National Academies Press: OpenBook

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy (2020)

Chapter: Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning

« Previous: 6 Horizon Scanning and Foresight Methods
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25525.
×
Page 186

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Annex 6-1 Defining Horizon Scanning In this report, the committee uses the terms “horizon scanning” and “future thinking”/“foresight” as developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): • Horizon scanning is “a technique for detecting early signs of potentially important developments through a systematic examination of potential threats and opportunities, with emphasis on new technology and its effects on the issue at hand” (OECD, ND-1). • Futures thinking is “a method for informed reflection on the major changes that will occur in the next 10, 20 or more years in all areas of social life….[and] uses a multidisciplinary approach to pierce the veil of received opinion and identify the dynamics that are creating the future. While the future cannot be reliably predicted, one can foresee a range of possible futures and ask which are the most desirable for particular groups and societies. A variety of methods—qualitative, quantitative, normative, and exploratory—help illuminate the possibilities, outline policy choices, and assess the alternatives” (OECD, ND-2) Use of these definitions is consistent with their use in other settings. The United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for example, notes that horizon scanning “generally refers to methodological approaches that scan or review various data sources, while Foresight generally refers to the wider group of more participatory methods” (UN FAO, 2013). There have been numerous other attempts to define horizon scanning (UK Government Cabinet Office, 2013; IRM, 2018; OECD, ND-1; European Commission, 2015). Common components of these definitions include that the tool • makes use of a standardized, systematic methodology, including a specific set of criteria in the searching or filtering processes to ensure that the results are relevant to the scan’s stated aim (UK Government Office for Science, 2013; UN FAO, 2013; OECD, ND-1; UK Government Cabinet Office, 2013); • focuses on emerging trends rather than specific events or discoveries—such as the trend toward more efficient genome engineering compared with the specific discovery of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) as a means of achieving that trend—especially trends that challenge existing assumptions (OECD, ND-1; UK Government Cabinet Office, 2013); • utilizes specified data repositories or other sources of information (OECD, ND-1; UK Government Cabinet Office, 2013); • attempts to differentiate among types of signals, whether they be constants, changes and constant changes, or weak (or early) signals, as well as trends and wild cards (OECD, ND-1; UK Government Cabinet Office, 2013); • looks further ahead than the standard electoral cycle, often into the medium or longer term (UK Government Office for Science, 2013; UK Government Cabinet Office, 2013); and • results in conclusions that can be tied to specific actions or otherwise be fed directly into policy-making processes (UK Government Office for Science, 2013; UN FAO, 2013; OECD, ND-1; UK Government Cabinet Office, 2013). 174 Prepublication Copy

Annex 6-1 HORIZON SCANNING AS A POLICY TOOL According to the Institute for Risk Management, horizon scanning, is used as a tool • “To deepen the understanding of the driving forces affecting future development of a policy or strategy area; • To identify gaps in understanding and bring into focus new areas of research required to understand driving forces better; • To build consensus amongst a range of stakeholders about the issues and how to tackle them; • To identify and make explicit some of the difficult policy choices and trade-offs that may need to be made in the future; • To create a new strategy that is resilient because it is adaptable to changing external conditions; and • To mobilize stakeholders to action.” (IRM, 2018) The European Union (EU) Directorate-General (DG) for Research and Innovation has outlined a series of considerations for developing a horizon-scanning process (European Commission, 2015): • purpose—from providing independent advice as an input to a policy process through legitimizing existing policy decisions; • scope—from providing an overview of an uncharacterized field through exploring a predefined field; • degree of automation—from an automated process through an expert-driven exercise; • duration—from an on-demand activity through an ongoing process; and • integration—from being a stand-alone activity through being part of a broader policy-making process. The EU DG notes that determining the needs of a specific horizon-scanning process for each of these considerations will likely have implications for how focused the results will be. The specific needs of each category will also determine the time and resources required (European Commission, 2015). The United Kingdom provides an example of horizon scanning in policy making, having integrated horizon scanning into its central policy making through its Cabinet Office. The U.K. process considers three policy horizons (Annex Figure 6-1). Horizon 1 relates to impacts that will be felt today and tomorrow, where “trends and events stand out against the background and their impacts are clearly signaled to policy makers.” These trends and events can be addressed by actions currently being taken. Horizon 2 comprises trends whose impact will be seen in the short to medium term and can be fed into strategic thinking. Horizon 3 encompasses those trends that will grow in importance in the longer term, for which some planning may be needed. The U.K. process frames horizon scanning as a tool that “looks towards the long term (Horizon 2 to 3) but is not focused exclusively on it; many H3 developments are the long-term outcome of a range of factors, some of which are in play already” (UK Government Office for Science, 2017). GOOD PRACTICE IN HORIZON SCANNING Factors to be considered when developing a horizon-scanning process include sources of information, criteria and questions used to explore them, and policy impact. Prepublication Copy 175

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy ANNEX FIGURE 6-1 The United Kingdom’s three horizons model for future thinking representing short-, medium-, and long-term timescales of outlook. SOURCE: UK Government Office for Science, 2017. Sources of Information Information for a horizon scan can come from a wide variety of sources, and needs to be tailored to the area of interest of the individual process. Information sources can be traditional, such as publications, quantitative and qualitative data, and published expert opinions, but it is equally important to consider unique sources that fall on “the margins of current thinking,” ensuring a holistic perspective (Habegger, 2009). As a result, sources can also be less traditional, such as news outlets, social media, and prepublication servers. In addition, the process may need to take into account insights into lifestyles, people’s sociological expectations, or other indicators of potential impact. It will often benefit from including insights from key stakeholders, such as those provided by professional bodies, industry leaders, customers, or those working in the field in question. It is also possible to apply semiquantitative approaches to rating the utility of different sources (Smith et al., 2010). Efforts are under way to move from manual compilation of information using experts to more automated models. For example, Singapore established the Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning Experimentation Center to develop better tools for data analytics, modeling, and perspective sharing (Chong et al., 2007). Efforts have been made as well to adapt advances in agent-based modeling in order to automate some of the analysis of the output from horizon scans (Frank, 2016). Criteria and Questions Used to Explore Them When a scan of a short timescale on a specific topic is being prepared, it is important for it to describe the trend or development identified, explain how it relates to the policy or strategy area being explored, and detail why the trend or development is believed to be important and what thoughts it stimulated. The process can include links back to supporting materials and additional information. To ensure comparability, some processes suggest that those participating in a horizon scan attempt to frame the issues at a similar level of granularity. For example, very specific developments might have a profound impact in one area but be much less likely to have an impact at the level of a policy development. On the other hand, overgeneralization may offer policy relevance but lack specific ties to trends or developments specific enough to be targeted by policy actions (Wintle et al., 2017). Either when developing a scan on a topic or when reviewing its potential policy impact, a number of specific criteria have been suggested, and specific questions have been proposed for exploring each criterion (see Annex Table 6-1) (Hines et al., 2018). 176 Prepublication Copy

Annex 6-1 There are also more quantitative approaches for comparing criteria. For example, an analytic hierarchy process can be used to weight the criteria applied in a horizon-scanning exercise (WHO, 2017; Mehand et al., 2018). Policy Impact During the committee’s webinar on horizon scanning, speakers indicated the importance of having a specific sponsor for horizon-scanning and futuring work. A sponsor would need to have the resources to sustain relevant work, the ability to feed the results into relevant policy-making processes, and a high-level interest in the work to ensure that neither the process nor the conclusions of the horizon scan would readily be sidelined. Speakers also discussed the importance of carefully considering how the output from foresight processes might best be used to inform decisions, i.e., how the future can be used to inform today’s decisions. That process would likely involve creating a narrative for the future, including through different storytelling approaches. It is also useful to use backcasting (starting with a desirable future and working backwards to highlight decisions and actions that connect it to the present). 9 The EU has stressed the importance of people in translating the results of a horizon scan into action. It suggests that while parts of the process might be automated, expert involvement is likely to result in more policy-relevant output. It also stresses the importance of understanding who might take action as a result of the scan, what their drivers and priorities are, and a clear plan to engage them (or ensure their buy-in from the start) (European Commission, 2015). The Institute for Risk Management recommends developing a framework for categorizing separate scans to facilitate comparing and reviewing them. It also stresses the importance of highlighting the potential impact of the events and trends identified, in particular describing potential risks and time to impact, which should help an end user better understand the need to take action and how fast it is necessary to act (IRM, 2018). ANNEX TABLE 6-1 Criteria and Questions To Be Considered When Conducting a Horizon Scan Criterion Questions Credibility Is the source reputable? Are there confirmations elsewhere? Novelty Is the hit new? Or has it been widely reported? Is it new to the client/audience? Likelihood What are the chances that the hit will occur, and that it will amount to something? Impact Will it change the future? If it does change the future, how big a change will that be? Relevance How important is that change to the client or the domain? Is the relevance direct or indirect? Time to awareness How long before this information is widely known? When will it appear in a mainstream newspaper or magazine? Are there resources to influence the potential outcome suggested by the hit? Time to prepare How long before this hit begins to change the future? Is it too late to do anything about it? Is it so far off that action now would be premature? SOURCE: Adapted from Hines et al. (2018). 9 Webinar 3, 2019, http://nas-sites.org/dels/studies/bioeconomy/webinars. Prepublication Copy 177

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy In its Futures Toolkit, the United Kingdom further elaborates on the importance of a framework for categorizing scans. It proposes two possible approaches: either structuring them according to different change drivers, such as political, economic, societal, technological, legislative, or environmental factors; or preferably grouping them by themes that emerge from the scans themselves. The toolkit highlights two different formats for presenting the results of a scan: a longer narrative summary providing an overview, broad implications, and specific policy implications; and a shorter structured summary providing a few simple details of impacts, issues, and implications (UK Government Office for Science, 2017). CASE STUDIES OF HORIZON SCANNING Examples of Health-Related Horizon Scans There have been numerous efforts to use horizon scans to identify and prioritize emerging technology in the health sector. Some examples are published snapshots of a single horizon scan, while others are ongoing monitoring processes, and a few track trends in the use of these tools. Examples include the following: • A joint project of the governments of Australia and New Zealand assessed the potential impact of emerging technologies on public health systems (HealthPACT, 2011). • A review focused on how horizon scanning has been used to help determine the suitability for public subsidy of new and emerging medical technologies in the Australian private health care sector (O’Malley and Jordan, 2009). • The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health conducts a horizon-scanning process to identify and monitor new and emerging health technologies that are likely to have a significant impact on the delivery of health care (CADTH, 2015). • A 2012 review focused on different horizon-scanning approaches used in the United Kingdom’s health system (Miles and Saritas, 2012); • A 2016 review of the use of forecasting tools identified emerging medical health technologies. The study identified 15 relevant efforts and noted that almost all relied on expert opinion, and only 2 used more complex processes, such as scenario development (Doos et al., 2016). • A 1999 review examined how horizon scanning can help the United Kingdom’s National Health Service identify and evaluate new technologies and select the most important ones for further support (Stevens et al., 1999). • A 2003 joint Danish and U.K. effort was undertaken to analyze how the Internet is used by horizon-scanning systems to systematically identify new health technologies (Douw et al., 2003). Examples of Food Safety–Related Horizon Scans The FAO identified several organizations that have or continue to regularly conduct horizon scans for food safety (UN FAO, 2013): • Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Canada)—This government organization is responsible for safeguarding food in Canada and performs foresight exercises on a semiregular basis.10 • Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures, Cranfield University (United Kingdom)— Founded in January 2011, this academic group conducts regular research into foresight 10 See http://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/strategic-priorities/cfia-s-strategic-priorities/eng/1521141282 459/1521141282849 178 Prepublication Copy

Annex 6-1 methodologies and has been contracted in the past by the U.K. government to carry out relevant horizon scans. 11 • Horizon Scanning and Futures Team, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (United Kingdom)—“A leader in horizon scanning work at a global level, this group provides policy advice, identifies future risks and opportunities, and topic specific workshops.” 12 • European Food Safety Authority (EU)—This organization is responsible for a wide range of food safety issues in the EU and carries out assessments of emerging risks that utilize aspects of foresight methodologies. 13 • Food Standards Agency (United Kingdom)—This is the government agency in the United Kingdom responsible for food safety and hygiene, and it has been exploring the use of foresight methodologies in the area of food safety. 14 • Strategic Foresight, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Australia)— Focused on environmental scanning and foresight techniques to identify future issues, this government organization works with local and international partners, and its work includes food safety. 15 Example of Combining Separate Horizon Scans The United Kingdom’s Futures Toolkit includes case studies of how seven different government agencies and ministries make use of futuring tools. Each case study sets out the purpose of the work, the tools used, resources required, the work’s sponsor, specific outputs, particular successes, and challenges. Five of these agencies—the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission England, Health and Safety Executive, Revenues and Customs, and Natural England—make specific mention of the purpose of their horizon-scanning work (UK Government Office for Science, 2017). The specific purposes for horizon scanning differ but include using it to identify new and emerging issues and trends; improve the evidence base for decision making and risk mitigation; help identify risks and opportunities; integrate externalities into business planning; and to inform strategy, provoke discussion, and shape thinking. LESSONS LEARNED FROM HORIZON SCANNING In addition to lessons identified during the webinar held by the committee, several key actors, including the National Intelligence Council (NIC, 2017), the U.S. Forest Service (Hines et al., 2018), the U.K. government (Carney, 2018), and the EU (European Commission, 2015), have distilled lessons from their past use of horizon scanning. National Intelligence Council Global Trends Report Improvements in methodology integrated into the most recent iteration of the Global Trends report produced by the National Intelligence Council include (NIC, 2017) • involving of as many experts as possible, from a broad range of countries, with a wide variety of backgrounds; • exploring regional trends first and then aggregating them to create a global picture; 11 See https://theriskexchange.wordpress.com. 12 See https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070506093923/http://horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk. 13 See http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5359. 14 See http://www.operational-research.gov.uk/recruitment/departments/fsa. 15 See http://www.agriculture.gov.au/animal/health/strategy. Prepublication Copy 179

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy • avoiding connecting conclusions to specific dates, but rather focusing on timeframes relevant to policy making—near-term (5-year), focused on issues confronting the next U.S. administration, and long-term (20-year), to support U.S. strategic planning; • placing greater focus on difficult-to-measure social and cultural factors that could influence the future events; • making increased use of analytic simulations, “employing teams of experts to represent key international actors—to explore the future trajectories for regions of the world, the international order, the security environment, and the global economy”; and • integrating “the potential for discontinuities in all regions and topic areas, developing an appreciation for the types of discontinuities likely to represent fundamental shifts from the status quo.” U.S. Forest Service Also in the United States, efforts to establish a horizon-scanning system in the Forest Service led to a number of key reflections, including the following (Hines et al., 2018): • Background information versus horizon scanning—In general, as horizon scanning is focused on what might happen in the future, the information used in scans should be new (from within the last few years). Older sources may still be useful as background information but not seen as part of an emerging trend. • New to me versus new to the world—Some information may appear new but be familiar to those well versed in the field. This observation highlights the importance of including subject matter experts on the issues being scanned. • How to handle “coaching” of volunteers—Having those undertaking the scans start from the same place and (to the extent possible) use complementary approaches is important. Regular interactions with those undertaking the scans are also important to reinforce guidance provided to them, as is approaching feedback in a positive, constructive manner (as opposed to criticizing participants). • Focusing on outside issues—Policy makers and decision makers are often well versed in emerging issues in their own field. Participants in horizon scanning can add particular value by looking at events or trends from outside the core field (in this case the bioeconomy) that could also have an impact. • Staying connected—Whether or not the trend or event identified comes from the core field, its implications for the core field must be clearly articulated. This can be achieved by specifically tasking those undertaking the scan to explicitly address the implications for the core field. • Stretching into the future—It is important to encourage those undertaking the scan to think further into the future. One approach is asking them to “tag” the scan to one of the three horizons identified earlier in Annex Figure 6-1. • Tagging discipline—As the number of scans grows, it becomes more difficult to track their content and how they relate to each other and the issue being investigated. It is important to add tags, keywords, or relationship indicators to the scans to facilitate their ongoing use. • Current issues—As discussed above, those familiar with a field (be they technical experts or policy makers) are often aware of current emerging issues. Frequently, these issues are not well articulated or documented. It will greatly improve the utility of scans and increase the value of engaging generalists or specialists from other fields if an effort is made early in the process to map current emerging issues and provide this information to all those involved in the horizon-scanning process. 180 Prepublication Copy

Annex 6-1 U.K. Government Based on the use of horizon scanning in the U.K. government, 10 key rules have been identified. Some of these rules have been discussed in this annex and in the main text of Chapter 6—for example, (1) that horizon scanning is not about predicting the future but about challenging assumptions and increasing options, (2) that there is a lack of common understanding about what horizon scanning is or the terms being used, and (3) that focusing on impact and explicitly exploring the implications of the trends or events identified is important. Other rules bear emphasizing here, such as the importance of (Carney, 2018) • asking the unasked questions (or attempting to explore the unknown unknowns), as opposed to focusing on something that is already known or a specific desirable outcome; • having a champion or dedicated client for the process—someone that wants the results and is keen and willing to integrate and act upon the results; and • involving generalists (or at least participants from outside the commissioning domain) and understanding their value in identifying the unasked questions or implications not seen to date, as well as in presenting the outcome of the work. European Union Similarly, the EU has identified a number of key considerations, including (European Commission, 2015) • having a clear organizational structure (or institutional support) for horizon scanning, such as arrangements for coordination and brokerage with users; • developing a specific implementation plan to take advantage of the scanning results, or integrating the scan into a more comprehensive foresight process; • undertaking both continuous horizon-scanning processes in strategically important areas and stand-alone projects designed to answer explicit questions; • using expert review to help transform information into actionable knowledge; • tailoring the approach used and people involved to the scan’s end goal, recognizing that processes for understanding a new policy environment will be different from those for considering the implications of emerging trends and new events; • involving the end user/client of a horizon scan (such as policy makers) in the planning stages, such as the initial sense-making activities; and • ensuring that the results of the scan are accessible to the eventual end user, likely necessitating that they be “translated” at a suitable stage. ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR FUTURE THINKING Superforecasting As discussed briefly in the main text of Chapter 6, in 2010, the Intelligence Advance Research Projects Agency (IARPA) created a program to explore how crowdsourcing can improve forecasting16: Generally, forecasts are prepared using expert judgment by individuals and small groups. Empirical research outside the intelligence community has shown that the accuracy of judgment- based forecasts is consistently improved by mathematically aggregating many independent 16 See IARPA, Aggregative Contingent Estimation: https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/ace/baa. Prepublication Copy 181

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy judgments. The goal of the ACE Program is to dramatically enhance the accuracy, precision, and timeliness of forecasts for a broad range of event types, through the development of advanced techniques that elicit, weight, and combine the judgments of many intelligence analysts. Similar programs have subsequently focused on developing “innovative solutions and methods for integrating crowd sourced forecasts and other data into accurate, timely forecasts on worldwide issues.”17 There have also been programs created “to develop and test methods for generating accurate forecasts for significant science and technology (S&T) milestones, by combining the judgments of many experts” 18; and “to develop automated methods that aid in the systematic, continuous, and comprehensive assessment of technical emergence using information found in published scientific, technical, and patent literature.” 19 IARPA tested the tools for aggregating crowdsourced forecasting in a 4-year series of tournaments, where (Tetlock et al., 2017) …contestants competed to produce the most accurate predictions on a wide array of geopolitical and economic topics, ranging from the performance of financial markets, to the risk of Greece leaving the Eurozone, to the prospects of a violent Sino-Japanese clash in the East China Sea. One successful team subsequently identified a number of key findings (Tetlock et al., 2017): • “Some methods for extracting wisdom from crowds are better than others. Prediction polls yield a probabilistic forecast by aggregating the predictions of individuals….In contrast, prediction markets rely on forecasters buying and selling contracts whose ultimate value depends on the outcome of a future event.” • “The winning algorithm across all tournament years was a log-odds weighted-averaging equation that extremized median probability judgments…as a function of the diversity of the views feeding into the median.” • “Some forecasters are, surprisingly consistently, better than others.” • “Learning—and therefore improvement—is possible, even though the world of international politics and economics…is not learning-friendly.” The last two of these findings form the basis of superforecasting (Tetlock and Gardner, 2015). This process brings together in teams those individuals with a proven track record of being able to make more accurate predictions, supported by specialized tools and algorithms so as to further increase their accuracy. A thorough assessment of the performance of superforecasters during the tournaments demonstrated that they were significantly more accurate in making predictions than other participants and that “tight restrictions on time and information did not erode the superforecaster advantage.” They were also better able to differentiate between signal and noise and were the fastest learners in the tournament. These studies demonstrated that while certain types of people are more likely to become superforecasters, certain skills and organizational arrangements can increase the ability to make accurate predictions. Thus, “superforecasters are partly discovered and partly created.” Mellers and colleagues (2015) identify “…four mutually reinforcing explanations of superforecaster performance: (a) cognitive abilities and styles, (b) task-specific skills, (c) motivation and commitment, and (d) enriched environments.” The first cohorts of superforecasters were identified during the IARPA forecasting tournaments. Efforts to identify and recruit additional individuals have continued through Good Judgment Open. 20 17 IARPA, Geopolitical Forecasting Challenge (ACE): https://www.iarpa.gov/challenges/gfchallenge.html. 18 IARPA, Forecasting Science & Technology (ForeST): https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/ forest. 19 IARPA, Foresight and Understanding from Scientific Exposition (FUSE): https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/ research-programs/fuse. 20 See https://www.gjopen.com. 182 Prepublication Copy

Annex 6-1 Since the tournaments, the approach has been developed into a commercial service through Good Judgment, which works with governments, the financial sector, and civil society and nongovernmental organizations, providing forecasting, training services, and tools and techniques. 21 UK Government Office for Science’s Futures Toolkit In 2017, the UK Government Office for Science (GO-Science) published a Futures Toolkit that “policy professionals can use to embed long term strategic thinking in the policy and strategy process.” It is intended to be “practical rather than theoretical and…based on GO-Science’s own experience of running futures work and has been developed in collaboration with other government departments and futures practitioners who use these tools regularly in a wide range of settings” (UK Government Office for Science, 2017). The tools in the kit are structured around four common uses for foresight: • gathering intelligence about the future; • exploring the dynamics of change; • describing what the future may be like; and • developing and testing policy and strategy. As the task assigned to this committee was to “develop ideas for horizon scanning mechanisms to identify new technologies, markets, and data sources that have the potential to drive future development of the bioeconomy,” our focus was on the use of foresight tools to gather bioeconomy-related intelligence about the future. The toolkit describes four tools relevant for gathering intelligence about the future (UK Government Office for Science, 2017): • Horizon scanning—as described in this chapter. • 7 Questions—This is “an interview technique for gathering the strategic insights of a range of internal and external stakeholders.” It can be used to identify conflicting or challenging views of the future, extract deep information about underlying concerns in a policy area, and stimulate individuals’ thinking in preparation for a futures workshop. It is a fairly quick process, with each interview taking about an hour to conduct and another hour to write up. • The issues paper—This paper “presents quotes from the 7 Questions interviews to illustrate the strategic issues and choices around the policy and strategy agenda.” It can be used to capture different perspectives from those captured by the 7 Questions interviews about what success in the future will be like and what needs to be done to achieve it. This is another quick process, taking around 30 minutes to process each of the 7 questions per interview. • Delphi process—This is “a consultation process used to gather opinion from a wide group of subject experts about the future and to prioritize the issues of strategic importance.” It can be used to gather opinion from a group of experts, refine thinking on the future, and highlight the potential trade-offs and choices that policy design will need to address. It is a more time- consuming process that can take several weeks. The tools in the kit are then combined in different ways to meet different needs, as captured in a series of pathways (UK Government Office for Science, 2017): • Pathway 1—exploring underlying issues or causes when scoping or defining a policy area; • Pathway 2—determining a vision for a new policy area; • Pathway 3—testing policy options for an existing policy area under time constraints; 21 See https://goodjudgment.com. Prepublication Copy 183

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy • Pathway 4—testing policy options for a policy area; • Pathway 5—exploring and communicating the complexity of a situation; • Pathway 6—identifying futures research and evidence priorities; and • Pathway 7—identifying and prioritizing future opportunities and threats for action. Given the focus of this study and the committee’s statement of task, Pathways 6 and 7 are of particular relevance. These pathways use additional tools, including (UK Government Office for Science, 2017) the following: • Driver mapping is used to “identify drivers shaping the future, identify which drivers are most important for the future of the policy area or strategic endeavor, and distinguish between certain and uncertain outcomes resulting from the action of drivers.” It is another quick tool, usually taking 1–2 hours depending on whether it is accomplished in small groups or as a workshop. • Roadmapping “shows how a range of inputs—research, trends, policy interventions, for example—will combine over time to shape future development of the policy or strategy area of interest.” It can be used to “build a holistic picture of the different elements in a project and how they combine over time” and “deepen understanding of the connections and relationships between different elements.” This tool need not take a long time, and an initial version can be assembled in about an hour and a half. It can be revisited and improved throughout the life of a foresight program. • SWOT analysis examines “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Strengths and Weaknesses are internal factors that need to be taken account of when developing policy or strategy. Opportunities and Threats are external factors that need to be considered.” The analysis can identify what needs to be done to capture and build on opportunities, identify what needs to be done to mitigate threats, and identify internal priorities and challenges. A simple SWOT analysis can be accomplished in an hour. Pathway 6 for Identifying futures research and evidence priorities begins with horizon scanning but feeds the results into 7 Questions, issues papers, driver mapping, and then roadmapping. Pathway 7 for identifying and prioritizing future opportunities and threats for action also starts with horizon scanning but feeds the results into driver mapping and SWOT analysis. REFERENCES Amanatidou, E., M. Butter, V. Carabias, T. Könnölä, M. Leis, O. Saritas, P. Schaper-Rinkel, and V. van Rij. 2012. On concepts and methods in horizon scanning: Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues. Science and Public Policy 39(2):208–221. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs017. Bracken, P. 2006. Net assessment: A practical guide, parameters, parameters. Journal of the U.S. Army War College XXXVI(1). https://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/06bracken.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). Brown, I. T., A. Smale, A. Verma, and S. Momandwall, 2005. Medical technology horizon scanning. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine 28(3). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03178717 (accessed September 4, 2019). Brown, M. J., L. V. Dicks, R. J. Paxton, K. C. Baldock, A. B. Barron, M. P. Chauzat, B. M. Freitas, D. Goulson, S. Jepsen, C. Kremen, J. Li, P. Neumann, D. E. Pattemore, S. G. Potts, O. Schweiger, C. L. Seymour, and J. C. Stout. 2016. A horizon scan of future threats and opportunities for pollinators and pollination. PeerJ 4:e2249. doi:10.7717/peerj.2249. CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health). 2015. Horizon scanning process. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/externalprocesses_horizonscanningprogram.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). 184 Prepublication Copy

Annex 6-1 Carney, J. 2018. The ten commandments of horizon scanning. Futures, Foresight and Horizon Scanning, March 8. https://foresightprojects.blog.gov.uk/2018/03/08/the-ten-commandments-of-horizon-scanning (accessed September 4, 2019). Chong, T. K., J. K. Y. Hann, J. T. T. Hua, W. R. Fah, S. A. Lim, and C. C. Seng. 2007. Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning Experimentation Centre. https://www.dsta.gov.sg/docs/default-source/dsta-about/risk- assessment-and-horizon-scanning-experimentation-centre.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed September 4, 2019). Cyranoski, D., and H. Ledford. 2018. Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07545-0 (accessed September 4, 2019). Doos, L., C. Packer, D. Ward, S. Simpson, and A. Stevens. 2016. Past speculations of the future: A review of the methods used for forecasting emerging health technologies. BMJ Open 6(3):e010479. doi:10.1136/bmjopen- 2015-010479. Douw, K., H. Vondeling, D. Eskildsen, and S. Simpson. 2003. Use of the Internet in scanning the horizon for new and emerging health technologies: A survey of agencies involved in horizon scanning. Journal of Medical Internet Research 5(1):e6. doi:10.2196/jmir.5.1.e6. EBRC (Engineering Biology Research Consortium). 2019. Engineering biology: A research roadmap for the next generation bioeconomy. https://roadmap.ebrc.org (accessed October 15, 2019). European Commission. 2015. Models of horizon scanning: How to integrate horizon scanning into European research and innovation policies. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/88ea0daa-0c3c-11e6-ba9a- 01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/DOC_1 (accessed September 4, 2019). European Environmental Agency. 2011. Annex 6—Netherlands country case study. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ publications/blossom/annex-6-2014-netherlands-country (accessed October 15, 2019). Frank, A. B. 2016. Toward computational net assessment. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 14(1):79–94. doi:10.1177/1548512916681672. Habegger, B. 2009. Horizon scanning in government concept, country experiences, and models for Switzerland. Zurich, Switzerland: Center for Security Studies ETH Zurich. https://works.bepress.com/beathabegger/16 (accessed September 4, 2019). HealthPACT (Health Policy Advisory Committee on Technology). 2011. Welcome to the Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network (ANZHSN). http://www.horizonscanning.gov.au (accessed October 15, 2019). Hines, A., D. N. Bengston, M. J. Dockry, and A. Cowart. 2018. Setting up a horizon scanning system: A U.S. federal agency example. World Futures Review 10(2):136–151. https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2018/ nrs_2018_hines-a_001.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). Horton, A. 1999. A simple guide to successful foresight. Foresight 1(1):5–9. IRM (Institute for Risk Management). 2018. Horizon scanning: A practitioner’s guide produced by the innovation special interest group of the Institute of Risk Management. https://www.theirm.org/media/4047721/Horizon- scanning_final2.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). Konecny, A. D. 1988. Net assessment: An examination of the process. Thesis. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a205104.pdf (accessed October 15, 2019). Lentzos, F., and J. Littlewood. 2018. DARPA’s Prepare program: Preparing for what?. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 26. https://thebulletin.org/2018/07/darpas-prepare-program-preparing-for-what (accessed September 4, 2019). Mehand, M. S., P. Millett, F. Al-Shorbaji, C. Roth, M. P. Kieny, and B. Murgue. 2018. World Health Organization methodology to prioritize emerging infectious diseases in need of research and development. Emerging Infectious Diseases 24(9). https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/24/9/17-1427_article (accessed September 4, 2019). Mellers, B., E. Stone, T. Murray, A. Minster, N. Rohrbaugh, M. Bishop, E. Chen, J. Baker, Y. Hou, M. Horowitz, L. Ungar, and P. Tetlock. 2015. Identifying and cultivating superforecasters as a method of improving probabilistic predictions. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(3) 267–281. doi:10.1177/1745691615577794. Miles, I., and O. Saritas. 2012. The depth of the horizon: Searching, scanning and widening horizons. doi:10.1108/14636681211284953. NIC (National Intelligence Council). 2017. Methodological note, global trends: Paradox of progress. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/global-trends/methodological-note (accessed September 4, 2019). O’Malley, S. P. and E. Jordan. 2009. Horizon scanning of new and emerging medical technology in Australia: Its relevance to Medical Services Advisory Committee health technology assessments and public funding. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 25(3):374–82. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990031. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). ND. Citation 1: Overview of methodologies, futures thinking in brief, future schooling. Prepublication Copy 185

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy https://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/overviewofmethodologies.htm (accessed September 4, 2019). OECD. ND. Citation 2: Futures thinking in brief, future schooling. https://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrow knowledgebase/futuresthinking/futuresthinkinginbrief.htm (accessed September 4, 2019). Office of Technical Intelligence. 2015. Technical assessment: Data enabled technology watch and horizon scanning. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1010211.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). Popper, R. 2008. Foresight methodology. In The handbook of technology foresight: Concepts and practice, edited by L. Georghio, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, and R. Popper. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Rowe, E., G. Wright, and J. Derbyshire. 2017, Enhancing horizon scanning by utilizing pre-developed scenarios: Analysis of current practice and specification of a process improvement to aid the identification of important “weak signals.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 125:224–235. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517300707 (accessed September 14, 2019). Schultz, W. L. 2006. The cultural contradictions of managing change: Using horizon scanning in an evidence-based policy context. Foresight 8(4):3–12. Smith, J., A. Cook, and C. Packer. 2010. Evaluation criteria to assess the value of identification sources for horizon scanning. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 26(3):348–353. doi:10.1017/S026646231000036X. Stevens, A., R. Milne, R. Lilford, and J. Gabbay. 1999. Keeping pace with new technologies: Systems needed to identify and evaluate them. British Medical Journal 319(7220):1291. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1291. Sutherland, W. J., H. Ilary, A. Llison, R. Osalind, A. Veling, I. P. Bainbridge, L. Bnnun , D. J. Bullock, A. Clements, H. Q. P. Crick, D. W. Gibbons , S. Smith, M. R. W. Rands, P. Rose , J. P. W. Scharlemann, and M. S. Warren. 2012. Enhancing the value of horizon scanning through collaborative review: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605311001724 (accessed September 4, 2019). Tetlock, P. E., and D. Gardner. 2015. Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. New York: Crown Publishing. Tetlock, P. E., B. A. Mellers, and J. P. Scoblic. 2017. Bringing probability judgments into policy debates via forecasting tournaments. Science 355(6324):481–483. doi:10.1126/science.aal3147. UK Government Office for Science. 2013. Horizon Scanning Programme: A new approach for policy making. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/horizon-scanning-programme-a-new-approach-for-policy-making (accessed September 4, 2019). UK Government Cabinet Office. 2013. Review of cross-government horizon scanning. https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/review-of-cross-government-horizon-scanning (accessed September 4, 2019). UK Government Office for Science. 2017. The futures toolkit: Tools for futures thinking and foresight across U.K. government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/674209/futures-toolkit-edition-1.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). UN FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013. Horizon scanning and foresight: An overview of approaches and possible applications in food safety. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4061e.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). Wellcome Trust. 2017. Report from the December 2017 gene drive sponsors and supporters’ forum. https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/gene-drive-forum-notes-dec17.pdf (accessed October 15, 2019). WHO (World Health Organization). 2017. Methodology for prioritizing severe emerging diseases for research and development. https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/RDBlueprint-PrioritizationTool.pdf (accessed September 4, 2019). Wintle, B. C., C. R. Boehm, C. Rhodes, J. C. Molloy, P. Millett, L. Adam, R. Breitling, R. Carlson, R. Casagrande, M. Dando, R. Doubleday, E. Drexler, B. Edwards, T. Ellis, N. G. Evans, R. Hammond, J. Haseloff, L. Kahl, T. Kuiken, B. R. Lichman, C. A. Matthewman, J. A. Napier, S. S. ÓhÉigeartaigh, N. J. Patron, E. Perello, P. Shapira, J. Tait, E. Takano, and W. J. Sutherland 2017. A transatlantic perspective on 20 emerging issues in biological engineering, https://elifesciences.org/articles/30247 (accessed September 4, 2019). 186 Prepublication Copy

Next: Part III: Understanding the Risks Associated with the U.S. Bioeconomy »
Safeguarding the Bioeconomy Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $75.00 Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Research and innovation in the life sciences is driving rapid growth in agriculture, biomedical science, information science and computing, energy, and other sectors of the U.S. economy. This economic activity, conceptually referred to as the bioeconomy, presents many opportunities to create jobs, improve the quality of life, and continue to drive economic growth. While the United States has been a leader in advancements in the biological sciences, other countries are also actively investing in and expanding their capabilities in this area. Maintaining competitiveness in the bioeconomy is key to maintaining the economic health and security of the United States and other nations.

Safeguarding the Bioeconomy evaluates preexisting and potential approaches for assessing the value of the bioeconomy and identifies intangible assets not sufficiently captured or that are missing from U.S. assessments. This study considers strategies for safeguarding and sustaining the economic activity driven by research and innovation in the life sciences. It also presents ideas for horizon scanning mechanisms to identify new technologies, markets, and data sources that have the potential to drive future development of the bioeconomy.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!