Delta Scan: The Future of Science and Technology, 2005-2055: From Science City to Science Park

Key Pages

Category:
Science and Technology

Domain:
Geography of Science, Structure of Science

Keywords:
Knowledge, communication & learning - scientific practice, innovation, science parks

Outlook:
The 'science city', and the underlying model of state management and direction of science that it often implied, will probably become obsolete in the next 20 years, displaced by the new phenomenon of the science park.

Summary Analysis:
The concept of the 'science city', a city built from the ground up as a site for scientific and technical research, emerged after World War II. In the interwar years, projects like European new towns, the Tennessee Valley Authority in the US, and industrial cities like Magnetosgorsk in Russia and the Manhattan Project (which created geographically isolated complexes in Washington and New Mexico dedicated to atomic bomb research and production) had all suggested the possibility of creating new spaces dedicated to scientific research, technological innovation, and industry. In the 50 years after World War II, science cities were built in a number of countries. Many were geographically isolated, located in underdeveloped and sparsely inhabited regions. Some science cities (like Korea's Taedok Science Town and Russia's Akademgorodok) were intended to be engines of regional economic development and to counterbalance existing scientific metropoles; other science cities, focusing on military research, were located in remote areas for security reasons.

In the last decade, however, the science city movement has begun to mutate into something else. The isolated, autonomous science city has been displaced by the model of science parks or neighborhoods. These parks are often adjacent to universities and are intended to serve as homes for academic-industrial joint research projects, or incubators for start-ups commercialising academic research. Many are knowledge-intensive urban renewal projects, attractive to local agencies because they promise to brings jobs and economic growth. A growing number of science parks are joint ventures involving national and local governments, urban renewal agencies, or property developers; such alliances exert a natural pull away from hinterlands and toward underdeveloped land in or on the edges of existing cities. In the next decades, the model of the science city is likely to continue to decline in popularity, in favor of the science park and the regional cluster.

The decline of science cities and the rise of science parks reflect several fundamental shifts in the character of science:

The way states seek to attract and manage scientific talent has changed. The science city was an exercise in state direction of science and government use of science for direct national and economic, often military, ends; the purest expression of the science city was a facility like Los Alamos, the primary US atomic weapons design laboratory. The science park, in contrast, tends to be an incubator, a place designed to attract a hetereogeneous array of talented scientists who then develop and pursue their own projects, more often in the realm of civilian, public science.
The vision of science as something separate from society has changed. The science park is built around a vision of science as part of society and an ideal of scientific research not as an isolated endeavor but as a collaborative venture.
Science funding has changed in the direction of growing heterogeneity.

In sum, science parks are designed to stand at the intersections of the state, industry, academia, and civil society; to harness a variety of skills (scientific, financial, managerial); and to play upon a variety of interests (ranging from economic to scientific to philanthropic).

Implications:

Increasing emphasis on public, civilian science
Increasing national and international collaboration in science

Early Indicators:

Location of the vast majority of the approximately one hundred new scientific centres in China that are either under construction or on the drawing board, in cities or on land that cities are expected to expand into.

What to Watch:

Postwar science cities become ghost towns.
Science parks proliferate, springing up as frequently as shopping malls.

Parallels/Precedents:

Enablers/drivers:

Increase in the number and diversity of funding sources for scientific research
New collaborations between academic departments and industry
Continuing interest in urban renewal

Leaders:
Regions:

Silicon Valley, California
Kyoto Research Park, Japan [link]
Andhra Pradesh, India
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Cambridge Science Park, UK [link]
Sophia Antipolis, France [link]
Zhongguancun Science Park, China [link]
Neuroscience research institute in Natal, Brazil
Singapore Science Park [link]
Qatar Science Park [link]

Figures:

Sources:

The International Association of Science Parks [link]
UK National Science Park Association [link]
Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship Management and Policy (TIEMPO), Manchester Business School [link]
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, UK "The Economic Returns to Basic Research and the Benefits of University-Industry Relationships." Report for the Office of Science and Technology [link]
"Competing in the Global Economy: the Innovation Challenge." DTI Innovation Report. December 2003 [link]
"Evaluation of the Past & Future Economic Contribution of the UK Science Park Movement." October 2003. ANGLE Technology [link]
Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, "Science cities: their characteristics and future challenges," International Journal of Technology Management 28 (2004), 395-418.
Regis Cabral, Sofia Sapolnik Dahab, "Science parks in developing countries: the case of BIORIO in Brazil," Int. J. of Technology Management 16 (1998), 726-739.
Woodrow W. Clark Jr., "Science parks: theory and background," Int. J. of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 2 (2003), 150-178.
Woodrow W. Clark Jr., "Science parks: practical and successful cases," Int. J. of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 2 (2003), 179-206.
Sang-Chul Park, "The city of brain in South Korea: Daedeok Science Town," Int. J. of Technology Management 28 (2004), 602-614.
"Space Rocket Launch Sites Around the World," Space Today Online [link]
Shigeru Suzuki, "Technopolis: science parks in Japan," Int. J. of Technology Management 28 (2004), 582-601.
Leo Wee Hin Tan, R. Subramaniam, "Science and technology centres as agents for promoting science culture in developing nations," Int. J. of Technology Management 25 (2003), 413-426.
UNESCO, "Overview Science Parks around the World" [link]
Caroline S. Wagner, Loet Leydesdorff, "Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000," Int. J. of Technology and Globalisation 1 (2005), 185-208.
Yongyuth Yuthavong, "The future of science and technology in Southeast Asia," Int. J. of Technology Management 23 (2001), 617-627.
Yuehua Zhang, "Critical factors for science park development: the case of the Singapore Science Park," Int. J. of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 4 (2005), 194-205.
Yuehua Zhang, "The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology," Int. J. of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 5 (2005), 138-154.

At A Glance:
When:
11–20 years

Where:
Global

How Fast:
Years

Likelihood:
Medium-High

Impact:
Low

Controversy:
Low

Related Outlooks:

About this outlook: An outlook is an internally consistent, plausible view of the future based on the best expertise available. It is not a prediction of the future. The AT-A-GLANCE ratings suggest the scope, scale, and uncertainty associated with this outlook. Each outlook is also a working document, with contributors adding comments and edits to improve the forecast over time. Please see the revision history for earlier versions.

Category:	Science and Technology
Domain:	Geography of Science, Structure of Science
Keywords:	Knowledge, communication & learning - scientific practice, innovation, science parks
Outlook:	The 'science city', and the underlying model of state management and direction of science that it often implied, will probably become obsolete in the next 20 years, displaced by the new phenomenon of the science park.
Summary Analysis:	The concept of the 'science city', a city built from the ground up as a site for scientific and technical research, emerged after World War II. In the interwar years, projects like European new towns, the Tennessee Valley Authority in the US, and industrial cities like Magnetosgorsk in Russia and the Manhattan Project (which created geographically isolated complexes in Washington and New Mexico dedicated to atomic bomb research and production) had all suggested the possibility of creating new spaces dedicated to scientific research, technological innovation, and industry. In the 50 years after World War II, science cities were built in a number of countries. Many were geographically isolated, located in underdeveloped and sparsely inhabited regions. Some science cities (like Korea's Taedok Science Town and Russia's Akademgorodok) were intended to be engines of regional economic development and to counterbalance existing scientific metropoles; other science cities, focusing on military research, were located in remote areas for security reasons. In the last decade, however, the science city movement has begun to mutate into something else. The isolated, autonomous science city has been displaced by the model of science parks or neighborhoods. These parks are often adjacent to universities and are intended to serve as homes for academic-industrial joint research projects, or incubators for start-ups commercialising academic research. Many are knowledge-intensive urban renewal projects, attractive to local agencies because they promise to brings jobs and economic growth. A growing number of science parks are joint ventures involving national and local governments, urban renewal agencies, or property developers; such alliances exert a natural pull away from hinterlands and toward underdeveloped land in or on the edges of existing cities. In the next decades, the model of the science city is likely to continue to decline in popularity, in favor of the science park and the regional cluster. The decline of science cities and the rise of science parks reflect several fundamental shifts in the character of science: The way states seek to attract and manage scientific talent has changed. The science city was an exercise in state direction of science and government use of science for direct national and economic, often military, ends; the purest expression of the science city was a facility like Los Alamos, the primary US atomic weapons design laboratory. The science park, in contrast, tends to be an incubator, a place designed to attract a hetereogeneous array of talented scientists who then develop and pursue their own projects, more often in the realm of civilian, public science. The vision of science as something separate from society has changed. The science park is built around a vision of science as part of society and an ideal of scientific research not as an isolated endeavor but as a collaborative venture. Science funding has changed in the direction of growing heterogeneity. In sum, science parks are designed to stand at the intersections of the state, industry, academia, and civil society; to harness a variety of skills (scientific, financial, managerial); and to play upon a variety of interests (ranging from economic to scientific to philanthropic).

	Implications:	Increasing emphasis on public, civilian science Increasing national and international collaboration in science
	Early Indicators:	Location of the vast majority of the approximately one hundred new scientific centres in China that are either under construction or on the drawing board, in cities or on land that cities are expected to expand into.
	What to Watch:	Postwar science cities become ghost towns. Science parks proliferate, springing up as frequently as shopping malls.
	Parallels/Precedents:
	Enablers/drivers:	Increase in the number and diversity of funding sources for scientific research New collaborations between academic departments and industry Continuing interest in urban renewal
	Leaders:	Regions: Silicon Valley, California Kyoto Research Park, Japan [link] Andhra Pradesh, India Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Cambridge Science Park, UK [link] Sophia Antipolis, France [link] Zhongguancun Science Park, China [link] Neuroscience research institute in Natal, Brazil Singapore Science Park [link] Qatar Science Park [link]
	Figures:
	Sources:	The International Association of Science Parks [link] UK National Science Park Association [link] Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship Management and Policy (TIEMPO), Manchester Business School [link] Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, UK "The Economic Returns to Basic Research and the Benefits of University-Industry Relationships." Report for the Office of Science and Technology [link] "Competing in the Global Economy: the Innovation Challenge." DTI Innovation Report. December 2003 [link] "Evaluation of the Past & Future Economic Contribution of the UK Science Park Movement." October 2003. ANGLE Technology [link] Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, "Science cities: their characteristics and future challenges," International Journal of Technology Management 28 (2004), 395-418. Regis Cabral, Sofia Sapolnik Dahab, "Science parks in developing countries: the case of BIORIO in Brazil," Int. J. of Technology Management 16 (1998), 726-739. Woodrow W. Clark Jr., "Science parks: theory and background," Int. J. of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 2 (2003), 150-178. Woodrow W. Clark Jr., "Science parks: practical and successful cases," Int. J. of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 2 (2003), 179-206. Sang-Chul Park, "The city of brain in South Korea: Daedeok Science Town," Int. J. of Technology Management 28 (2004), 602-614. "Space Rocket Launch Sites Around the World," Space Today Online [link] Shigeru Suzuki, "Technopolis: science parks in Japan," Int. J. of Technology Management 28 (2004), 582-601. Leo Wee Hin Tan, R. Subramaniam, "Science and technology centres as agents for promoting science culture in developing nations," Int. J. of Technology Management 25 (2003), 413-426. UNESCO, "Overview Science Parks around the World" [link] Caroline S. Wagner, Loet Leydesdorff, "Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000," Int. J. of Technology and Globalisation 1 (2005), 185-208. Yongyuth Yuthavong, "The future of science and technology in Southeast Asia," Int. J. of Technology Management 23 (2001), 617-627. Yuehua Zhang, "Critical factors for science park development: the case of the Singapore Science Park," Int. J. of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 4 (2005), 194-205. Yuehua Zhang, "The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology," Int. J. of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 5 (2005), 138-154.

At A Glance:	When:	11–20 years
	Where:	Global
	How Fast:	Years
	Likelihood:	Medium-High
	Impact:	Low
	Controversy:	Low