ETAN Working Paper
Improving Communication
Between Experts and Policy-makers
On Science and Technology Policy Issues
- The Case of ETAN -
Prepared by an independent ETAN Expert Working Group
for the European Commission
Directorate General for Research
Directorate AP - Policy Co-ordination and Strategy
Final Report - June 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
3
1. Introduction
5
2. ETAN Goals and Achievements
5
2.1. Description of the activity
2.2. Actors
2.3. Working method
2.4. Products
2.5. Reflections on the Climate Change Working Paper
and Seminar
3. Assessment and Options for the Future
3.1. Defining the client
3.2. Approach
3.3. Selection of topics
3.4. Terms of Reference
3.5. The Working Group
3.5.1. Constraints
3.5.2. Chairperson
3.5.3. Rapporteur
3.5.4. Members
3.6. Processes and products
3.6.1. Preparing the working paper
3.6.2. Seminar
3.6.3. Preparing the final report
3.6.4. Follow up and dissemination
3.7. Interactions with other institutions
3.8. Resources
Annexes
Annex I: List of acronyms
Annex II: Terms of reference
Annex III: ETAN activities
5
6
7
8
9
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
19
19
THE ETAN EXPERT WORKING GROUP
Chair
Manfred Horvat, BIT, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 76, 1040 Vienna, AUSTRIA
Rapporteur
Emmanuel Koukios, META Unit, National Technical University of Athens, C/o Dept. of
Chemical Engineering NTUA Zografou Campus, 15700 Athens, GREECE
Members
Jean-Louis Armand, Université d’Aix-Marseille II, Rue Adanson 5, 13100 Aix-en Provence,
FRANCE
Lars Kluver, Danish Board of Technology, Antonigade 4, 1106 Copenhagen, DENMARK
William Westermeyer, Rue Viollier 2, 1207 Geneva, SWITZERLAND
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Officer responsible
Nikolaos Kastrinos, Directorate General for Research, Strategy and Co-ordination, Scientific
and Technological Perspectives
EXTERNAL EXPERTS WHO COMMENTED ON A DRAFT OF THE REPORT
Vappu Taipale, STAKES, P.O. Box 220, SF-00531 Helsinki, FINLAND
(Chair of the ETAN Expert Working Group on “Ageing population and technology:
challenges and opportunities”)
Frieder Meyer-Krahmer, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI),
Karlsruhe, GERMANY (Chair of the ETAN Expert Working Group on “Internationalisation
of Research and Technology”)
Uno Svedin, Council for Planning and Co-ordination of Research, Box 7101, S-103 87,
Stockholm, SWEDEN (Chair of the ETAN Expert Working Group on “Climate change and
the challenge for research and technological development policy”)
Ken Guy, Technopolis Ltd., 3 Pavilion Buildings, Brighton, UK-BN1 1EE, UNITED
KINGDOM (Rapporteur of the ETAN Expert Working Group on “Climate change and the
challenge for research and technological development policy”)
Guido Reger, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Karlsruhe, and
University of Brandenburg, GERMANY (Rapporteur of the ETAN Expert Working Group on
“Internationalisation of Research and Technology”)
FOREWORD
European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN)
The purpose of ETAN is to promote communication and debate at the European level between
policy researchers and policy makers on important science and technology (S&T) policy
topics. ETAN convenes expert working groups which review, consolidate and synthesise
results of socio-economic and other research to identify issues and options for S&T policy.
The task of each working group is to prepare a report in a form appropriate for discussion with
policy makers and other stakeholders. ETAN’s ultimate objective is to promote a shared
understanding of the issues in order to facilitate the development of more consistent,
concerted and complementary European and national S&T policies.
The Expert Working Group
The ETAN Working Group on ‘Improving communication and debate between experts and
policy-makers on science and technology policy issues: the case of ETAN’ met three times in
1998-1999 to consider the experience of the ETAN pilot phase, which was launched in 1997,
in order to:

evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of the ETAN approach and
experience in promoting communication between experts and policy makers; and

draw any lessons learned from this experience, as well as from other such exercises, for
the improvement of communication between policy makers and experts on S&T policy
issues from a European perspective.
The meetings of the group were attended by Commission officers, only to the extent that the
working group deemed necessary in order to contribute information on the rationale and the
operation of ETAN.
The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the working group, whose views
do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission.
Purpose of the report
Communication between experts and policy-makers lies at the core of science and technology
policy-making. The purpose of the report is to provide input in the shaping of functions of
organised communication between experts and policy-makers on science and technology
policy issues primarily at the EU level, and with a particular focus on the initiative on
Strategic Analysis of specific political issues (STRATA) which has incorporated the ETAN
means and functions in the 5th Framework Programme. Despite the specificity of the
commentary to the circumstances of ETAN, the report should be useful for similar activities
initiated at regional, national and international level.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Expert Working Group was put together in order to:
(a)
evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of the ETAN approach in
promoting communication and debate at the European level between policy
researchers as well as other relevant experts, and policy makers on important S&T
policy issues.; and
(b)
draw any lessons learned from this experience, as well as from other such exercises,
for the improvement of communication between policy makers and experts on S&T
policy issues from a European perspective. The mandate of this Group has only been to
study the so-called ETAN “pilot phase,” launched in 1997.
1. Despite a slow start, the ETAN goal of improving communication between experts and
policy makers on science and technology issues is a worthy one, and one that has not been
adequately addressed by the European Commission, so far.
Recommendation: ETAN, or at least ETAN’s functions, should be continued and expanded
in the Fifth Framework Programme in order to provide an interactive, process-oriented,
decision support approach for well defined clients in the field of European Union (EU)
S&T policy development.
2. By its design, ETAN did not have a single, well-defined target audience; a consequence of
this was that, in some instances, ETAN activities have unrealistically tried to be useful to a
number of target audiences. It is understood that the utility of ETAN products can increase
by its aiming at a sharper focus in addressing target audiences. ETAN products - reports
and seminars - will be most useful if prepared for a client or clients with specific needs for
information and policy guidance; i.e., if there is a special request for ETAN assistance.
Recommendation: Undertake only those exercises for which there is a clear demand – be it
from EU institutions or from national policy makers involved in EU RTD activities.
3. While this Group feels that ETAN products can also be useful to national decision makers,
there is a clear scope for a primary focus of ETAN and future similar exercises on EUwide S&T policy issues. It is through this pathway of catalytic action that communication
between S&T policy makers and experts across Europe could be improved. Thus, ETAN
can be a mechanism for gradually generating convergence in the way problems are
conceived and, ultimately, better co-ordination of Community and national S&T policies
would be achieved.
Recommendation: It is important to define at the outset of any activity the target
audience(s) as clear as possible. ETAN should make best use of decision makers within
European Union’s and related national institutions in order to tailor its products to the
needs of policy makers.
4. The usefulness of the ETAN approach and its products can be increased by the
involvement of decision/policy makers in the work process from the beginning. This will
not only improve the quality of the process in general and its outputs in particular, but
ensure a greater chance that the results will be used to develop or refine policy.
Recommendation: Decision makers should be involved in the evaluation of proposed
topics, including specifying the Terms of Reference for each exercise. They might also be
involved in the work of Working Groups, and provide insight into their needs at Working
Group meetings. Participation in other parts of the process would be fruitful too.
5. Currently, ETAN Reports are more the product of the Working Groups formed to write
them than of ETAN staff itself. This has inevitably lead to some imbalance in the quality
of reports.
Recommendation: If ETAN wishes to put more of its own stamp on reports, it may want to
consider producing its own brief report (with its own conclusions and recommendations
specifically geared to EU policy makers, both at EU and national level) to append to each
Working Group Report. Alternatively, and if enough resources were available, ETAN staff
could act as Rapporteur and draft the report. However, this latter option would require
major changes in ETAN’s current modus operandi and staffing.
6. There is, at present, no formal review process for ETAN reports. Reports could be
substantially improved if such a process were implemented.
Recommendation: The Seminar, currently the end point in the whole process, provides an
excellent opportunity to convene a group of technical experts, stakeholders, and policy
makers to comment on the Report (which is, in any case, termed a Working Paper at this
point). Comments received at the seminar, and also perhaps through review of the Report
by other independent experts, should be used to prepare a Final Report. Only then should
an ETAN cover be added, and the report distributed more widely.
7. Many people with potential interest in ETAN Reports are unaware of them.
Recommendation: Once ETAN Reports are final, additional effort should be undertaken to
distribute them to and - when suitable and feasible - discuss them with appropriate decision
makers at EU and national levels. Other recommended options include hosting a Press
Conference and organisation of a public Seminar or Conference involving relevant decision
makers and members of the expert Working Group.
8. Though desirable, there are probably limited opportunities for ETAN to interact with other
institutions in the production of reports and seminars.
Recommendation: No great deal of effort should be spent on seeking the active
participation of other institutions in the joint organisation or management of ETAN
exercises. Informal contacts, however, are useful and should continue.
9. ETAN is understaffed.
Recommendation: An appropriate number of full-time professional staff should be
assigned to ETAN or its successor. ETAN’s staff needs will become greater if some of the
recommendations made here are implemented, especially that of carrying out a review
process.
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN)1 is an activity of Area I, “Evaluation
of Science & Technology (S&T) Policy Options” of the Targeted Socio-Economic Research
(TSER) Programme of the European Commission’s (EC) 4th Framework Programme (FP4).
The purpose of ETAN is to facilitate and promote communication and debate at the European
level between policy researchers as well as other relevant experts, and policy makers on
important S&T policy issues that need to be addressed from a European perspective. It can be
expected that such a process will gradually lead to a convergence in approaches towards S&T
policy in the European Union (EU).
This report is the work of an Expert Working Group (hereafter referred to as “the Group”),
which was put together in order to2

evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of the ETAN approach and
experience in promoting communication between experts and policy makers; and

draw any lessons learned from this experience, as well as from other such exercises, for
the improvement of communication between policy makers and experts on S&T policy
issues from a European perspective.
The mandate of this Group has only been to study the so-called ETAN “pilot phase,”
launched in 1997. The goal, rationale, working method, outputs, and other major
characteristics of the ETAN pilot phase, hereafter referred to as ETAN (unless otherwise
noticed) are presented in Chapter 2 of this report.
More specifically, the Group members have reviewed and assessed the ETAN pilot phase
activities in the light of experiences from other organisations. The Group has also identified a
number of main areas for improvement and formulated appropriate options with
corresponding guidelines for the future of such activities, as presented in Chapter 3 of this
report. All major aspects of ETAN Working Group-based actions were covered, including the
definition of target groups and “clients,” selection of topics, formulation of the Terms of
Reference, composition and modus operandi of Working Groups, as well as the quality,
dissemination and impact of the various Working Group products (papers, seminars, etc.).
1
2
A list with explanation of all acronyms used in this report is annexed to this document (Annex I).
The detailed terms of reference of this work are annexed to this report (Annex II).
2. ETAN GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
2.1. Description of the Activity
ETAN was launched in 1995. Originally, Annex I of Decision No. 94/915 provided for the
establishment of ETAN as a network which could operate in close co-operation with the
principal bodies actively involved in evaluating the S&T policy options in Europe. This
initiative was to make the best possible use of the expertise available from the various socioeconomic circles, and to circulate information on research in progress in the European Union.
The list of the network members was established following the launching of two Calls for
expression of interest, on 15 March and 15 December 1995.
To achieve its goal, expert groups chosen among the members of the ETAN network were to
be formed on specific topics of interest for the development of S&T policy in Europe. Each
such group would have to assess the new knowledge available on the topic examined and
draw up a synthesis report.
The ETAN pilot phase - which forms the object of the present evaluation - was launched in
1997. It was justified by the need to demonstrate the added value of ETAN and identify more
appropriate working methods for the implementation of its activities. In comparison to the
period before 1997, the ETAN pilot phase is characterised by
 a sharper focus on promoting “communication and debate at the European level between
policy researchers and policy makers”; and
 the adoption of the Working Group-based approach (presented and evaluated in other
parts of this document) as its central methodology.
Four topics were initially selected for the pilot phase; however, nine topics have finally been
assigned to Working Groups - two in 1997, and seven in 1998.3 As presented in detail in the
following, by the time of preparation of this report (March 1999), three ETAN activities were
completed, whereas the remaining six Working Groups are expected to deliver their Working
Papers by October 1999,4 thus concluding ETAN’s life.
Starting in early 1999, an “ETAN-like” activity involving “Expert Groups” is to be
implemented as part of STRATA (Strategic analysis of specific political issues), which is an
Action Line within the Specific Programme on “Improving Human Potential and the SocioEconomic Knowledge Base” of the 5th Framework Programme (FP5).5
For our Group, this development means that STRATA along with similar ongoing or future
activities within other Specific RTD (Research, Technological Development and
Demonstration) Programmes of the EC can be considered as major recipients of the
recommendations of this report (Chapter 3).
3
The ETAN activities are listed in Annex III of this report. The four topics initially selected are the first three on
that list, as well as the one on “Intangible economy: implications for technology policy, innovation and
employment,” which was postponed due to difficulties in focusing on an action addressing such a vast topic.
4
As explained below, the preparation of Final Reports is normally not foreseen.
5
According to the official presentation of this Specific Programme (Work Programme document EN-Working
Paper 99-1).
2.2. Actors
The ETAN rationale is concerned with two major actors, i.e., experts and policy makers, and
the interface of their interaction. This rationale was further clarified during this Group’s
interviews with the EC responsible officials. According to their perception, there exists
significant fragmentation within the communities of experts and decision-makers interested in
S&T policy issues and options in Europe. By addressing this fragmentation, ETAN activities
could help EU S&T policy makers and other stakeholders to develop a shared understanding
of the issues and policy options of common interest and thereby facilitate, where appropriate,
the development of more consistent, concerted and complementary Community and national
S&T policies. Towards that end, ETAN aims at providing a number of potentially useful
services through specific targeted activities.
A number of problems are associated with the definition of the ETAN actors, the most
important of which is the issue of defining policy makers. As policy making on S&T and
other issues is the result of chain-like decision processes taking place within rather complex
structures (hierarchies, groups, organisations), it is generally not easy for someone involved to
respond affirmatively to the question “Are you a policy maker?”
ETAN documents sporadically illustrate the kind of actors that could be considered as policy
makers. Some EU policy makers listed in the mandate of the ETAN pilot phase6 included the
Commissioner responsible for EC RTD policy; CREST (the advisory Committee on Research,
Science and Technology); and CERT (the Committee of Energy, Research and Technology of
the European Parliament).7 During the implementation of the ETAN activities, the policy
makers associated with each specific activity were identified on a rather ad hoc basis.8
With respect to experts, this category, rather than forming a single group, constitutes a broad
spectrum of persons and institutions with expertise in technology assessment (TA), analysis of
policy options and issues, and other scientific fields relevant to the topic, as well as various
practitioners with significant experience on such matters. According to the ETAN
documentation on this point, to be considered as members of a Working Group, experts
should have a background on the particular Working Group topic, falling within one or more
of the following categories:

extensive experience of scientific, technical, economic and/or social aspects of the topic;

expertise in the elaboration of S&T and innovation policies, as well as other related
policies; and

experience on the use of research results in relevant socio-economic domains.
2.3. Working Method
6
See ETAN Objectives: Pilot and Operational Phases, document distributed to CREST Members (13.3.1997).
EPTA (the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network) was also listed in the initial ETAN
“client” list. ; nevertheless, EPTA is not a policy maker, but a co-ordinating unit, whereas EPTA members have
to report to policy makers in their respective National Parliaments.
8
For example, Commission officers (outside the ETAN group) associated with specific ETAN activities
suggested individuals either from Member States administrations or other organisations, as did members of the
TSER Programme Committee. See also the next section on ETAN Working Method.
7
The working method which has been followed in all ETAN activities is based on Working
Groups, and encompasses the following steps:9

Scanning for a topic by one of the following three methods:
i. Expression of interest by a European S&T policy maker (see Actors above) for a
consolidated report on the knowledge available in Europe on a specific issue and/or for
a critical analysis of the related policy options.
ii. Topic arising from the socio-economic RTD assessment studies carried out within
various programmes and other activities of FP4 (e.g., TSER, Environment, Innovation,
IPTS-ESTO10); and
iii. Proposals by transnational groups of researchers, who have worked on specific S&T
policy issues and wish to form a Working Group to compare and consolidate their
results, as well as discuss them with policy makers and other users, e.g., in a seminar.

Final choice of a topic by ETAN staff, in concertation with other interested Commission
services, based on an assessment of the feasibility of its study.

Definition by Commission staff of the Terms of Reference for an exercise on the selected
topic. This stage typically began with the preparation of a draft by ETAN staff, which is
then discussed extensively with other relevant EC services, with a view of generating a
first group of interested policy makers (see Actors, above).11

Composition of a Working Group, consisting of a limited number of experts already
involved in the identified topic area. The Working Group is expected to be balanced,
covering the various dimensions of the topic and taking into account the diversity of
aspects and interests.

The Working Group members, chaired by one of the experts, meet 4-5 times in order to
review, consolidate and synthesise the expert knowledge on the topic, and prepare an
ETAN “Issues and Options” Working Paper for discussion with policy makers. The
Working Group may seek, where appropriate, inputs and comments from experts who are
not Working Group members.

Organisation of an ETAN Seminar for a maximum number of 30 participants, which
brings together the Working Group researchers, interested policy makers, and other
relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues and options presented in the Working Paper.

Publication of an ETAN Report, comprising the Working Paper prepared by the Working
Group members and the conclusions of the Seminar.

If appropriate to the topic, organisation of a Conference with a wider participation of the
various stakeholders concerned.
9
See, e.g., the Note to the Members of the TSER Programme Committee, dated 07.03.1997, also distributed to
members of CREST.
10
IPTS is the EC’s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies located in Seville; ESTO, an IPTS’s initiative,
is the European Science and Technology Observatory.
11
As an example of an alternative approach, the Terms of Reference of the ETAN activity on Climate Change
were first drafted by IPTS staff, then further developed in cooperation with staff from the Environment and
Climate Research Programme, with ETAN staff becoming involved at a later phase.
The Group notes that the actual choice of topics seems to have taken place at an
administrative level only (i.e., by the ETAN staff); moreover, the last two elements of the
ETAN working method – the publication of an ETAN Report and the organisation of a
Conference - have not been included in any of the ETAN activities completed so far, as the
Working Groups’ mandate appears to be concluded with the Seminar.
2.4. Products
By the time of preparation of this report (March 1999), three ETAN activities were completed,
with two types of products, as listed below; i.e., Working Papers generated by each Working
Group; and Seminars, where each Working Paper was discussed with policy makers and other
interested parties. The timetable of the expected completion of Working Papers from the
remaining ETAN actions can be found in Annex III.
Working Papers
 Working Paper on “Ageing population and technology: challenges and opportunities,”
February 1998 (EUR 18218).
 Working Paper on “Internationalisation of research and technology,” July 1998 (EUR
18762).
 Working Paper on “Climate change and the challenge for research and technological
development,” December 1998 (EUR 18770).
 Working Paper on “Options and limits for assessing the socio-economic impact of
European RTD Programmes,” January 1999 (distributed by the EC’s DG XII Evaluation
Unit).
Seminars
 Seminar on “Ageing population and technology: challenges and opportunities,” Brussels,
7 May 1998.
 Seminar on “Internationalisation of research and technology,” Brussels, 27 January 1999.
 Seminar on “Climate change and the challenge for research and technological
development,” Brussels, 16 March 1999.
The summary and highlights of the Seminars, along with their agendas, and lists of
participants, are included in brief Seminar Reports, self-declared as addenda to the Working
Paper on the same subjects.
The Group members have examined these products (along with the available elements of the
several still ongoing ETAN projects) and evaluated them through a combination of:
(a) a more detailed examination of the products (Working Paper and Seminar) from one of the
completed ETAN actions, as summarised in the following section of this chapter;
(b) interviews with persons engaged in the initiation and management of the activity; and
(c) a more general assessment of the ETAN experience, which in light of the experience from
other policy analysis institutions in this field, leads to the identification of areas for
possible improvement and appropriate recommendations, as presented in the following
chapter of this report.
2.5. Reflections on the Climate Change Working Paper and Seminar
The Group examined the Working Paper and Seminar of the ETAN activity on “Climate
change and the challenge for RTD policy” (in short: the “Climate Change” activity) more
closely than those of the other two earlier completed ETAN exercises. As the most recently
completed, this activity seemed to represent the most advanced example of the ETAN process.
It was also the only case where a member of this Group had an opportunity to attend the
Seminar that culminated the process, and listen to the critique, comments and input of other
experts.
The Working Paper: In general, this Group found the Climate Change Working Paper well
written, well organised, and balanced. It reads as if written by a well-functioning team that
knew what it was doing, and not like many reports that are prepared by groups. The Climate
Change Working Group did a good job in “consolidating and synthesizing expert knowledge”
and in “identifying specific issues that need to be addressed by policy,” i.e., two of its more
general Terms of Reference. For this reason, the Working Paper is a useful summary of the
subject and should be of value to EU policy makers.
However, as good as it was, the report did not try to “specify, analyse, and evaluate” specific
policy options for addressing the many issues raised. As such, it did not fully comply with
some of its formal Terms of Reference and, therefore, it may not be as useful to policy makers
as it could have been. In the view of this Group, that statement holds, despite the fact that the
Commission staff members that have been involved in the exercise find the report useful.12
The Seminar: In the Seminar presentation, the Working Group Chairman noted that the
expert group saw its role as stimulating debate by focusing on criteria to consider in designing
policies, rather than one of proposing specific policies. The Working Group did not focus on
a specific target audience but decided that the best approach to take would be to prepare a
general report that could be useful to policy makers at different levels and in different
countries.
Many persons praised the Working Paper at the Seminar, which was organised to discuss it.
However, most Seminar participants contributed comments – some minor, some fairly vague
– on how to improve the “report.” Indeed, most participants approached the meeting as if it
were an opportunity to comment on a “draft” report. This was not surprising, given that the
“report” – according to the ETAN working method - was distributed as a “Working Paper”
(though it was not intended that further work be done on it). Also, although the Seminar
offered an opportunity to discuss policy options to the issues raised in the Working Paper, this
opportunity was neither taken up by the Working Group members or the ETAN staff nor
pushed by other participants.
It is our understanding that the Working Paper will be further distributed in its present form,
12
This argument is valid even if we accept that the role of some terms of reference is to guide the research rather
than to be answered by it, as according to this Group the particular terms were central to the investigation.
and that several of the Working Group members will have opportunities to make additional
presentations on it, in various fora.
Finally, although the Seminar discussions were lively and interesting, they largely took place
among technical experts. Although several Commission staff attended the meeting, high-level
decision makers were not there. One of the participants engaged in policy development at the
national level (a UK Environment Ministry official) wondered at one point “what, at the end
of the day, the policy makers will think of it.” He implied - and this ETAN Expert Working
Group agrees – that, although the Working Paper contains substantial relevant information, it
could have been more useful for policy makers if it contained more operational guidance.
Points to Consider: The Group feels that the Climate Change Working Paper and Seminar
illustrate many of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach that ETAN has followed so
far. On the positive side, the process followed did lead to a well-balanced and useful report of
professional quality. Nevertheless, this Group also sees some important opportunities for
improving the process of producing reports and for enhancing their quality and usefulness. We
take up these points in Chapter 3 of this report, in more general terms.
The Climate Change case suggests to us several points ETAN staff and other Commission
services may want to consider:

The omission of a discussion of policy options in the Climate Change report, given that
this was required in the written Terms of Reference, does not seem to us to be a minor
oversight. When it is important to address options, ETAN staff should insist that this task
be carried out. Even if the Commission services involved in the exercise seem to be
satisfied, it is difficult for other users to understand why certain aspects of the Terms of
Reference were not covered by the Working Paper.

In the future, such Seminars could be used to review and improve Working Papers in order
to prepare ETAN Reports.

It will often be productive to discuss policy options at future Seminars, even if they were
not addressed in the written reports.

Working Groups need to be clear about who the target audience is; they will have an
easier time designing policy options, the more focused that audience is.

To the degree possible, high-level policy makers should be involved in Seminars.
3. ASSESSMENT AND OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Despite a slow start, the ETAN goal of improving communication between experts and policy
makers on S&T issues is a worthy one, and one that has not been adequately addressed by the
EC, so far. This Group strongly recommends that ETAN’s functions should be continued and
expanded within FP5.
3.1. Defining the Client
The success of ETAN or future activities with similar goals depends very much on the
demand for its products. Whereas ETAN products were intended to be (and some will
definitely be) useful for policy makers generally, ETAN does not appear to have a welldefined “client” or customer – be it an individual or a group. In that respect, ETAN is
certainly different from other institutions, especially in comparison with parliamentary
Technology Assessment (TA) organisations. The client of STOA,13 for example, is the
European Parliament, and the client of OTA14 was the United States Congress. In particular,
OTA was responding directly to requests from Senate and House Committees in need of
assistance on S&T issues.
Thus, while the subjects chosen for ETAN activities are clearly important ones, and the few
ETAN Working Papers so far produced contain valuable information for policy makers, it is
still not entirely clear for whom the ETAN products are produced or how they will be used in
the policy-making process. This is especially important as most such target audiences usually
have multiple sources of information available and, perhaps, they may have no particular
13
14
Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Unit, European Parliament, Luxembourg.
Office of Technology Assessment, USA Congress, Washington, DC (discontinued).
reason to give special weight to the ETAN approach and outputs.15 Thus ETAN, as well as
similar future activities need credibility and authority, which take time to establish.
The possibility that potential users will pay attention can be improved if they have a direct
interest in the topic and/or are involved in the process of defining the issues to be assessed.
However, taking into account the existing budgetary and other constraints, it may be advisable
to give priority to topic areas (see 3.3. below) where there is already an expressed client
demand. This way, the likelihood will be high that the ETAN working process will have an
impact and its products will be used.
Such clients - from the EU and the national scene - for the future activities in the area of
strategic analysis of S&T policy issues within FP5 may include

The Commissioner and the Commission services in charge of RTD activities,

CREST,

ERF (the European Research Forum), and

the Programme Committees.16
3.2. Approach
It is important to identify and clearly define the special characteristics of the approach
followed by ETAN or a future, similar activity: What specifically has ETAN (or a future
activity) to offer that could distinguish it from actions of other S&T policy studies
institutions?
The working method adopted plays a central role in the whole approach, as it can to a great
extent determine the outcome of the work. To be effective and efficient, the working method
should recognise the importance of actively involving policy makers as early as possible in the
process, preferably already at the stage of topic selection.
The Group suggests that future ETAN-like activities follow a more integrative, processoriented approach, addressing the topic in a discursive way that
 Ensures the integration of different perspectives, thus raising the quality of the outcome;
 stimulates creativity and spontaneous emergence of new perspectives and ideas;
 facilitates collaborative learning;
 deepens the understanding of the theme, in all its different facets and associated policy
options, by all those involved;
15
Although ETAN Working Papers could be useful to relevant National Ministries (beyond their involvement in
Programme Committees), these will not become important clients for ETAN products. On the other hand, there is
no clear scope for future activities focusing on the individual circumstances in Member countries, as opposed to
addressing issues at the European level.
16
On the other hand, including the Independent External Advisory Groups for the Key Actions would probably
go beyond the capacities of such an activity, due mainly to budgetary constraints.
 encourages – through involvement and understanding - policy makers to take action, where
necessary; and, finally,
 prepares the ground for dissemination of the end-product by involving representatives of
the target group(s).
3.3. Selection of Topics
As noted above, topics must respond to one or more policy-makers’ needs: they must meet a
demand. Otherwise, the usefulness of the whole exercise, including working papers and the
final report, as well as seminars on those topics will be limited, as could be the case with some
ETAN activities.
Topics, therefore, should preferably come from one or more of the above mentioned clients or
should be identified in close co-operation with them. One might also consider sending out
periodically (e.g., once a year) a “Call for suggestions,” asking each of those client bodies to
submit a small number of ideas (say, 2-4) for activities that would be of interest at EU level.
Such suggested topics could be either on subjects of current interest or ones that can be
anticipated to be of interest to EU institutions, and national policy makers involved in EU
S&T policies, in the near future. From all the responses received, a smaller number of topics,
after a more-in-depth examination, might be chosen for the year’s work.
To support the credibility of the ETAN (or similar future) function, one would have to justify
why some topics were chosen and others discarded. The evaluation of the topics in the light of
certain criteria for “a good topic” could be developed, especially in line with the requirements
of:
(a) the new context,17 as well as
(b) the methodological framework.18
It is important that ETAN, or its successor, strives for transparency in the selection of themes:
one could perhaps use a Steering Group, composed of representatives of the above-mentioned
client bodies and/or selected independent external experts. Another option for topic selection
would be through the involvement of CREST or the Programme Committee responsible for
the area.
Following this stage, it would be useful to involve policy makers from both institutions that
suggested the subject and institutions that could have an interest in the subject. Their advice
would be particularly valuable for refining the Terms of Reference (see following section). In
addition, these persons or their representatives could be asked to join Working Groups or, at
least, contacted occasionally during the progress of the work.
17
However, we should note that STRATA, the successor of ETAN, involves a wide range of instruments to
promote dialogue between experts and policy makers on science and technology policy issues, preference given
to thematic networks and accompanying measures responding to an open Call for proposals, which will be
complemented by ETAN-type Expert Groups.
18
Relevant criteria, that are used with success by another European TA institution are: (a) technology content; (b)
“is there a problem that should be solved?”; (c) the importance of the topic; (d) timing; (e) the existence of a
demand /target group; and (f) the need for exactly this institution to take up the topic.
3.4. Terms of Reference
The work should be guided by clear Terms of Reference (hereafter referred to as the
“Terms”). As explained above, draft Terms should be prepared by Commission staff in close
contact with the clients that proposed the theme, to guarantee their commitment to the
exercise.
It is also important that the Terms be thoroughly understood by the Working Group: the
clearer their understanding, the more likely that the terms will be adequately addressed. One
way to accomplish this is to discuss the draft Terms with the Chairperson before the first
meeting of the Working Group, so that at least he/she understands them and/or can make
suggestions for modifying them. Alternatively (or additionally), the draft (or revised) Terms
could be discussed and, if necessary, modified (with the Commission’s approval) by all
Working Group members at their first meeting. The Terms can then be finalised with the
Working Group’s collaboration. This procedure could reduce the chance that the Terms will
not be adhered to by the Working Group, and thus improve the possibility that the Terms will
be fully taken into account.
An important issue concerning the Terms is the question of how precise they should be. The
Terms, e.g., for the ETAN Climate Change exercise were very detailed; for the most part, the
Climate Change Working Group did not pay close attention to specific questions in their
Terms, but nevertheless produced a very good Working Paper that responded more generally
to these Terms. As a rule, general Terms give more freedom to the Working Group experts to
define the issues to be discussed as they see fit, as long as the needs of clients are well
understood. On the other hand, more specific Terms can help ensure that questions, for which
answers are required, are addressed, and are thus recommended in cases where activities are
launched in response to specific requests. On the other hand, as the Climate Change activity
illustrates, providing a long list of questions is no guarantee that all these questions will be
answered. Therefore, a proper balance between specificity and generality is required.
In any case, the Terms must define the scope and depth of the issues to be addressed with
respect to the topic. In addition, the Group notes the importance not only of the assessment of
the issue, but of the formulation and assessment of the different policy options to address the
problems raised, so that the work outputs can be of value in decision support.
3.5. The Working Group
3.5.1. Constraints
The criteria for Working Group composition should be clear and transparent, as well as
responding to the needs of the clients. In general, criteria that generate balanced Working
Groups lend higher credibility to the outputs of such exercises.
On the other hand, we should note certain methodological limitations to the Working Group
method (the sole method adopted in the ETAN exercise, however only one of the possible
approaches that could be used in future similar EC activities). The Working Group method
has its strength in supporting a particular type of S&T policy analysis, i.e., techno-political
strategy making, as well as in making consistent overviews over an S&T area. This means that
the outcome of ETAN exercises and those of similar future activities could satisfy only user
demands for that type of policy making, in contrast to other such types.19 Fortunately, this is
usually the most relevant type to the needs of the clients concerned here.
Moreover, since the comprehensiveness of the Working Group’s work is limited by the
available resources, the real issue for strategic analysis is to be honest about what is possible
through the Working Group method. One can strive for comprehensiveness, but openness,
transparency, and pluralism are also important criteria in composing the Working Group.
Other methods and techniques, besides the Working Group-based one, or in support of the
latter, could be employed, too. These could include organising structured brainstorming
sessions with invited experts/stakeholders/policy makers, or workshops - in order to develop,
both, new scopes and alternative options.
3.5.2. Chairperson
The Chairperson is perhaps the most important person in the Working Group, and therefore
needs to be carefully selected. Normally, a Chairman/Chairwoman must know a great deal
about the topic, but he/she does not necessarily need to be an expert in the subject area.
Additional qualities, as important as substantive knowledge, include the following:
 An understanding of TA principles and procedures;
 broad and deep conceptual view of the multi-dimensional character of S&T policy;
 ability to moderate and guide a targeted discursive process, following clearly defined
Terms of Reference;
 potential to integrate and synthesise different views;
 commitment to achieve results;
 objectivity; and
 adequate time resources.
From this description it follows that particular strengths in social skills are required.
The Group believes that it may be useful for the Chairperson to play a role in selecting the
other members, e.g., during a preparatory (“zero”) meeting with the EC staff. It would be
unusual if the responsible Commission staff acting alone could identify outstanding groups of
experts for every topic selected, so the Chairperson could be of considerable help.
19
Other types of policy analysis, such as political strategy making, and market or democracy support, require the
use of other methods, e.g., scenaria workshops, voting conferences, citizens juries, and planning cells.
3.5.3. Rapporteur
Some of the tasks usually assigned to the Working Group Rapporteur are very important, too.
These tasks include
 Documenting the discussion process, clarifying whenever necessary;
 preparing detailed Minutes of Working Group meetings;
 generating successive versions of the draft Working Paper with the help and advice of the
Chairperson.
The qualification profile of the Rapporteurs follows from the description of his or her tasks.
She/he can be an expert in the field, but needs not necessarily be one to efficiently play the
role of the Working Group’s “Scientific Secretary.”
In an alternative approach, some of the Rapporteur’s tasks could be allocated by the Chairperson to various Working Group members, depending on their particular skills; in such cases,
it will usually be up to the Chair alone to tie the various elements together into a coherent
report. In other cases, EC staff members could perform parts of the Rapporteur’s traditional
role. In general, Working Groups need to find the approach that works best for them.
3.5.4. Members
Number: Working Groups might have as few as six members or as many as twelve or a
somewhat higher number of members, depending on the topic; however, for logistical reasons,
and to ensure involvement and creative interaction, smaller groups are probably preferable.
Balance: Although all Working Group members should not be from only one or two EU
countries, it is not necessary to strive for perfect geographic balance, either. As the selection
focus will be based on expertise, it should be clear to Working Group members that they have
been selected for their expertise, and not because of their nationality or institutional
affiliations. Balancing out Working Group criteria should include different schools of thought,
as well as potential professional biases.
Expertise: For the selection of the Working Group members (besides the Chair and
Rapporteur), one has to take into consideration, in addition to the disciplinary expertise
necessary to cover all the important aspects, perspectives and impact areas of the topic,
 The particular policy analysis needs of the client or clients; and
 requirements imposed by other policy makers, other (potential) users of the Working
Group work, and/or groups that might be influenced by the outcome of the activity.
It may well be more useful to select people willing to devote time and effort to doing a good
job, rather than invite persons recognised as “stars” in a field.
3.6. Processes and Products
As we have already stated, what matters most is the quality of, both, the process followed and
the products obtained, as these are two sides of the same thing; e.g., processes can be crucial
to the quality and diffusion of products, such as reports. With this in mind, the following
guidelines are not to be treated as “recipes,” but rather as practical options offered for
consideration in future activities.
3.6.1. Preparing the Working Paper
Working Group Meetings: They play a central role in the process. The Working Group
members prepare for the meeting by being actively involved in the preparation of the Working
Paper, through writing assignments given by the Chairperson, in the context of the Terms of
Reference of the particular exercise. They may also be asked to contribute to Working Paper
preparation by expressing their views on its content and structure in brief and precise written
statements.
The Chairperson generally structures the meeting according to the main questions defined by
the terms, and the structure of the draft Working Paper. The presentation of the Working
Group members’ views may be followed by detailed discussion, first focused, then open.
There is a strong need for direct interaction and feedback between the Working Group
members. Each stage of the discussion is summarised by the Chair, who states the main points
made and outcomes produced, and lists any “open” and/or controversial issues. Detailed
Minutes should be prepared by the Rapporteur, who based on this material will revise the draft
Working Paper after every meeting. Copies of both documents are distributed to all Working
Group after each meeting.
The Working Paper: It will be up to the Working Group to decide when the Working Paper is
finished and all perspectives of the Working Group members are adequately integrated. The
Working Paper must address all points as prescribed in the terms and offer options for action,
where appropriate. If necessary, points going beyond the Terms or Reference can be included
too, but should be clearly characterised as such. The Working Paper must be distributed in a
simple form, i.e., as stapled copies, so that its preliminary (working) character can be visible
at first sight. Conversely, final documents should not be distributed with the words “Working
Paper” on their cover, as it has been done thus far.
3.6.2. Seminar
A key remark here is that up to now the ETAN Seminar has been considered as the final point
in the process. This Group is suggesting that the Seminar provides an important opportunity to
have experts comment on the draft report and that, thus, it should be considered an
intermediate step en route to a final document.
The Seminar is therefore a vital part of the Working Group Report-preparation process. Its
major goal is to improve the Working Paper by addressing a larger number of representatives
from all target groups: TA experts, disciplinary experts, policy makers, other possible users.
The mailing list for this meeting is to be prepared by the Working Group, the responsible
Commission staff, and the client group(s) involved. There may be a core group of invitees that
are eligible to have their travel costs refunded.
The main objectives of the Seminar might include the following:
 Assessment of the Working Paper with regards to its comprehensiveness, correctness and
adequacy of the coverage, balanced treatment of the theme, as well as the options for
actions offered;
 completion of the Working Paper with respect to any missing aspects;
 addressing policy-related questions and the assessment of impacts from policy options;
 providing further feedback and inputs in preparation of the Final Report;
 involving a larger number of policy makers, clients, and other interested parts in the
discussion process, and motivating them to contribute; and
 preparing the ground for dissemination of the results.
The Seminar may be structured in sessions corresponding to the Working Paper chapters;
presentations of each chapter material could be followed by discussions moderated by the
Chairperson or - if parallel sessions are necessary - by other Working Group members. These
sessions are usually followed by (plenary) open discussion. The Seminar is normally closed by
the Chairperson, who summarises its conclusions and outlook, and how she/he plans to
develop the Working Paper towards the ETAN Report, based on what he/she heard the
invitees say.
The quality of the communication processes during such Seminars is very important. This is
depended in part on the quality of the Working Paper; on getting the right participants; on
having on board a committed and competent Chair, who is able to stimulate and guide
discussions; and on a clear and well-structured understanding of what is to be accomplished.
Especially, where a discussion of policy options is to be part of a Seminar, it is important to
include policy makers in the discussion. Hence, the question of quality, as it pertains to
seminars, is directly tied to the important issues of defining the clients, generating their
demand for the products, and involving them in a discursive process.
3.6.3. Final Report
The results of the Seminar, carefully documented by the Rapporteur, should be integrated into
the Working Paper by the Working Group, thus leading to a Final Report.
Currently, ETAN Reports are more the product of the Working Groups formed to write them
than of ETAN staff itself. Anyhow, different levels of influence from the ETAN staff have
been seen. This has inevitably led to some inconsistency with regards to relevant policy option
statements in the final documents – mainly Working Papers. A more clear-cut distribution of
responsibilities between the Working Group and the Commission staff should be made.
The need for consistent quality of Working Group Reports cannot be over-emphasised.
Currently, there is no standard, internal or external, review process to ensure the production of
high quality reports. The quality of the three ETAN Working Papers produced thus far has
varied significantly, affected mainly by the make-up and functioning of the Working Groups
and their understanding of the terms, rather than by a review (leading to revision) by either EC
staff or external reviewers. Inconsistent quality can affect the reputation of the whole activity,
so there is scope for spending some time and effort on implementing an appropriate review
process.
One option could be that of an external review process; four to five reviewers might be
sufficient. The reviewers’ comments could be summarised and collated by the Commission
staff and forwarded to the Working Group for further action. This means that, from the very
beginning, Working Groups members would understand that their work will not be completed
until they have adequately addressed and integrated review comments on their draft.
As another option for finalising the final report, the Working Group could send the draft to
Seminar participants and a broader group of persons - e.g., those invited but not able to attend
- asking for their feedback. This step could be facilitated by the use of a brief questionnaire;
the results of such a survey could then be integrated into the final report.
The form of the Final Reports is almost as important as their content. The length of ETAN's
Working Paper on “Ageing population and technology: Challenges and opportunities,” was
about right. On the other hand, the Executive Summary of the “Internationalisation” Working
Paper was too long. As a rule, longer reports often sit unread on shelves, whereas shorter
reports (or summary reports) are more easily read and more efficiently disseminated. In any
case, the length of the Final Report, including its Executive Summary, should be agreed upon
from the beginning of an exercise. In particular, the Executive Summary should in most cases
not exceed two pages.
The Final Report, and only the Final Report, should be published using a standard cover of the
activity and posted on the Internet.
3.6.4. Follow-up and Dissemination
If the Working Group process has been interactive and the target group(s) have been involved
earlier in the project, the ETAN Report has a fair chance of being diffused to the intended
receivers. However, creating a two-way bridge between experts and policy makers will
definitely need particular attention to report dissemination and other follow-up activities. At
present, it is unlikely that many scientists or other professionals outside those actually
participating in the preparation of Working Papers and seminars will learn of ETAN or have
easy access to its products. Likewise, if one of the ETAN activities or a future one cannot
attract many policy makers to their Seminars, then very few of those concerned with the issues
under discussion will be aware of their work. The demand issue is a strong factor here, as
where demand for studies is higher from the outset, more policy makers are likely to be
interested in their outcomes.
The Final Report will need to be distributed to appropriate organisations and individuals in the
research and policy area, if it is to have the desired impact. These should include individual
policy makers at both the EU and national levels. Additional resources would be required, but
a concerted effort to distribute reports more broadly could produce large benefits.
It may also be worthwhile to consider, upon release of a report, organising a Conference for,
or together with, the prime clients or target groups. Members of the Working Group and EC
staff could also make presentations at other relevant meetings.
Other useful actions include Press Conferences, where the Working Group Chairperson, EC
senior staff, as well as policy makers involved could serve as the spokespeople to inform the
press; and Press Releases for journalists, who are in a position to report on the work findings,
e.g., science journalists.
All follow-up activities should aim at further deepening the debate on S&T policy options, as
stimulated by the work outputs.
3.7. Interaction with Other Institutions
A number of institutions and groups are presently active in the broader field of providing
services to the interface between experts and policy makers on S&T issues at both the
European and national levels. Given the complexity of the field, efforts of future, ETAN-like
organisations should be directed not only at avoiding “friction,” but at identifying “gaps” for
targeted action and, if possible, promoting synergies and converegence in the process.
Some of the existing institutions and groups operating within the EU structures that could play
complementary roles as regards the ETAN mandate include
 STOA, whose mission is to provide TA-type services to the European Parliament;
 IPTS, which focuses primarily at the Technology/Society interface; and
 the Cellulle de Prospective (CdP),20 which has other concerns in addition to S&T policy.
An example of collaboration is provided by the “Climate Change” exercise, which was carried
out with the assistance of IPTS. Although the Terms of Reference developed for that activity
could be considered as being too detailed (see Section 2.5, above), this work demonstrates the
possibility of ETAN or other similar activities working productively with other EU
institutions. The reality is that there are probably limited opportunities, as other organisations
have their own work agendas, and their staff are often stretched thinly.
3.8. Resources
ETAN was understaffed. Staff limitations will become even more of a problem in future such
activities, if the latter attempt to respond to the suggestions of this Group; e.g., on
implementing a thorough review process and on doing more to disseminate final reports. It
seems to this Group that an appropriate number of full-time professional staff should be
required to guarantee a minimum of effectiveness. In any case, a smaller number of exercises
expected to be carried out annually in the next few years could make it easier for staff to get
more directly involved in the process, and pay more attention to quality aspects.
Finally, with respect to time, it will be necessary for the Commission to give to any future
ETAN-like activity at least 3-5 years to build up a solid user base and reputation.
ANNEX I
List of Acronyms Used in the Report
20
Operating within the Office of the EC President, Brussels.
CdP
Cellulle de Prospective
CERT
Committee of Research, Energy and Technology (of the EP)
CRES
Committee on Research, Science and Technology
DG
Directorate General (of the EC)
EC
European Commission
EP
European Parliament
EPTA
European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network
ERF
European Research Forum
ESTO
European Science and Technology Observatory
ETAN
European Technology Assessment Network
EU
European Union
FP4, FP5
4th and 5th Framework Programme (of the EC), respectively
IPTS
Institute of Prospective Technological Studies
OTA
Office of Technology Assessment
RTD
Research, Technological Development and Demonstartion
S&T
Science and Technology
STOA
Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Unit (of the EP)
STRATA
Strategic Analysis of specific policy issues
TA
Technology Assessment
TSER
Targeted Socio-Economic Research
ANNEX II
Terms of Reference of the Expert Group
The action
The group will address the two following questions:
 How effective, efficient and appropriate is ETAN in promoting communication between
experts and policy makers? And
 What lessons can be drawn from the ETAN pilot phase and from other similar initiatives
for improving the design and implementation of “communication between experts and
policy makers on science and technology policy issues from a European perspective”?
In order to respond to these requirements, the Expert Group will
1. review the experience of the ETAN pilot phase (rationale, objectives, working method);
2. assess the coherence of its objectives, approach and working methods in the light of the
experience with similar activities elsewhere (e.g., with TA organisations)
3. assess its efficiency and effectiveness;
4. identify areas (methods, processes and tools for, e.g., selection of topics, quality control,
etc.), where improvements could take place, and the resource and management conditions
of such improvements.
In performing these tasks, the Group will interview related members of Commission staff and,
as appropriate (by telephone), participants in Working Groups and Seminars organised as part
of the ETAN pilot phase.
The report should include (not exclusively) guidelines for
 the composition of Expert Groups (identification and profiles of experts; participation of
stakeholdres);
 the definition of the general mandate of Expert Groups;
 the elaboration of ETAN Reports for policy makers;
 the organisation of Seminars and other events.
ANNEX III
The Activities of the ETAN Pilot Phase - Schematic Overview (by June 1999)
(SOURCE: ETAN Unit)
Topic
1
Technology policy in the context of internationalisation:
how to strengthen Europe’s competitive advantage in
technology
2
Ageing population and technology: challenges and
opportunities
3
Responding to the challenges of global climate change
through RTD policy
4
Addresing the gender balance in research policy
5
Assessing the impacts of research in the context of
evaluations of national and international research
programmes
6
Strategic dimensions of intellectual property rights in the
context of technology policy
7
Promotion of employment in research and innovation
through “indirect measures”: best practices and potential
trans-border dimensions
8
Transforming European science through information and
communication technologies: challenges and
opportunities of the digital age
9
Improving communication between experts and policy
makers on science and technology policy issues: the case
of ETAN*
* Present work
Contact Officer
Started
Status
N. Kastrinos
7/1997
Completed
N. Kastrinos
7/1997
Completed
A. Liberatore/S. Morgan
A. Zwick/N. Kastrinos
N. Dewandre
3/1998
Completed
11/1998
Report expected 10/1999
Y. Dumont
7/1998
Report completed 1/1999
F. Marcus
11/1998
Report expected 6/1999
M. Rogers
9/1998
Report expected 7/1999
D. Corpakis
12/1998
Report expected 9/1999
N. Kastrinos
9/1998
Revised report submitted
7/1999