Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Nuclear Non-proliferation and Arms Control Verification pp 187–204Cite as

Futures Research as an Opportunity for Innovation in Verification Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Over the last 40 years, the verification of compliance with disarmament treaties for Weapons of Mass Destruction has steadily evolved using several technological solutions. Today’s technological progress promises a variety of possible future and emerging technologies that may contribute to even better verification techniques. However, the latter might originate from technology areas far away from those usually monitored by the verification community. Scientifically-based futures research offers several validated approaches and methodologies that can provide orientation in this complex technology landscape and help to carve out the most probable technological future developments. We suggest to include a futures-research approach in the verification debate, complementing the expert community’s findings and improving the awareness of technology-based opportunities and threats. Four different methodological approaches are described, which require specialized futurists to be exercised. The classical approach to technology foresight systematically studies appropriate scientific literature, looking for “known” and “unknown unknowns” and considering the interdependencies of the “technology complex”. Bibliometrics can, although inherently retrospective, be used to characterise and forecast research topics and scientific networks. Modern text-mining tools can be used to extract unexpected information from the internet (“web mining”), potentially uncovering “unknown unknowns”. Solution assessment by serious gaming can help to structure multi-perspective discussions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pathological science is an area of research where “people are tricked into false results … by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions.” The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science.

References

  1. Conference on Disarmament, Geneva. www.opbw.org/verex/docs/CONFIII-VEREX-9.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

  2. Avenhaus R, Kyriakopoulos N, Richard M, Stein G (eds.) (2006) Verifying Treaty Compliance. Limiting Weapons of Mass Destruction and Monitoring Kyoto Protocol Provisions. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  3. Agar J (2009) On the origin of technology. Nature 461(7262):349. https://doi.org/10.1038/461349a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bower J L, Christensen C M (1995) Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review 73(1):43–53. https://hbr.org. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

    Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell V (2004) How RAND Invented the Postwar World. Satellites, Systems Analysis, Computing, the Internet – Almost All the Defining Features of the Information Age Were Shaped in Part at the RAND Corporation. Invention and Technology, Summer:50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zweck A, Holtmannspötter D (2002) Monitoring of technology forecasting activities in Europe. ESTO project report; working document. Dusseldorf (Zukünftige Technologien / Future Technologies, 37).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Martin B R (2010) The origins of the concept of ‘foresight’ in science and technology: An insider’s perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77(9):1438–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Miles I (2010) The development of technology foresight: A review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77(9):1448–1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Masini E (2006) Rethinking futures studies. Futures 38(10):1158–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jouvenel B (1965) Futuribles. RAND Corp., RAND Paper P-3045. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P3045.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019

  11. Steinmüller K (2012) Zukunftsforschung in Deutschland. Versuch eines historischen Abrisses (Teil 1). Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 1(1):6–19. urn:nbn:de:0009-32-34116

    Google Scholar 

  12. Technology Futures Analysis Methods Working Group (2004): Technology futures analysis: Toward integration of the field and new methods. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 71(3):287–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2003.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grunwald A (2013) Wissenschaftliche Validität als Qualitätsmerkmal der Zukunftsforschung. Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 2(1):22–33. urn.nbn:de:0009-32-36941

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kerwin A (1993) None Too Solid: Medical Ignorance. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion. Utilization 15(2):166–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500204

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grüne M (2013) Technologiefrühaufklärung im Verteidigungsbereich. in: Popp R, Zweck A (eds): Zukunftsforschung im Praxistest. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (Zukunft und Forschung 3):195–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19837-8_9

  16. Burbiel J, Schietke R (2014) ETCETERA - Evaluation of Critical and Emerging Security Technologies for the Elaboration of a Strategic Research Agenda. Final Report. Fraunhofer INT, Euskirchen. http://www.etcetera-project.eu. Accessed 13 Apr 2016 and http://www.burbiel.de/Publikationen/ETCETERA_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2019

  17. Geschka H, Hahnenwald H (2013) Scenario-Based Exploratory Technology Roadmaps - A Method for the Exploration of Technical Trends. In: Moehrle MG., Isenmann R, Phaal R (eds): Technology Roadmapping for Strategy and Innovation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33923-3_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Von der Gracht H, Bañuls VA, Turoff M, Skulimowski AMJ, Gordon TJ (2015) Foresight support systems: The future role of ICT for foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 97:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Keller J, Von der Gracht H (2014) The influence of information and communication technology (ICT) on future foresight processes – Results from a Delphi survey. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 85:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang Y, Porter AL, Hu Z, Guo Y, Newman NC (2014) Term clumping for technical intelligence: A case study on dye-sensitized solar cells. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 85:26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schiebel E, Hoerlesberger M, Roche I, François C, Besagni D (2010) An advanced diffusion model to identify emergent research issues: the case of optoelectronic devices. Scientometrics 83(3):765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0137-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen C (2006) CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(3): 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wepner B, Huppertz G (2014) Report on the Comparative Analysis of Three Methods to Assess Emerging Technologies. EU FP7 SEC project ETCETERA, deliverable 4.2. http://www.etcetera-project.eu/deliverables/documents/ETCETERADeliverable4.2ComparativeAnalysis.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2016

  24. John M, Fritsche F (2013) Bibliometric classification of emerging topics. in: Hinze S, Lottmann A (eds.) Translational twists and turns: Science as a socio-economic endeavor, iFQ-Working Paper, iFQ, Berlin, pp 181–184. http://www.forschungsinfo.de/STI2013/download/STI_2013_Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2019

  25. John M, Fritsche F (2013) Fullerene and cold fusion: Bibliometric discrimination between normal and pathological science. In: Gorraiz J, Schiebel E, Gumpenberger C, Hörlesberger M, Moed HF(eds.) Proceedings of ISSI 2013 Vienna, AIT - Austrian Inst. of Technology, Vienna, pp 1989–1991. http://www.issi2013.org/proceedings.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2019

  26. Bettencourt LMA, Kaiser DI, Kaur J (2009) Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics 3(3):210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kostoff RN, Shlesinger MF (2005) Cab: Citation-assisted background. Scientometrics 62(2):199–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0014-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mayr P, Schaer P, Scharnhorst A, Larsen B, Mutschke P (eds.) (2014) Proceedings of the First Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval, CEURWorkshop Proceedings, vol. 1143. CEUR-WS.org. urn:nbn:de:0074-1143-7

    Google Scholar 

  29. Abebe M, Angriawan A, Tran H (2010). Chief executive external network ties and environmental scanning activities: An empirical examination. Strategic Management Review 4(1):30–43

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ansoff IH (1975) Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals. California Management Review 18(2):21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kosala R, Blockeel H (2000) Web research: A survey. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 2(1)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jiang J, Berry MW, Donato JM, Ostrouchov G, Grady NW (1999) Mining consumer product data via latent semantic indexing. Intelligent Data Analysis 3(5):377–398

    Google Scholar 

  33. Thorleuchter D, Van den Poel D (2013) Weak signal identification with semantic web mining. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(12):4978–4985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. NATO (2010) Assessment of Possible Disruptive Technologies for Defence and Security. Report RTO-TR-SAS-062 (NATO unclassified)

    Google Scholar 

  35. NATO (2012) Disruptive Technology Assessment Game - Evolution and Validation. Report RTO-TR-SAS-082 (NATO unclassified)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Neupert U, Römer S, Wiemken U, Rademaker JGM (2009) Assessment of potentially disruptive technologies for defence and security, Fraunhofer Symposium Future Security, 4th Security Research Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  37. EU FP7 SEC ETCETERA project homepage. http://www.etcetera-project.eu. Accessed 13 Apr 2016

  38. Tucker JB (1996) Monitoring and verification in a noncooperative environment: Lessons from the U.N. experience in Iraq, The Nonproliferation Review 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10736709608436633

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consultant, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany

    Joachim Schulze

  2. Fraunhofer Institute for Technological Trend Analysis INT, Euskirchen, Germany

    Matthias Grüne, Marcus John, Ulrik Neupert & Dirk Thorleuchter

Authors
  1. Joachim Schulze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Grüne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus John
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrik Neupert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dirk Thorleuchter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Schulze .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IEK-6: Nuclear Waste Management and Reactor Safety, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, Germany

    Irmgard Niemeyer

  2. Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

    Mona Dreicer

  3. Consultant, Bonn, Germany

    Gotthard Stein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schulze, J., Grüne, M., John, M., Neupert, U., Thorleuchter, D. (2020). Futures Research as an Opportunity for Innovation in Verification Technologies. In: Niemeyer, I., Dreicer, M., Stein, G. (eds) Nuclear Non-proliferation and Arms Control Verification. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29537-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29537-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29536-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29537-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation