Pushing Boundaries: Experimenting with Policy for Frontier Tech

Pushing Boundaries: Experimenting with Policy for Frontier Tech

Introduction to the event

As countries race to position themselves at the forefront of frontier technologies (FT), those at or near the cutting edge of scientific and technological development, governments are making bold, large-scale investments in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing. Leadership in these domains is increasingly seen not only as a driver of future economic competitiveness, but also as a strategic imperative for national resilience and security.

These technology policy ambitions, which are unfolding in a context of deep uncertainty, complexity, technological progress and systemic vulnerability, have resulted in revisiting the traditional policy tools. Governments are turning to policy experimentation to test innovative approaches, manage risks, and support the responsible development and diffusion of transformative technologies.

To address policy experimentation, to efforts aimed at trying out policy approaches that differ from the past to better support successful FTs on 1 December 2025 the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) and the Committee for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) jointly organised an event that brought together more than 100 participants, including STI policymakers, academics, industry representatives, and practitioners involved in the design and implementation of frontier technology innovation ecosystem (FTE) initiatives.

The event examined two approaches for technology policy to deal with central demands: i) frontier technology support through agile ecosystem initiatives – defined as initiatives that target frontier technologies, receive strong political and financial backing, foster multi-stakeholder collaboration and knowledge exchanges, and implement a diverse policy mix; and ii) dedicated, independent institutions established to support FTs, such as the Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation (SPRIND) in Germany and the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) in the United Kingdom.

Defining frontier technologies, policy experimentation and agility

Frontier technologies

The term “frontier technologies” (FT) is used here to refer to technologies broadly defined (esp. to also include non-tech innovations as needed) that are at or near the cutting edge of scientific and technological development and that are considered to have the potential for significant economic, societal or environmental impact. Examples considered under this umbrella term are AI tools, quantum computing, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology and genomics, clean and energy-transition technologies, and novel materials.

Other terminologies used are breakthrough, radical, deep, transformative, enabling and general-purpose technologies. While there are conceptual differences across them for reasons of simplicity, coherence and clarity, and to ensure consistent terminology throughout its activities, the TIP uses the umbrella term “frontier technologies”.

Policy experimentation

“Policy experimentation” involves the deliberate design and implementation of policy interventions with the explicit purpose of testing the outcomes of new approaches These interventions have two key features: they introduce a dimension of novelty and are implemented under conditions that allow for observation, learning and adjustment.

More formalised policy experimentation in the field of STI encompasses the following different practices:

• Experimentation with new policy programmes vs experimentation within existing programmes.

o Pilots can be considered a form of policy experimentation when they introduce a dimension of novelty and are explicitly designed to generate learning, rather than merely rolling out a policy incrementally.

• Experimentation within existing programmes. Rather than introducing wholly new initiatives, this form of experimentation embeds experimental elements within established programmes. It may involve testing alternative funding rules, eligibility criteria, evaluation mechanisms, or modes of delivery within an existing framework. For instance, experimentation is embedded within FTE initiatives.

• Experimentation with institutional settings. This practice focuses on testing new organisational forms, mandates or governance arrangements to improve how STI policies are designed and delivered. An example is the creation of new institutions to support breakthrough innovation, such as SPRIND in Germany and ARIA in the United Kingdom.

• Policy experimentation labs. These are organisations or initiatives that use experimental, lab-like methods to develop and test innovative, evidence-based policy solutions on a small scale before broader implementation. PILs often act as collaborative hubs, bringing together citizens, businesses, experts, and policymakers to address challenges and design usercentred solutions. Whether embedded in government or operating externally, their purpose is to serve as spaces for knowledge mobilisation and policy innovation [see (OECD, 2025[1])

• Experimental environments. They provide controlled or semi-controlled settings where new ideas, technology solutions or policy arrangements can be tested under real-world conditions but with limited risk. They are particularly relevant at the interface of innovation and regulation. Examples include regulatory sandboxes - which allow temporary exemptions or flexible interpretation of rules to test innovative technologies or business models - and living labswhich involve users and stakeholders directly in testing solutions in everyday contexts [see (OECD, 2025[1])

• Methods to assess policy experiments. These methods aim at monitoring and evaluating the impacts of experimental policy approaches and programmes. Examples include randomised control trials (RCTs) and in-field experiments.

Agility

Agility refers to the capacity of policy makers to anticipate, respond to and adapt swiftly to new trends, challenges and circumstances by focusing efforts where they are needed the most. Agile STI policies are proactive, timely and responsive, allowing decision-making bodies to swiftly implement policies, adjust to unexpected situations, halt ineffective ones and redefine strategies as necessary (OECD, 2025[1])

In the context of FTE support, agility and policy experimentation are closely linked, as many policy experiments have the purpose of rendering support for FTEs more agile for them to better take into account shifting

Background

This event forms part of the broader work of the CSTP and TIP under the OECD Agenda for Transformative STI Policies (the Transformative Agenda) and the TIP 2025-26 project on frontier technology development and diffusion.

The event builds on previous TIP work on policy experimentation and frontier technology development, including:

• the events “Bridging the gap: frontier technologies and the diffusion dilemma” (June 2025) and “Scaling or phasing out experiments in STI policy: assessment needs” (April 2024),

• the TIP policy brief “How to best use STI policy experimentation to support transitions?” and

• the 2025 OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook Chapter “ Tools for agility: Actionable Strategic Intelligence and policy experimentation”.

Key takeaways

1. Policy experimentation is pursued through pilots, trials, labs, and sandboxes to enhance policy agility i.e. faster, more flexible, and responsive action in the face of change.

Policy experimentation consists of the deliberate design and implementation of policy interventions with the explicit purpose of testing new approaches. This encompasses a wide diversity of practices: it may involve launching entirely new initiatives (often as small scale and temporary “pilots”), embedding experimental features within existing programmes, or testing alternative institutional and governance arrangements. It can also involve the creation of dedicated policy experimentation labs or experimental environments such as regulatory sandboxes and living labs, which provide controlled spaces to test, learn, and refine policies before wider implementation.

PUSHING BOUNDARIES: EXPERIMENTING WITH POLICY FOR FRONTIER TECH

Directed STI policymaking in the field of frontier technology policy benefits from faster, more flexible and responsive actions. Agility is important as technological trajectories are uncertain and evolve quickly, as there is intense international competition for strategic tech leadership and as the societal impacts of new technologies that are complex and difficult to anticipate.

Since traditional policy approaches and instruments set when STI policies were less directed and rather aimed at providing horizontal support in contexts of perceived predictable futures, policy experimentation has been pursued specifically to improve agility in frontier technology policies both as regards choices made over what technologies to support and how to best provide such support.

2. Training and empowering new generations of policymakers are essential to support STI policy experimentation and more agile policies

Expanding experimentation in STI policy and succeeding in making policies more agile requires new types of training and skill development schemes, as well as new role definitions within public administrations Such training may involve enhancing capacities to incorporate more forward-looking perspectives in policymaking (e.g. scenario thinking), assess risks associated with different technology pathways, engage with stakeholders (e.g. private sector actors, citizens), as well as training on frontier technologies themselves specifically as regards policy levers.

Empowerment is equally critical and requires providing policy makers with supporting incentive systems, rules and institutional arrangements encourage a culture of innovation whereby challenging established modes of operating is encouraged and opportunity for trying out alternative ways to go about policy made possible. This can be achieved by incentivising proposals for experimentation, as by offering prizes that reward best proposals experimentation.

3. Industry experience helps navigating rapidly evolving market dynamics, managing tech development and associated risks.

Private sector actors bring experiences relevant to operate more directed technology-focused STI policies – as is a feature of FTE initiatives, including technology expertise, practice-based insights into investment and commercialisation challenges and experience in operating in fast-paced environments and responding to market signals.

Many FTE initiatives, including Canada’s Global Innovation Clusters (GIC), as well as institutions that support breakthrough innovation, such as SPRIND in Germany and ARIA in the United Kingdom, have placed a strong emphasis on recruiting personnel with entrepreneurial and industry-oriented perspectives, as well as on increasing the level of industry experience within their organisations.

4. Alternative institutional models seek to complement existing policies through greater flexibility and responsiveness than traditional public organisations.

Alternative institutional models to support FT development have emerged including Germany’s Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation (SPRIND) and the United Kingdom’s Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA), established respective in 2019 and 2023. These institutions are not a new concept; the United States has established a range of such bodies, including agencies like DARPA and ARPA-E. While not all countries, such as South Korea, currently have comparable institutions, discussions and planning efforts are underway.

These institutional models aim to offer greater agility, closer ties with the private sector, and enhanced leverage of financial and political support for more successful FTs than traditional STI support tools. They seek to achieve agility through an institutional status that provides more autonomy in taking decisions over

staffing, programme design and selection of projects to support Frontier technology institutions aim to use private sector engagement to institutionalise dialogue across interdependent emerging technology fields, mobilise financial and political support through investor-friendly intellectual property frameworks, and secure follow-on financing while supporting continuous organisational adjustment.

5. While widely seen as an ideal model, the institutional conditions underpinning DARPA reflect a highly specific context and not transferable to all FT institutions.

While DARPA is viewed as the benchmark for breakthrough innovation agencies, the institutional conditions that underpin its success are highly specific and not transferable. DARPA operates in a highly specific institutional context, benefits from a clear and relatively narrow mission orientation (defense) and a guaranteed public buyer (the US administration through public procurement) who is committed to largescale defence spending, which plays a critical role in creating early demand for high-risk technologies, enabling DARPA to fund ambitious projects at scale and to tolerate high levels of uncertainty and failure. By contrast, most FT institutions operate in markedly different environments that reduce the comprehensive of support they can provide. They typically have broader and more diffuse missions regarding which frontier technologies to support, and they lack a direct public procurement link that guarantees purchase and consequently direct provision of resources required for the deployment of successful initiatives.

Attempting to replicate DARPA-like agencies risks overstating their likely impact without recognising alternative domestic conditions. When establishing new frontier technology institutions, it is important to consider how market access, scale, and demand-creation mechanisms will function within their specific national and sectoral contexts, while also recognising that meaningful experimentation in institutional design may itself be required to achieve effective outcomes.

6. More evidence on how to best set up FT agencies and when these are most suitable to complement the existing policy mix is needed.

Establishing dedicated FT institutions presents significant challenges. In already institutionally dense systems, setting up FT agencies risks increasing fragmentation, blurring accountability, and straining administrative and managerial capacities. Moreover, designing organisations that are genuinely different from traditional public bodies in terms of their autonomy in operations and agility has proven difficult in practice. For example, SPRIND encountered substantial early challenges in translating formal mandates for flexibility into operational autonomy, also due to the obligation to safeguard transparency and accountability in public spending.

The effectiveness of these institutions also likely depends in what ways they are important complements to the policy mix. For instance, Korea, has so far pursued foresight-informed strategic support for FTs in the form of massive funding support via such programmes as Innopolis. A question STI policy in Korea currently explores is whether an agency that would support private initiative into FTs would add more than what is already being provided.

These debates highlight the need for stronger evidence on when dedicated frontier technology institutions add value, how they should be tailored to national contexts, and how they can be integrated effectively within existing science, technology, and innovation systems

7. FTE initiatives aim for iterative assessment processes and forward-looking orientations in view of quickly evolving trends.

Assessment of FT policy is challenging, given that attribution is difficult in complex systems and the need to assess progress against multiple strategic objectives that are difficult to capture, rather than general innovation outcomes alone.

Many FTE initiatives adopt regular iteration processes as to the targets to assess in view of the swift trends in technologies and policies. Austria’s AI for Green has built in regular expert consultations every 2–3 years to adjust priorities and programme design, rather than following a static AI “master plan”, recognising those could quickly become outdated Finland’s 6G Bridge programme similarly builds on continuous interaction with industry leaders, research actors, and line ministries to adapt to evolving technologies and policy needs

Moreover, forward-looking orientations are integral to FTE governance. Rather than relying primarily on retrospective performance indicators, some initiatives institutionalise structured foresight exercises, technology roadmapping, and horizon scanning to inform strategic steering. For example, Israel’s National Quantum Science and Technology Strategy places greater emphasis on anticipatory assessments of emerging technological trajectories, talent needs, and infrastructure gaps than on ex post evaluation of outputs. This approach enables early identification of capability bottlenecks and timely recalibration of funding instruments, governance arrangements, and priority domains in a highly uncertain and rapidly evolving field.

Event summary

Introduction

The Chair of the TIP Working Party, Tiago Santos Pereira, and the Chair of the CSTP, Yongsuk Jang (Research Fellow at STEPI, Korea) opened the event noting that rapid advances in AI, quantum and other emerging technologies require more agile STI policies to respond to swift changes affecting their impacts

Speaking from the perspective of the Agenda for Transformative STI Policies, which more than 44 countries signed as priority for their STI policies at the 2024 CSTP Ministerial Meeting, Michael Keenan (OECD) pointed to the critical roles of frontier technologies in reaching increasingly complex transformative policy goals, in which aside from competitiveness, security plays an increasingly important role, a topic covered in the OECD STI Outlook 2025 (Box 1).

Box 1. OECD STI Outlook 2025

The OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025 examines how global challenges, geopolitical tensions, economic security concerns and rapid technological convergence are reshaping the context for STI policy. It argues that ensuring STI systems remain fit-for-purpose requires structural reforms that enhance policy effectiveness, efficiency and agility in an increasingly uncertain environment.

The Outlook highlights seven priority reform areas. First, governments must leverage complementarities across STI and non-STI policies to maximise impact under tightening fiscal constraints. Second, research security measures should be proportionate, precise and developed in partnership with the research and innovation community. Third, STI policy should place stronger emphasis on diffusion and adoption to broaden economic and societal benefits beyond leading firms and regions.

The report also calls for structural adaptation of public science systems, including support for multidisciplinary research, more diverse career pathways and improved incentive frameworks. It underscores the growing importance of technological convergence and the need to foster “convergence spaces” that enable cross-sectoral innovation. An ecosystem perspective is recommended to design more coherent industrial and innovation policies.

Finally, the Outlook stresses that STI governance must become more anticipatory and agile. Strategic foresight, technology assessment and policy experimentation are identified as critical tools to strengthen evidence-based policymaking and enable timely adjustment in rapidly evolving technological landscapes.

Keynote: Big imperatives of our times and why policy needs to get smarter

Prof. Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, opened her intervention by emphasising that the succession of economic shocks, growing geopolitical instability and heightened political polarisation were core features shaping policy alongside rapid technological transformation.

She pointed to AI as general-purpose technology with positive transformational impacts, provided complementary investments are undertaken She pointed to process innovation and organisational change within firms as key drivers of productivity gains and structural market transformations Investments in digital

infrastructure, standards, skills, and data access continued to play a central role in shaping the distribution of competitiveness and societal benefits.

Prof. Diane Coyle argued that these imperatives explain why policy needed to get smarter. She explained that structural change requires greater business dynamism, the scaling of successful innovations, shaped also by standard-setting and coordinated investments, and significantly higher levels of both tangible and intangible investments than current levels across the OECD (Error! Reference source not found.). The l atter notably relates to data as a foundational asset for AI. She also noted that countries at different levels of preparedness were taking divergent approaches to AI – ranging from frontier model development to application-focused strategies.

Source: Presentation by Prof. Diane Coyle

She emphasised that the globalreturn of industrial policy, driven by technological, geopolitical and strategic pressures, requires combining horizontal measures with carefully selected sectoral priorities and fostering competitive, place-based dynamics. This also entails making explicit trade-offs between short-term allocative efficiency and longer-term strategic objectives – for example, accepting higher fiscal costs, duplication of capacity, or temporary protection of nascent industries in order to build domestic capabilities, resilience, and technological leadership in critical sectors. Strong competition policy, she argued, was essential to ensure industrial interventions did not entrench incumbents, often a challenge in view of the larger preparedness of powerful incumbents of engaging with changes She highlighted approaches that were well signed and the need for dealing with those potentially in conflict, such as public procurement provisions and regulations that imposed entry barriers (Table 1).

Table 1. Industrial and competition policy interact

Aligned with competition policy

• Advance market commitments

• Infrastructure/utility regulation

• Regulation (standards, interoperability)

• Skills policy, input markets

• Public procurement

Some implications for competition policy

• Public R&D

• Specific infrastructure

• Tax expenditures

• Subsidies/taxes

• Loans

• Export guarantees

• IP policies

• SME policies

Potential conflict with competition policy

• Regulations (entry barriers)

• Public investment

• Public procurement

• SME policies

• Consumer behaviour

• Industry groups/data sharing

In view of the need for policies to support frontier technology development, Prof. Coyle highlighted several major dimensions to generate more agile and experimental policies, including:

• Embracing forward looking and strategic policies to deal with uncertainty and non-linearity of technological transformation;

• Risk-taking as taking “bets” may be unavoidable in view of strategic interests and the potential of shaping future markets in the directions they take;

• Co-ordination across policy areas to ensure alignment of infrastructure, skills, financing and production;

• Gather political and consumer support for directed action and to avoid ‘left behind’ places.

Session 1. Opening dialogue: Where does innovation policy stand in supporting a transformative agenda?

In this session, moderated by Alberto Di Minin (Professor at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna and Vice-Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party), Prof. Hideaki Shiroyama (Professor of Public Administration, University of Tokyo), Prof. Reinhilde Veugelers (Senior Fellow at Bruegel and Professor of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) and Christian Naczinsky (Head of department EU and OECD Research Policy, Austrian Federal Ministry of Women, Science and Research, Austria) discussed why innovation policy must evolve to address today’s transformative challenges, including the following themes.

First, STI policy would need to respond to multiple (sometimes competing) objectives: Countries face a combination of growth and competitiveness pressures, decarbonisation and climate adaptation needs, geopolitical and security risks, and demographic and social challenges. Some of these goals have publicgood characteristics and, together, they may create policy trade-offs that markets alone cannot resolve, making it insufficient to rely solely on existing technologies or purely market-driven innovation

Second, bottom-up innovation remains essential but would require strategic steering: Prof. Veugelers stressed that the “private innovation machine” can be highly effective in systems that allow creative destruction and firm scaling, but that it cannot be left unguided in the presence of major externalities. Directionality is needed to manage trade-offs, align incentives and steer innovation toward societal priorities

Third, innovation policy would need to be understood as an iterative learning process, not a static toolbox: Effective transformative policy requires strong operational governance, flexible programme design, multiple early-stage bets rather than single-winner selection, and clear but adaptive performance metrics to guide scaling, adjustment or exit decisions over time

Fourth, people driving experimentation within public administrations as key element determining its success. Mr. Naczinsky highlighted that policy experimentation is constrained by administrative culture and institutional mindsets, with policy systems still largely shaped by three types of officials:

the “command-and-control” official, whose role is to apply existing rules and procedures and who tends to struggle when asked to experiment or think strategically; the “policy-expert” official, who is willing to innovate but operates within a narrowly defined policy domain, ill-suited to tackling cross-cutting, “wicked” problems; and the “laissez-faire technologist”, who assumes that markets alone should experiment and that government intervention mainly creates obstacles.

None of these profiles, he argued, is adequate for the kind of transformative, cross-domain, highuncertainty policy challenges now facing STI systems.

Instead, he argued for cultivating a new type of “transformative official” who can operate across policy domains, tolerate uncertainty and use experimentation as a tool for learning and adaptation was also emphasised This required more than technical training and depended significantly on setting up the appropriate incentive structures

In line with this perspective, Prof. Hideaki Shiroyama referred to the key need for “linkage personnel”, who are public officials who connect STI policy with other sectoral policy priorities (e.g. energy, health, transport), navigate trade-offs among emerging strategic goals (such as economic security, resilience, sustainability), understand interdependencies among emerging technology fields, and consequently are in position to effectively support linked public-private sector dialogue.

Session 2. Experimentation in FTE initiatives

This session explored how countries are using sectoral and technological initiatives to build FTEs. As part of ongoing TIP work on FTE initiatives, the session examined how these initiatives evolve over time and the extent to which experimentation and agility are essential for adapting to shifting ecosystem needs and external dynamics.

Figure 3. Speakers and moderators of session 2

Caroline Paunov (Head of Secretariat of the OECD TIP Working Party) and Jaewon Kim (Junior Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation) outlined how the initiatives discussed highlight core characteristics of new innovation models, focusing on frontier technologies such as advanced manufacturing, digital technologies, AI for supply-chain optimisation, next-generation networks, quantum computing, and AI for climate challenges. They align strategically with national industrial, digital, and STI policies, such as Canada’s Innovation and Skills Plan, Finland’s 6G Roadmap, Israel’s Innovation Authority Strategy, and Austria’s Climate and AI strategies, and aim to mobilise diverse actors across universities, firms, research organisations, and government through co-creation mechanisms like collaborative platforms, challenge calls, and shared testbeds. Across the innovation cycle, they combine R&D support, workforce and skills programmes, IP and data-governance tools, and networking or matchmaking activities to strengthen and scale their respective technology ecosystems (Figure 4).

Figure 4. FTE initiatives implement a diverse policy mix

Source: Presentation by the Secretariat.

Matthias Weber (Head of Centre for Innovation Systems and Policy, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna) explained that agility and experimentation are essential for FTE initiatives, which operate over long-time horizons in contexts where technological, market and geopolitical conditions evolve much faster than policy cycles (Figure 5). Drawing on OECD and AIT work, he highlighted how global volatility, rapidly shifting societal expectations and the pervasive effects of digitalisation create persistent uncertainty and recurring bottlenecks. In this environment, he noted, effective FTE governance required the capacity to adapt, learn and adjust during implementation, rather than relying on fixed structures, while maintaining strategic direction and enabling scaling from research to deployment.

Figure 5. Why agility and experimentation are essential in FTE initiatives

Source: Presentation by Matthias Weber.

Prof. Weber outlined four dimensions to assess the agility of FTE ecosystems. First, flexibility refers to the capacity of governance structures and funding instruments to be adjusted rapidly in response to technological, market or geopolitical changes – for example, reallocating resources, revising programme criteria or adapting regulatory frameworks. Second, participation concerns the breadth and depth of stakeholder engagement in agenda-setting and implementation, including the structured involvement of firms (incumbents and start-ups), research organisations, civil society and line ministries in shaping priorities and adjusting interventions. Third, ambidexterity captures the ability to balance stability and adaptability – maintaining long-term strategic commitments and institutional continuity while simultaneously enabling experimentation and the exploration of emerging technological opportunities. Finally, reflexivity refers to the systematic embedding of learning mechanisms, such as monitoring, evaluation, foresight and experimentation feedback loops, that allow policies and ecosystem actors to reflect on outcomes and recalibrate objectives and instruments over time.

Insights from a forthcoming analysis Prof Weber and his colleague Simon Baumgartner undertake jointly with the TIP Secretariat on the agility of country examples of FTE initiatives, highlighted the importance of key individuals who act as policy entrepreneurs to the success of initiatives, the challenge of translating results from assessments into actual change to the operation of initiatives, and the role of intermediary structures – organisations or platforms that broker relationships between government, research organisations, firms and other stakeholders. Such intermediaries (e.g. cluster organisations, innovation agencies, public–private partnership platforms or mission-oriented programme offices) facilitate coordination, trust-building and knowledge exchange across institutional boundaries, thereby enabling more effective collaboration within the ecosystem. He noted that communication and legitimacy also remain critical for keeping initiatives aligned with shifting societal and political expectations.

Arik Bar-Haim (Israel Innovation Authority) presented Israel’s National Quantum Science and Technology Programme, which was launched in 2020 with a USD 390 million budget. The strategy aims at building innovation ecosystems in the field of quantum technology programme. In order to develop those ecosystems, multi-partner consortium of academia, industry, government and defence actors across several domains of frontier quantum technology have been created and provided with financial resources to engage in advancing respective technology developments (see Figure 6).

Mr. Bar-Haim also noted that the overarching approach of the programme was to maintain a forwardlooking, iterative mindset to guide sequencing, portfolio decisions and the evolution of consortia over time:

• Evaluation and adaptation rely less on formalised mechanisms and more on continuous assessment of the quality of collaboration, technological progress and emerging next steps, with a deliberate effort to anticipate future needs and gaps.

• Strong private-sector engagement is seen as critical, both for shaping programme direction and for sustaining a growing quantum start-up ecosystem – now counting around 15 companies with more than USD 650 million in private investment.

6. Poster of Israel’s National Quantum Science and Technology Programme

Stephen Fertuck (Senior Director for Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), Canada) explained that the Global Innovation Clusters (GICs) were conceived as large policy experiments to address the weak commercialisation and scale-up performance of Canada’s STI system in spite of research excellence. Launched in 2018 as the “Superclusters” initiative, bottom-up proposals for sectoral clusters to develop were invited. Those selected demonstrated broad ecosystem backing, evidenced by extensive private-sector endorsements, and represented a relevant pan-Canadian, sector-wide field. The resulting portfolio combines more traditional sectoral clusters (e.g. advanced manufacturing, oceans, plant protein) with enabling-technology clusters (digital and AI) that cut across sectors. Clusters are not geographically bounded but organised around sectoral and technological strengths. To date, the GICs have mobilised over 10,000 industry members, funded more than 600 projects and leveraged several billion Canadian dollars in total investment.

While each operates differently in view of diverse stakeholder and technology dynamics, all clusters build on three central support mechanisms: (1) funding for collaborative technology innovation projects of different firms; (2) network building by creating a membership base relevant to the area (and across related fields and types) and (3) support for technology development and diffusion, such as skills and executive training, advisory on intellectual property rights management, trade missions and support for firms to reach out to global markets.

Moreover, Canada has tested using the GICs as delivery platforms to deliver on related policy agendas Rather than creating new commercialisation programmes under its national AI, quantum and genomics strategies, Canada has provided targeted funding through the clusters and their network, such as specifically AI diffusion to the wider group of manufacturing firms.

As regards the balance between overview and autonomy of the GICs, alignment with evolving national priorities is maintained through initial ecosystem-wide buy-in, time-limited five-year funding agreements with renewal conditional on performance, and regular high-touch dialogue – monthly meetings between ISED and cluster CEOs – while preserving the clusters’ status as independent, industry-led non-profit organisations. The latter also allows for extensive possibilities for the clusters to shape operations of respective clusters.

Jayson Myers (Chief Executive Officer, NGen, Canada) added an industry-led perspective of NGen, the GICs for advanced manufacturing (Figure 7). Discussing the approach adopted for supporting technological progress in advanced manufacturing, he indicated that the central focus was set on major challenges, such as addressing options for increasing more affordable housing, improved sustainability in production and enhancing the quality of electric vehicles This, he argued, was a good way to avoid “picking winner” traps and allowing for more technology openness.

Mr Myers also pointed to several key building blocks for providing support to industry, including:

• the importance of public funding support to de-risk collaborative R&D on advanced technologies for their accelerated adoption;

• consistent but flexible support tools, for the cluster to pivot across priority areas while maintaining a structured project pipeline;

• the provision of full project life-cycle support – from project design and partner matching through monitoring, IP and commercialisation strategy to post-project scaling to support returns to investments

PUSHING BOUNDARIES: EXPERIMENTING WITH POLICY FOR FRONTIER TECH

Pekka Rantala (Head of Programme, 6G Bridge, Business Finland) presented 6G Bridge, a four-year, research-focused programme at Business Finland aimed at supporting the transition from 5G Advanced to future 6G mobile connectivity. He outlined how the effectiveness of the programme’s support critically relies on anticipating the opportunities and challenges for expanding 6G mobile connectivity and its wider implications, including far deeper integration of the digital and physical worlds (Figure 8)

Figure 8. Poster of Finland’s 6G Bridge

Continuous, multi-level public–private coordination was essential for progress. Mr. Rantala emphasised that building frontier technology ecosystems such as 6G is inherently long-term and uncertain, requiring research, industry development, and international collaboration to adapt to rapidly evolving technologies and security environments. The combination of diverse technical enablers, from new chip technologies to cybersecurity networks and quantum-enhanced security, adds significant complexity, demanding a broad and coordinated approach.

Mr. Rantala explained that the programme is guided by a national strategic research and innovation agenda shaped by Finnish thought leaders from Nokia, research organisations, industry, and SMEs, and is closely linked to European and international initiatives. He highlighted collaboration with the U.S. National Science Foundation as an example of innovative international experimentation, enabling early cross-border engagement and company funding. In his view, such iterative coordination, rather than rigid ex ante blueprints, is essential to steer 6G development towards secure, interoperable, and globally scalable outcomes.

Susanne Meyer, Lead Transformative Innovation Policy and Missions, Federal Ministry of Innovation, Mobility and Infrastructure, Austria, presented AI for Green, launched in 2021 to use AI in support of the green transition while simultaneously diffusing AI technologies (Figure 9). The programme offers funding for collaborative R&D projects that develop AI technologies applied to green-transition challenges. To date, AI for Green has supported around 46 projects with roughly EUR 25 million of public funding, aimed at linking the AI developers with sectoral communities working on energy, mobility, circular economy and related green-transition domains.

9. Austria’s AI for Green

Reflecting on the agility of AI for Green, Ms. Meyer explained highlighted the initiative has evolved over time, based on regular expert consultations to adjust priorities and design elements. Standard reporting tools have proven ill-suited to capturing the programme’s objectives, requiring additional follow-up.

Changes included: i) the adoption of a focus on specific domains (energy, mobility, circular economy) to increase impact and align with other programmes, ii) expanding its toolbox beyond collaborative R&D to include feasibility studies, flagship projects and seed funding for AI-for-green start-ups. Moreover, iii) as AI has matured, the programme has also adapted by redirecting purely application-oriented projects to other schemes, while keeping AI for Green focused on projects that still require advances in AI technology alongside green applications.

PUSHING BOUNDARIES: EXPERIMENTING WITH POLICY FOR FRONTIER TECH

Keynote session: Reinventing institutional models to enhance breakthrough innovation

Tiago Santos Pereira (Director of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party) opened the keynote session by observing that many governments experiment with new governance models and dedicated agencies for high-risk innovation to complement the policy mix for FT support

Lennart Bültermann from Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space, Germany, in charge of emerging technologies and Alexander Diehl, from the project Office Advanced Semiconductor, SPRIND, Germany, jointly reflected on Germany’s experience with establishing and operating the Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation (SPRIND).

They explained that SPRIND was created in 2019 to help address perceived structural gaps in Germany’s innovation system: despite strong public investment in R&D and high scientific output, the country has at times faced challenges in translating research excellence into breakthrough innovation. Both speakers suggested that some institutions tend to be relatively cautious, administrative processes can be slow, and support for early-stage deep-tech ventures may be somewhat limited, factors that existing programmes have only partially addressed.

They highlighted several key lessons from SPRIND’s design and operational model:

• Creating an autonomous institution: Mr. Bültermann explained that international benchmarking and expert consultations indicated that breakthrough innovation is best supported by establishing a dedicated, autonomous institution. SPRIND was therefore set up as an independent, publicly owned company with its own budget and broad operational autonomy. This independence was further reinforced by the 2023 SPRIND Freedom Act, which reduced bureaucratic constraints and allowed the agency to use private-sector financing tools. SPRIND’s experience to date showed that granting an institution structural autonomy can provide the flexibility and credibility needed to support high-risk, high-reward research initiatives.

• Operational autonomy and agile oversight: Both speakers emphasised that SPRIND’s effectiveness depends on giving programme managers substantial discretion to allocate resources, pivot, or terminate projects. Oversight was provided by an external supervisory board, rather than direct ministerial control, which brings expertise from industry, academia, and government, offering strategic guidance while allowing for quicker decision-making and a relatively higher tolerance for risk. SPRIND’s dual approach to investing, acting as a “valley of death” investor, combined bottom-up, year-round proposal intake with rapid, venture-style due diligence and top-down, DARPA-like strategic programmes co-developed with ministries and European partners. Instruments range from non-dilutive early-stage support, such as validation

contracts, grants, and challenge prizes, to growth-stage co-investment including equity and convertible loans covering up to 70% of a financing round. The agency also prioritises speed, iteration, and the willingness to discontinue programmes when initial designs prove ineffective, reflecting the principle that “time to money is time to market.”

• Political support and ecosystem impact: Mr. Bültermann noted that visible breakthroughs take time, and pressure for immediate results can be counterproductive as organisations mature and complex projects develop. Public funding plays a catalytic role by derisking frontier technologies, attracting private investment, and fostering broader ecosystem formation. Through early commitments and international co-funding arrangements, Mr Diehl emphasised, SPRIND helped technologies in AI and semiconductors reach a level where private capital has engaged, illustrating the agency’s impact in translating research excellence into commercially viable innovations.

Session 3. Group challenge session: Designing institutions to support breakthrough innovation

This session featured on the design of new public institutions for breakthrough innovation that could simultaneously encourage high-risk, transformative investments while remaining accountable and fiscally responsible.

Figure 10. Group challenge session: Themes and group leads

The discussion highlighted the inherent challenges of designing governance structures for breakthrough innovation, particularly the tension between pursuing transformative ambitions and ensuring the prudent use of public resources.

Specific items raised during the discussion included the following:

• Balancing ambition and experimentation: Participants discussed ideal models that would minimise bureaucratic constraints and enable experimentation, while supporting ecosystemlevel transformation rather than isolated projects. Success was suggested to be measured by long-term societal value, capability building, and the emergence of new innovation ecosystems.

• Institutional clarity and accountability: The need for clearly defined roles, measurable outcomes, and alignment with public expectations was highlighted. Stage-based funding with predefined entry and exit points, along with regular assessments, was proposed to avoid open-

ended fiscal exposure. Indicators such as leverage of private investment, creation of fastgrowing ventures, and measurable productivity gains were noted as useful metrics.

• Evaluation and exit strategies: Clearly defined milestones, periodic evaluation, and mechanisms to exit initiatives when objectives are not met were emphasised. Discussions stressed the importance of balancing long-term transformative goals with short-term verification and measurable returns for these institutions

• Long-term ecosystem transformation vs. short-term outcome evaluation: Participants debated the appropriate timing and definition of success, weighing transformative, long-term ecosystem impacts against near-term measurable outcomes and fiscal credibility. There was a focus on designing interventions that support broader ecosystem transformation rather than individual projects, encouraging coordination and capability building across sectors.

Session 4. Learning from new institutional settings to support frontier technology development

This session explored why and when governments choose to establish new institutions to support frontier technology development, what can be learned from concrete national experiences, and which design features and conditions are critical for their effectiveness. Sandra Planes-Satorra (Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation) and Luke Mackle (Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation) moderated the session

Figure 11. Speakers and moderators of session 4

Prof. Caroline Wagner from Ohio State University, United States, provided a conceptual frame for understanding why countries are turning to new institutional models for breakthrough innovation. She started by emphasising the importance of “new to the market” and “new to the user” innovations, since productivity came as much from adoption as from invention.

To pursue those innovation Prof. Wagner outlined three approaches to innovation policy (Figure 12):

1. Regional, place-based programmes, such as Ohio’s Third Frontier (a place-based innovation programme of the Ohio Department of Development launched in 2002 to strengthen regional innovation capacity and support the commercialisation of research), focus on capacity building, translational capabilities and institutional strengthening rather than steering a technology choice.

2. Sectoral or industry-based consortia, such as Sematech (not-for-profit consortium founded in 1987 in the USA that performed research and development to advance chip manufacturing) or the EU Battery Alliance (an EU-led public–private initiative launched in 2017 to build a competitive and sustainable European battery value chain), aim to address market failures in pre-competitive R&D by fostering collaboration among firms and research institutions.

3. Mission-oriented agencies, like the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), ARPA-E (US Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy) and newer ARPA-type bodies employ challenge-driven portfolio management and grant significant autonomy to programme managers.

She emphasised that each of the three models had distinct preconditions for success, such as existing absorptive capacity, the presence of strong industrial bases, or sufficient regional capabilities – and that scale and scope were critical in shaping what they can realistically deliver. Smaller regions may have strong translational strengths but cannot replicate the breadth of mission-oriented agencies; conversely, agencies like DARPA operate at a scale that presupposes large federal budgets, deep scientific talent pools, and access to major downstream markets (particularly defence procurement). Evaluation frameworks must therefore be tailored to each model, with clear ex-ante agreement on acceptable risk and the use of milestones to guide go/no-go decisions.

Prof Wagner noted that DARPA benefits from having a clear “customer” in the defence sector, with public procurement enabling early demand for high-risk technologies and reducing market uncertainty. She suggested that this structural advantage explains a significant part of DARPA’s success, distinguishing it from mission-oriented agencies operating without such an immediate downstream adopter.

Figure 12. Three approaches to innovation policy

Source: Presentation by Prof. Caroline Wagner

Dan Cole (Chief of Staff, Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA), United Kingdom) described the UK’s Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA) Established in 2023, ARIA funds high-risk, highreward research with the potential for transformative impact over decade-long horizons. Unlike most ARPA-type agencies, ARIA was not given a predefined mission area or end customer. Instead, it adopted a “people-then-projects” philosophy, whereby recruited visionary programme directors - a mix of scientists and engineers – were invited to identify “opportunity spaces” of transformative breakthroughs and design 3–5-year, cross-disciplinary programmes aimed at reshaping what is globally considered possible in emerging fields (Figure 13). This has produced a highly diverse early portfolio, spanning programmable plants, precision neurotechnology, novel AI hardware, new materials, and mitochondrial gene editing (Figure 14)

PUSHING BOUNDARIES: EXPERIMENTING WITH POLICY FOR FRONTIER TECH

Source: Presentation by Dan Cole

Mr. Cole highlighted several critical design choices that underpin ARIA’s approach to supporting frontier innovation. These choices reflect the agency’s focus on translating research into real-world impact while maintaining the flexibility needed to experiment and iterate. Two key elements he indicated include:

• Lab-to-market strategy: ARIA embeds entrepreneurship directly into its operating model as the primary route for translating research into practical applications as reflected in its spending Approximately one-third of ARIA’s core R&D funding is directed to individuals and startups, and around 10% of projects have already generated new ventures or attracted international startups to the United Kingdom. The remainder of the funding supports a mix of early-stage research, high-risk exploratory projects, and strategic programmes aimed at addressing frontier challenges where entrepreneurial pathways may not yet exist.

• Institutional freedom and flexibility: Flexibility in staffing, procurement, risk tolerance, and programme design is a key prerequisite for creating an ARIA-like agency. The UK government deliberately provided ARIA with the space to experiment, iterate, and define what a “Version 1” of such an agency should look like in the UK’s R&D environment. This autonomy has been central to hiring a diverse group of experts and professionals and testing new approaches to breakthrough innovation, emphasising entrepreneurial engagement, rapid translation of research, and organisational adaptability.

Mr Sang-Min Park (Director of the R&D Budget Coordination Division, Ministry of Science and ICT, Korea) shared Korea’s reflections on whether and how to establish a dedicated institution for breakthrough technology development. He noted that Korea’s goal of unlocking scientific and technological breakthroughs in strategically important areas, linked to national security and industrial competitiveness. He explained that Korea has discussed establishing a DARPA-style body for several years, especially since the 2021–22 development of the National Strategic Technologies Agenda. The main argument for such a body was that radical, uncertain research requires a fundamentally different operating environment, including streamlined and agile public R&D funding.

However, Mr. Park stressed that the difficulty lies not simply in organisational design but in integrating such an agency into Korea’s existing innovation governance system, which is shaped by a strict auditing regime and risk-averse administrative norms. While recent policy reforms aim to loosen these constraints, he acknowledged that significant structural obstacles remain.

In view of these constraints, Mr. Park highlighted that Korea is pursuing alternative approaches to support high-risk, high-reward research. These include innovative and challenging R&D programmes operating under special exemptions from standard rules, as well as a new “institutional strategy” funding mechanism encouraging government research institutes to shift from fragmented projects to large, mission-oriented programmes.

Alexander Diehl (Project Office Advanced Semiconductor, SPRIND, Germany) highlighted that the critical success factor for breakthrough-innovation institutions is attracting the right talent. SPRIND prioritises individuals who combine deep expertise or proven entrepreneurial experience with an unconventional mindset and a willingness to challenge assumptions. This combination allowed programme leads to pursue ambitious goals, think creatively, and inspire others. In practice, SPRIND builds diverse teams, ranging from double PhDs in quantum physics to self-taught innovators with strong problem-solving skills, and can then readily assemble expert groups, drawing on Europe’s robust academic and research base.

References

OECD (2025), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025: Driving Change in a Shifting Landscape, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5fe57b90-en

PUSHING

Welcome and Introduction

Overview AGENDA

Session 1. Where does innovation policy stand in supporting a transformative agenda?

Session 3. Group challenge session: Designing an institution to support breakthrough innovation

Keynote: Big imperatives of our times and why policy needs to be smarter

Session 2. Experimentation in frontier technology innovation ecosystem (FTE) initiatives

Session 4. Learning from new institutional settings to support frontier technology

Keynote: Reinventing institutional models to enhance breakthrough innovation

Initial takeaways from the day’s discussions

9h00-9h15: Welcome coffee

9h15-9h45

Welcome and introduction

The Chair of the CSTP, the TIP Working Party and the OECD Secretariat will welcome participants and introduce the aims of the event.

• Tiago Santos Pereira, Director of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party, Portugal

• Yongsuk Jang, Research Fellow Emeritus of the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI), Korea, and Chair of the CSTP

• Caroline Paunov, Head of Secretariat of the OECD TIP Working Party

• Michael Keenan, Senior Policy Analyst, and Jessica Ambler, Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation: The OECD Agenda for Transformative STI Policies

Tiago Santos Pereira

Director of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party, Portugal

Yongsuk Jang Research Fellow

Emeritus

of the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI), Korea, and Chair of the CSTP

Caroline Paunov Head of Secretariat of the OECD TIP Working Party

Tiago Santos Pereira is Director of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra (CES), a major interdisciplinary research centre in social sciences in Portugal, since June 2023. He has a DPhil in Science and Technology Policy Studies from SPRU, University of Sussex, and his research has focused mainly on the policies and governance of science and technology and the modes of articulation of knowledge between public sector research, business, public decision making and society He is currently Chair of the OECD Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP) Between 2022 and 2024 he was member of the National Council on Science, Technology and Innovation (CNCTI) Between 2015 and 2018 he was Head of the Office for Studies and Strategy of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), the main research funding agency He is Co-Director of the Doctoral Programme 'Governance, Knowledge and Innovation’ at the University of Coimbra and collaborates with the Collaborative Laboratory for Work, Employment and Social Protection - CoLABOR, with research on the impacts of technology on work and employment in the digital transformation He also collaborated with several international agencies in the governance and funding of science, technology and innovation and has published his research in several international journals and books He is an avid runner, having ran over 10 marathons in different cities worldwide.

Yongsuk Jang, is a research fellow emeritus of the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI), a policy think-tank for science, technology and innovation (STI) policies in Sejong, Korea. He had served various positions at STEPI including the director for the Global Policy Research Center He is currently serving as the Chair of the Committee for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) of OECD His primary research interests are STI policies with focus on national and regional innovation systems, R&D programme evaluation, industrial R&D collaboration, and international STI cooperation He has expanded his research interests to innovation for inclusive development, science diplomacy and political economy of innovation He has consulted various domestic and foreign government agencies and international organizations including OECD, APEC, World Bank and IDB He actively publishes and involves in a number of academic associations He had served as the managing editor of ‘STI Policy Review,’ an international journal on STI policies around the world with special focus on Asian countries He holds a Ph D in Public Policy from the George Washington University and an M A and a B A both in Public Administration from Kyungbook National University

Caroline Paunov is currently Head of Secretariat for the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) within the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation In this capacity, she oversees the collaborative efforts of more than 100 country policy delegates and experts, acting as both a convenor and advisor

Caroline's current focus spans three key areas She leads the TIP policy research activities on the moonshot frontier technologies and policy experimentation She has also investigated the distributional challenges the digital and environmental transitions pose Moreover, a cross-cutting theme in her research is identifying practical options for enhanced policy intelligence and agility, including experimentation with large language models (LLMs)

Caroline has an extensive track record in in policy consultation and more than 70 publications, including widely cited academic papers published in leading journals, and 100 international policy events organized Her academic journey encompasses a B A and M A (Hons) from the University of Oxford, an M Sc from the University Pompeu Fabra, and a Ph D in Economics from the University of London

Michael Keenan Senior Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation

Michael Keenan is a Senior Analyst in the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation He has worked in the field of science and innovation policy for three decades, specialising in strategic policy intelligence including foresight and evaluation and national innovation system analysis. Since joining the OECD in 2007, he has led the preparation of the OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook, the flagship publication examining the key trends and policy issues shaping the future of science and innovation

He also leads the team responsible for the EC–OECD STIP Compass, a semantic database of almost 9,000 science, technology and innovation policy initiatives from more than 60 countries He also manages the OECD Agenda for Transformative STI Policies initiative, which provides a forward-looking framework for reshaping STI policy to meet ambitious policy goals He has contributed to several OECD innovation policy reviews, including for Sweden, Korea, the Netherlands, Mexico, Russia and Southeast Asia.

9h45-10h15

Keynote: Big imperatives of our times and why policy needs to be smarter

Moderator:

• Tiago Santos Pereira, Director of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party, Portugal

Keynote speaker:

• Diane Coyle, Bennet Professor of Public Policy, University of Cambridge

Diane Coyle

Bennet Professor of Public Policy, University of Cambridge

Diane Coyle is the Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge She is the Research Director at the Bennett School of Public Policy Diane’s latest book is The Measure of Progress: Counting what really matters

Her own research focuses on productivity, the digital economy and AI policy, and economic measurement She has been writing about the effects of digital technologies since her first book, The Weightless World, in 1997 The underlying motivation for all her work is the question: what does it mean for the economy to improve, and who benefits?

Diane is currently a member of the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy Council, the New Towns Taskforce, and advises the Competition and Markets Authority She has served previously in a number of public service roles including as Vice Chair of the BBC Trust, member of the Competition Commission, and of the Natural Capital Committee Diane was awarded a DBE in 2023 for her contribution to economics and public policy

10h15-11h00

SESSION 1

– Opening dialogue: Where does innovation policy stand in supporting a transformative agenda?

This session will set the stage with thought-provoking interventions on the opportunities and challenges facing STI policymakers today. STI policy is expected to address a wide range of objectives, in a context of growing geopolitical tensions, accelerating climate crisis, rapid technological change and evolving policy priorities. Many policy shapers agree that small, incremental steps may not be enough to meet today’s urgent and complex challenges. The CSTP’s Agenda for Transformative Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy (the “Transformative Agenda”) offers high-level guidance to policymakers in their STI reforms, but turning these ideas into practice remains challenging. A key question is how policy experimentation can be best used to support transformative change? For instance, breakthrough technologies often require building entirely new ecosystems and supply chains, which may compete with, disrupt or replace existing ones. How can policy experimentation assist with the buildout and development of such emerging ecosystems?

Key questions for the session include:

• Where do countries stand in transforming their STI systems to direct and accelerate the development and diffusion of STI solutions to address complex societal challenges? What opportunities and challenges are emerging for STI policymakers in different countries?

• What is the rationale for policy experimentation in a context of uncertain and rapidly changing technological landscape? How can policymakers reconcile the risk and uncertainty that can come with policy experimentation with the need to provide long-term political support and funding for the STI ecosystem?

• Where is policy experimentation most needed and to what extent will approaches need to evolve to support the emergence and integration of breakthrough or disruptive rather than incremental technological advancements?

• What are some of the challenges policy experimentation faces that prevent its wider deployment to support STI policy for it to succeed in addressing more complex societal challenges and better support breakthrough and disruptive technological advancements (e.g. limited resources, changing priorities)?

Moderator:

• Alberto Di Minin, Professor, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna and Vice-Chair of the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy

Speakers:

• Hideaki Shiroyama, Professor of Public Administration at the Policy Alternatives Research Institute, the Graduate School of Public Policy, and the Graduate Schools for Law and Politics, University of Tokyo

• Reinhilde Veugelers, Senior Fellow at Bruegel, Professor of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, and Senior Fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)

• Christian Naczinsky, Head of department EU and OECD Research Policy, Austrian Federal Ministry of Women, Science and Research, Austria, and designated Chair of CSTP for 2026

Alberto Di Minin Professor, Scuola

Superiore Sant’Anna and Vice-Chair of the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy

Hideaki Shiroyama

Professor of Public Administration at the Policy Alternatives Research Institute, the Graduate School of Public Policy, and the Graduate Schools for Law and Politics, University of Tokyo

Reinhilde Veugelers Senior Fellow at Bruegel, Professor of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Alberto Di Minin is a Full Professor of Innovation Strategy at the Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies of Pisa and Chief Innovation Officer of the Italian National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC) He is also a Research Fellow with the Berkeley Round Table on the International Economy (BRIE), University of California - Berkeley He teaches innovation management and innovation policy, focusing on technology transfer, intellectual property management, R&D management, and strategy for protecting biodiversity He is the Italian Delegate with the OECD - Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) He is Co-Editor in Chief of the R&D Management Journal and on the International Advisory Board of California Management Review

Hideaki Shiroyama is Professor of Public Administration at the Graduate School of Public Policy and the Graduate School for Law and Politics at the University of Tokyo His research focuses on global governance, international public administration, science and technology policy, and policy processes

He previously served as Director of the Institute for Future Initiatives (2021–2023) and as Dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy (2014–2016) He leads interdisciplinary education and policy training as Director of the Science, Technology, Innovation and Governance Programme, and as Coordinator of the Graduate Programme for Social Design and Management

Professor Shiroyama has advised numerous ministries and government agencies, including the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology; the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry; the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications; the Cabinet Office; and the Cabinet Secretariat, as well as the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization

His publications include Science, Technology and Politics (2018, in Japanese), International Administration (2013, in Japanese), and co-edited volumes such as Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions: European and Asian Experiences (2016) and Global Health Governance (2020, in Japanese) His work on technology governance and risk management has appeared in Sustainability Science

Reinhilde Veugelers is Senior Fellow at Bruegel and Professor of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation at KU Leuven She also serves as a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE). Her research focuses on industrial organisation, innovation and science policy, with recent work examining novelty in technological development, global innovation value chains, international technology transfer, young innovative firms, industry–science linkages, and innovation for climate transition

She is a CEPR Research Fellow and a member of the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Academia Europaea She also serves on the Board of Reviewing Editors of the journal Science and is co-Principal Investigator of the Science of Science Funding Initiative at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) From 2012 to 2018 she was a member of the European Research Council (ERC) Scientific Council, and earlier served as Advisor to the European Commission (BEPA) from 2004 to 2008

Reinhilde holds a PhD in Economics from KU Leuven She speaks English, Dutch and French

Christian Naczinsky Head of department EU and OECD Research Policy, Austrian Federal Ministry of Women, Science and Research, Austria

Christian Naczinsky has worked as policy-maker at the interface of national and EU research policy for 25 years He is head of department for EU and OECD Research Policy at the Austrian Ministry of Women, Science and Research He bore responsibility for co-designing and implementing three Austrian EU Council Presidencies in the area of research (1998, 2006, 2018) From 2000 – 2001 he served as science attaché at the Permanent Representation of Austria to the EU Christian held various positions at national and European advisory boards, among others as co-chair of the European Research and Innovation Area Committee (ERAC) (2017 – 2020) He represents Austria at the Committee for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) of the OECD where he is also vice-chair and member of the CSTP Bureau. In addition, he is member of the OECD Global Science Forum and the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) For several years, he governed the implementation of the EU missions of Horizon Europe in Austria Christian holds a Master and a Doctoral Degree in Political Sciences from the University of Vienna and has a Master of Business Administration from the University of Salzburg

11h30-12h45

Session 2. Experimentation in frontier technology innovation ecosystem (FTE) initiatives

Countries are implementing sectoral and technological ecosystem initiatives to support the development of frontier technological innovation ecosystems. The development and evolution of FTEs require crossgovernment approaches to establish new markets, industry ecosystems and value chains, as well as associated market and structural conditions (e.g., regulation, technical standards, intellectual property regimes, investment approaches, as well as legislation or other interventions to enable frontier technologies to compete with established alternatives).

These initiatives are the subject of ongoing TIP work with a focus on how such initiatives iterate and adapt over time in response to changing dynamics and needs within the given ecosystem and the external environment. This session will explore the role of experimentation and agility more widely for those FTE initiatives.

Key questions for the session include:

• What does agility and experimentation mean in practice in the context of FTE initiatives?

• How do FTE initiatives balance the need for stability and long-term vision with their ability to adapt when technologies, markets, or societal needs change? In this context, how do FTE initiative operate in a context of established and possibly incompatible systems?

• How are feedback loops, monitoring, and evaluation implemented to detect emerging challenges and opportunities early enough to respond?

• What are relevant insights of these FTE initiatives and how to they inform broader innovation policy?

Moderator: Caroline Paunov, Head of Secretariat of the OECD TIP Working Party, and Jaewon Kim, Junior Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation

Setting the stage: Matthias Weber, Head of Center for Innovation Systems and Policy, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna

Speakers:

• Arik Bar-Haim, Israel Innovation Authority: Israel’s National Quantum Initiative

• Stephen Fertuck, Senior Director for Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), Canada

• Jayson Myers, Chief Executive Officer, NGen, Canada

• Pekka Rantala, Head of Programme, 6G Bridge, Business Finland: Perspectives on the Finnish 5G/6G Ecosystems

Jaewon Kim

Junior Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation

Matthias Weber

Head of Center for Innovation Systems and Policy, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna

Jaewon Kim is a Junior Policy Analyst and Economist in the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Her work focuses on the policy dynamics of frontier technology development and diffusion, the impacts of technological advancement on global value chains, labour and skills governance, and inclusive growth Prior to joining the OECD, she worked at the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the STI Policy Institute of Thailand, where she contributed to research and policy initiatives on science, technology, innovation, and trade governance in Asia and the Pacific She holds a PhD in International Relations and Political Science from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva

Matthias Weber, is Head of Center for Innovation Systems and Policy at AIT Austrian Institute of Technology in Vienna Before joining AIT in 2000, he had been working for several years as a Marie-Curie grantee and scientific officer at the European Commission’s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies IPTS in Seville (Spain) and Ispra (Italy) He holds degrees in Process Engineering and Political Sciences, as well as a PhD in Economics, all assigned by University of Stuttgart Next to his research work on the transformation of sociotechnical systems, the role of foresight in the governance of innovation systems, and new types of research and innovation practices, he is regularly advising national governments, European institutions and international organisations on matters of research, technology and innovation policy from a forward-looking perspective

Arie Bar-Haim is a professional examiner in the field of advanced technologies and systems at the Israel Innovation Authority, where he has evaluated and advised on more than 400 R&D proposals spanning lasers, optoelectronics, chemistry, and algorithmic systems His expertise extends across all development stages from early-stage ventures to large-scale industrial research tracks and includes service as a professional reviewer for multiple national consortia, such as Quantum Sensing, Quantum Communication, Quantum Computing, Silicon Photonics, and ALTIA –Industrial Laser Systems

Before joining the Authority, Dr Bar-Haim served as Head of the Physical Model Section at Rafael Advanced Defense Systems (2005–2012), and later as a Laser Consultant He has also lectured at the Weizmann Institute of Science, teaching artificial intelligence and computational science to talented and gifted youth (2014–2022)

Dr Bar-Haim holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry (Tel Aviv University, 2000, Excellent grade), an MBA from Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in Ultrafast Lasers at the Weizmann Institute as a recipient of the Excellence Scholarship in memory of Sir Charles Klor

Stephen Fertuck Senior Director for Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), Canada

Pekka Rantala Head of Programme, 6G Bridge, Business Finland: Perspectives on the Finnish 5G/6G Ecosystems

Stephen Fertuck is Senior Director in the Strategic Policy Branch at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), with a strong background in research commercialisation, industry partnerships, and ecosystem development At ISED, he works extensively with Canada’s Global Innovation Clusters, supporting their strategic direction, governance, and impact measurement His expertise includes facilitating collaboration between firms, researchers, and governments, and advancing cluster-based approaches to strengthen Canada’s innovation and industrial competitiveness

He holds a Master’s degree in Economics from Queen’s University and a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from McMaster University.

Pekka Rantala is the Head of Business Finland’s 6G Bridge Programme, a fouryear national initiative launched in January 2023 with a funding budget exceeding €130 million The programme’s public launch was attended by Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for Internal Market, and Pekka Lundmark, CEO of Nokia

Mr Rantala plays a central role in advancing Finland’s leadership in nextgeneration connectivity and serves as Finland’s official delegate to the European Commission’s Smart Networks and Services Joint Undertaking (SNS JU) a public-private partnership supporting Europe’s industrial leadership in 5G and 6G through a €900 million fund He maintains close collaboration with EU institutions, including Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, and actively contributes to international advisory groups, workshops, and review panels on 5G Advanced, 6G, and space innovation through the European Space Agency’s Business Incubation Centre

Previously, Mr Rantala served as National Contact Point for Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, the EU’s flagship research and innovation programmes (€80 billion and €95 5 billion budgets), focusing on digital and industrial clusters His career combines extensive experience in team, project, and product management, entrepreneurship, and ICT-driven innovation A passionate advocate of technology’s transformative potential, he promotes innovation that strengthens business, society, and resilience

Susanne Meyer Lead Transformative Innovation Policy and Missions, Federal Ministry of Innovation, Mobility and Infrastructure, Austria: AI for Green Initiative

PUSHING BOUNDARIES:

Susanne Meyer is Lead for Transformative Innovation Policy and Missions at the Austrian Federal Ministry for Innovation, Mobility and Infrastructure, a position she has held since 2021. She serves as a Board Member of FORWIT – the Austrian Council for Research, Science, Innovation and Technology, and as a Board Member of AustriaTech Before joining the ministry, she worked for eight years at the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, first as a Scientist in Innovation Systems and Policy and later as Senior Expert Advisor for research and innovation policy related to urban and energy transition Her earlier roles include work on national, transnational and European R&I policy instruments, programme monitoring and evaluation, and participatory policy processes She holds a PhD in economic geography

14h15-14h45

Keynote: Reinventing institutional models to enhance breakthrough innovation

The set-up of new institutions mandated to support breakthrough innovation indicates the believe that experimentation in governance models is needed to unlock breakthrough innovations that traditional institutional settings may struggle to support. Drawing on practical experiences, this keynote will explore both the opportunities and challenges of rethinking institutional models to better support frontier technologies and innovation.

By setting the stage with thought-provoking insights and practical lessons, the session aims to spark ideas and inspire the breakout and panel discussions that follow.

Moderator:

• Tiago Santos Pereira, Director of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party, Portugal

Speakers:

• Lennart Bültermann, Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space, Germany

• Alexander Diehl, Project Office Advanced Semiconductor, SPRIND, Germany

Lennart Bültermann Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR), Germany

Alexander Diehl Project Office Advanced Semiconductor, SPRIND, Germany

Lennart Bültermann is a lawyer currently working in Department 522 (Disruptive Innovations) at the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space in Germany Before joining the federal administration, he taught public international, constitutional, and administrative law at the University of Cologne and the Federal University of Applied Administrative Sciences

Alexander Diehl is a German entrepreneur, angel investor and advisor for digital, start-up and growth stage companies with a strong focus on AI and robotics In 2006 he founded digital design agency KKLD* in Berlin and NYC, which was acquired by WPP plc in 2012 In 2009 he co-founded Architizer Inc in New York City, which was acquired by MaterialBank in 2022 In 2011 Alexander initiated BMW iVentures in NYC, which he co-lead as managing director until 2015 Alexander is a Senior Advisor at Cyber Valley (Max-Planck-Society) and an active angel investor in European technology companies such as PriorLabs, Meshcapade, Sereact, Wandelbots, Decentriq and Trafi Alex graduated from the Royal Academy of Music & King's College London with a degree in classical music

14h45-15h45

Session 3. Group challenge session: Designing an institution to support breakthrough innovation

Participants will engage in group discussions on rationales and design of entities that champion investments in breakthrough innovations while ensuring public resources are responsibly spent. The session will support exchanges on different countries’ experiences in support of breakthrough innovations to design an “ideal” institution for breakthrough innovation. The group challenge will be to develop an institution most participants approve of.

15h45-16h15: Coffee Break

16h15-17h15

Session 4. Learning from new institutional settings to support frontier technology development

Many countries are experimenting with new institutional models – e.g. specialised agencies, dedicated funds – to better support breakthrough technology development and innovation. This session explores whyand when governments choose to establish such institutions, what lessons can be drawn from concrete country cases, and which factors are critical for their effectiveness. This session relates to the forthcoming work of the CSTP on public funding and private financing of STI activities, which will outline challenges and recommendations for the deployment of funding portfolios that include significant support for high-risk, high-reward research and the development of breakthrough technology.

Key questions:

• What is the rationale for establishing dedicated institutions to unlock scientific and technological breakthroughs? Under what circumstances might this be more (or less) appropriate?

• What can be learned from concrete country examples as regards their success? What could be improved going forward?

• What frameworks can allow evaluating success and failure of efforts aimed at supporting frontier technologies as compared to incremental innovations?

Moderators: Sandra Planes-Satorra, Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation and Luke Mackle, Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation

Setting the stage:

• Caroline S. Wagner, Ohio State University, USA (online)

Speakers:

• Dan Cole, Chief of Staff, Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA), United Kingdom

• Sang-Min Park, Director of R&D Budget Coordination Division, Ministry of Science and ICT, Korea

• Alexander Diehl, Project Office Advanced Semiconductor, SPRIND, Germany

• Lennart Bültermann, Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space, Germany

Sandra PlanesSatorra

Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation

Luke Mackle

Policy Analyst, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation

Caroline S. Wagner Professor, The Ohio State University, United States

Sandra Planes-Satorra is a Policy Analyst at the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation She has over ten years of international experience supporting governments in designing policies that foster more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient innovation systems Her current research and policy advice work focus on advancing the development and diffusion of frontier technologies – particularly in the field of green innovation –, enhancing collaboration between research and industry, and promoting inclusive innovation systems

Prior to joining the OECD, Sandra worked at the European Commission, at a public policy consulting firm, and at the Barcelona Provincial Council She holds a BSc in Economics and a BSc in Political Science and Public Management from Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona), and an MSc in Local Economic Development from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)

Luke Mackle is a Policy Analyst and Economist in the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, working with the Committee for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) and the Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP) His work focuses on policy issues around the development and diffusion of frontier technologies, policy support for innovation ecosystems, and the international dynamics of competition, sustainability and technology development He is an experienced analyst and speaker on structural and technological change in Russia and the former Soviet Union, with a particular focus on climate, industrial and technology policy, and their political economy dynamics Previously, he contributed to OECD work in the Sustainable Infrastructure Programme in Asia and the Eurasia Division (SIPA), where he supports the governments of Central Asia with the development and implementation of their industrial decarbonisation policy agendas Luke graduated from REECA in 2017 and also holds an MA from the University of Glasgow

Caroline S. Wagner is a Professor at the John Glenn School of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University Between 2011 and 2021, she was the inaugural holder of the Milton & Roslyn Wolf Chair in International Affairs She is an affiliate of Battelle Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the East Asian Studies Center Dr Wagner earned a doctorate from the University of Amsterdam School of Communications Studies (ASCoR) in Science and Technology Dynamics, Netherlands under the guidance of Prof dr Loet Leydesdorff; a Master of Arts degree in Science, Technology and Public Policy from George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs, Washington D C.; and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity College, Washington, D C

Dr. Wagner’s academic career includes 14 years at Ohio State University and one year at Pennsylvania State University Dr Wagner is the author of two books on governance of science and technology, an author or coauthor of more than 60 academic articles and book chapters, and more than 25 books and/or monographs She delivered more than 10 conference keynotes, including for the United Nations; and she served on the UN (United Nations) Millennium Development Goals task force on Science and Technology Policy

Dr Wagner is an elected Distinguished Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), an elected member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the founding editor of Research Policy and Strategic Management, published by Frontiers, an open access platform, and past editor of the policy journal, Science and Public Policy published by Oxford University Press She currently chairs the Advisory Committee to the Office of International Science & Engineering, National Science Foundation Her work has been featured in The Economist, Nature Magazine, Times Higher Education, South China Morning Post, Chronicle of Higher Education, and other media outlets

Dan Cole

Chief of Staff, Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA), United Kingdom

Sang-Min Park

Director of R&D Budget Coordination Division, Ministry of Science and ICT, Korea

Dan Cole is Chief of Staff at the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) in the United Kingdom since May 2023 Prior to this role, Dan occupied the position of Chief Operating Officer at Accurx from April 2019 to May 2023 and worked in project management at Demos from March 2018 to March 2019 Dan began a consulting career at Bain & Company, where employment spanned from September 2013 to February 2018 Dan also founded and served as Editor-in-Chief of The Warwick Globalist, recognized with the Best New Society Award Additional experience includes volunteer work for Obama for America and internships at IPPR and the Economic Policy Research Institute Dan holds a BA (Hons) in Philosophy, Politics & Economics from the University of Warwick and completed A-Levels with Advanced Extension Awards in Mathematics, History, and Economics at Bishop Stopford School

Sang-Min Park is Director of the R&D Budget Coordination Division at the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT), Republic of Korea, where he leads major national initiatives in science, technology and innovation policy His work has included coordinating the Korean government’s R&D investment strategy, overseeing the development of national green technology and regional innovation policies, and managing large-scale public research budgets

He currently serves as Vice-Chair of the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP), contributing to international policy dialogue on innovation system transformation and emerging technology governance

Since joining the Korean government in 2004, Sang-Min has held a number of senior roles across science and technology policy, including work on the ITER international fusion project, national research human resource policies, and serving as Executive Secretary to the Vice Minister of Science, ICT & Future Planning

17h15-17h45

This session will first provide an opportunity to reflect on the key takeaways from the day’s discussions.

17h45-18h00

Wrap-up and closing

Tiago Santos Pereira, Director of the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party, Portugal

Caroline Paunov, Head of Secretariat of the OECD TIP Working Party