Suchergebnisse

The last decade has seen the emergence of several organisations dedicated to pursue national science diplomacy agendas. Among others, countries like the UK, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark established science and innovation diplomacy agencies. We comparatively examine three cases: The UK's Science and Innovation Network, the Swiss SWISSNEX, and the Danish Innovation Centre Denmark. We look for similarities and dissimilarities in terms of organisational setup, locations, governance and funding, topics and objectives, and tasks. We put forward three analytical dimensions that shape the organisations' activities. Tensions between headquarters and periphery determine the range of possible activities on the ground. Agencies have to deal with challenges arising from the different mind-sets of diplomats and scientists. Last, but not least, the organisations have to decide whether to primarily engage either in the promotion of (basic) science or in the commercial application of research. The three cases each feature distinct characteristics. While SWISSNEX and Innovation Centre Denmark have a strong take on the promotion of domestic research, innovation, and products, UK's network engages in a broader spectrum of activities and topics at the nexus of science, economics, and foreign policy objectives. Despite differences in their objectives and organisational setup, all agencies have established offices at hotbeds of science and innovation—particularly in the BRICS—, carry out similar tasks on the ground, and focus on comparable topics. A lack of reliable performance indicators hampers the assessment of individual agencies and outposts, thus making it difficult to judge the success of the respective agencies. While the agencies have developed an integrative narrative of innovation as encompassing all activities from basic research to commercial application, officers on the ground predominantly pursue their goals against the backdrop of a linear model of innovation, focusing either on fundamental ...

Am 1. Oktober 2008 jährte sich zum 50. Mal die Schaffung des ersten Postens eines Wissenschaftsrats in der schweizerischen Botschaft in Washington. Heute sind für die Schweiz 17 Wissenschaftsrätinnen und -räte im Ausland tätig. Sie arbeiten in Schweizer Botschaften oder in einem der «Swissnex», einem Schweizer Haus für Wissenschaftsaustausch. Der historische Kontext und die Entwicklung der Wissenschaftsaussenpolitik waren bisher jedoch kaum erforscht. Im Dezember 2008 organisierten die Diplomatischen Dokumente der Schweiz (DDS), zusammen mit dem Staatssekretariat für Bildung und Forschung (SBF) und mit der Unterstützung des Departements für auswärtige Angelegenheiten (EDA) zu diesem Thema eine internationale Tagung in Bern. Ziel des Anlasses war es, die Geschichte und die aktuelle Tätigkeit der Schweizer Wissenschaftsattaché(e)s vorzustellen. Im vorliegenden Band werden nun die Forschungsresultate der Tagungsbeiträge präsentiert.

The last decade has seen the emergence of several organisations dedicated to pursue national science diplomacy agendas. Among others, countries like the UK, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark established science and innovation diplomacy agencies. We comparatively examine three cases: The UK's Science and Innovation Network, the Swiss SWISSNEX, and the Danish Innovation Centre Denmark. We look for similarities and dissimilarities in terms of organisational setup, locations, governance and funding, topics and objectives, and tasks. We put forward three analytical dimensions that shape the organisations' activities. Tensions between headquarters and periphery determine the range of possible activities on the ground. Agencies have to deal with challenges arising from the different mind-sets of diplomats and scientists. Last, but not least, the organisations have to decide whether to primarily engage either in the promotion of (basic) science or in the commercial application of research. The three cases each feature distinct characteristics. While SWISSNEX and Innovation Centre Denmark have a strong take on the promotion of domestic research, innovation, and products, UK's network engages in a broader spectrum of activities and topics at the nexus of science, economics, and foreign policy objectives. Despite differences in their objectives and organisational setup, all agencies have established offices at hotbeds of science and innovation—particularly in the BRICS—, carry out similar tasks on the ground, and focus on comparable topics. A lack of reliable performance indicators hampers the assessment of individual agencies and outposts, thus making it difficult to judge the success of the respective agencies. While the agencies have developed an integrative narrative of innovation as encompassing all activities from basic research to commercial application, officers on the ground predominantly pursue their goals against the backdrop of a linear model of innovation, focusing either on fundamental research or on applying scientific insights into business opportunities. It is unlikely that many new offices will be established in the near future. Most likely, additional growth will be triggered when emerging economies like Brazil, India, or China start to establish their own science diplomacy agencies.

This work analyses the multi-dimensional concept of science diplomacy. More specifically, it examines the development, establishment and functioning of Science and Innovation Centres (SICs). In an original comparative and longitudinal study, this work closely analyses the institutionalisation of two distinct SICs: Germany's Deutsche Wissenschafts- und Innovationshäuser (DWIH) and Switzerland's Swissnex. It further probes why actors participate in SICs by deciphering their differing rationales and thus developing a distinctly actor-centred perspective on science diplomacy. The findings reaffirm that science diplomacy is clearly driven by national interests, while further highlighting that the notion of science diplomacy and its governance (actors, rationales and instruments) can only be fully understood by analysing the national context in question.

In response to the accelerating potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to transform our lives, various governments, multilateral bodies, and other organizations have produced high-level principles and guidelines for the ethical use of AI in recent years. Despite the staggering number of such documents (over 90 by October 2019), there appears to be a relatively high degree of convergence on the level of principles. «Inclusiveness» is one of just a handful of principles that most actors seem to agree upon. However, a closer look reveals that the principle is interpreted very differently in terms of the domain, scope and actors it pertains to. As the global community now works on transitioning from principle to practice, there is a clear need to specify what the principles mean in context and how they can be operationalized and evaluated. To respond to this gap, the swissnex Network, foraus, and AI Commons launched the global campaign «Towards an Inclusive Future in AI» with foraus' new Policy Kitchen methodology. This joint experiment resulted in 11 workshops in 8 countries, involving 10 partner organizations and about 120 participants from a wide range of perspectives, who collaboratively generated 43 ideas for an inclusive future in AI. The preliminary output was presented at the AI for Good Global Summit 2019. This paper presents a more in-depth exploration of ideas and proposals on inclusion collected during the participatory process.

In response to the accelerating potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to transform our lives, various governments, multilateral bodies, and other organizations have produced high-level principles and guidelines for the ethical use of AI in recent years. Despite the staggering number of such documents (over 90 by October 2019), there appears to be a relatively high degree of convergence on the level of principles. «Inclusiveness» is one of just a handful of principles that most actors seem to agree upon. However, a closer look reveals that the principle is interpreted very differently in terms of the domain, scope and actors it pertains to. As the global community now works on transitioning from principle to practice, there is a clear need to specify what the principles mean in context and how they can be operationalized and evaluated. To respond to this gap, the swissnex Network, foraus, and AI Commons launched the global campaign «Towards an Inclusive Future in AI» with foraus' new Policy Kitchen methodology. This joint experiment resulted in 11 workshops in 8 countries, involving 10 partner organizations and about 120 participants from a wide range of perspectives, who collaboratively generated 43 ideas for an inclusive future in AI. The preliminary output was presented at the AI for Good Global Summit 2019. This paper presents a more in-depth exploration of ideas and proposals on inclusion collected during the participatory process.