Appendix 1
Process Engineering in the French National Strategy and in “Horizon Europe”

With the promotion of engineers and the development of abstract work, nature itself becomes a labor force. It loses its sensitive qualities and living properties to be considered only as a combination of forces and movements; in other words, it is no longer defined in relation to the human subject perceiving and acting. (Chrétien 1991)

The French reaction is to protect the acquis when it is already obsolete. (Brunet-Labbez 2013)

The sole anthropological type created by capitalism, the one that was indispensable for its establishment at the outset, was the Schumpeter-style entrepreneur: someone who cares passionately about the creation of this new historical institution that is the business enterprise and who strives constantly to enlarge it through the introduction of new technical complexes and new methods of market penetration. (Castoriadis 1996)

In any case, one fact remains: our representations of the unpredictability of natural phenomena are changing. The classical image of science is losing some of its deterministic nimbus. (von Wright 1993)

Humanity groans, half crushed under the weight of the progress it has made. She doesn’t know enough that her future depends on her. It is up to her first to see if she wants to continue to live. (Bergson 1935)

The notion of sustainable development is […] representative of a field of tension whose main references are the logic of the stakeholders, the principle of ‘responsibility’ and the expectations of the theories of decay. (Pesqueux 2013)

Under the pressure of disastrous environmental prospects, the current opposition between supporters of growth or decline puts the question of the aims in the spotlight: why produce? For what form of individual and collective life? (Citton 2013)

The Lorenz attractor graph is the result of chaos theory and mathematics and yet, after a large number of iterations, it results in a clear pattern. No particular iteration is easily predictable, making it difficult to predict time, but overall, the result provides a clear understanding of where a system that is chaotic in its individual interactions is going. (Barnard 2018).

The main productive force is neither machine capital nor money capital, but the living passion with which they imagine, invent and increase their own cognitive capacities as well as their production of knowledge and wealth. The production of self is here the production of wealth and vice versa; the basis of the production of wealth is the production of self. (Gorz 2008)

Cobalt and lithium are the basis of battery technologies for electric vehicles. However, the exploitation of these resources causes environmental and social damage. As for the reserves, they are limited and unevenly distributed… Enough to cause real geopolitical tensions, like black gold. (Dupin 2018)

The boundary between well-structured and ill-structured problem solving is indeed a vague and fluid boundary. (Simon 1973)

The people, who have sovereign power, must do by themselves whatever they can do well. (Montesquieu 1964)

A1.1. Critical preamble

By providing specific funding, the State and the European Union are driving the development of science in privileged directions, this is called strategy. According to Guellec (1992), “the very nature of technology implies a number of market failures: public authorities must then supplement the market with incentives or the allocation of public resources. It is thus up to the State to support generic R&D in the long term, the profitability of which is insufficient for private agents to take care of it”. It is on this basis that techno-sciences are developing in France, with calls for projects from the ANR (Agence nationale de la recherche) and/or the European Union. However, and this is well known in research, it is possible to anticipate proposals from the Union or the State. “This policy… is a form of structural fraud, albeit slight, but it increases as the bureaucracy that pays for official research dominates” (van Andel and Bourcier 2009). As long as this statement is valid and remains valid, there is undoubtedly a perverse effect of this situation, namely the thought that we can plan research, preventing any breakthrough.

These developments lead us in PE to situate ourselves halfway between in-depth research and R&D “in order to guarantee, it is said, a faster economic return. Finally, research is becoming both diversified and interdisciplinary, decision-making processes are more flexible…” (Giesen 2000). In practice, recent developments have revealed numerous and complex couplings between systems, going well beyond the core disciplines. For researchers, there is a need to also “look alongside” their discipline because our time is characterized by interdisciplinarity, even if there is a risk of a loss of rigor due to the dilution of specialization.

But to participate in winning battles on the front lines of science in our fields, we certainly need personal ideas (not necessarily those that come from “above”, but that have money), time (certainly limited) and human resources. However, the system, which angelically wished to recruit the “best”, has established a real competition (with success rates of less than 15%) between researchers with many people excluded. It is deliberately part of a mentality where rarity is the law, by focusing on the insured short-term (very low risk taking). The second flaw of this situation is what to do with the “poor”, the rejects of research, who may become dependent (sometimes beneficial) on “the powers that be” (at least for a time) or direct their activity towards other goals (overtime, administration, or even becoming a craft brewer or circus artist – it’s all part of the experience).

Not being focused on everyday life, they would have time to think! And why not commit yourself (at least mentally) to interdisciplinarity! However, some authors use the notion of “mental bandwidth”, related to the possibility of acting under low or high constraint. The higher the latter, the narrower this band is, the more errors are made due to the absence of necessary distance and the more the environment reinforces this perception… Hellish spiral! The machine to win through scarcity not only does not win, but becomes a machine to lose on a human and overall financial level – it makes you lose the initial innovation objective.

The aim is not to combat symptoms by recklessly increasing research funding (this would be illusory and probably rightly, considered a low priority), but to address the problem at its source by considering the best ways to achieve the objectives of creativity, innovation, avoiding wasted time in writing dossiers, and performance by leaving as few researchers and teacher-researchers as possible on the brink of public utility research. In this respect, however, there is no place for those who do not wish to join a research activity, evaluation must remain a guarantor of the activity. So, now let’s look at how the Brussels machine works.

A1.2. Introduction

In this appendix, it seemed useful to the authors to examine how application-oriented research funding programs for society covered the field of process engineering (PE) in matter and energy transformation. With broad groundswells focused on the maintenance or development of economic growth, increasingly controlled by very important issues of sustainable development for global aspects and personal health (as defined by WHO), for more individual aspects (but affecting society as a whole).

Process engineering and the disciplines that contribute to its development are not static data, from which the question of what scientific knowledge and its use represent could be raised, but a convergence of knowledge that can be integrated for operational purposes. To achieve this objective, there is an alliance between regularity research models and experimentation, the only current way to control these needs. However, this stabilized form of access to the intelligibility of new knowledge should not eliminate a creative inventive power to explore less usual phenomena, considered even today by many of us as exotic, or even for some, of no interest. Nevertheless, this creativity must respect the arrow of time, the break in symmetry between before and after, with a permanent reminder of the second principle of thermodynamics, entropy and irreversible processes (Clausius), synonymous with forms of impotence in the fight against degradation processes. It was important, in the light of this comment, to examine how these two aspects – continuity and incremental research, and divergence and disruption – were perceived and engaged in action by European and/or French decision-makers.

Indeed, by granting specific funding, the State, industry and the European Union are driving the development of science in privileged but predictable directions. Apart from this traditional aspect, there is a singular element in research, that of rarity, originality, which can lead to exchanges (or lack thereof) through the dynamics and the appeal created (in the form of knowledge sharing, common vision, customer-supplier relationships, bartering, posts or money). It is this rarity that is sought here, as it is likely to engage society in new promising paths for the future.

On this subject, researchers, in their scientific quest, need financial and human support; this problem of a strategic vision framing scientific action therefore raises the question of the management of research (or the autonomy of the researcher) and possible cooperation, to help some to maintain the course of European or national research consisting of several autonomous ships. Indeed, how can the erratic funding experienced by researchers in the support of agencies and industrialists be smoothed out? So what forces are working to ensure that separate researchers can “hold together” and form what the CNRS rightly or wrongly calls a research unit?

What Marine Horckmans (2016) had shown was the need to bring about the emergence of social mediations, through which researchers’ relationships with technical services are transformed and shaped to avoid anarchy, but to fit into a global compatibility that makes collective sense based on a common vision that is effectively shared. In practice, does it not clearly appear that the world of research is too self-centered, that it is promoted and that there is a standard fetishism for evaluation that is adapted to it? Do relations between actors of the same unit or between external partners only appear in the background, almost in antagonism? Is it a misuse in relation to the mission (if it is defined and understood)? But it is on the basis of a system that has its own, highly fixed rules that decision-makers exploit, in a certain customer-supplier relationship, this fabric of knowledge for better or for worse.

For “hierarchical” reasons, we thought it would be more useful to start with what the European Union is proposing before examining what France is proposing, which is using a revised version of the European Union’s framework program.

A1.3. Horizon Europe and other Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development (FWPs)

Processing industries are increasingly digitalized. The development of matter and energy transformation devices and sensors, linked by the Internet of Things, will enable machines to acquire skills such as identifying and optimizing solutions or making complex decisions, surpassing human operators and decision-makers in processes that have long been believed to be their exclusive property. Huge amounts of data are generated, but are usually used locally for a single purpose. Artificial intelligence (AI), with its ability to learn from data accumulation, is certainly a particularly powerful tool, but its potential is most likely much broader than current industrial applications suggest.

The challenges as presented would be to discover and fully exploit the potential of AI for the process industries by identifying specific artificial intelligence technologies and applications, as well as their data needs. To achieve this objective, it would be necessary to determine – based on a mapping of digital technologies in the processing industries and their level of penetration – which AI technologies are most relevant and which are or could be, the most relevant use cases and/or pilot projects in this sector. A roadmap should be developed by the European Union to take full advantage of AI and to make clear and pragmatic recommendations for researchers, managers and operators who are considering taking advantage of AI.

The European Union’s proposals, presented orally to the Ministry of Research in 2019, should explore, inter alia, the following points (not an exhaustive list):

  • – management, planning and design of research and innovation (e.g. new chemical synthesis strategies, health and safety assessments, etc.);
  • – process control: improved efficiency and accuracy;
  • – supply chain management and planning of processes, installations and/or connected sites (e.g. for industrial symbiosis), process flexibility;
  • – predictive maintenance;
  • – product customization and traceability, etc.

A1.3.1. General framework

The European Union’s Strategic Agenda for 2019–2024 was adopted in June 2019. It sets out the main priorities that will guide the work of the European Council of the Union over the next five years. The European Union’s long-term budget (around €100 billion) should support these priorities, as well as national priorities, and complement other efforts at the European and the national level. In Horizon Europe, the European Union’s Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development supports innovation that, in principle, is designed to generate new scientific knowledge and technologies, promote scientific excellence, create social and environmental impact and contribute to growth and employment, by accelerating the development of market research and the scaling up of innovations (IMMRC 2019a).

NOTE.– We will show in the prospective approach developed that the question of decline arises singularly, if only with a significant increase in the world population and with the depletion of reserves. This prospective, however modest, reveals a glaring need to change the rules of technological progress, even if in the current paradigm a reductive translation of the concept of sustainable development means continuous but carbon-free growth. This is to a large extent what is written in the above statement.

Nevertheless, at this meeting on July 4, 2019, it was proclaimed that “mission-oriented research and innovation initiatives are generally ambitious, exploratory and innovative in nature, often targeting a concrete problem or challenge, with significant impact and a well-defined timetable. Such initiatives tend to be important, transdisciplinary, intersectoral and involve several types of participants. They require a combination of horizontal policy instruments that go beyond research and innovation policies. The mission-oriented approach should apply to different industrial sectors and social contexts. One of the major challenges for the success of this approach will be to ensure that all relevant sectors and actors are included in the mission planning and implementation process”.

Horizon Europe’s mission areas are as follows:

  • – adaptation to climate change, including associated societal transformation; cancer;
  • – health of the oceans, seas, coasts and inland waters;
  • – climate-neutral and intelligent cities;
  • – soil health and food.

For the process engineering component, there is plenty to do, since the discipline, integrative by its very nature, will explore these different problems to varying degrees. The following elements are found in the missions:

  • – use of sustainable development goals in a teleological approach, aimed at designing and implementing research and innovation and EU policies in terms of research and innovation, providing added value and contributing to the achievement of the Union’s priorities and objectives;
  • – cover areas of common European interest, be inclusive, encourage broad engagement and active participation of the public and private sectors, including researchers and end-users, by providing results for research and innovation services that could benefit all Member States;
  • – be open to multiple and bottom-up approaches and solutions that take into account the needs of, and benefits for, citizens and society, recognizing the importance of receiving contributions from various target audiences to achieve the objectives jointly defined in these missions;
  • – benefit from synergies with other EU programs, as well as with national and, where appropriate, regional innovation ecosystems.

These very general proposals therefore involve interdisciplinary approaches with broad lines of action which, in principle, respond to the citizens’ demands of the inhabitants of the European Union, who have long been engaged in a consumerist society and who must nevertheless accept some constraints.

A second document (IMMRC 2019b) states that: “It should be recognized that sound macroeconomic policies alone, albeit crucial, would not deliver the necessary growth. In particular, an overall focus on productivity – and on EU-level policies that really help to improve productivity growth – is required. Furthermore, to make future growth truly sustainable, climate change mitigation must be fully embedded within policies intended to promote economic growth and jobs.”

Finally, in a third report (IMMRC 2019c), it is recalled that: “The structural barriers are well known (fragmented markets, limited access to risk financing, low investment in intangible assets, lack of digital platforms, skills shortages, etc.) and a more systemic and integrated approach at local, regional, national and European levels would help to remove them.” This report also recognizes that many important societal, environmental and economic transitions are already underway. The author cites the transformation of mobility systems as an example with a rapidly growing global transport market. “This disruption and transformation creates business opportunities and new markets. The platform economy provides opportunities to develop globally scalable services, but this requires close collaboration between the public and private sectors in building innovation ecosystems and in global leadership to develop the EU and international regulatory framework.”

We are therefore generally in business as usual, without any significant break with the current period, that of Horizon 2020.

A1.3.2. To talk more about process engineering

In the NMBP axis (nanotechnologies, advanced materials, biotechnologies and advanced manufacturing and production), which has been selected because it covers the process engineering component quite well, the following elements are involved (EC 2019b):

  • – one of the priorities of the 2020 work program will be to support the implementation of some of the research aspects identified in the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (EUR-Lex 2019), the Bio-economy Strategy (EC 2019a), the Integrated Maritime Policy and the European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research;
  • – the foundations of tomorrow’s industry are broken down into activities such as: minimizing costs and reducing technological risks when adopting new materials and technologies; leveraging relevant skills and services (including those provided by other test beds and similar initiatives), such as computer modeling, characterization, risk and benefit assessment to ensure regulatory compliance and the implementation of standardization efforts early in the technology development process; accessing services focused on their business needs;
  • – among the technological areas for the factory of the future, it is proposed to engage in the following areas: lightweight multifunctional materials and components, compatible with nanotechnologies; safety testing of medical technologies for health; nano-technological surfaces and membranes; bio-based nanomaterials and solutions; building envelope materials; production of nano-pharmaceuticals;
  • – materials characterization and computer modeling: the commission believes that the next generation of industrial products will require new advances in advanced characterization tools, as well as computer modeling. This can be achieved through the development of new techniques and a new generation of instruments to meet industrial demand. Multi-scale, multi-technical and real-time characterization and integration with the latest knowledge in materials modeling would allow for a better understanding and/or discovery of new phenomena and complex functional materials systems, essential for revolutionary new products and industrial competitiveness;
  • – “sustainable” nanofabrication: research has led to the development of nanometric materials with unique properties. Many of these materials are on the market or are expected to become so in the near future. The challenge is to implement, on an industrial scale, the manufacture of functional systems based on manufactured nanoparticles with properties designed for use in semiconductors, energy recovery and storage, waste heat recovery, medicine, etc.;
  • – factory of the future: the manufacturing industry is a key driver of employment and wealth creation in Europe, thus making a significant contribution to improving the quality of life of citizens (it accounts for more than three-quarters of European exports and generates more than 15% of European GDP). The fundamental challenge for the European manufacturing industry is to move from a cost-based competitive advantage to a high value-added competitive advantage (as in additive manufacturing): a transition to a flexible, digitized and demand-driven manufacturing sector with lower energy consumption and waste production characterizes the fourth industrial revolution;
  • – biotechnology: an important objective is to bring added value and market share to European industries. In addition, Europe has scientific know-how and the means to discover new biotechnological ideas. However, for Europe to maintain its comparative advantage in this field, sustained investment is needed for basic research and to translate knowledge into tangible industrial innovation;
  • – among the areas of action are: synthetic biology, soil remediation, biological degradation of plastics, development of biosensors, multi-omics between phenotype and genotype;
  • – medical technologies: to address the design, development and manufacture of innovative, user-centered medical technologies, including implants, tissue regeneration and nanomaterials or intelligent biomaterials (including microfluidic sensors, bio-printing, etc.). The main objective is to develop and adapt the performance of innovative medical technologies to patients’ needs to enable solutions to be transposed “from the laboratory to the bedside” into customized clinical applications;
  • – sustainable industry: this focus area corresponds to the theme “Connecting economic and environmental gains – the circular economy”. It targets new technologies for processing industries, such as industrial symbiosis and adaptation to new raw materials and energy sources, radical advances in catalysis. It also aims at building on the axis “Building a low-carbon and climate-resilient future” with the development of new materials and technologies for renewable energy and energy storage, new technologies for energy-efficient buildings;
  • – sustainable industrial processes: the process industry includes the cement, ceramics, chemicals, engineering, minerals and ores, non-ferrous metals, steel and water sectors (20% of European industry in terms of employment and turnover). These sectors are also characterized by a high dependence on raw materials and energy in their production and processing technologies. As these become increasingly scarce, resource efficiency, including the use of renewable resources, is now a key factor in the competitiveness and sustainability of the European processing industry. Consequently, the main objectives of the processing industry are to optimize industrial processing, reduce energy and resource consumption and minimize waste, in order to provide European added value by making a significant contribution to the circular economy and the fight against climate change;
  • – MLAs include the following proposals: raw material processing using nonconventional energy sources, energy and resource flexibility in energy-intensive industries, efficient and integrated downstream processes, adaptation to variable feedstock through retro-fitting equipment, digital technologies for improving performance in cognitive production plants, new high-performance materials and components, efficient recycling processes for materials containing plastics, artificial intelligence and Big Data technologies for process industries;
  • – circular economy: catalytic processes are ubiquitous in the chemical industry and are a key technology in all future scenarios for a sustainable economy. The gradual substitution of fossil fuel products at all stages of the industrial value chain plays a crucial role in the successful decarbonization of industrial processes. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon waste components are potentially promising alternative raw materials for chemicals, materials and fuels. These future technologies could play an important role in reducing the carbon footprint of the industry and the economy as a whole. The actions envisaged will contribute to making the circular economy an industrial reality and to decarbonizing the industry. At the same time, contributions to the circular economy concern the development of new materials and structures with integrated recycling properties;
  • – among the main lines of action in this field are the following proposals: catalytic transformation of hydrocarbon materials, photocatalytic synthesis, intelligent plastic materials with intrinsic recycling properties by design;
  • – clean energy through innovative materials: To ensure that the Paris Agreement (COP21) is followed by significant reductions in CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions in the short term, the European Union proposes to electrify the road transport sector by integrating sustainable energy sources, such as wind and photovoltaic energy, into the electricity grid. These two areas require specific energy production technologies, as well as energy storage solutions, based on innovative and advanced materials and advanced technologies;
  • – this area is reflected in the following proposals: strengthening EU materials technologies for the storage of non-automotive batteries, next generation thin-film photovoltaic technologies, materials for battery-free energy storage, materials for future high-performance electric vehicle batteries, materials for offshore energy, intelligent materials, systems and structures for energy recovery;
  • – exo-energy buildings: the construction sector has a significant impact on energy consumption and carbon emissions in the European Union (40% of total energy consumption and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions). The challenge in 2018–2020 is therefore to further develop, demonstrate and validate advanced technologies essential for energy-efficient buildings and neighborhoods;
  • – this framework should be translated into the following operations: integration of energy intelligent materials in the non-residential sector, modeling of building information suitable for efficient renovation, new developments in positive energy houses, industrialization of building envelope kits for the renovation market, integrated storage systems for residential buildings, construction of ICT-enabled sustainable and affordable residential buildings from design to end-of-life, intelligent operation of proactive residential buildings, digital construction, etc.

Obviously, even if the expression “process engineering” does not appear in these various items, there is a large place in Europe’s proposals for this discipline which, it should be recalled, has a prominent role but is not perceived because it is an intermediary discipline between basic research and application. In the NMBP program that has been selected, it should be recalled that it is the SPIRE operation on sustainable industrial processes that best corresponds to what has been presented in the main body of Chapter 3, but each of the axes summarized above requires, for its development, to varying degrees, consistent support from process engineering knowledge.

However, several observations can be made from the EC document (2019a): first of all, that of the TRLs (technology readiness levels), that of demand-driven management. These two remarks result in a request for incremental searches.

A1.3.3. What about disruption?

Didier Vanden Abeele and Jean-Claude André sent the Commission the following information for the preparation of Horizon Europe, summarized below.

In industry, reflection on blurring the boundaries between the natural sciences (including the humanities and social sciences) and the engineering sciences is already well underway, although improvements can be proposed. The epistemological foundations of innovation are increasingly based on the complexity paradigm, where interdisciplinarity is now commonplace and must therefore be considered as one of the means of study.

This context therefore requires bringing the disciplines closer together with a view to their implementation in operational conditions and the establishment of a teleological environment that promotes speed. Our innovation and knowledge management model must be reviewed, adjusted and optimized.

Achieving the production of knowledge useful to society requires, macroscopically, two main areas of technology. These “families” complement each other and have interfaces between them.

– The first sector of technological development in the European Union concerns the advancement of innovation and knowledge. This approach applies to existing domains and markets. Technological risk is essentially a reasonable bet that corresponds to an educated audacity based on modelling and exploiting lessons from the past. One of the technologies used in the context of technological change may be the subject of a technological breakthrough, but this does not call into question incremental change.

The major trends (such as those presented in Volume 3) require us to change our ways of doing things regarding: the depletion of reserves, pollution, globalization, artificial intelligence, the public perception of risks, etc. Commodities continue to be produced locally, while higher value-added products can come from many countries outside the European Union. In the evolution of the technological field, these considerations must be taken into account with environmental and responsible aspects. As usual, the competitiveness of EU companies requires modernization and investment in new technology-intensive production segments.

In the face of the “tectonics” of temporalities and market values, these considerations must be further explored. They lead to a review of how the industrial field will improve its usefulness for European society. One of the main features is the introduction of strong multi-annual roadmaps. These models are mainly found in public-private partnership instruments where, under the guidance of market-oriented stakeholders, innovation actors define objectives based on challenges. The problem with this approach is to be able to manage the asymptote of costs and the technical desirability under external constraints in an affordable way.

– The second sector of the European Union’s proposals must concern disruptive innovation associated with creativity and poorly conditioned and/or heuristic problems. This can be summarized as the ability to create new products and/or new markets and/or new services and/or new business models. In this case, it is necessary that there are pioneers who take the risk of using their creativity to provide proof of concepts leading to emerging technologies and new economic markets.

Experts, including those preparing the Framework Program and its annual variations, may believe that all the limits of interdisciplinarity have been crossed and that the convergence of disciplines is an accessible “art”. Publications and newspapers report many promises (with possible confusion between those that are possible, surmountable or science fiction). Their productions often suggest that we are now able to control complexity although it takes time, and researchers and scientific experts are reaching out to others to help move forward. We therefore pretend and remain in fairly traditional managerial models, without taking too many risks (especially with very low selection rates based on the opinion of a large number of evaluators who must, for the most part, unanimously agree on financial support). As there are few elected officials, the quality of the files is not really called into question in relation to the objectives of success, which may lead European civil servants to believe that they have managed public funds well for industrial competitiveness. This door must be enlarged, at least in part, for several main reasons:

  • - creativity (see Volume 3) should be better integrated into future European Union programs, because it involves risky research. It is an essential condition for the competitiveness of the European Union that is at stake because it can avoid technological monitoring,
  • - interdisciplinarity and scientific and/or technological convergence should finally be better taken into account by paying closer attention to the integration of knowledge (and not the current separation of knowledge). The consideration of all the interdependent elements of an innovation object should be better controlled.

In both cases, it is important to support innovation actors so that they become part of this context dedicated to real innovation. This applies to researchers (academics and industrialists) who, by nature, will devote their efforts to furthering scientific aspects, but also to the end-user and/or the citizen, particularly in areas where there is a high demand or social needs.

To achieve the co-production of knowledge useful to society, it is conventionally necessary for pioneers to take the risk of using their creativity to make new technologies and new economic markets available. It must be recognized that scientific cultures are very strongly oriented towards scientific deepening (reductionism), with difficulties in the practice of knowledge integration activities (interdisciplinarity). This situation becomes even more evident when operations move away from reductionist approaches of complexity to areas of high social demand, but which must explore scientific complexity. When working on border objects aimed at the production of instruments, machines, materials and software, scientific and technological aspects must integrate broader forms of convergence concerning uses, major trends (global warming, reserve management, circular economy, etc.), human and economic aspects, and go through integrated work with industrialists to drive and integrate their skills (and those of researchers) as early as possible in order to respond in a robust way that the application need is met.

NOTE.– An object boundary is “multiple”: abstract and concrete, general and specific, conventional and user-specific, material and conceptual. It is associated with an application objective. Border objects are flexible enough to adapt to particular needs, to meet the constraints of the different groups that use them, and robust enough to maintain a common identity (see also Volume 3).

A1.3.3.1. For revisited European collaborative research

The existence of gaps between academic research and shared application can be seen in Figure A1.2 (NAP 2017), which highlights the difficulty of moving from the idea of the academic world to industrial application. The private sector, in practice, operates in the other direction by seeking scientific support in the public sector.

image

Figure A1.2. Between academic research and its industrial exploitation (POC: proof of concept)

Today, there is an exponential increase in complexity and a significant reduction in the time “available” to offer a solution or time to market. This delay, in this global context of constant innovation and global competition, is the most important factor. This is the most critical point and requires the most effort, but it is a key success factor in this general innovation process, which requires the ability to take risks. This is where Europe can play an important role: sharing risks, knowledge and capabilities, and investing more.

At the European level, the follow-up of the research results from different Framework Programs shows that Europe is more effective in organizing incremental innovation. Research results are already mature at the laboratory level (TRL 4 or 5) and the roadmaps ensure their transfer to effective applications. Nevertheless, the relatively long maturation time is a weakness in global competition. Are we sure that collaborative projects that last four years (to which we must add the introduction of the subject in a roadmap, then the final maturation of the product) are the only solutions to take advantage of the available skilled workforce and knowledge at the European level?

It should also be noted that many breakthrough innovation technologies of the same maturity are unable to find a European instrument that is adapted to their need for amplification and their speed of completion, that is to spend two years from a virtual (or logical) prototype to a commercial pre-product. Speed and risk-taking are two key elements that must be taken into account for a new or updated European innovation instrument.

It is time for Europe to put in place such an instrument to address the need for disruptive innovation. It must promote:

  • – speed;
  • – the pooling of the capacities of those who agree to take risks;
  • – support for projects taking into account a combined analysis of risk-taking in relation to economic impact and/or the impact of technological progress regarding capabilities;
  • – research on a frontier that is currently unexplored by existing European instruments;
  • – the added value of European collaborative research, that is complementarity and critical mass;
  • – coordination with national programs.

But the facts have proved us wrong in this evolutionary project – Horizon Europe will basically look like Horizon 2020 (H2020). However, on the basis of the arguments developed above, the two authors clearly indicated that European added value for R&I (research and innovation) should be developed according to two innovation models:

  • – incremental innovation model: this model is the one applied today in Horizon 2020;
  • – disruptive innovation model: this model would support the maturation of technologies that offer high level prospects.

Given the possible mission-based structuring of European R&I activities, the following diagram could be proposed to illustrate the overall workflow between upstream and downstream.

image

Figure A1.3. Proposal of a complementary innovation model

A1.3.3.2. The future?

In 2019, the proposals as presented above overshadowed this aspect of support for divergence. Nevertheless, with the Ministry of Research and Innovation, Jean-Claude André sent some comments to the Brussels Directorate General for Research and Innovation (André 2019a), summarized below.

The objective of this reflection was to try to move away from the soft consensus and to translate into a renewed program the consideration of both the values that constitute the spirit and culture of the Union, but also innovations with more disruptive risks. It is the convergence between these two areas that could give new leadership to the Union, which would simultaneously commit itself to supporting new technologies while taking into account the major current trends: reserves, global warming, employment, quality of life and the environment.

The dogma that is based on the fact that the consumer economy and the accompanying competitive innovation prevail over politics is maintained and even developed as the (only) engine of modernity in a global free trade area, with some indifference to the environment still (Frogier 2006). Moreover, for Gorz (1978), reducing, in the current economic model, should lead to a reinforcement of social inequalities, linked to supply difficulties and the resulting additional cost. The principles of reduction that we will have to explore one day are therefore excluded today; we are delaying by talking about the (circular) economy, recycling, wanting to make everything green, at least in words, etc. It is on this somewhat flimsy basis that Horizon Europe rests.

The peace situation in the West led James (2009) to write the following sentences: “Globalization depends on the ability to create and maintain trust between foreigners, despite distance and situations of legal uncertainty.” Everything is going well, especially since transport costs only weigh on the economy by 3% (Lenglet 2014) and can easily be offset by purchases in countries where wages are lower than in Europe. Thus, as long as we have sufficient financial resources, innovation can take place elsewhere than in Europe.

So, new concepts develop, anchoring the individual more firmly at the heart of the economic system where “freedom” is conceived as a fundamental value of social relations, economic exchanges and the political system. “Objects of desire are intrinsically singular and, as such, they intensify the singularity of the person desiring them” (Stiegler 2006). Ephemeral, free and voluntary cooperation between individuals, with a State limited to sovereign functions, is proposed. It is essentially a matter of continuity, of business as usual (see the very negative Rio assumptions on global warming that are likely to be achieved because of unfulfilled promises – see Heidelberg Appeal 2010). “The submission of mental technologies (all cognitive technologies involving digital technologies) to market criteria alone maintains [operators] in a control technology function for control companies” (Stiegler 2006). The inevitability of progress linked to digital technology therefore leads to a “Darwinian” vision that consists, for the population, in adapting quickly, while accepting, for those who are not able to do so, “pockets of poverty”, the emergence of anti-modernist resentments, the development of flight ideologies (drugs, anti-rational obscurantism, sectarianism and other fundamentalisms, etc.). This market fluidity is real. The lowest cost is the rule (for a given image or performance) (Rodrik 2011). But Horizon Europe cannot fail to try to correct the situation, hence a strengthening of the presence of the human and social sciences in the (rather progressive) innovation processes that could be supported.

Climate change and biodiversity loss are the direct result of the way our economic system is organized in rich and developed countries with a key role in the transformation of matter and the use of energy. It is beginning to affect people’s lives with storms, droughts attributed to it, climate refugees, etc. In fact, it is the communities in the south that suffer the most and they affect those in the north through their migration with rejection. The movements of these poor communities have long organized themselves to solve their problems (including those caused by climate change) and are now asking for our cooperation, but northern citizens and their political elites, mostly white and western, with an unacceptable vision of oppression, are slow to heed their call or are even refusing access to their territory in various forms (The Beam 2019).

Abundance could be everywhere if we did what it takes to create it. An opposition between the Malthusians and these new ideologues, referred to as “Cornucopians” by Martin (2019) (which comes from the Latin Cornu Copiae, for horn of plenty). For the former, with a growing population, the major trends that have just been mentioned cannot be offset by innovation with the introduction of constraints within organizational structures imposing frugality and decline. They believe that technological innovations will enable humanity to meet its technological needs for a long time to come. Dogma is the abundance associated with freedom, constituting a kind of amplified development of the current situation. “It is the balance of exchanges and the creativity of inventors that will ensure the future of humanity, by changing the world, convinced that the best way to predict the future is to build it yourself” (Martin 2019). This is basically the credo of Peter Diamantis (2015), director of the Singularity University1. But how can we invent in a European space where risk-taking is not really supported (Vanden Abeele and André 2017)?

In short, the scenario in which Horizon Europe is part of corresponds to a traditional model of “industrial populism” forcing individualism. It is a structuring of recent but well-known phenomena, of reshoring with attempts to repatriate production, of prudent combinations of protectionism, of globalization and the preservation of certain strategic interests, of support in terms of privileged attention to the purchase of national products, of taking into account the social inequalities linked to globalization (Allais 1999), of job destruction (André 2019a), of the development of “Big Capital”, etc. In a complementary scenario, we could undoubtedly move on to political populism, dominated by the search for self-protection (even if it is a loss of freedom) in an attempt to define a vision of the future in a context more closed off to others, outside the European Union, a specific form of “collective individualism” found in “those who recognize themselves in the same values” and who are therefore “more equal than the others”: with globalization and the intrusion of digital technology, the economic system is increasingly excluding and stigmatizing foreigners (or those who resemble them) and turning in on themselves, which can disrupt the open goal of liberal and democratic societies, even if no state can reasonably live in self-sufficiency. The net growth of the global middle class has led to an increase in demand, but the middle classes of Western countries are subject to competition from Chinese imports, which, for Milanovic (2016), has complicated the political situation and reinforced the populist vision (Avenir-Suisse 2019).

The problems of reserves, access to energy and water, etc. are leading to an evolution of the economic system towards an excessively “cosmetic” mobilization of States, citizens and companies (circular economy, recycling, renewable energies), but now the demand for an increased technological quality of life, while trying to do more by spending a little less, like intelligent mobility and energy efficiency in buildings. However, these progressive technological adaptation strategies will ultimately only have limited effects on the future of human society for various reasons: the likely impossibility of managing both the growth of the world population, its standard of living and the development of technological progress, with aspects to be controlled: water supply and resources, energy, raw materials, on the one hand, and fundamentalism, precariousness and urban chaos, on the other hand. This quote from more than two centuries ago from Napoleon’s mother fits in quite well with our purpose: “Let’s hope it lasts!”

So, how can we do the right thing in a context where the States have not taken into account the notion of critical mass (the European Union), the need to act together (and not only pretend to) so that the European Union can involve the Western world in an approach accepted by citizens aimed at the standard of living and quality of the planet (beautiful paradoxical injunction), while remaining true to the culture of the nations that constitute it and the need for material well-being and the satisfaction of the social criteria (employment, training for example) of European citizens as a whole? As a reminder (Giuliani 2019a), Europe still performs well compared to the world: democracy, rule of law, numerous protections, access to healthcare, etc. Maintaining this course is therefore a major challenge, a condition for survival, which must be found directly or indirectly in this framework program.

The aim is not, of course, to address these major themes, but to show that taking into account emerging issues arising from different forms of scientific and technological research or expressions of social demand is likely to take the European Union out of its role as a follower of emerging technologies, but also to satisfy the political and, in particular, environmental criteria that represent Horizon Europe’s image, through the desired proactivity. The reactive means of achieving these objectives are known, consisting in projecting oneself into the future and into the world, in taking risks with enthusiasm, in short, the opposite of “protecting” oneself or following because one still has the financial means.

This possible transition concerning the uses and satisfaction of a real frugality would lead to another relationship with technological objects, but should be part of the rediscovery of proximity and cohabitation, with in particular a “Reconquista” of public spaces and the quality of urban services. One would then expect a certain relocation of production (made more artisanal?) and new economic models such as the food city, the transition to the “knowledge age” and the linking economy, etc.

The choice of the powerless and this alone puts us in a scale of values where technology no longer has anything to do with it. Lack of power is not powerlessness. Impotence is not being able because of factual circumstances, because of the limits of our nature, because of our condition. Lack of power is being able and not wanting to do it. It’s choosing not to do it. Choosing not to exercise domination, efficiency, choosing not to embark on success. (Ellul 1983)

But…

A1.3.3.3. Consideration of process engineering in current major trends

In this new, multipolar, heterogeneous and unstable world where the West, as well as the Europe that created it, are being called into question (monopoly, dynamics, culture, etc.), multiple poles in search of hegemonic tendencies are being set up, with their own values, with risks for the Union on its resilience (how to maintain its democratic and humanist values), its access to reserves and international competition, all limited by the major trends that will be widely expressed in Volume 3: global warming, the depletion of reserves, capitalism in a global network. It is clear that in this disorder, the R&D framework programs are entering “unknown territory”.

In European Union documents, the objectives of sustainability, the environment and the quality of life of citizens form the teleological basis of the draft program. Leading to reflection on Cluster 3 (digital, industry and space), André (2019b) examined some possible actions that respect both strong social requirements (competitiveness and impact) and the respect of the objectives mentioned above. Some initial thoughts (summaries) of direct and indirect interest to process engineering are summarized below.

A1.4. Concerning manufacturing methodologies

The globalization of the growing consumption of our societies and the limits of the planet require us to answer the question “how do we produce differently?” in order to meet the contemporary needs without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future generations, that is by preserving the environment and natural reserves.

Emerging technologies that could have been more European (André 2018a, 2018b, 2018c) are developing from the concept of additive manufacturing consisting of the local transformation of matter allowed by the computerized movement of a form of energy. This is an important element of the concept of Industry 4.0 (André 2019a). With a world market of 30 to 40 billion euros per year and a development of about 20% per year, these additive manufacturing processes are becoming increasingly important in the production process, but at the same time they can lead to the reintegration of jobs on European soil thanks to 3D printers. On the one hand, this theme is still new (first patent in 1984) with high margins for innovation in terms of processes, redesign and materials (with savings in raw materials and a certain frugality in terms of material use). On the other hand, two fields of application are developing that are not yet critically covered: 4D printing with stimulation-sensitive equipment (home automation applications, robotics, sensors and actuators), though Europe can (still) catch up (less than 2,000 publications on the subject); and bio-printing, another form of 4D printing with living matter (idea of replacing tissues or organs from its own cells). These emerging areas correspond to very high markets in the order of a few thousand billion euros per year.

Beyond this rupture, the question concerns the current manufacturing paradigm, which aims, after use, to eventually recover part of the matter and energy contained in the devices marketed. It is on this basis that the principle of the circular economy was born. In a war economy, as the European Union may have known about 80 years ago, what was needed were spare parts and not the equipment itself. If it is not mandatory to recycle all the removable components of a device, perhaps we should be concerned about keeping with the equipment all the intelligence that engineers have placed in the manufactured subassemblies. If this new doctrine were to be widely implemented, it would make it possible to create reuses based on new forms of assembly/disassembly on robotic bases with work to be carried out on new removable assemblies (particularly with 3D printing). However, when looking at current recycling, it is primarily the main chemical components that are recovered, which often correspond to a modest criticality (e.g. stainless steel iron).

A1.5. Concerning the transformation of matter (and energy)

The production of chemicals and materials are solid pillars of the European Union. European companies already have global leadership that must be maintained (with the risk of supply problems). In a way that is already known, the following principles can be explored:

  • – Sustainable and circular economy: (recycling but also saving raw materials, energy and water); lifecycle and cost analysis (lifecycle value – LCV).
  • – Retransformation economics (production technologies are evolving towards retransformation technologies that allow materials to be reused (if possible) indefinitely by retransforming them on site because they are already as close as possible to users and thus constantly create new products).
  • – Security economics (clean and safe processes): the high demand for security and clean production has become essential for a large portion of the population.
  • – Functional economy (defined as a form of economy that aims to replace the sale of a good by the sale of a service or integrated solution that performs the same or even extended functions of the good, while consuming less resources and energy): in a world in crisis and under pressure (reserves, environment, etc.), substitution becomes an obligation. The development of new functionalities (nanotechnologies, new materials, etc.) must take into account environmental constraints.
  • – Customization (individualization) of products and production methods (for a long time, production and industry were reserved for a few specialists who had built a world in which it was very difficult to enter. The opening of industry to society (“social demand”) upsets the actors of industrial systems by introducing non-technicians (commercial for example) who are just as legitimate as technicians in decision-making. Users therefore want to be involved in the design of these products. In addition, it is essential to develop technologies that make a difference, that is that make it possible to manufacture tailor-made products and thus give an industrial advantage and meet the need for social progress.
  • – Intelligent production technologies (they are sources of significant added value and make it possible to differentiate products and productive organizations. It is a question of mastering the technology itself but also of having the most effective design and implementation methods. Intelligence is transmitted by the products themselves and through interaction with the user. Scientific expectations focus mainly on improving the advanced multi-physical, multi-scale, multi-technology, multi-location models required for intelligent systems and on the development of advanced knowledge management and augmented reality systems that integrate these models into the most effective interaction technologies and practices).

Examples of challenges were intended to illustrate the point: the response to major societal issues is confronted with scientific and technological challenges (lockout). Proposals, a non-exhaustive list, are given as a starting point for further reflection:

  • – hidden chemistry (home automation: photo booth, 3D printer, washing machine without hazardous products, without hazardous waste, etc.);
  • – individualization of products requiring a manufacturing method that allows one to manage a high variability of products (flexibility) with a high production rate on site and on demand. Individualized processes (see 3D printers);
  • – engineering of miniaturized and applied processes in home automation, health, environment and analysis, nutrition;
  • – integration and transition to biotechnological processes (substitution of chemical processes) and soft chemistry;
  • – how to reconcile complex products (customized products with high variability, composites, mixtures, etc.) and recycling: problems of sorting, traceability, creation of sectors (profitability), etc.;
  • – products with a second life: design products, materials that allow a second life after appropriate processing (retreading of tires, design and installation of components from the outset that will allow a second life) or even, without complex separation treatment and that contain the potential functionality of a second life right from their design. Design of the appropriate transformation processes (which transformation, reconditioning processes);
  • – smart materials and products: the design and production of smart products based on IT and sensor developments requires a new understanding of products and production (and recycling) models to meet societal challenges. A meta-product (intelligent and customizable, highly customer-oriented, with features configured by end-users and sharing information distributed in the cloud) leads to a paradigm shift. This corresponds to a fundamental change in product lifecycles and opens up prospects for agile and user-oriented production models, with a significant impact on cost-effectiveness and ecology;
  • – societal impact of modeling and data exchange: the paradigm of product intelligence requires one in particular to model all “perception-cognition-action” interactions between two objects of different natures and to support all levels of interaction, from modelling and numerical simulation to physical realization and testing. The result is the management of complex flows of behavioral, sensory and interaction data. How can the system take into account the opportunity or simply the social acceptability of data tracking (Big Brother syndrome)? How can we empower citizens to make choices that respect their individual and social values? Etc.

A1.6. Concerning energies

Energy production and consumption are unevenly distributed and linked to local ecosystems. Renewable energy sources are often distributed and intermittent, so capturing, storing, restoring and transporting this energy is a major challenge. The most promising paths are then numerous since it is on the basis of hybrid, multimodal, flexible, scalable, economic and sustainable devices that scientific and technological innovations will be achieved. The interoperability of energy carriers, energy sharing, energy efficiency, waste-to-energy conversion, as well as miniaturization, energy self-management and resilience are research areas in which Europe could contribute its full expertise. These areas, such as storage, are already the subject of in-depth reflection.

A1.7. Partial conclusion

A few examples have been presented in a reductive way in this case. They illustrate the Union’s ability to make choices in the context of economic competitiveness, an updated pro-active vision of what research to meet future societal needs constitutes and, last but not least, the need for this innovation to focus on environmental and human aspects.

Society as a whole is faced with important, but probably difficult choices between an addictive “ecstasy” for a continuous, even accelerated technological future or, on the contrary, submission to a countdown for the sustainable survival of the human species, probably corresponding to a future that will necessarily lose many of its technical attractions. In the current state of aggregation between the technologies of the past, current and emerging technologies, the cultural and political changes associated with them, can we decide on a common path between the primacy of business as usual, the internalized recovery of past leadership by locking ourselves in, or commit ourselves in a determined way to solve the constraints of the future in anticipation? This clearly goes beyond the modest framework of this reflection… which has not been the subject of any feedback from European recipients.

A1.8. National strategies and programs

A1.8.1. French Society of Process Engineering

In 2017, the French Society of Process Engineering (SFGP – Société française de génie des procédés) published a summary document on the evolution of the field. This 181-page dossier makes a number of research proposals (see also for teaching). The main elements to be retained are presented below:

  • – multi-scale modelling and control of interactions with equipment in order to design flexible and robust processes;
  • – digitization of factories;
  • – intensification of upstream-downstream cooperation; economy of functionality;
  • – ecological and energy transitions;
  • – openings to other disciplines: human and social sciences, biology, economics, applied mathematics;
  • – measurement strategies;
  • – going towards the infinitely small;
  • – process safety, etc.

One of the original features of this document, based on a national consultation, is the translation of the actions to be taken in terms of challenges, presented in Table A1.1.

Table A1.1. Challenges proposed by the SFGP

ChallengesThemes
1Resource management and adaptation to climate change
2Clean, safe and efficient energy
3Industrial renewal (digital, green chemistry, flexible workshops, Internet
of Things and sensors, new materials)
4Health and well-being
5Food security and the demographic challenge
6Transport and sustainable urban systems
7Information and communication society
8Freedom and security of Europe, its citizens and residents

What this report shows very well is the important impact of process engineering on society because it knows how to respond to issues. However, as in the previous paragraphs, there is little mention of bottom-up and disruption aspects.

A1.8.2. National Research Strategy

Initiated by the Law on Higher Education and Research of July 22, 2013, the National Research Strategy (SNR 2015) aims to “respond to scientific, technological, environmental and societal challenges by maintaining high-level fundamental research.” In line with the France Europe 2020 strategic research and innovation agenda, the National Research Strategy has therefore addressed the following ten major challenges:

  • – sober resource management and adaptation to climate change;
  • – clean, safe and efficient energy;
  • – stimulation of industrial renewal;
  • – health and well-being;
  • – food security and the demographic challenge;
  • – mobility and sustainable urban systems;
  • – information and communication society;
  • – innovative, integrative and adaptive societies;
  • – a spatial ambition for Europe;
  • – freedom and security of Europe, its citizens and residents.

The challenges of the SFGP therefore almost perfectly align with those of (SNR 2015). But recently, the President of the CNRS (AEF Info 2019) has spoken of French research. It states in this document that the President told the MEPs: “you have voted for budgets that have increased steadily, slowly but steadily.” However, at the same time, “the CNRS’s payroll has increased while its workforce has decreased… In the budget, we pay people, we maintain very large research infrastructures. The rest is what we use to run the laboratories and this portion has decreased – it is about 240 million euros today.” The current balance between the resources allocated directly to research institutions and those allocated through calls for proposals is “not entirely satisfactory”.

He asks the question “why invest in research […]. Because we are a great country of culture and knowledge? If I dared, I would say that this is no longer even the main reason. The main reason would be more related to the need to ‘conquer new markets, find new breakthrough innovations, create jobs and value’ […]. It is also a question of the sovereignty of France and Europe.”

It should be recalled that France invests 2.2% of its GDP in research while Germany invests 3%, the United States invests 2.74%, and Japan invests 3.14%, not to mention South Korea or Israel, which exceed these percentages!

Moreover, in the introduction to this Appendix, we recalled these worrying sentences by J.P. Bourguignon on European research compared to that of the United States, with a great dilution of resources. Thus, with a rather soft research funding strategy, disciplinary conservatism and modest pioneering minds, the following situation is quite appropriate for European research, whether in process engineering or in other disciplinary fields.

A1.9. Provisional conclusion

The idea that 1 + 1 can be greater than 2 (through collective intelligence, which is normally interdisciplinary, refers to the cognitive capacities of a community resulting from multiple interactions between its members) is rooted in some yaka brains, which have a mutilated knowledge of the second principle of thermodynamics. It is true that it does not correspond to the simple juxtaposition of individual intelligences from a given group. A number of conditions must be met. The first consists in choosing an objective (management?), the second in selecting the right people for a given goal and the third in making the group operational (governance). In this context, it is not only a question of sharing knowledge, but also of changing it, of mixing it through confident exchanges; it is also a way of questioning oneself. And this takes time, with possible failures, especially since the population number concerned in the expertise or activity is high. However, this time is rarely sufficient, forcing researchers to continue to trace the same paradigmatic path.

In interdisciplinary approaches, on new subjects, the “simple” addition of scientific concepts of more or less independent disciplinary origins does not normally lead to the emergence of a rational path between concepts and experiments. And it is at this stage of generally complex interdependencies that epistemology takes on its full importance, especially if an effective approach is to be achieved. But, if we have the time and resources, it is possible, thanks to well-managed experimental designs, to define this path in a pragmatic way in a partially empirical form, difficult to extrapolate.

In order for this “collective enterprise” to be original and innovative, to avoid its gadgeting (which would constitute a major failure), to materialize the honest and sincere commitment of applicants, it may be proposed to anchor this policy on the creation of creative centers, which may be more or less temporary self-organizations, etc. They must fulfil the functions of awareness and attraction, animation, reflection, confrontation, etc. It is this versatility that would serve as a framework for these groups, which are legible and rooted in physical or cultural territory, but which should be constantly rethought in order to prevent them from constituting themselves into ivory towers or, more dishonestly, from serving only as alibis or false pretexts.

In fact, the consultation of different partners is expressed through a diversity of currents revealing the size, complexity and tensions of emerging fields. This results in difficulties of “cooperation” between highly heterogeneous actors (otherwise it is useless). Indeed, for scientists, there are already power relations between technological, disciplinary scientific, knowledge transfer to society, environmental and public health purposes, etc. These separate characteristics are often based on the appearance of a shared definition. In fact, the expertise required is probably defined at least as much by aims, or as “systems of meaning”, as it is by a field of questions or actual problems or a list of industrial results, etc. The existence of a certain vagueness may be due to a lack of individual clarification, but also to the possibility of exploiting this unstable framework to act in a committed and free manner. In this case, we can expect dysfunctions, even breaks in dialog between stakeholders. As a result, in cases where uncertainty prevails, knowledge of the diversity of representations is a necessary prerequisite for positive and honest exchange action.

Based on the best possible knowledge of the diversity of representations (which should be quantified), it is possible to clarify the role/interests of the different actors, to value diversity and the possibility of deepening reflection on particular axes, but also to seek other partners to balance the constructive and necessarily interdisciplinary debate as much as possible. In this sharing of a significant part of ignorance, it must be possible to assess the uncertainties of scientific and technological knowledge, approximations of knowledge, abuses of interpretation, limits of competence, to measure, at least the extent of unresolved issues and question marks. This approach allows us to distance ourselves from all (?) ideologies, overly reassuring statements, abusive simplifications. But to do this, we must have a sufficiently serene or partially “neutral” framework to dare to move forward… But the neutral aspect does not mean, in the end, a neutral decision, based on the search for a soft consensus.

This is what is expected from the programs, whether they are in Brussels or Paris, so that the risk-taking required finding unforeseen solutions for the technological service in process engineering in a world with an uncertain future, which will need to find concrete ways to address its concerns.

[It stated] that the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government

And could win it back only

By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier

In that case for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another? (Brecht 2006)

  1. 1 https://su.org/.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset