Cover Page

Cite item


Modern innovation policy is formed under strong influence of disruptive technologies con-cepts, which help mobilize support for Science and Technology (S&T) policy, structure international S&T cooperation and system, etc. They are also important for the global processes, promising changes in leading powers cohort. This is why disruptive technology concepts are accented by the emerging economics, especially by BRIC nations. A concept of converging (or nano-bio-info-cognitive, also known as NBIC) technologies is very illustrative. Being originally a part of the USA nanotechnology policy and transhumanistic discourse, it gradually evolved globally with focus on “Grand Challenges”. But, despite successes of technology convergence since 2000s, concept itself proved to be not fully operational, being mostly a metaphor for rising interdisciplinarity and discipline convergence. Nonetheless its revolutionary potential was meaningful, but linked not to technological, but institu-tional and socio-cultural dimensions. Among them were human capital development, changing logic of S&T organization, reforming S&T policies, formation of new culture and ethics of research and development, systemic development of national innovation systems. These ideas, implicitly present in the NBIC concept, were of a special importance for the emerging economies as key factors for their enforced growth and rising quality of development processes. But these issues were surprisingly weak articulated in NBIC concept. Partly that was the influence of transhumanist discourse with its escape from solving societal challenges by technological change of human self. Not less important was that NBIC were seen by elites as a mean to bypass deep reforms and buildup of innovation institutions. I.e., concepts of disruptive technologies represent a psychological sub-stitute for a really intense development. Uniqueness of NBIC is that it makes this contradiction very visible. As shown in analyses of NBIC concept, realization of disruptive technologies concepts need stronger accent on the institutional and structural factors, attention to Grand Challenges, etc. Especially this is true for the emerging economies. Only if complex nature and non-technological aspects of disruptive technologies development are taken in consideration, changes of their role in the global processes may occur.

About the authors

I V Danilin

National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of RAS, Moscow, Russia

Author for correspondence.

PhD, Head of the Innovation Policy Section of National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Associate Professor of MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation


  1. Akaev, A. & Rudskoi, A. (2014). Synergetic effect of NBIC-technologies and world`s economic growth in first half of XXI century. Ekonomicheskaya politika, 2, 25—46. (in Russ.)
  2. Anton, P.S., Silberglitt R. & Howell D.R. et al. (2006). The Global Technology Revolution 2020, In-Depth Analyses. Bio/Nano/Materials/Information Trends, Drivers, Barriers, and Social Impli¬cations. RAND Corporation, Document # MR-1307-NIC. Available at: content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR303.pdf (accessed: 01.02.2017).
  3. Bond, P.J. (2004). Vision for Converging Technologies and Future Society. Annals of New York Aca¬demy of Sciences, 1013, 17—24. doi: 10.1196/annals.1305.002.
  4. Canton, J. (2006). NBIC Convergent Technologies and the Innovation Economy: challenges and Op¬portunities for the 21st Century. In: Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society Ed. by W.S. Bainbridge, M.C. Roco. Springer: 2006. p. 33—45.
  5. Efremenko, D.V., Giryaeva, V.N. & Evseeva, Ya.V. (2012). NBIC-convergence as socio-humanitarian knowledge problem. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, XXXIV (4), 112—128. (in Russ.)
  6. Fai, F., von Tunzelmann, N. (2001). Industry-specific competencies and converging technological systems: evidence from patents. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12 (2), 141—170. doi: 10.1016/S0954-349X(00)00035-7.
  7. Ferrari, A. (2008). Is it all about human nature? Ethical challenges of converging technologies beyond a polarized debate. Innovation: the European journal of social science research, 21 (1), 1—24. doi: 10.1080/13511610802002171.
  8. Frolov, A.V. (2013). NBIC-technologies and direction of it`s development in the USA. Innovatsii, 7 (177), 63—73. (in Russ.)
  9. Fuller, S. (2009). Knowledge politics and new converging technologies: a social epistemological per¬spective. Innovation: the European journal of social science research, 22 (1), 7—34. doi: 10.1080/13511610902770552.
  10. Giorgi, L. (2009). Converging technologies — what future? The views of the science and policy com¬munities. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22 (4), 427—442. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1783642.
  11. Ito, Y. (2007). Trends in Policies for Promoting Converging Technologies Expected to Bring Innova¬tion. Science & Technology Trends. Quarterly Review, 24, 81—90.
  12. Jeong, S., Kim, J.-C. & Choi, J.Y. (2015). Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in? Scientometrics, 104 (3), 841—871. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1606-6.
  13. Koval'chuk, M.V. (2011). Convergence of science and technologies — breakthrough to the future. Rossiiskie nanotekhnologii, 6 (1—2), 13—23. (in Russ.)
  14. Koval'chuk, M. & Naraikin, O. (2016). Nature-like technologies — new possibilities and new threats. Indeks bezopasnosti, 22 (3—4), 103—108. (in Russ.)
  15. Nordmann, A. (2004). Converging Technologies — Shaping the Future of European Societies. Report, High Level Expert Group “Foresighting the New Technology Wave”, Office for Official Publi¬cations of the European Communities.
  16. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015 (2015). Paris: OECD Publishing.
  17. OECD. Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation through Technology: The Convergence of Technologies (2014). Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, DSTI/STP(2013)15/FINAL. URL: officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=dsti/stp(2013)15/final&doclanguage=en (accessed: 12.12.2016).
  18. Roco, M.C. & Bainbridge, W.S. (Eds.) (2003). Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. NSF/DOC-sponsored report. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  19. Roco, M.C., Bainbridge, W.S., Tonn, B. & Whitesiedes, G. (Eds.) (2013). Convergence of Knowledge, Technology, and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano- Bio- Info- Cognitive Technologies. World Technology Evaluation Center. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02204-8.
  20. Schmidt, J.C. (2007). NBIC — Interdisciplinarity? A Framework for a Critical Reflection on Inter- and Transdisciplinarity of the NBIC-scenario. Georgia Institute of Technology, Ivan Allen Col¬lege, School of Public Policy. Working Paper N 26. Available at: bitstream/handle/1853/23497/wp26.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed: 19.01.2017).
  21. Towards 2030. UNESCO Science Report. Second revised edition (2016). Available at: (accessed: 21.01.2017).
  22. Venkatesan, P. (2010). “Nanoselves”: NBIC and the Culture of Convergence. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 30 (2), 119—129. doi: 10.1177/0270467610361232.
  23. Wolbring, G. (2006). Emerging technologies (nano, bio, info, cogno) and the changing concepts of health and disability/impairment. Health and Development, 2 (1—2), 1936.
  24. Wolbring, G. (2008). Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21 (1), 25—40.

Copyright (c) 2017 Danilin I.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies