Prime was initiated around the need to re-question central frameworks underlying policy shaping. We wanted to readdress the central assumptions of:
(i) two main types of sciences (small vs. big) as grounding policy and institutional frames with big facilities and central coordination on one side, bottom-up investigator driven dynamics and funding agencies on the other; and
(ii) two modes of knowledge circulation (linear vs. interactive) driving to two conceptions of national systems (OECD type 1 with 1960s ‘politiques scientifiques et techniques’ and OECD type 2, associated with national systems of innovation).

The entrance point was the framework proposed by A. Bonaccorsi on search regimes which proposes 3 abstract characteristics (rate of growth, degree of convergence or divergence in directions proposed, nature of complementarities). The central hypothesis which has been progressively shaped (see in background document to the Bonn conference) is that there are simultaneously different knowledge dynamics at work that require different institutional settings and policy arrangements.

One project was thus focused on nano science and technologies, in order to test whether this emerging field witnessed, as suggested by most recent policy developments, similar features as biotechnologies. The Nanodistrict project hypothesised and demonstrated three major differences: (i) a strong involvement of incumbent large firms (as compared to a central role of start-up firms), (ii) very important institutional complementarities (industry-university links) on top of classical cognitive complementarities (interdisciplinary projects), and (iii) a renewed role of facilities (less in the form of one central equipment than as ‘technology platforms’ gathering a range of mid-size equipments). This explains the important concentration found in a limited number of ‘nanodistricts’ worldwide. First results have been presented in multiple conferences, given rise to a special issue of Research Policy (2007) and been instrumental in organising a dedicated winter school (2008). Future expected results deal with the establishment of a nano trendchart (with the support of national funding), with a better characterisation of ‘nanodistricts’ (or clusters or poles) and with a further delineation of firm involvement.

The other central project (ERA dynamics) deals with the European dimensions of this hypothesis. “One size does not fit all” becomes a quite familiar wording in the on-going discussions about research and innovation policies and about the need and forms of Europeanisation. The ERA should thus take different forms depending upon disciplines, fields, domains or sectors (this fuzzy delineation is at the core of the work to be done). This exploratory project has 3 objectives: (i) to develop indicators enabling the identification of given search regimes and their characteristics; (ii) to develop a conceptual framework which integrates ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (societal) pressures of change, and (iii) explore further the interactive relations between knowledge and institutional dynamics. This drives the project to be clearly associated with our fourth major theme of inquiry, evolving governance.

Developments, though preliminary, have been interesting enough to drive the 2 successive 2007 presidencies to co-organise with PRIME workshops on the topic gathering researchers and policymakers (both witnessed the participation of the respective secretary of state in charge of research, Frieder Meyer-Krahmer and Manuel Heitor). Similarly one can see a mark of the interest raised in the preparatory discussions of the 2007 Commission Green paper, as well as in the presentations made by 2 of the expert groups at the 2007 Lisbon conference discussing the future of the ERA (LEG and ERA Rationales Groups). We consider the recent report of the panel chaired by Luke Georghiou as demonstrating the percolation of PRIME work in policy decision-making circles.