Interlinking of science, foresight and policy: the case of neuroscience development in Russia

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge

Master thesis

“Interlinking of science, foresight and policy: the case of neuroscience development in Russia”

Student: Nazarenko Natalia

Group: M141MUINN

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ozcan Saritas

Submission date: May 16, 2016

Moscow 2016

Contents

Summary

Introduction

1. Literature review

1.1 Concept of science, foresight and policy interlinking

1.1.1 Foresight as effective tool for policy-making process

1.1.2 Role of policy in conduction of the science and technology foresight

1.1.3 Relationship between science and policy

1.1.4 Policy intervention in promising scientific and technological domains

1.2 Current understanding of neuroscience domain

1.2.1 Global neuroscience projects

1.3 Literature review conclusion

2. Methodology

2.1 Research overview

2.1.1 Research concept of science, foresight and policy interlinking

2.1.2 Case study in neuroscience domain

2.1.3 Interviews

2.1.4 Competitive benchmarking

2.1.5 Analysis of new neurotechnology implementation

3. Description of study

3.1 Russian neurotechnology case

3.2 Results of interview series

3.3 Selection of relevant cases

3.4 Description of chosen cases

3.4.1 Swiss case

3.4.2 American case

3.4.3 Chinese case

4. Results

4.1 Needs for improvements and changes in Russian case

4.2 Experience of best foreign neuroscience cases applicable for improving Russian case

5. Discussion

5.1 Implementation of new neurotechnologies

5.1.1 “Neurotechnological world”

5.1.2 “Breakthroughs for publications”

5.1.3 “Government struggles with low development of neurotechnology”

5.1.4 “The frozen science”

Conclusion

References

Summary

Science and technology have come on the forefront as main factors of economic development of countries nowadays. Emerging technologies are seen as instrument to making a revolutionary impact on development of new world economy and society. However, success in development of such technologies directly depends of advances in science. Understanding this, government and high-technology private companies develop and increasingly finance basic research in areas, where advances are needed for obtaining new technologies. Thus, all developed and developing countries have a view about the most important social and economic as well as scientific and technological priorities, which frequently include neurotechnology.

Neurotechnology is one of the main pillars of research and technological activity in the 21-st century, which could bring socio-economic advantages for society worldwide. Recent years many countries actively develop neuroscience domain. A number of specialized neuroscience projects which are the infrastructure for policy strategy implementation for effective development of neurotechnology domain have been launched around the world.

The present study deals with alignment of policy strategy for developing neurotechnology domain in Russia and launching a competitive on the global stage neurotechnology market. In order to obtain the recommendation for policy makers research concept of Science, Foresight and Policy interlinking was elaborated and its importance for developing scientific and technological domains was shown. Case study of existing neurotechnology projects around the world was carried out. A series of interviews was held with the representatives of Russian neurotechnology project in order to detect current weaknesses of Russian neuroscience case. Next, a competitive benchmarking of neuroscience cases around the world was conducted in order to find applicable solutions for detected weaknesses. Finally, the practical implementation of new neurotechnologies into everyday life was analyzed. Reinforcing and counselling information for current policy regulation of Russian neurotechnology case was obtained.

The study has showed the importance of each part in Science, Foresight and Policy interlinking in particular and their mutual interaction for development of the domain. Thus, Switzerland and USA having strong scientific and technological policy with the support of scientific evidences and properly conducting Foresight studies show first results in neuroscience domain and good achievements in other priority directions. China, still having some weaknesses in policy regulation of science and technology, already now shows good achievements in research in general as well as in neuroscience domain, simultaneously improving policy thanks to strong experience in Foresight and science interlinking.

Although Russia had already made great efforts in creating of strong innovation system in frame of which development of any scientific or technological domain should go easy and properly, there are still needs for improvement. Russian policy makers had to pay attention to enhancement of interaction between Science, Foresight and Policy that allows improving each part of the interlinking individually. Then their strong interaction will become the driving force of research, fruition of which will provide economic development with beneficial impacts on society.

Conducting of present study was limited by inability of thorough study of neurotechnology projects, because of recent appearance the most of them and absence of revolutionary achievements up to present time. However, already in the near future the success in realization of neurotechnology projects will show the quality of of Science, Foresight and Policy in countries as ground for science and technology development generally.

Introduction

Post-industrial society is a stage of social and economic development of countries that have successfully overcome the industrial era and entered the next stage of development. "Information society", "scientific civilization", "technotronic society" - all these synonyms of postindustrial society reflects its main essence: the priority of high-tech technologies (Udal'cova, Kucherova, 2013). Knowledge and information come on the forefront as main factors of economic development, rather than material resources as it was in the industrial age.

Thus, emerging technologies are seen as instrument to making a revolutionary impact on development of new world economy and society. However, the success in development of such technologies directly depends of advances in science. Nowadays science is playing much more crucial role than it did previously in relation to social and economic development. Understanding this, government and high-technology private companies are increasingly financing basic research in areas, where advances are needed for obtaining new technologies (Hicks, 1995). Many governments believe that an explicit longer-term policy for development of technologies is significant in the century of crescent economic competition (Clinton, Gore, 1994). Faced with increasing global economic competition policy-makers and scientists are trying to cope with the challenge of determining the most promising research areas and emerging technologies on which it is more appropriate to direct resources in order to obtain the greatest socio-economic benefits. Using Foresight helps in detecting and forming research that is likely to provide longer-term economic and social benefits (Martin, 1995).

Recent time the concept of evidence-based science and technology policy making was put into the context of Foresight. Currently Foresight studies are commonly understood as powerful instrument of priority setting and policy formulation for governance in forming future oriented policies and strategies (Sokolov, 2013). In addition to the increasing strategic significance of science, there are other factors which are stimulating interest in Foresight studies, in particular the new 'border conditions' that science has faced (Solla Price, 1984). Among the internal border conditions are growing technical enhancement and mainstay upon advanced instrumentation. Externally, research has become the subject to political demands and budgetary constraints. Science is in dependent state that demands for greater selectivity and strategic planning for getting funding for promising domains (Irvine, 1984). Foresight represents a response to these pressures.

Having such powerful tools, state potentially has a great role in terms of designing directionalities for science development and creating new technology markets. It can be concluded that development of any technological domain directly depends of proper state policy based on scientific evidences and results of Foresight studies.

Nowadays all developed and developing countries have a view about the most important social and economic as well as scientific and technological priorities, which frequently include neurotechnology. Neurotechnology is one of the main pillars of research and technological activity in the 21-st century, which could bring the great benefits for society and economic development of countries worldwide (Public Policy Report “Neurotechnologies”, 2014). It is anticipated that the next technological revolution will be linked to neuroscience and dramatically increasing mental productivity through the integration of the human brain with computers. It is obvious that effective development of neurotechnology domain also depends of proper state governance complemented by science based evidences and results of Foresight studies.

Launch of a number of global research projects around the world with public financing and infrastructure support for studying the brain indicate the high topicality of the development of neurotechnology domain. Thus, recently neurotechnology projects were launched in EU, Switzerland, USA, China, Japan, Australia and many other countries. On December 4, 2014 the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin also announced National Technology Initiative (NTI), in which `NeuroNet' (neurotechnology market) has been declared as one of promising new markets based on breakthroughs in science and high-tech solutions, which could bring the socio-economic gratuities for society worldwide.

Thus, research question in the present study is to distinguish current weaknesses in Russian neuroscience domain and find applicable solutions for them using best foreign neuroscience cases. During research next two hypotheses were formulated and tested:

The effective development of Russian neurotechnology domain is strongly influenced by a due interlinkage of Science, Foresight and Policy.

The implementation of new neurotechnologies into everyday life depends on policy preparedness for their implementation.

In order to obtain the recommendation for policy makers, research concept of Science, Foresight and Policy interlinking was elaborated and its importance for developing scientific and technological domains was shown. Case study of existing neurotechnology projects around the world was carried out. A series of interviews were undertaken with the representatives of Russian neurotechnology project in order to detect current weaknesses of Russian neuroscience case. Next, a competitive benchmarking of neuroscience cases around the world was conducted in order to find applicable solutions for detected weaknesses. Reinforcing and counselling information for current policy regulation of Russian neurotechnology case was obtained. Finally, the practical implementation of new neurotechnologies into everyday life was analyzed.

The study can be considered by policy makers, researches and Foresight practitioners as a theoretical example of interlinking Science, Foresight and Policy in neuroscience domain in particular and in any promising domain in general. Furthermore, the outcome contains valuable information which can be included in the design of further Foresight studies and policy strategies in the neuroscience domain. An original contribution of the study is achieved through the discussion on the current policy-making process in Russian neuroscience domain.

In the second chapter the literature review on research concept of Science, Foresight and Policy interlinking will be considered in details. The current understanding of neuroscience domain around the world will be presented. Case study of existing global neuroscience projects will be carried out. In the third chapter methodology approach of the study will be presented. Set of interviews, competitive benchmarking and analysis of new technologies implementation in the neuroscience domain will be initiated. Milestone results of competitive benchmarking with information obtained from interviews will be provided in the fourth chapter. In the fifth chapter policy alignment for Russian neuroscience case will be presented. The impact of new neurotechnologies on society and the policy readiness for their implementation into everyday life will be discussed critically and main conclusion of present research will be presented in the sixth chapter of the present study.

1. Literature review

In the second chapter the concept of research is presented generally and with the detailed description of every interaction between Science, Foresight and Policy. The framework of neurotechnology domain and a set of global neuroscience research projects with government funding and administration around the world are reviewed. neurotechnology russian foresight

1.1 Concept of science, foresight and policy interlinking

Nowadays all developed and developing countries associate their economic growth with the development of science. The rapid and sustained economic growth can be achieved through the advances in science and technologies. Understanding this, governments started to finance basic research in areas which advances are needed for obtaining new technologies (D. Hicks, 1995). However, it was realized promptly that the development of science as a whole does not bear fruit. First of all, there is a need to determinate the most promising areas of science and emerging technologies which may bring beneficial effects for economy and society soon in order to support them sufficiently for providing rapid development.

For such reason Foresight was considered as an approach, which allows specifying and forming research fields that are likely provide advantages for country (Martin, 1995). The term 'Foresight' is understood as “the process involved in systematically attempting to look into the longer-term future of science, technology, the economy and society with the aim of identifying the areas of strategic research and the emerging generic technologies likely to yield the greatest economic and social benefits.”

Two essential aspects of Foresight should be emphasized. First, Foresight is a process, not a set of different techniques which are used simultaneously and once. It includes a constant assessment of the procedure in order to get feedback and use this information for next round of Foresight. Second aspect is that Foresight implies a vision of the future which accepts many possible scenarios of the future. The main goal of Foresight is to study all these possible alternative futures. Which scenario we will obtain depends on the decisions which policy markers do today. Thus, Foresight activities engage wittingly active attitude towards the future, understanding that the decisions, which policy makers are making today, create the future.

Previously the scientific research ?ndings were not involved enough in the process of defining policy priorities. However, it makes sense primarily to use scienti?c evidence as creative stimulus to policy formulation (Holmes, Clark, 2008). It is anticipated that moving science into a central place for the development of economy, its implementation at political level becomes an effective accelerator for the involvement of scientists in forming science policy. Increased use of the systematic analysis of current conditions as well as outputs of current research initiatives would allow to science inform the policy agenda better and owing that to gain avail by countries and get competitive advantages in global competition.

Policy potentially plays a great role in developing scientific directions and creating new technology markets (Mazzucato, 2014). In order to get the most appropriate alignment for current policy regulation such tools as scientific evidences and Foresight studies should take a place. However, the process of launching any domain demands its succeeding regulation. Thus, constant feedback should be between each part in interaction of Science, Foresight and Policy in order to enhance each other. It is not possible to determine only one part as the most significant in this process. It should be kept in mind that only proper interaction of every part could lead to the rapid economic growth of countries.

In order to facilitate the understanding of the interrelationship kind of Science, Foresight and Policy, model of their interlinking was visualized and showed on the Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research concept of Science, Foresight and Policy Interlinking

Presented vision of Science, Foresight and Policy interlinking was accepted as research concept for present study and consider the interaction as effective combination for the launch and development of promising science directions and new technologies, in particular, domain of neurotechnology. Detailed specification of each interaction in Science, Foresight and Policy interlinking and influence of their outcome on economy and society are presented further.

1.1.1 Foresight as effective tool for policy-making process

Science, technology and society are becoming increasingly connected over time. Their relationships are difficult to predict and adequate policy response for their management is required (Schomberg et al., 2006). Thus, use of Foresight is very significant currently and directs science and technology development in more successful way that finally provides advantages for economy and society.

The outcomes of Foresight activities are used in varied dimensions: from setting priorities in funding particular R&D projects to forming innovation policy strategies for whole countries (Gokhberg, Sokolov, 2013). Foresight studies accumulate knowledge and help to foresee future prospects of particular science and technology areas, highlight advantages and disadvantages of countries from point of global competition. Understanding of expected demand and supply trends in the future provides a basis for assessment of national competitive strengths and shaping complicated strategy based on Foresight scenarios, authentication of strategic units and technological priorities for particular sectors of economy. The additional benefits from Foresight studies are better understanding of emerging markets, barriers and limitations, relevant risks, which countries can be encounter in the future.

Generally, Foresight studies help to maintain a set of different policy tasks (Schomberg et al., 2006). First is increasing of societal and economic well-being by means of identification of solutions to problematic areas and perspectives for societal well-being, understanding technology and society relationship, opportunities in economic growth and national competitiveness. Define priority areas for technology policy is the one of significant Foresight functions. Survey of national technological development, stimulation of development in priority areas of technology development and research, better understanding the interaction among different technologies, allocation of funding for research and the improvement of industrial competitiveness are points which are being considered thoroughly in Foresight studies. Foresight supports development of technology and innovation policies owing to improvement of co-operation among different stakeholders and development of the technology planning and implementation. Moreover, gives insight about global trends, the best international experiences in technology development as well as strengthens international work on Foresight.

The role of Foresight in policy and its development have been intensively discussed in literature recent time (Sokolov, 2013). The usage of Foresight methods to policy-making in the sphere of STI has become a clear tendency during the last years worldwide. With time it was demonstrated the transformation of Foresight studies from a support tool to a powerful instrument of priority setting and policy formulation. This process fully refers to Russia and reflects both increasing complexity of policy tools and more frequent use of Foresight practices.

Nowadays Foresight can be interpreted as an essential element of policy-making, which distributes decisions by providing three key functions, which are provided simultaneously in line with the network-type distributed model of making processes which is shown on the Figure 2. The network-type distributed model of policy-making processes using Foresight. The first function is policy informing by generating Foresight knowledge concerning the dynamics of change, future challenges and options and transferring this knowledge to policy-makers as an input into policy formulation. This function is an important stimulus for policy-makers to initiate a Foresight studies. The second is policy counselling by interlinking the knowledge generated in the frame of policy informing Foresight function with prospects on the strategic positioning and options of individual stakeholders, to assist their internal decision-making processes. The third is policy facilitating by creating a general awareness of current dynamics, future developments, networks and visions among stakeholders, thus supporting the realization of policy strategies (Havas et al., 2010).

Figure 2. The network-type distributed model of policy-making processes using Foresight.

However, there is still need to focus on policy agenda and better grounded approach in applying of Foresight for policy (Sokolov, 2013). New instruments have to be introduced to reduce uncertainties and manage risks in formation and implementation of strategies for social and economic development, identify priorities. Broader set of relevant stakeholders with appropriate different knowledge and background should be included in the working group for conducting Foresight studies (European Commission, 2006).

A close interaction between policy and Foresight was shown in scientific publication repeatedly. Implementation of Foresight recommendations in policy had increased significantly. However, STI policy should not be based only on the recommendations of scientists and Foresight experts, but also take into account the opinion of those who will apply these in the future (Cuhls, 2013).

It was noted that such broad applying of Foresight in the interests of science and technology policy has considerable influence on innovation system also, because challenges and trends usually influence on a variety of policy fields. Due to this effect the interlinking of Foresight and policy forces to consider the impact of governance different modes on the national innovation system development, which is a driver of national values, consequently, economic development of countries (Gokhberg and Sokolov, 2013). Society at present is becoming highly aware of upcoming challenges and opportunities and it is becoming understandable that no one national innovation system can be managed by actions of one actor without any obligation to anyone else. The reason of this is that current and future challenges and opportunities identified in Foresight studies are too large and complex to be solved by decisions of individual policy actors. Furthermore, the global economic situation does not allow governance bodies respond to current challenges, which are characterized by a meaningful risk and uncertainty of possible application, without preliminary investigation of subjects by scientists and Foresight makers. Thus, all above-mentioned says about which essential role Foresight has in policy-making.

1.1.2 Role of policy in conduction of the science and technology Foresight

In the era of “information society” science and technology policy is significant for economic and social development of country. Hereby, Foresight helps to form policy strategy explicitly. In its turn precisely the government must take the lead role in organizing Foresight studies, especially, on the level that covers the entire range of science and technology (Martin, 1995). Results of such holistic Foresight are significant in launch of the context for objective Foresight studies which later will be focused on studying definite objectives of the main goal. There are needs to conduct a full set of Foresight on the macro-, meso- and micro-levels providing their compliance to general concept.

Nowadays Foresight is used widely to identify research areas and emerging promising technologies that should bring the superb social and economic benefits. Foresight also can give a view about the fusion of previously separate science or technology directions and benefits from such associations (Popper, 2008). Properly conducted Foresight can also foster the better communication and collaboration between industry, academy and government. Such links have the crucial role in full potential exploitation of new technologies. Success of Foresight process depends upon obtaining most, in the best case all, of the cause and effect elements in Foresight right.

Thus, given that Foresight requires noticeable resources and proper conduction with complicated coordination of the process, Foresight study must be initiated as explicit high-level government decision (Miles et al., 2007). The government generally has to take the lead role to attract the necessary commitment of the needed wide range of stakeholders. Ideally, Foresight should be conducted by all the main institutions that fund or perform research. The commitment for Foresight study should be agreed by all relevant parties in the beginning by creating a high-level advisory committee or during workshops and other discussions. The design of the Foresight study is decisive. The approach must be suitable to the Foresight study goals and to the surrounding conditions (Popper, 2008). Time horizon should be not too long and not too short.

Success of Foresight depends upon a suitable balance between 'technology-push' and 'demand-pull' criteria. For inquisitiveness-oriented research technology-push should have greater weight, for applied research demand-pull is taken into account more, for strategic research the balance should be weighted equally (Martin, 1995). Moreover, the balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches should be met. The balance between economic and social factors must be proper for the institutional and political conditions in which the Foresight is carried out. Among the tasks during Foresight study design are the next:

- determining the audience whom Foresight results are needed and the audience's necessities;

- obtaining the commitment of the scientific, business and policy-making communities;

- providing conformity with the existing resource allocation system for science and technology;

- attracting experts with the forecasting experience and science policy skills;

- pay proper attention to interdisciplinary study and cross-sector links;

- balancing 'technology-push' and 'demand-pull' as well as 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches;

- appropriate results' dissemination and implementation providing from the beginning.

The process of Foresight is held in 7 stages, that is so-called 7Is principal (Saritas, 2015):

1. Intelligence: creates shared understanding and mutual appreciation of ussies by scanning;

2. Imagination: the input from scanning is synthesized into conceptual models of alternative futures;

3. Integration: analyses the alternative models of the future and `prioritises' them;

4. Interpretation: translation future visions into long-, medium-, and shot-term actions for a successful change programme;

5. Intervention: creates plans to inform present day decisions for immediate change to provide structural and behavioral transformations;

6. Impact: evaluates the results and impacts of Foresight exercise, learns from experience and provides input for next round;

7. Interaction: mutual learning and collective visioning through intensive negotiations among system actors and stakeholders.

During strategic analysis different research options such as the actors, opportunity costs and resource implications, socio-economic impact are being evaluated (Keenan, 2003). This takes into account external threats and opportunities and internal strengths and weaknesses.

There are four main inputs to the strategic analysis which should be balanced between each other:

1. an assessment of socio-economic needs and opportunities;

2. an assessment of emerging research developments;

3. an assessment of the interior socio-economic context and the capability to use the benefits of a definite new technology;

4. an assessment of abilities and resources for research.

The results of Foresight should be suitable to the aim audience and their needs, moreover, results should not be unrealistic nor too detailed. Although policy makers must be involved in process throughout, on this stage a high-level government committee has a crucial role in increasing the chance of conclusion implementation. Foresight results must be sufficiently clear to provide the basis for decisions for policy makers audience (Martin, 1995).

The first step of Foresight results implementation aims on the decision to launch a research initiative or technological programme. It may be the direct result of Foresight or more indirect links. Sometimes Foresight may provide a relatively little input to policy decision-making. If research initiative or technological programme would be launched, the goals for the programme should be established clear, a strategy for achieving them should be agreed, and an effective management system for implementation of strategy should be formed (Miles et al., 2007). A crucial element in creating an effective management system is periodic evaluation and assessment of the entire strategy. Results' implementation includes the identification of potential users of the program results and providing their early involvement, determination of the best approach for programme results dissemination, assignment of responsibility for diffusion and launching following procedures to enhance implementation.

1.1.3 Relationship between science and policy

Increased use of the outputs of current research initiatives would allow science to inform the policy agenda better and owing that to gain socio-economic benefits by countries and get competitive advantages in global competition. It is anticipated that putting science into a central place for the development of a knowledge-based economy, its implementation at political level becomes an effective driver for the involvement of scientists in forming science and technology policy. Thus, some practical steps were identified in literature that can be taken in order to facilitate the role of science in policy making and regulation (Holmes, Clark, 2008):

1. a stronger role for policy makers and scientific advisers in developing research questions and agendas;

2. strengthening interpretation capacity across the science policy interface;

3. developing the policy community as more discerning customers for science;

4. making it easier to ?nd and access relevant experts and previous research and advice;

5. systematically developing skills and providing an attractive career path.

Establishing research questions and agendas is an essential stage in the usage of science outcomes in policy-making process. There are number of issues which have to be considered: strategic use of evidence from research, framing of policy questions, stakeholder engagement and research purposes.

Evidences from research potentially can provide good alignment for policy formulation. However, as a rule, nowadays science-based arguments are not involved early enough in setting policy priorities. Scientific evidence must be set on the earliest stage of debate and provide a creative stimulus for policy design. Increased use of systematic analysis of current conditions as well as outputs of horizon scanning initiatives would allow to science to better inform the policy agenda (Holmes, Clark, 2008). More appropriate could be also to bring together existing initiatives on horizon scanning of different ministries and departments.

Policy makers may have some difficulties in the framing of research questions that inform choices between policy options (Owens et al., 2006). Generally insufficient time is devoted to elaboration of questions. In addition, the prospects for economy always dominate above the thinking of other departments. Moreover, in order to avoid the same research at different times by different agencies, existing knowledge should be detected before initiation of a new research projects. This can be solved by using of scientific scanning.

A lack of understanding by policy-makers is detected in the public assumptions, values and concerns and how they should be re?ected in the research question framing (Scott et al., 2005). More rounded assessment of the problem with relevant stakeholders should be developed which enhances the relevance and quality of the research and leads to better policy-making and learning. Efficient stakeholder engagement to inform the framing of research questions was identi?ed as important but dif?cult issues. Approaches to stakeholder engagement demand further development to be effective within resource and time constraints.

Better mechanisms are needed to provide absorption of research which should become policy relevant. This could be achieved through greater participation of end-users in de?ning research programme framework and tasks through networking, consultations and committees. Nowadays research too often fails to provide suf?ciently coherent and effective research outputs to inform policy-making.

Politicians and scientific advisers discuss animatedly the current practice of policy informing by science with regard to finding relevant reports and documents, assessing the reliability of information and establishing contacts with experts. Sufficient access for information and research results is essential predecessor in using science to inform policy formulation and regulation (Holmes, Clark, 2008). Reports made by and for government departments and agencies are more policy relevant than research relevant because they are addressed to solve policy issues and managed by someone who is close to policy. However, even such type of reports could be dif?cult to ?nd (Campbell et al., 2007). It is being discussing currently that outputs from all government funded research should be readily available. A single data base or website could become the good decision that could be used in search of existing reports on all policy relevant research. Moreover, the structure of report should be changed and includes an executive summary that maintain just key ?ndings, describes the context, reliability and implications for policy. It is crucial in the conditions of time lack in which policy-makers and their scientific advisers work usually.

Policy makers tend to make a little use of publications from peer reviewed journals, because the most of them are too focused, technical and detailed, and policy-makers do not have time to read it in order to understand the general sense. However, reviews on the current state of knowledge in particular fields are valuable sources of information for policy makers. Yet there are some problems with adequate access to relevant peer reviewed journals for policymakers as well (Scott et al., 2005). Thus, it is clear that more efforts should be put into providing of research outputs availability.

Moreover, there is necessary in existence of more formal and accountable system of monitoring the quality of the scienti?c evidence and the validity of statements. It would be useful if general criteria were developed that can be used to assess the reliability of support information for policy-making. Nowadays assessing the reliability of information for policy-makers includes next set of criteria: the reliability of the techniques used for the analysis, the reputation of the organization and researcher, whether the work has been peer reviewed, the quality of material (Holmes, Clark, 2008).

External experts have important role in scienti?c advice for policy making and regulation. Such experts could create and interpret knowledge for policy makers. They can make their inputs as individuals or as members of advisory committees. Involvement of external experts may give credibility to the enhancing policy decision (Campbell et al., 2007). However, there are some difficulties in identification of relevant experts on definite issue, particularly, if the issue is new to policy makers. There is the need for a searchable database or experts register which includes the information about expert credentials for providing advice. In its turn for researchers it can be also dif?cult to get to know who in government might use their research. Some kind of database with contacts of experts and policy makers for definite policy issues in government departments and agencies would be useful. All above mentioned notices the need to create more opportunities to meet and interact for members of the research and policy communities.

The need to enhance the quality of interaction between researchers and policy-makers were concluded from literature clearly (Holmes, Clark, 2008). Differences between researchers and policy-makers in their cultures, time-frames, according to structures and motivations were detected as barriers to proper communication which are given the dif?culties. There is often a gap between the researchers and policy-makers that talk about differential role of interpreters to facilitate interactions between them. The role of interpreters consists in interpretation of research ?ndings on the `language' of policy makers for policy implementation. It involves understanding offered by the ?ndings for the identi?cation different policy option and facilitating the development of policy research questions and, from another side, brings to researchers balanced overview and synthesis of what is known already and what are the key uncertainties according to a policy issue (Campbell et al., 2007). Interpreter staff should take the main role in preparing brief notes on the project that show the project ?ndings and the limitations and implications of the research ?ndings for policy. Researchers and policy-makers may also sometimes carry out the role of interpreter. It can be concluded that interpreters are essential in building a bridge between science and policy.

Transparency of the evidence base and its use is essential to successful partnerships of science and policy. The need to establish clear audit trails to realize how science is used in policy formulation and regulation was detected. Evaluation of the impact of researchers was identified as important but dif?cult in means to assess the value of somebody's input to government policy-making (Scott et al., 2005). Quality evaluation systems within government departments and agencies need to be extended to the full process of using science to inform policy including the formulation of research questions and uptake of research ?ndings. In terms of informal evaluation people who provide interpretation more feedback on the quality and usefulness of their inputs to the policy making process would be useful.

1.1.4 Policy intervention in promising scientific and technological domains

State measures in the field of science and technology is presented as state science and technology policy. It is a set of principles and methods aimed at the formation and development of scientific and technological potential of the country to achieve the strategic goals of the society (Arvanitis, 2009). The objectives of science and technology policy are next:

1. State support of national science;

2. Promote the development of its priority areas of national importance;

3. Ensuring conditions for the implementation and effective use of scientific achievements in the sphere of production.

Identification of the main directions for the state science and technology policy, choice of priority directions for development of science and technology, elaboration of recommendations and proposals on the implementation of scientific and technical programs and projects are carried out using Foresight and various forms of public discussions, examinations, competitions. Scientific and technological policy in respect of certain sectors is developed and implemented by the relevant executive authorities with the involvement of businesses and their associations taking into account the unified state scientific and technological policy. In each country there are their own sets of state documents in which basis of national innovation system are laid, the system of measures for the development of research, fund allocation for the implementation of scientific and technical programmes and for supporting research, scientific and technical and innovative activity are registered.

The effective development of any scientific or technological domain directly depends of innovation climate in country. Innovation climate is a set of conditions conducive to the implementation of scientific results (Suslov, 2014). Among them:

- the presence of the state science, technology and innovation policy, which determines the priorities of scientific and technological development of the country, regions and economic entities;

- developed system of legal regulation of innovation, which opens opportunities for innovation initiatives;

- sustainable operation of direct government funding mechanisms and other forms of support for innovation;

- availability of a developed innovation infrastructure, providing full support to innovation;

- staffing innovation activities, including training, higher education and specialized training centers for scientific and technical sphere.

In order to understand the fundamental role of policy in development of science or technology directions it is necessary to consider how policy intervene the innovation system. The most important mission of policy is procuring framework conditions for innovation development, that includes macroeconomic stability, some aspects of the regulatory system and the taxation, competitive markets, openness to international trade and foreign direct investment, and an intellectual property rights (IPR) regime (OECD, 2011). Good framework conditions are significant for achieving high innovation performance that will provide economic grows of country.

State has to provide stable and predictable macroeconomic framework, which provides appropriate conditions for business to hold their medium- to long-term strategies and encourage investment in R&D and innovation. A well-developed financial system is an important catalyst of innovation activities. Public financing should cover all costs on basic research. Moreover, state has to invest in high-risk areas, where business sector cannot meet the need for financing. Progress in decreasing corruption, amplification of law rules, reducing the bureaucratic weight on business and reorganizing the public administration are essential elements of policy targeted at strengthening innovation. Moreover, policy should support market competition which is a driver of productivity growth by providing innovation either directly or indirectly.

Science and innovations depend on people. The key mission of policy is to provide people who are able to generate and apply knowledge and ideas in the workplace and in society. It should be realized through proper education and training. It means that policy has to reinforce education system and strengthen linking education with research. Moreover, protection of IPR stimulates researchers by opportunity to get rewards. The implementation of modern IPR legislation is an essential part of the framework conditions for innovation, which should be provide by effective policy.

Only equal interaction of every part of innovation system leads to the economic growth (Mazzucato, 2014). The role of any of the mentioned items should not be overestimated and represent as a stimulus or barrier for innovation. All parts of innovation system have to work symbiotically, non-parasitically. If the innovation system is built correctly, system functioning stimulates innovation development by itself, and any scientific or technological directions develop and work optimized and harmoniously.

1.2 Current understanding of neuroscience domain

Increasing the duration and improve the quality of human life, maintaining its high efficiency and intellectual activity are important tasks in modern society. To solve this problem requires a deep understanding of the mechanisms of the human body functioning, primarily the nervous system and brain, which is the substratum of consciousness and conductor for the work of whole organism (Public Policy Report towards "Neurotechnologies", 2014).

Much attention is paid to the development of basic neuroscience enabling to identify the specialized neural networks which are responsible for the regulation of brain functions: from the specific genes expression to behavior regulation. Obtained knowledge opens up new possibilities for studying principles and mechanisms of information processing and storage in the brain and their mathematical modeling. One of the most important prospects based on neurotechnology is associated with establishment of new generation of supercomputers and human-machine interfaces for direct information exchange between the brains and technical devices. It is anticipated that in the growth of intellectualization neuromorphic systems their volume of information, autonomy and complexity of behavior will increase due to learning process and reduce energy consumption in the same time.

In developed countries scientific and technological progress is accompanied by the increase of food quality and healthcare system, living conditions improvement that is leading to increase of human life longevity (Akil, 2010). On the other hand, chronic stress, industrial and household injuries, pollution and other negative sides of civilization effect on the viability of neurons and the brain as a whole. With the background of increasing life duration this leads to a rapid increase in the number of people with brain diseases. Already now studies lead to the rapid development of robotics, in particular to the use of such interfaces in rehabilitative medicine. Understanding of the brain mechanisms allows adjusting its work through neurotechnology providing invasive and non-invasive influence on the relevant brain subsystem. In the short-term future robotic applications for the rehabilitation of patients take the most important place in medicine.

The social need for the development of neuroscience greatly increases together with scientific and technological progress and increasing requirements to the expert mental status in various fields of national economy. Particularly the psychological testing and scientific support of human decision making processes are becoming very important in our days. This resulted in the emergence of a new scientific discipline "neuroeconomics". The flip negative side of scientific and technological progress is a mental load increase on individuals, especially in the condition of economic crisis, local wars, ethnic conflicts and natural disasters. Chronic social stress leads to mental disorders. In such case the basic mechanisms of person social adaptation are being violated, the ability to efficient information processing, cognitive control and decision-making are being lost, and therefore the need of psychological rehabilitation on the basis of neurotechnologies appears.

The creation of new neurotechnologies for struggle with brain diseases based on the principles of preventive, translational, personalized and regenerative medicine is one of the priority directions of modern science and technology development around the world (Yao, 2010). Brain research on the basis of new approaches aims at maintaining a high efficiency of the brain as well as on prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of socially significant neurological and psychiatric diseases, which will increase the duration and improve the quality of human life as well as reduce the financial and moral burden on society. It is worth noting that anatomy and neurophysiological processes in the brain do not cause questions and doubts, but the fundamental understanding of the basic brain principles, its physical and biochemical device bases, have not been solved yet.

It is expected that the study of the brain will unite the many sciences including social and societal and, in addition, will serve as the main factor for the development of new technologies. Development of technologies that contribute to the restoration of cognitive function and related daily living skills is very relevant. To emphasize additionally the relevance and practical importance of this domain, one should note the global challenges which can be satisfied through the active development and implementation of neurotechnologies:

1. The increasing demand for the duration and quality of life;

2. Increasing complexity of the technological sphere;

...