面向2035全球科技发展态势研判与中国应对策略研究

全球科技发展态势研判是对未来一段时期科学技术、国际竞争、产业形态和社会关系的趋势判断和分析,对做好科技战略制定和规划具有重要意义。本文以2035年为展望,对全球科技发展、创新范式、基础科学、研发组织、社会影响进行态势分析,认为未来科技创新将对人类经济社会发展产生决定性影响,新技术、新组织、新产业、新业态将不断涌现,新型研发组织发生进阶化演变,技术应用将重塑经济社会和产业结构。中国作为科技创新领域进展最快的国家之一,面临着中美科技局部脱钩、国际技术出口管制、新兴技术应用受限、科研伦理不确定性增多等潜在风险。对此,提出应加强对战略前沿技术的前瞻性预测,加强国家科技合作,构建国家战略科技力量,构建核心技术攻关新型举国体制,加快政府管理职能转变等五方面措施。     

Exploring the sources of design innovations: Insights from the computer,communications and audio equipment industries

Whereas business research has focused on the impact of design innovations on market response and financial performance, the sources of design innovations, as opposed to those of technological innovations, have largely escaped investigation. In this research, we examine the organizational, financial, and environmental drivers of design innovations and how they contrast to technological innovations. Our study utilizes a unique dataset encompassing a 10-year window of innovation output drawn from the computer, communications, and audio and video equipment manufacturing industries. Our results suggest that design innovations are driven primarily by investments in research and development and slack organizational resources. Interestingly, we find that design innovations are more prevalent in smaller but fast-growing markets as opposed to technology innovations, which are prevalent in larger markets. Contrary to expectations, we find no association between marketing investments and design innovations. Our research contributes to the extant business literature by considering the sources of design innovations separately from the sources of technology innovations. We also contribute to the literature by distinguishing design and technology patents, developing a deeper understanding of design innovation, and illuminating a lesser understood source of competitive advantage for firms.     

Technological innovation and industrial research in Japan

As a background to the development of Japanese industry, important characteristics of its technological innovations and industrial research are discussed. The parrticular nature of Japanese development, if any, should be explained by the fact that from the start of industrialization by the Meiji Government, technological innovation was pursued as an integrated process from the outset, including important facets such as education, technology transfer, indigenous research, development, commercialization, and diffusion of technology and products.The integrated approach was a natural consequence of the effort of late-coming Japanese industry and the government to catch up with the already highly developed industries abroad. However, the world-wide trend after World War II for technological innovations to take place on an increasingly large scale, required an integrated approach. This favoured the break-through of Japanese industries, especially in the economic environment of high growth in the 1960s.Industrialization in the Meiji Era. technological development of Japanese industry in the post-war period, the characteristics of industrial research which supported development and new innovations in the 1980s are described.It is concluded that the industrial policy of the government in promoting a broad economic and social background for innovation and the activities of innovative enterprises in the private sector have been the two major activities which worked together to achieve the present state of Japanese industry.     

物联网安全架构初探

物联网是信息技术发展到一定阶段的产物,是全球信息产业的又一次科技与经济浪潮,将影响到许多重大技术创新和产业的发展,受到各国政府、企业和科研机构的高度重视。同时,物联网的信息安全问题是关系物联网产业能否安全可持续发展的核心技术之一,必需引起高度重视。因此如何建立合理的物联网安全架构和安全体系将对物联网的安全使用和可持续发展有着重大影响。本文试图从不同层次分析物联网的安全需求,搭建物联网的安全架构体系,希望为物联网可靠的信息安全系统提供理论参考依据。     

颠覆性技术研发管理研究

颠覆性技术可引起现有投资、技术、产业、规则“归零”,具有突变性、不确定性与潜藏性等特点。随着新一轮科技和产业革命的开始,如何有效地管理颠覆性技术研发来促进颠覆性技术的发展,成为政府组织及研究学者都十分关注的热点问题。本文通过对颠覆性技术的内涵及研发特征进行分析,指出颠覆性技术研发具有高风险、高投入、高挑战性。开展有效的颠覆性技术研发管理,社会各界与全球各国家纷纷投入到颠覆性技术研发中,设立了专门机构或项目组织,这些机构组织极大促进了颠覆性技术的研发进程。最后,本文,结合实际案例对颠覆性技术研发的管理方法研究进行研究,总结出四种有效开展颠覆性技术研发的管理方法：开展阶段式的管理模式、设立颠覆性技术的专项资金、进行跨学科的协同研究、建立多样化的研发团队。     

政府补贴、两权分离与企业技术创新

技术创新文献对政府补贴究竟是激励效应还是挤出效应尚无定论。本文结合资源基础理论和委托代理理论提出了一个权变的观点,即认为政府补贴能否有效地促进企业的技术创新在很大程度上取决于企业能否处理好两个层面的委托代理关系:一方面是企业管理层和企业股东之间的利益冲突(所有权与管理权的两权分离);另一方面是企业控股股东和中小股东之间的利益冲突(现金流权与控制权的两权分离)。本文对2008-2011年在沪深两市上市的电子、制药和信息企业创新绩效(运用随机效应负二项回归模型)进行分析后发现:第一,企业获得的政府补贴与其技术创新绩效之间不存在显著的正相关关系;第二,企业CEO两职合一、控股股东所有权和控制权的两权分离对政府补贴和技术创新绩效之间的关系起到负向的调节作用。本文的研究结果对政府的研发补贴政策和企业的治理结构调整具有一定的理论指导意义。     

典型发达国家国际合作对中国与“一带一路”国家科技创新合作的启示

当前大多数“一带一路”国家的科技创新基础较薄弱，科技创新合作意愿和基础普遍不足，各国之间深层次的国际科技合作亟待加强，中国与“一带一路”沿线国家的科技创新合作的内容与机制也亟待进一步丰富与完善。本研究通过重点梳理分析美国、欧盟、德国、日本和新加坡等发达国家和地区与发展中国家开展国际科技合作的经验，总结得出其具有四方面共同特征：搭建多层次科技交流平台，深化科技人文交流；科学布局国际科技合作基地，拓宽科技合作网络；建立健全海外孵化器，打造“一带一路”特色创新合作体系；推进联合技术攻关，提升科技援助水平。中国可从中汲取有益的做法，根据自身与“一带一路”沿线国家的发展阶段和现实需求，探索具有中国特色的“一带一路”科技创新合作创新模式。建议重点从科技人文交流、科技合作网络、特色创新合作体系、科技援助水平等维度探索构建人才、技术、空间等多种要素协同创新和联动发展的合作生态，通过增强国际科技话语权、有效互补协作和开展科技援助等方式推进“一带一路”国际科技创新与合作行稳致远。     

基于政府视角的国际科技合作模式研究

为了研究新形势下如何更好地利用国际科技资源推动创新型国家和创新型城市的建设,以北京为案例,开展了国际科技合作模式的研究。在文献调研的基础上,针对北京市的内资企业、外资企业、高校、科研院所、政府有关部门和中介,进行了深度访谈和问卷调查。在分析国际科技合作相关主体的国际科技合作现状的基础上,提出了基于政府视角的两种国际科技合作的模式:政府主导式和自由发展式。政府主导模式具体体现在政府间国际科技合作计划、社会发展方面的国际科技合作和部分政府采购项目特别是政府投资大项目为平台的国际科技合作。此外的经济领域的国际科技合作,应主要采取自由发展型模式。     

PB科学研究的质量保证问题研究/FONT/B/P PSTRONG/FONT/STRONG /P

在科学研究活动社会化以及全球经济一体化的背景下,科学研究活动需要进一步提高效率和透明度。资助科学研究活动的政府和企业等机构也越来越多地要求研究机构证明科研活动是按照最高的标准完成的。充分考虑到目的适用性,在科研活动中采用质量保证方法不仅能够保持科研活动本身的创造力和灵活性,还可以提高科研工作的效率,促进科学技术创新。     

中国技术开发类公共科研机构的建立、转制意义及模式

产业共性技术兼具竞争性和公益性的特征,政府如何推动此类技术的发展,一直是公共科技治理中一个颇具争议的命题。在这方面,中国在70年左右的科技创新实践中,通过技术开发类公共科研机构建立、发展、改革（转制）等过程,依托财政、税收、国有资本管理、保险、非营利机构、成果转化等方面的政策组合,探索形成了将技术要素建制化地扩散到工业化进程中的、具有鲜明中国特色的“投放”模式。     

科技伦理与安全审查的内在理路与二元结构——以《生物安全法》为中心展开北大核心CSCDCSSCI

科技研发应当遵循“科技向善”的理念,科技伦理与安全审查机制的建立十分重要。科技伦理与安全审查机制是生物安全风险防控和治理体系建设的重要组成部分,科技伦理与安全审查从“形式要件”到“实质要件”,均应当体现实体伦理正义和程序伦理正义的科技善治。我国应当构建科技伦理与安全审查二元体系结构:在内部审查结构中,制定具有统一性的科技伦理与安全审查实体性规则、程序性规则,从审查方式、审查标准、审查类型、主体法律责任四个方面对科技研发行为和科技产出成果予以规范。在外部审查结构中,建立信用机制及负面清单制度,形塑公众参与式审查模式,以期从源头有效规避科技伦理与安全风险。     

政府支持科学的制度探索———NSF 与NSFC 创立的比较研究

自创立以来，美国国家科学基金委员会（NSF）和中国国家自然科学基金委员会（NSFC）在两国科技事业发展和科技体制变革中发挥了重要作用。NSF和NSFC分别成立于市场体制和计划体制之下，对二者的创立过程进行比较研究发现，一方面，NSF和NSFC都创生于两国科研体制转型的关键阶段，是政府支持科学的制度探索；另一方面，二者在政策提议的主体、希望解决的问题以及共识塑造中的结盟和争论等方面存在差异，是两国深层社会结构的折射。总的来说，NSF和NSFC的成立分别表现出“理念先行”和“实践先行”的特点，各自在市场体制和计划体制下构建了国家支持科学新途径，深刻地改变了政府与科学的关系。“政府如何支持科学”这一命题不仅是NSF和NSFC创立过程中的核心问题，也是当前各国发展面临的重要问题，并表现出新的内涵和特征。面对科学这一没有止境的前沿，中国要强化国家战略科技力量，需要社会各界在理论和实践中共同探索这一问题的答案。     

发展中国家技术学习模式研究:文献综述

技术学习是发展中国家和后发企业实现较多的自主技术创新，提高发展的竞争性和持久性的最佳途径。在提出技术学习是发展中国家自主创新能力建设的关键的基础上，重点概括总结了国内外研究者提出的发展中国家技术学习的主要模式，并对这些研究作了评述。     

Some determinants of cost distributions in the process of technological innovation

Industrial research and development (R&D) is a set of activities within the broader set of decisions and activities: the process of technological innovation (TI). It is technology transfer (commercialization of the innovation) that leads to technology diffusion that permits production and employment expansion and hence economic growth — an important goal of industrial policy. Firms' managements and government policy- makers should recognize the close relationships among the phases of TI and direct their policy, planning, budgeting and control decisions to the complete process. Many policies currently focus their attention to only one or a few points (such as R&D).In this study we conducted a detailed cost analysis of a limited number of innovation projects and studied the distributions of TI cost over the process phases. We find that almost half of TI costs are devoted to R&D, which implies that government support of this phase is important. Different cost patterns emerge when we classify innovations by industrial sectors, firms' sizes and project complexity. Complex innovations require larger and more variable (risky) R&D budgets. Smaller firms need more assistance in technology transfer. These are only a few important policy implications. This study emphasizes the importance of post-R&D phases and concludes that differential industrial policy may be required for technological innovations.     

我国高校科技成果产业化瓶颈及破解对策：基于大规模调研数据的探索性实证分析

为丰富立足中国本土大规模调研、针对制约高校科技成果转化效率提升瓶颈的计量实证研究，以促进提高我国高校科技成果产业化效率，聚焦新发展格局对我国高校科技成果产业化提出的更深层次需求，在实地调研、专家访谈与文献回顾基础上提炼出科技成果自身局限性、转化风险控制不到位和宏观政策环境待完善等制约高校科技成果产业化的三方面主要瓶颈，基于对国内千所高校的大规模调研数据，运用Ordered Logit模型进行计量分析。结果发现：成果实用创新性不足、立项时市场需求不明晰、资金风险保障机制不健全、技术风险共担机制待优化、知识产权归属落实不到位和成果市场定价机制不完善等是我国高校科技成果产业化面临的突出挑战和问题。据此，提出打造全链条服务支撑体系、进一步细化成果分类评估标准和营造多方统筹联动的“政企学研融”合作机制等破解高校科技成果转化瓶颈的对策建议。     

Managing individual research productivity in academic organizations: A review of the evidence and a path forward

The management of research productivity is central to university governance and drives a broad range of decisions, including those on hiring, promotion and funding allocation. Policymakers and academic leaders responsible for improving their institutions’ research performance need an evidence-based understanding of the organizational factors that can be managed in pursuit of better publication outcomes. Our paper reviews the empirical evidence on the drivers of research productivity that can be actively managed by organizations and policymakers. Such drivers include organizational structures, research culture, features of task environment for academic work, and resource allocation. To advance the state of science in research productivity literature, we then analyze assumptions and highlight mechanisms that need to be explored in order to improve theoretical and methodological state of the field. We suggest directions for future research with the aim to create a deeper and more cohesive body of knowledge on how organizations, funding bodies, and government agencies can influence scientific performance at the individual level. To advance the practice of research management, we offer a rigorous synthesis of existing empirical evidence that can help academic leaders in supporting and developing faculty research productivity within their institutions.     

The Role of Intermediating Institutions in the Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): How Industry Associations Intervened in Denmark, Finland, and Hong Kong

Electronic data interchange (EDI) provides means for interorganizational communication, creates network externalities, requires an advanced information technology (IT) infrastructure, and relies on standards. In the diffusion of such innovations, institutional involvement is imperative. Such institutions contain governmental agencies, national and global standardization organizations, local government, and nonprofit private organizations like industry associations. The last type of organizations we call intermediating institutions. They intermediate or coordinate ("inscribe") the activities of a group of would-be adopters. Unfortunately, little is known of how these organizations shape the EDI diffusion trajectory. In this article we examine one specific type of intermediating organizations?industry associations?and how they advanced the EDI diffusion process in the grocery sectors of Hong Kong, Denmark and Finland. We identify six institutional measures, placed into a matrix formed by the mode of involvement (influence vs. regulation) and the type of diffusion force (supply push vs. demand pull), that can be mobilized to further the EDI diffusion. Industry associations were found to be active users of all these measures to varying degrees. Their role was critical especially in knowledge building, knowledge deployment, and standard setting. Furthermore, institutional involvement varied due to policy and cultural contingencies and power dependencies.     

二元经济形态下技术创新双重主体模式的确立

在分析基础科学研究与工程技术发展关系的基础上 ,重新对技术创新的内涵和外延进行了界定 ;根据世界经济发展的基本规律 ,结合我国处于二元经济形态的实际情况 ,提出了我国推进技术创新战略的双重主体模式     

Antecedents to open business model in the ICT-based sectors

The traditional closed business models (BMs) are widespread and continue to dominate the current business world. Today, more and more companies are using outside technologies and innovations to develop new products and actively look at business opportunities created through sharing knowledge, competencies, and technological resources. The next phase is to open the business model to reap the full benefits of open innovation (OI). As the driver of effective knowledge and technology flows (inside-out and outside-in), open innovation cannot capture value of these flows unless it is leveraged by key internal resources. Based on the resource-based view (RBV), we claim that such technological investments cannot make organizations more effective unless they are accompanied by organizational complementary assets. Thus, the theoretical model exposes Open Business Model (OBM) antecedents based on a Business Model Innovation (BMI) perspective. Moreover, the literature of the BM innovation values the link between BM and OI and asserts that network, structures and technological knowledge management infrastructure are required to capture the value created by these flows and drive companies to open their BM and thrive.The paper performs a structural model analysis with a sample of 134 respondents in the information and communication technologies (ICT) based sectors. The results show the positive impact of technological knowledge management infrastructure on inbound OI and the impact of relational capital on the two types of OI strategies and in leveraging open BM in ICT-based sectors. The paper provides insights to firms OI initiatives holders to establish effective networked BMs.     

Government policies towards industrial innovation: a review

Existing economic theories show that continuing innovation, diffusion, and technical and managerial improvement are necessary for economic growth and international competitiveness in the industrially advanced countries. But knowledge of why, where and how governments should intervene in the processes of industrial innovations stems more from trial and error than from systematic empirical information of the nature and extent of the hindrances to economically and socially desirable innovations, and of the effectiveness of alternative government policies to remove them. Nonetheless, past empirical studies do offer some clues.Differences amongst industrial sectors. The sources of new technology vary widely amongst inustrial sectors: in the costs of innovation, in the relative importance of outside suppliers of equipment and materials, of large and small firms, and of full-time R & D departments as compared to part-time innovative activities (sect. 7, 8). Similarly, the conditions for successful innovation vary amongst sectors (sect.6). Thus, government policies designed to influence innovation are likely to act with different intensities in different industries.The management of innovation. Nonetheless, there are some features common to innovation in different industries. Considerable costs beyond R & D are often necessary before the innovations reach commercial use (sect.4). And the following managerial characteristics are in general associated with successful innovation: a deliberate policy of seeking innovations; close and careful attention to customer requirements; good personal communications both within the firm and with outside sources of relevant knowledge; a style of management that is ‘organic’ and ‘participatory’ rather than ‘hierarchical’ and ‘authoritarian’; strong project leadership; and a strong engineering capability (sect. 6).R & D managers are still unable to predict the outcome of R & D projects to a useful degree of accuracy and, in the literature on methods of project selection, very little attention is paid to market uncertainties. Furthermore, a greater use of conventional investment appraisal criteria in deciding on R & D projects may re-inforce the already observed tendency in industry towards short-term, low-risk projects, to the neglect of longer-term, high-risk projects (sect. 5).Governments should therefore examine whether the benefits of policies towards education and management advisory services for innovation might outweigh their costs. They may also have a significant role to play in financing longer-term research that is basic to the development of industrial technology (subsect. 12.5).The nature of market and production demands. The direction of industrial innovation is often very sensitive to market and production demands (sect. 3). This fact, together with the high degree of market uncertainty facing innovating firms (sect. 5), suggest that governments can potentially influence both the pace and the direction of industrial innovation through their influence on the scale of industrial, consumer and public service demands. However, this potential influence will become real only if users of innovations are able to specify the innovations that they need, or to evaluate those that they get. This is generally the case for industrial demand, but not in consumer and public service markets, where fashion, insensitivity to users' needs and lack of technical competence often prevail. Government-funded technological institutes and laboratories are ideally placed to provide such technical competence (sub-sect. 12.3).Economic incentives and rewards for innovation. A whole range of economic factors are said to influence the resources, the incentives and the rewards for innovation: for example, the degree of monopoly or the degree of competition, the patent system, the level of profits, the level of taxation, and the level of demand. The empirical evidence on the effects of most of these factors on industrial innovation is either inconclusive or non-existent. However, in the USA a close relationship has been observed between growth of industry sales and growth of industry-financed R & D activities (sect. 10). The rate of growth of demand is also one of the key factors influencing the rate of diffusion of innovations amongst their potential population of users (sects. 11, 12.2).The government-financed scientific and technological infrastructure. Scientific and technological knowledge from outside of innovating firms is often crucial to the completion of successful innovations, and three UK studies show that a significant proportion of this outside knowledge comes from government-financed technological institutes and laboratories, and from the universities (sect. 3). If the same is true in other countries, it should be an essential feature of any government policy towards industrial innovation to know how effectively government-funded laboratories and universities provide supportive knowledge to industry, and how government laboratories should be organised and financed (subsect. 12.4).Direct government-financing of innovative activities in industry. Governments specifically finance R & D activities in industrial firms, although these expenditures are less than those for general industrial development (sect. 13). These R & D activities in industry are relatively more important in France and UK, than in F.R. Germany and the Netherlands.In the four countries, more than 70% of all civilian government R & D activities related to industry are spent on aircraft, space, nuclear energy and electronics (subsect. 14.4). In all these high technologies, governments attempted in the 1960's to implement ‘policies for innovation’, involving government procurement, industrial mergers and attempts at European co-operation, in addition to the financing of R & D (subsect. 14.5). Government expenditures on civilian R & D related to other industrial sectors are very much smaller in all four countries (subsect 14.4).Where should governments intervene? A, number of attempts have been made to develop a formal framework of criteria to assist governments in deciding where they should intervene in industrial innovation. They all run into the following difficulties: dealing with multiple policy objectives; assessing national costs and benefits; comparing with alternative policies, choosing appropriate policy instruments (sect. 17).How should governments intervene? Very little information is available on the effectiveness of various policy instruments that have been used by governments in order to promote innovation in industry. Although it is often possible to measure the inputs into such policies, the measurement of their outputs (or results) is more difficult. Nonetheless, detailed studies would enable some such measurements to be made, and internationally comparable studies would increase the range of experiences and the number of cases that could be examined (sect. 18).Why should governments intervene? A full appreciation of the nature and scale of hindrances to industrial innovation, on which governments should act to remove, requires direct information on what innovations are (or are not) being introduced by industry, and why they are (or are not) being inyroduced. This information can best be obtained from analyses of the behaviour of industrial firms. They would differ from most existing innovation studies that concentrate on asking how firms must behave in order to make successful innovation, by asking what innovations are attempted, and why firms are stimulated to attempt them (sect. 19).