths and weaknesses, writes: whether we like it or not, it must be recognized that futures analysis, like operations analysis, of which it should properly be considered a part, is inevitably conducted in a domain of what might be called “soft data” and “soft laws.” This means that dependence on intuitive judgment is not just a temporary expedient but in fact a mandatory requirement. In place of firm observational data we have to resort to judgmental inputs; in place of well-confirmed empirical laws we have to base our expectations on intuitively perceived regularities. Reliance on expert opinion is a sine qua non.

The methodology discussed in this paper is different from the traditional Delphi, although it is obviously based on the views of experts about anticipated developments in their field. The principal differences between this approach and Delphi are: (1) no attempt

FORECASTING ENTRY

113

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY POINT 4

@

ENTRY

POINT

@

PERSPECTIVE

DIALECTIC ISCIENCE

RECONSIDERATION

FORUM) I “INDUSTRY PULL”

“SCIENCE TECHNOLOGICAL COMPLEMENTARITY

Fig. 3. Technological methodology.

Scenario-Based Forecast

FORECAST

forecasting through a dialectic between the science and industry perspectives:

IDAP

was made to retain the anonymity of the panelists; (2) no effort was made to arrive at a consensus forecast through iterative feedback to the panelists of the results of each round of responses; and (3) no probabilistic estimates of the year of emergence of a technology were solicited from tbe panelists. The procedure for forecasting science and industry developed and applied to this investigation can better be described as an “iterative dialectic between alternative perspectives” (IDAP). A schematic representation of IDAP is shown in Fig. 3. The first perspective of the IDAP (at entry point B of Fig. 3) is represented by the views of a panel of experts on specific scientific disciplines (e.g., chemistry and materials science in this study). The experts were asked to forecast the direction of basic research in their branch of science and the likely technological advances that may result from discoveries in that branch of science. They were given a questionnaire that consisted of: (1) a middle-of-the-road scenario for the United States extending to the year 2000, (2) questions pertaining to identification of the principal lines of research and research landmarks2 to the year 1985 on the basis of ongoing reserach in 1976, (3) questions on likely interdisciplinary landmarks, (4) questions on the technological improvements that can be directly attributed to the forecasted scientific landmarks, and (5) a glossary of key terms in order to assure uniformity of terminology among all respondents. On the premise that science forecasting is likely to be less reliable than industry forecasting, two science forecasters were used for each science. They were requested to use whatever resources were available to them, but to initially work independently, until each had completed his forecast, and then to confer with each other to sharpen their perceptions. What is interesting is that for both fields of science the forecasts were almost completely disjoint; each expert saw his science from his special point of view, influenced no doubt by his interests and experience. Chemistry and materials science are both encompassing fields, so this result is not surprising. Still, the lesson to be learned is that forecasting science must be a collaborative activity. It is clear from the disjoint forecasts made by the pairs of experts that two forecasters are not enough to provide sufficient overlap of viewpoint; how many would be enough cannot be said from this study.

* A “landmark”

is defined as “an exceptionally

significant

scientific discovery.”

II4

CHRISTAKIS.

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

The second perspective of the IDAP (as shown by entry point A of Fig. 3) is represented by the views of a panel of experts on specific industrial fields. Each such expert was asked to forecast the technological needs of his industry through a systematic stepwise process containing the following steps: Step 1. A middle-of-the-road scenario for the United States extending to the year 2000 was presented to the experts. They were asked to read it and use it as a common denominator in preparing their individual responses corresponding to each industrial area. Step 2. An exemplary set of major current (1976) societal issues was listed under this step. These issues were suggestive and not exhaustive, included primarily to guide the thinking of the experts in identifying similar issues particularly applicable to their industries. Step 3. A set of industry-specific questions relating to 1976 was presented to the panel. The experts were asked to respond to each one of the questions by emphasizing those industrial problems or opportunities that can be linked to the status of the scientific and technological enterprise of the nation and the world. Step 4. The experts were asked to imagine themselves as being senior officers of major corporations (or government agencies) in their respective industrial areas and to identify and rank major problems and opportunities that their industry faced in 1976, 1980, and 1990. They were asked to imagine that they were looking backward from the year 2000 and that the scenario referred to under Step 1 was past history. Step 5. The experts were requested to list and briefly explain industry-specific, technology-based solutions or actions that were applied in the period 1976 to 1990 in order to ameliorate any of the problems or take advantage of opportunities identified under Step 4. The experts constructed an interaction matrix indicating those technology-based solutions that in their judgment contributed to meeting the identified problems or opportunities. Step 6. The experts were asked to identify the set of specific technologies encompassed by each technology-based solution and to construct a technologysolution interaction matrix. Step 7. All the technologies that were identified under Step 6 were categorized according to the basic scientific categories employed by the NSF. The aim of the foregoing methodological approach is to compare the forecasts from the science and industry perspectives in order to assess the degree of complementarity that might exist between the “scientific push” and the “demand pull” [ll]. By comparing the two technological forecasts derived from alternative perspectives (see Fig. 3) and engaging the experts in a dialectic, the IDAP approach can determine the “goodness of fit” between the two perspectives. The purpose of the dialectic that took place through the science forum was to examine the two perspectives and to unify them as far as possible by improving their complementarity While the IDAP methodology is prospective, since it has been applied to forecast the future, it can also be regarded as retrospective, especially from the point of view of the industrial experts who were asked to regard the middle-of-the-road scenario included in the industrial questionnaire as past history. In a sense, the methodology as applied to this

FORECASTING

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY

115

study considers the future as history. Interestingly enough, futures forecasters use many of the same methods as historians do for analyzing questions of social change [ 121. There are alternative interpretations of the historical past, just as there are alternative futures, even through historians are all presumably dealing with the same facts. As futurist David Mac Michael writes [ 131: history is not the record of what happened. There can be as many histories as there are thinkers. Basically, anyone is entitled to review the evidence, to introduce new evidence, and come to new or different conclusions about the meaning of a past event. It can be argued that the historical process is a means for the production of alternative pasts.

One of the distinct attributes of the methodological approach adopted for the conduct of this study is the attempt to embed the technological forecasting process within the context of alternative futures (scenarios) for the United States. The use of scenarios as a forecasting device has the advantage that it can help in exploring alternative images of the future and pathways to achieving them. Indeed, events of recent years suggest that socioeconomic change must be linked to technological change in an iterative process of exploring alternative societal scenarios. SCENARIO

HIGHLIGHTS

The main points of the scenario provided to the experts are, first, that this history of our society is characterized by a continuation of the trends that emerged in the early 1970s. Especially as regards energy, there were sporadic shortages in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As a result of the energy crises there ensued a series of related problems such as the need for substitutability of critical materials, increasing prices, and limitations of capital, all leading to general economic uncertainty. The conservation ethic and the enforcement of environmental safeguards led to the adoption of government and industrial policies and personal lifestyles that were clearly different from those practiced in the decades of the 1950s and 1960s. The Uhited States continued to be highly dependent on science and technology, with continued emphasis being placed on high-technology industries such as aerospace, chemicals, and electronics. The process of urbanization observed during the middle of the century persisted at an accelerating pace throughout the fourth quarter, following a significant improvement in the provision of public services in the urban areas such as education and health-care delivery. In the year 2000 the future looks more assured than it did in the 1980s and early 1990s. FORUM,

DIALECTIC,

AND DIALOGUE

Unifying the two perceptions of technology for each industry+ne from the science experts and the other from the industry experts-proved to be more difficult than had been anticipated. From this need there evolved the dialectic process, which occurred during a lengthy dialogue. This is indicated by the centrally located box of Fig. 3. To this end, the core team convened a “science forum” of the industry experts and the science experts. The forum lasted for nearly two full days. The purpose of the forum was to explore and to record in a “landmark-technology matrix” the degree of contribution, on a four-point scale (absence of any contribution being counted as the lowest level), from each landmark of the science forecasts to each technology required for the technology-based solutions of each industry. The rules of operation for the science forum, as they were laid down at the beginning and evolved during its course, were as follows:

116

CHRISTAKIS,

l

l

l

l

l

l

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

The forum was conducted in the form of a dialogue open to all science experts, industry experts, and core-team members present. Dialogue among all attendees was encouraged, regardless of assignment in the project or field of specialization. The dialogue was dialectical in form and purpose; that is, it was intended to gain insight, resolve disagreement, and encourage but not force consensus. The interaction to be recorded was to be unidirectional; that is, the support provided by the scientific landmarks to the technologies, but not the reverse (i.e., not the effect that technologies may have on landmarks). (This should not be read to mean that technologies have no effect on scientific advances!) Only first-order effects were to be considered, that is, the direct effect of landmark L on technology T, and not the subsequent effects of technology T on other technologies. The potential importance of such second-order effects was not overlooked by the study team, but time constraints required that the rule be observed. There was, however, one exception to this rule: if technology T contributed directly to another technology T’, where T and T’ were technologies within the same industry, then the associated landmark L was scored as contributing to both T and T’. Interactions for all of the landmarks were explored except to the very limited extent (a half-dozen landmarks or so), that the forecasts for each science overlapped. In that case the landmarks were merged. The technologies listed by the industry forecasters were considered by the forum before dialogue was begun, and some technologies were merged under more inclusive headings. This was done to make the dialogue manageable within the available resources.

Although time constraints prevented full use of the “reconsideration” loop shown in Fig. 3, the dialectical dialogue that took place at the forum proved to be a useful and productive process. All participants expressed gratification at the results achieved and at the feeling of accomplishment, understanding, and elevation that they experienced. Illustration of Forecasts The application of the forecasting section. INDUSTRY

framework

IDAP (see Fig. 3) is described in this

FORECASTS

The questionnaire for industry experts started by asking each expert to describe problems and opportunities his industry faced in years 1976, 1980, and 1990 (Step 4, Forecasting Framework section). The answers provided by the industry experts are summarized as follows. PROBLEMS

Chemical Industry The problems the chemical industry faced were, in the eyes of the industry, mostly attributable to Federal Government legislation. The industry saw an opportunity, through the development of new materials, to compete with metals that are energy-intensive in manufacture (e.g., aluminum) or involve environmental, health, or safety hazard (e.g., iron and steel). The following problems or concerns were considered to be critical: (1)

FORECASTING

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY

117 TABLE

1

Chemical Industry Problems (Top Five) 1976

1980

(1) Environmental regulation-( (2) Product safety and health-(2)

1990

1) Environmental regulation Product safety and health

regulation (3) Employee health and safety+(3) regulation (4) Energy availability-b(4)

Energy availability

(5) Raw-materials

Raw-materials

availability-(5)

(1) Raw-materials availability (2) Energy availability 3) Environmental

availability

regulation

(4) Product safety and health regulation (5) Employee health and safety regulation

environmental restrictions on plant construction and operation, because they affect desire to invest and distort the nature of technological change and (2) health and safety restrictions on products and processes, because R&D funds were being used more and more to support projects of a “defensive” character. Most contemporary problems identified by the expert were considered to be of long-range duration. Table 1 lists the five most important problems the chemical industry faced for 1976, 1980, and 1990 in descending order of importance. In 1990, the United States had a limited supply of feedstocks and they were high in cost. Therefore, raw material and energy availability become important. Electronics Industry

The electronics industry is more opportunity-than threat-oriented. The problems of another industry or technology often provide opportunities for products of the electronics industry. Most of the problems or concerns of the electronics industry were neither critical nor severe, with a few exceptions. For example: l

l

Spectrum crowding as the use of spectrum space increased faster than it could be made available. A shortage of some materials that could have severe implication to the industry. However, some materials were stockpiled and time was available to develop alternative sources or materials.

Many of the problems

were of long-range TABLE

duration. 2

Electronics Industry Problems and Opportunities 1976 (1) Spectrum crowding ~-w( (2) Potential materials -w(2) shortage (3) Privacy of individual -b(3) (4) Potential new devices -k(4) (5) Further miniaturization -w(5)

Table 2 lists the five most

1980 1) Spectrum crowding -w( Potential materials shortage Privacy of individual Potential new devices Further miniaturization

(Top Five) 1990 1) Spectrum crowding Potential new devices Further miniaturization New computer structures Consumer applications

118

CHRISTAKIS,

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

important problems and opportunities the electronics industry faced for 1976, 1980, and 1990 in descending order of importance. Both materials shortage and problems of privacy were solved by the year 1990. Health-care-delivery Industry The most serious long-term problem of the health-care system in the United States was the rapidly rising cost of health care. In the 1970s health-care costs increased more rapidly than did GNP. Hospital costs were responsible for the highest proportion, and in 1976 accounted for 40% of health-care expenditures. The following problems or concerns were critical: (1) the rising cost of health care, which threatened to impose a severe constraint on improvement of health-care delivery, (2) the need for wider practice of preventive medicine, and (3) nonuiniform access to, and maldistribution of, health-care resources. Many of the major problems facing health-care systems were of long-range duration. Table 3 lists the five most important problems the health-care delivery industry faced for 1976, 1980, and 1990 in descending order of importance. Metals Industry The problems and opportunities of concern in the metals industry were very similar to the problems of any other manufacturing industry, such as capital shortage, plant siting, and raw-material acquisition. The following problems or concerns were considered to be critical: (1) increased difficulty in acquisition of raw materials, (2) improved quality control, important politically as well as to avoid the unpleasant consequences of product liability, and (3) materials utilization and recycling, increasingly important because of the growing concern for supplies of raw material. Most of the problems were considered to be of either intermediate or long-range duration. Table 4 lists the five most important problems the materials industry faced for 1976, 1980, and 1990 in descending order of importance. The problem of capital shortage declined by 1990, primarily because of the reduced growth rate of the economy and conservation measures. By 1990 environmental control became an acknowledged cost of doing business and of only minor concern to top management.

TABLE 3 Health-care-delivery

Industry Problems (Top Five) 1980

1976

Controlof

costs of-v

health-care

services

1990

(1) Control of costs of

(I) Full implementation of national insurance

(2) Prevention of disease -b and illness (3) Access to health care -

(2) Prevention of disease and illness (3) Strategic planning

(4) Medical education+

(4) Medical education

(2) Control of costs of health-care services (3) Utilization of health services (4) Expansion of preventive medicine (5) Alternative delivery systems

(1)

p~OgKUl2

(5) Quality of care

w (5) Quality of care

FORECASTING

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY

119 TABLE 4

Metals Industry Problems 1980

1990

(1) Market growth and Pb competition (2)

(1) Market growth and competition

1976

(1) Market growth and--------w competition (2) Capital shortage Pb (3) Investment

needed for

(4) Short-term

energy

(5) Raw-materials acquisition

(Top Five)

~;~~~~/

ii;

E;;

acquisition Investment needed for environmental control

(5) Materials utilization and waste reduction

Transportation Industry Many of the problems or concerns of the transportation industry were seen by the industry to be attributable to federal legislation and were considered either moderately critical or critical. Those judged to be critical include: (1) threat of petroleum-based fuels shortfall and consequent allocation, rationing, and other defensive measures, especially in the highway and air modes of transportation, (2) growing environmental limitations on expansion of major transport facilities with consequent bottleneck problems in quality and quantity of transport supply, and (3) high cost of U.S. shipyard production vis-&vis foreign competition. Many of the problems were of long-range duration. Tables 5 and 6 list the five most important problems of the transportation industry for 1976, 1980, and 1990 in descending order of importance, for air and highway transport modes. TECHNOLOGY-BASED

SOLUTIONS

Next, the industry experts were asked to identify the technology-based solutions or actions that were applied to the ameliorable subset of the problems identified and to construct problem/solution matrices (Step 5, Forecasting Framework section). Table 7 TABLE 5 Air-transport 1976

Problems (Top Five) 1980

1990

(1) Noise abatement

(I) Aircraft fuel economy

(2) Aircraft fuel economy

(2) High cost of aircraft production (3) Noise abatement

5 (3) High cost of aircraft production (4) Lack of alternative fuels -b (5) Need for terminal-area-b facilities

(4) Lack of alternative

(1) Need for terminal-area facilities (2) Aircraft fuel economy (3) Lack of alternative

fuels

(5) Need for terminal-area facilities

fuels

(4) High cost of aircraft production (5) Limitations on aircraft cargo capacity

CHRISTAKIS,

120

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

TABLE 6 Highway-transport 1976 (1) (2) (3) (4)

Fuel ~onomy~( Emissions controlSafety Vehicle production

Problems

(Top Five) I990

1980 1) Fuel economy

(2) Emissions control 1;;; ) (3) Safety (4) Vehicle production

costs-F

costs

(5) Highway property acquisition and construction costs

(5) Highway property-b acquisition and construction costs

Traffic congestion Lack of alternative fuels Fuel economy (4) Vehicle maintenance and repair costs (5) Pavement life and maintainability

illustrates such a matrix constructed by the chemicals industry expert for the year 1990. (A scoring system of 3 for major, 2 for moderate, and 1 for low, was used to show the degree of importance of each solution to each problem.) Absence of an entry implies no direct interaction. The specific technologies involved in each technology-based solution were then identified and technology/solution matrices such as shown in Table 8 were constructed for each industry (Step 6, Forecasting Framework section). Science Forecasts As an illustration of the science forecasts, this section summarizes the results of the chemistry forecasts by the two chemistry experts. The summaries include the principal lines of research and the “landmarks” (scientific discoveries of exceptional significance) identified. By definition, chemistry is the study of the composition, structure, and properties of atoms, molecules, and ions, singly or in bulk, and of the interactions of these species with each other and/or with their surroundings. Chemistry, as so defined, overlaps with several other branches of science such as biology, mathematics, and physics. PRINCIPAL

l

l

LINES OF RESEARCH

AND THEIR LANDMARKS

Computational methods (interdisciplinary with computer science and mathematics): l-1 (1978)3 Establishment of a National Resource for Computation in Chemistry. l-2 (1985) Sophisticated data analysis carried out by the individual chemist using computer networks. Homogeneous and/or heterogeneous catalysis (interdisciplinary with mathematics and physics): 2-l (1980) Elucidation of the mechanism of at least one prototype homogeneously catalyzed reaction elucidated. 2-2 (1980) Refinement and widespread application of new methods for following the course of surface reactions and migrations.

3 Numbers in parentheses

designate

year of expected realization

of each landmark.

FORECASTING

121

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY TABLE 7 Chemical Industry

Replaced inappropriate products with more suitable existing products Manufactured new products Redesigned processes to control impacts Redesigned process to conserve scarce resources Manufactured key chemicals from alternative resources

Matrix: 1990

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1 2

2 1

1

2

3

1

1

1

(1980) Development of an effective catalyst for the production of methane and/or other hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. 2-4 (1981) Development of an improved and highly effective catalyst for the production of synthetic petroleum from coal. (1985) Development of a reasonable theory of heterogeneous catalysis, 2-5 using the detailed experimental data. 2-6 (1985) Development of catalytic materials capable of removing specific pollutants from the air. of a catalyst for the removal of sulfur from coal 2-7 (1985) Development developed. Photochemistry, radiation chemistry, and chemistry of short-lived species and excited states (interdisciplinary with physics, biology, and mathematics): 3-l (1979) Reports on work examining short-lived intermediates occurring in heterogeneous and homogeneous catalysis. 3-2 (1980) Extension of the time resolution of fast kinetic spectroscopy to the femtosecond ( lo-l5 set) regime. 3-3 (1980) Development of methods for conducting selective photochemical reactions on simultaneous irradiation with two laser beams. 3-4 (1980) Demonstration of the selective reaction of specific chemical bonds in complex organic molecules in solution, induced by pulses of high-intensity infrared laser radiation. 3-5 (198 1) Reports on the detailed theory of the dynamics of molecules undergoing multiphoton excitation. 3-6 (1982) Elucidation of the chemical identities of the two primary electron acceptors in the photosynthetic reaction centers of green plants. separation of 3-7 (1982) Development of efficient methods for laser-induced uranium and other isotopes. 2-3

l

Problem/Solution

CHRISTAKIS,

122

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

TABLE 8 Chemical Industry Technology/Solution

High-temperature technology Catalysis Photochemical technology Nonaqueous reaction technology Separation technology Electrochemical Aerosol technology Detergent formulation Polymer fabrication Toxicology Bioassay Chromatography Spectroscopy Encapsulation Process control systems Cryogenics Microwave processing Beneficiation Enzyme technology Microbiological processing Distillation Polymerization Fluidized-bed technology

3 3 2 I 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 2

1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2

1 2

Matrix: 1990

3 3 3 2

1 2 3

3-8 (1983) Development of effective single-particle photoactive catalysts for the dissociation of water on exposure to light. 3-9 (1984) Development of effective photoactive membrane systems capable of driving selected redox reactions in an electrochemical cell without competing back-reactions. 3-10 (1985) Elucidation of the detailed structure of the chlorophyll “antenna” system. 3-l 1 (1985) Elucidation of the details of the process by which the photochemical isomerization of the retinal Schiff base in rhodopsin triggers a nerve impulse in the retina of animal eyes. of photoactive polymers whose physical or optical 3-12 (1985) Development properties can be altered reversibly by exposure to light of appropriate wavelengths. 3-13 (1985) Elucidation of the detailed mechanisms by which certain dyes can

FORECASTING SCIENCE

l

l

l

l

l

AND INDUSTRY

123

sensitize the photochemical therapy of cancer by selective destruction of tumors exposed to light. Properties and structures of liquids-solutions (interdisciplinary with physics): 4-l (1983) Literature reporting an extensive analysis of the structure and spectrum of a solvated molecule. Dynamics of intermolecular interactions: 5-l (1978) Molecular-beam studies of heterogeneous reactions for simple organic molecules. 5-2 (1980) Spectroscopic studies of the energy-transfer and bonding characteristics of homogeneous catalysis. Synthetic and structural chemistry (interdisciplinary with biology): 6- 1 (1980) Synthesis of an organometallic porphyrin complex analogous to hemoglobin and capable of reversibly binding oxygen under biological conditions. 6-2 (1982) Synthesis of an organomanganese complex capable of catalyzing the oxygen-releasing half-reaction of photosynthesis. 6-3 (1983) Electrochemical synthesis of a commercially important complex organic molecule. 6-4 (1983) Synthesis of a commercially significant drug by the use of immobilized enzymes. 6-5 (1985) Synthesis of a synthetic molecule that truly mimics the function of a natural enzyme. 6-6 (1985) Development of a biomimetic method for the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen developed. 6-7 (1985) Development of a synthetic, biologically active membrane. 6-8 (1985) Announcement of large-scale stereospecific synthesis, using selective laser excitations. 6-9 (1990) The chemical synthesis of a modified gene. Theoretical chemistry (interdisciplinary with mathematics): 7- 1 (1982) Development of an efficient method for the accurate calculation of the geometries and energies of large organic (or organometallic) molecules. Analytical chemistry (interdisciplinary with physics and biology): 8-l (1981) Development of species-specific detectors for chromatography, based on the spectroscopic or electrochemical properties of the material to be detected. 8-2 (1982) Detection of a variety of trace materials in air, by means of intracavity absorption in a tunable laser. 8-3 (1982) Detection of picogram amounts of specific organic materials by means of negative ion mass spectrometry. 8-4 (1982) Surface procedures (field ionization) allowing one-shot analysis of atomic arrangements in biopolymers. 8-5 (1983) High-performance liquid-chromatographic separation of biologically important materials, based on affinity chromatography reported. 8-6 (1984) Development of a theory of chromatographic separation permitting the prediction of optimal separation conditions for simple mixtures. 8-7 (1985) Development of species-specific electrodes based on immobilized enzymes.

124

CHRISTAKIS,

l

GLOBE,

AND KAWAMURA

Genetic engineering (interdisciplinary with biology): 9-l (1980) Bacterial strains capable of destroying specific water pollutant< developed by genetic engineering. 9-2 (1983) The production of a commercially important chemical using easily grown bacterial mutants reported. 9-3 (1985) Bacterial or algal strains capable of producing single-cell protein from municipal waste developed.

Illustration of Science/Technology Interactions Developed at the Science Forum The industry experts originally identified technologies ranging in number from eight (electronics) to 48 (transportation). Before convening the science forum, it became necessary to aggregate some of the technologies to permit the forum to be conducted within reasonable time. As a result, chemical technologies, for example, were aggregated from 23 to 15. Tables 9 and 10 illustrate the results of the dialectic between the chemistry science experts and the industry experts. As may be seen from Table 10, many of the lines of research identified by the experts are of an interdisciplinary nature. Out of the 45 landmarks identified, 35 were found to have direct contributions to the forecasted chemical industry technologies, 18 to electronics, 10 to metals, and four to transportation. Six were found not to have any direct effects on the forecasted technologies of the industries. Note that, to save space, only those landmarks judged to have direct contributions to the industry-specific technologies are listed in Table 10. Summary and Conclusions Tbe study reported here was undertaken to forecast the future of science and industry, and the relationship between the two for the decade 1980-1990. The project had both a methodological purpose and a substantive objective. Methodologically, its purpose was to devise an approach to make such forecasts and to render them credible and plausible through a dialogue among experts. For the substantive objective, five industrieschemicals, electronics, health-care delivery, metals, and transportation equipment-and two sciences-chemistry and materials science-were chosen to be forecast. The forecasters were provided with a middle-of-the-road scenario for the last quarter of this century, which was intended to provide a common basis for all the forecasts. Questionnaires, outlines, and relevant data were provided to the forecasters (or “experts”) to help them in structuring their responses. The industry experts were asked to take a retrospective view, in the sense that they were to imagine that, as industry executives, they were looking backward from the year 2000 and recording the principal events of their industries. They identified the problems faced or opportunities encountered by their industry, technology-based measures that met these problems or opportunities, and the technologies underlying the technology-based measures. Since the forecasts were based on a scenario, they possess a normative character so that, by altering the scenario, a variety of industrial futures can in principle be explored. The science forecasts were extrapolative in nature. The forecasters were asked to identify the “landmarks” (scientific discoveries of exceptional significance) that were expected to occur, the technologies that the landmarks would support, and those of the five industries of the study to which the technologies would contribute. Since forecasting science is probably more difficult than forecasting industry, two experts were asked to make independent forecasts for each science.

FORECASTING

SCIENCE

AND INDUSTRY

125

The meeting ground of the science and industry forecasts was technology. The degree of complementarity of the technology needs of the industry and the technological contributions from science may both be regarded as a measure of the plausibility of the forecasts as well as the contributions to be expected from science. To explore the complementarity of the two forecasts, a “science forum” was held, attended by the experts. At this forum the experts engaged in a dialogue that produced a dialectic process in which the interaction of the two viewpoints, science and industry, was explored and later displayed in a landmark-technology interaction matrix. As might be expected, contributions from a science to the industry with which it is known to be associated (as with materials science and the metals industry) emerged clearly from the forecast. Contributions to other industries were less pronounced. However, in general, only first-order effects from landmarks to technologies were considered, and the technologies were only those identified as helping to solve problems or responding to opportunities in the industries. A total of 85 landmarks was identified for both sciences, of which seven were identified after the forum was held. From the landmarks discussed at the forum, there were 47 contributions to the chemicals industry, 31 contributions to each of the electronics and metals industries, and 20 contributions to the transportation industry; 13 landmarks were found to have no contributions to the identified technologies of the industries. By tailoring the approach to the specific needs of a problem area, it should be possible to sharpen and focus the methodology developed and applied to this project so as to produce forecasts that distinguish between alternative views of the future, concentrate on contributions of a specific science or on the needs of a specific industry, or identify candidate technologies for technology assessment. A review of the project’s results leads to the following principal conclusions: l

l

l

l

l

The methodology developed during the course of the study permits both extrapolative and normative forecasting of science and industry. The normative aspect is introduced by hypothesizing a scenario and having the experts forecast “retrospectively ” as if they had lived through the scenario. The interaction of the science forecast and the industry forecast was achieved by developing landmark-technology matrices in the course of a dialectical dialogue conducted at a forum of experts. Contributions from a science to the industry with which it is known to be associated (as with chemistry and the chemical industry) emerged clearly from the forecast. On the other hand, there were landmarks forecast for chemistry that were not found to have any first-order effects on the technologies forecast. (But the technologies that were forecast were those needed to ameliorate problems or to take advantage of opportunities. Other technologies that may apply to the industries may thereby not have been identified. Also, higher-order effects were in general not considered.) As might be expected, chemistry was the greatest contributor to the technologies needed by the chemical industry, and materials science was the greatest contributor to the technologies need by the metals industry. Had forecasts been made for other sciences, contributions to industries closely connected with those sciences would likely have been discovered. Science forecasting is very dependent on the forecaster’s experience and interests. Replication by more than one forecaster and collaboration between forecasters is essential.

N

N

N

N

P,

N

N

N

m

m

m

128

CHRISTAKIS,

TABLE Chemistry

Landmark

Chem. ind.

Electronics

Metals

X

X X

l-l

X

1-2 2-l

X X

2-2 2-3

X X

2-4

X

2-5

X

2-6 2-l

X X

3-l

X

3-2

X

3-3

X

3-4

X

3-5

X

3-6

X

3-7

X

3-8

X

3-9

X

3-10

X

3-11

X

3-12

X X

l

Landmark

Chem. ind.

5-l

X

X

Electronics

Metals

Transport.

5-2

X

X

6-2

X X

6-3

X

6-4 6-5

X X

X

6-6

X

6-7

X

6-8 6-9 X

X X X X X X

3-13 4-1

Interactions

6-l

X

AND KAWAMURA

10

Landmark

Transport.

GLOBE,

X

X

7-1

X

X

8-l

X

X

8-2

X

X

8-3

X

X

8-4

X

X

8-5

X

X

8-6

X

X

8-7

X

X

9-1

X

9-2

X

9-3

X

Total

35

X

18

10

4

By tailoring the approach to the specific need of a problem area, it should be possible to sharpen and focus the procedures and methodology of this project so as to produce forecasts that distinguish between alternative views of the future, concentrate on contributions of a specific industry, or identify technologies that are most in need of technology assessment.

This paper is based on a research project supported by the National Science Foundation, under Contract No. PRM-7708336. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of Battelle. Principal participants in this research project included, in addition to the named authors of the paper, the following persons, all members of the staff of the Columbus Laboratories of Battelle Memorial Institute: James P. Barrett (health-care-delivery industry), C. William Hamilton (transportation industry), Edward S. Lipinsky (chemistry), Carroll E. Mobley (materials science), Charles S. Peet (electronics), Robert E. Schwerzel (chemistry), Martin S. Seltzer (materials science), William L. Swager (metallurgy), and George Wolken, Jr. (chemistry). References 1. Science at the Bicentennial: A Reportfrom 1976.

the Research Community,

Report of the National Science Board,

FORECASTING

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY

129

2. Thurow, Lester C., The Relationship Between Defense-Related and Civilian-Oriented Research and Development Priorities, in Priorities and Efficiency in Federal Research and Development, compendium of papers submitted to the Subcommittee on Priorities and Economy in Government, Congress of the United States, October 29, 1976. 3. For a review, see Rosenberg, Nathan, An Assessment of Approaches to tbe Study of Factors Affecting Economic Payoffs from Technological Innovation: A State-of-the-Art Study, Vols. I and II, March 1975 (NTIS PB-245 905). 4. Kranzberg, Melvin, The Disunity of Science-Technology, Am. Sci., 56, 21-34 (1968). 5. Cardwell, D. S. L., Turning Points in Western Technology (A Study of Technology, Science, and History), Science History Publications, New York, 1972. 6. Kranzberg, Melvin, The Unity of Science-Technology, Am. Sci., 55, 48-66 (1967). 7. Langrish, .I., Gibbons, M., Evans, W. G., and Jevons, F. R., Wealth from Knowledge (Studies of Innovation in Industry), Macmillan, London, 1972. 8. The Conditions for Success in Technological Innovation, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris (1971), p. 82. 9. Lien, Arthur P., Anton, Paul, and Duncan, Joseph W., Technological Forecosting: Tools, Techniques, Applications, AMA Management Bulletin No. 115, American Management Association, New York, 1968, p. 5. 10. Helmer, Olaf, Problems in Futures Research: Delphi and Causal Cross-Impact Analysis, Futures 9, 17-31 (1977). 11. Martino, Joseph P., The Use of Technological Forecasts for Planning Research”, in James R. Bright, Ed., Technology Forecasting for Industry and Government, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968, pp. 270-27 1. 12. Heilbroner, Robert, The Future as History, Harper and Row, New York, 1960. 13. Mac Michael, David, Future Studies and Historical Method (unpublished paper, Stanford Research Institute); quoted in James O’Toole, Energy and Social Change, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1976, p-4. Received

14 November

1977; revised 17 January 1978