and to the processes of implementing these policies. The term "social" is used here broadly to refer to human soci­ety. Political stability is an important factor that influences the direct and indirect drivers of agricultural development. Civil strife and internal and cross-border conflicts and wars can have a considerable negative impact on agricultural production.
     It is very difficult to assess potential changes in sociopo­litical drivers. In North America and Europe, the main un­certainties are the integration of Eastern European countries in the EU and the situation in the CIS. How will the political regime evolve? What will be the relationships among the states? One of the main problems in relations between Rus­sia and the European Union (EU) is the absence of strate­gic goals. Russia, having played a critical role in ending the Cold War, has neither found its place in the strategy of EU expansion nor in that of NATO. In 2007, the active Part­nership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between Russia and the EU, which both sides agree has become outdated and is no longer able to meet today's challenges, is due to expire. The form that any new legal, contractual basis for relations between Russia and the EU may take will have implications not only for stability within Europe, but also for Russia's democratic future (Arbatova, 2007). The future relationship of Russia with the USA is also an important uncertainty.

5.3 Key Direct Drivers for Knowledge, Science and Technology (KST): Uncertainties and Consequences for AKST

5.3.1 Transformation in models of knowledge production: trends and uncertainties

5.3.1.1 Trends
Knowledge is defined today as a learning and cognitive ca­pacity. Most importantly, it has to be apprehended in action. This implies a fundamental distinction between information and knowledge. Traditionally a distinction is made between implicit knowledge (e.g., daily life or common sense knowl­edge, experience knowledge, local or indigenous knowledge, action knowledge) and explicit knowledge (practical, theo­retical or creative knowledge). Other typologies emphasize the context in which knowledge is used, as defined by the knowledge itself (normative  and  descriptive knowledge, strategic and operative knowledge, scientific and empirical knowledge, past- and future-oriented knowledge). Finally, certain authors focus more on the modes of inscription of knowledge,  and thus  distinguish  between:   "embrained" knowledge   (based  on  certain  conceptual  and  cognitive skills),   embodied   knowledge,   "encultured"   knowledge (built up in the processes of socialization that lead to shared forms of understanding), embedded knowledge (in systemic routines) and encoded knowledge (which can be considered as equivalent to information) (Amin and Cohendet, 2004).
     New forms of knowledge production and new concepts are appearing. We will briefly mention them as they are of­ten used in discussions of future research systems: Mode 1 and Mode 2. "Mode 1 refers to a form of knowl­
     edge production, a complex of ideas, methods, values, and norms that has grown to control the diffusion of

the Newtonian (empirical and mathematical physics) model to more and more fields of enquiry and ensure its compliance with what is considered sound scientific practice. Mode 1 is ... the cognitive and social norm which must be followed in the production, legitima­tion and diffusion of knowledge." "In Mode 1 prob­lems are set and solved in a context governed by the, largely academic, interests of a specific community. By contrast, Mode 2 knowledge is carried out in a con­text of application. Mode 1 is disciplinary while Mode 2 is transdisciplinary. Mode 1 is characterized by ho­mogeneity, Mode 2 by heterogeneity. Organizationally, Mode 1 is hierarchical and tends to preserve its form, while Mode 2 is more heterarchical and transient. Each employs a different type of quality control. In compari­son with Mode 1, Mode 2 is more socially accountable and reflexive. It includes a wider, more temporary and heterogeneous set of practitioners, collaborating on a problem defined in a specific and localized context." (Gibbons et al., 1994).
Collective intelligence (or Mode 3). This concept is the subject of a lively ongoing discussion, but a working definition is that "collective intelligence is the capacity of human communities to cooperate intellectually in creation, innovation and invention" (Lévy, 2000). This type of general definition only helps to specify the dis-tinctiveness of how "collective intelligence" produces knowledge by stressing how it differs from the lone re­searcher in Mode 1 or the purposeful process in Mode 2 (cited by Akrich and Miller, 2007).
Triple Helix. The "Triple Helix" model (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz,   1998)  implies  university-industry-govern­ment relations.  It is developing, though at unequal speed depending on the country.
Platform model. The notion of platform devised by Keat­ing and Cambrosio (Keating and Cambrosio, 2003) attempts to formalize the attributes of a network in­sofar as it connects a set of devices, tools, instruments, technologies and discourses which are used by a hetero­geneous group of people, ranging from basic scientists to engineers and users, to pursue a specific goal. The heterogeneity of this grouping may lead to the pro­duction of new research "entities", new technologies and new practices, in short, transdisciplinary built-in innovation.
Frontier research. This concept has been devised by experts of the European Commission to characterize the fast-growing space which is at the intersection between ba­sic and applied research. Its position at the forefront of knowledge creation makes frontier research an in­trinsically risky endeavor that involves the pursuit of questions without regard for established disciplinary boundaries or national borders.

Questions of intellectual property are linked to the transfor­mation of knowledge production and are equally important. The development of the Web and electronic communication tools facilitates the circulation and also the production of knowledge. This process can be far more flexible than it used to be in traditional research settings and can involve non-professional researchers thus leading to new forms