[Purpose/significance] This paper constructs an Impelling Technology Foresight Model (ITFM) used for foreseeing impelling technologies in the field of life science. [Method/process] ITFM is a comprehensive model consisting of four classes of indicators: international scientific environment, the evolving process of patents, collaboration features of patent assignees collaboration networks, and impacts. A validating study was carried out in the field of life science. Recombinant DNA (RbDNA) and Monoclonal Antibody (mAb) were selected as impelling technologies to carry out a validating study. ELISA Diagnosis (ELISA) and Fermentation Technology (FT) were defined as non-impelling technologies to be a control group. [Result/conclusion] Validating results reveal that the patent number of impelling technologies seems to be stable at the stage of maturity. Significant policies or programs usually boost the rapid progress of impelling technologies. Impelling technologies have much higher impact than non-impelling technologies. Collaboration behavior of impelling technologies is much more broad and general. Synthetic Biology (SynBio) is used to carry out the case study to foresee whether it could become impelling technology or not. The case study shows that SynBio might be at the early stage of development. It has shown some features of impelling technologies and has a prospect of becoming impelling technologies.
[1] COMPTON K T. Technical progress and social development[J]. Electrical engineering, 1939, 58(1):12-15.
[2] WEIGAND K, FLANAGAN T, DYE K, et al. Collaborative foresight: complementing long-horizon strategic planning[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2014, 85: 134-152.
[3] DAS M R. Biotechnology in the 21st century[J]. Defence science journal, 2001, 51(4): 327-332.
[4] BENNER S A, SISMOUR A M. Synthetic biology[J]. Nature reviews genetics, 2005, 6(7): 533-543.
[5] KHALIL A S, COLLINS J J. Synthetic biology: applications come of age[J]. Nature reviews genetics, 2010, 11(5): 367-379.
[6] SALO A, CUHLS K. Technology foresight-past and future[J]. Journal of forecasting, 2003, 22(2/3): 79-82.
[7] UNIDO. Technology foresight[EB/OL]. [2017-05-10]. http://www.unido.org/foresight.html.
[8] FIRAT A K. Technological forecasting-a review[EB/OL]. [2017-05-10]. http://web.mit.edu/smadnick/www/wp/2008-15.pdf.
[9] Technology Futures Analysis Methods Working Group. Technology futures analysis: toward integration of the field and new methods[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2004, 71(3): 287-303.
[10] MILES I. The development of technology foresight: a review[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2010, 77(9): 1448-1456.
[11] HAVAS A, SCHARTINGER D, WEBER M. The impact of foresight on innovation policy-making: recent experiences and future perspectives[J]. Research evaluation, 2010, 19(2): 91-104.
[12] LINSTONE H A. Three eras of technology foresight[J]. Technovation, 2011, 31(2/3): 69-76.
[13] COOK C N, INAYATULLAH S, BURGMAN M A, et al. Strategic foresight: how planning for the unpredictable can improve environmental decision-making[J]. Trends in ecology & evolution, 2014, 29(9): 531-541.
[14] WEINBERGER N, JORISSEN J, SCHIPPL J. Foresight on environmental technologies: options for the prioritisation of future research funding-lessons learned from the project "Roadmap Environmental Technologies 2020+"[J]. Journal of cleaner production, 2012, 27: 32-41.
[15] GOLDBECK W, WATERS L H. Foresight education: when students meet the future(s)[J]. Futurist, 2014, 48(5):30.
[16] KING K. Foresight in middle school: teaching the future for the future[J]. Futurist, 2014, 48(5): 41-42.
[17] LINTONEN T, KONU A, RONKA S, et al. Drugs foresight 2020: a Delphi expert panel study[J]. Substance abuse treatment, prevention and policy, 2014, 9(1):18.
[18] MARKUS M L, MENTZER, K. Foresight for a responsible future with ICT[J]. Information systems frontiers, 2014, 16(3): 353-368.
[19] VANRAAN A F J. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 36(3): 397-420.
[20] 陈云伟, BORNER K. 科学地图的科学价值[J]. 图书情报知识, 2009(6): 27-33,74.
[21] YOON B, LEE S, LEE G. Development and application of a keyword-based knowledge map for effective R&D planning[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 85(3): 803-820.
[22] SHIUE Y C, LIN C Y. Developing a new foresight model for future technology evaluation in electric vehicle industry[J]. Journal of testing and evaluation, 2011, 39(2): 119-125.
[23] ZHOU X, ZHANG Y, PORTER A L, et al. A patent analysis method to trace technology evolutionary pathways[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 100(3): 705-721.
[24] TRAPPEY C V, WU H Y, TAGHABONI-DUTTA F, et al. Using patent data for technology forecasting: China RFID patent analysis[J]. Advanced engineering informatics, 2011, 25(1): 53-64.
[25] JARVENPAA H M, MAKINEN S J, SEPPANEN M. Patent and publishing activity sequence over a technology's life cycle[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2011, 78(2): 283-293.
[26] COLLINS F S, MORGAN M, PATRINOS A. The Human Genome Project: lessons from large-scale biology[J]. Science, 2003, 300(5617): 286-290.
[27] GUIMERÀ R, UZZI B, SPIRA J, et al. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance[J]. Science, 2005, 308(5722): 697-702.
[28] WHITFIELD J. Collaboration: group theory[J]. Nature, 2008, 455(7214): 720-723.
[29] WUCHTY S, JONES B F, UZZI, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge[J]. Science, 2007, 316(5827): 1036-1039.
[30] KATO M, ANDO A. The relationship between research performance and international collaboration in chemistry[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 97(3): 535-553.
[31] GARFIELD E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?[J]. Scientometrics, 1979, 1(4): 359-375.
[32] LEE C, CHO Y, SEOL H, et al. A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2012, 79(1): 16-29.
[33] KO S S, KO N, KIM D, et al. Analyzing technology impact networks for R&D planning using patents: combined application of network approaches[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(1): 917-936.
[34] CHEN Y W, BORNER K, FANG S. Evolving collaboration networks in Scientometrics in 1978-2010: a micro-macro analysis[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 95(3): 1051-1070.
[35] BETTENCOURT L M A, KAISER D I, KAUR J. Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2009, 3(3): 210-221.
[36] CHEN Y W, FANG S. Mapping the evolving patterns of patent assignees' collaboration networks and identifying the collaboration potential[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1215-1231.
[37] Wilson Center. U.S. Trends in synthetic biology research funding[EB/OL]. [2017-05-10].http://www.synbioproject.org/site/assets/files/1386/appendix_projects-1.pdf.
