As you’ll have gathered from last week’s Lost in the Maize, I’ve been on the road this week.  In fact, I am writing this on the plane back to Detroit, looking forward to a quick wash, shave, sleep, and catch-up with family, before heading off to the Society for Risk Analysis annual meeting in Salt Lake City next week.  It’s been a long, busy week, but overall a good one.  I succeeded in getting in and out of London, despite the snow.  I had the luxury of expanding a 20 minute talk to a 40 minute lecture at the British Thoracic Society (we were two speakers down due to the weather).  I even managed to get a bit of real work done.

But the highlight of the trip was probably the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda in Dubai.

This is a rather unique meeting. Every year, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils bring together several hundred of the world’s foremost thinkers, decision-makers and decision-influencers to grapple with some of the biggest challenges facing global society – ranging from poverty to financial and political stability to organized crime to social justice and equity.  Within this eclectic mix, I chair the Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies – a council focused on addressing the potential of emerging technologies to address global issues, and the dangers of getting technology innovation wrong.  We have around a dozen experts on the council from industry, government and academia, and meet via teleconference through the year to identify and address key global issues associated with emerging technologies.

And once a year, we meet in person with all the other Global Agenda Councils in the United Arab Emirates – for the past three years we have been in Dubai.
As you can imagine, it’s quite a meeting:  Around 600 leading thinkers brought together for two and a half days, with the express purpose of mixing it up and exchanging ideas and perspectives – stimulating new insights into tough global challenges.

The format is split between individual council sessions, formal cross-council dialogues, and networking opportunities – with a few plenaries and summing-up sessions thrown in.  Of course, the council sessions are where the hard work gets done.  But it’s the networking and cross-council meetings where the fun stuff happens.

There’s something rather invigorating about talking with senior policy makers, corporate executives, civil society and religious leaders, and some rather smart academics.  Especially when they are interested in what you have to say.  I’m not sure whether it’s the seniority of the participants or the fact that we come from such diverse backgrounds, but there is remarkably little ego at this meeting – on the whole, participants readily acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge, and are eager to discover how they can work with others to address complex issues.

This becomes particularly apparent outside the formal meetings.  There is a unique willingness at the summit for people to strike up conversations with strangers – over lunch or drinks, or just because you happen to be standing next to each other.  And given the rather broad range of expertise floating around, conversations can be both enlightening and serendipitous.  There aren’t too many other meetings I know of where you can talk international financing, religion, technology innovation and space tourism over dinner with the foremost experts in each area!

But of course all this activity also makes it a pretty demanding meeting – especially if you are chairing a council.  On the two full days of the summit, I was working flat out between 6 in the morning and 10 at night on council business.  And after that, I had the “day job” to do – making sure that the Risk Science Center was running smoothly, compiling material for upcoming presentations and keeping up with the usual flood of emails – finally falling into bed between 1 and 2 each morning.

Nevertheless, it was worth it.  Beyond the stimulation of meeting with such an interesting bunch of people, the Council on Emerging Technologies has the potential to make an impact – visibility, and access to senior decision-makers is one of the great advantages of working with the World Economic Forum.  Don’t get me wrong – we are only a small council and so have to choose what we focus on carefully.  But we do have an opportunity to push the opportunities and challenges of developing responsible and responsive new technologies up the political and corporate agenda.  And in a world that is increasingly technology-dependent, that’s kind of important.

But I must confess, after all the excitement, I am looking forward to a bit of sleep.

Before the next round of meeting madness!

In an interconnected world, global issues demand integrative solutions.  It’s a statement that many people would agree with – in systems where associations between cause and effect are complex, you ignore synergistic inter-relationships between factors at your peril.

But when it comes to technology innovation, it seems that the rules don’t apply.

This week I am at the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils meeting in Dubai – I’m chairing the Council on Emerging Technologies.   Our task is deceptively simple: How do we as a society ensure emerging technologies support responsive, sustainable and resilient solutions to global issues, without them leading to new problems? But as we are learning, finding answers is not easy.  And the first hurdle we face is convincing people of the need to think holistically about emerging technologies.

It seems that all too often, for all the talk of integrative solutions to global issues, when it comes to technology innovation integration is the last thing on people’s minds.

I was forcibly reminded of the uphill struggle we face this afternoon, listening to BBC World News presenter Nik Gowing.  Gowing was moderating a debate on natural resource scarcity, to be broadcast on the BBC World Service in a few days’ time.  The debate addressed a specific question: As global population rises toward 9 billion people and the demand for natural resources such as water, food, oil and minerals increases, how do we meet the challenge of making diminishing resources go further?  On the panel were Louise Arbour, President and Chief Executive Officer of the International Crisis Group (ICG); James Cameron, Vice-chairman of Climate Change Capital; He Yafel, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations; Malini Mehra, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Social Markets (CSM) and Kevin Rudd, Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I was interested to see how systemic the panel’s thinking was on potential solutions, and in particular what their take was on the role of technology innovation.  So I was just a little surprised when the “technology count” – the number of times that technology was raised as part of the solution to dwindling resources – came out as a resounding zero.  This was a discussion on issues that are deeply influenced by technology innovation, which revolved exclusively around social, political and economic perspectives.

I was left wondering whether technology was not on the table simply because it is seen as too complex, or whether there was a naive assumption that, as crises arise, scientists and engineers will simply pull a metaphorical white rabbit out of their technology magic hat.

To be fair, the debate was specifically framed in terms of social, political and economic drivers.  But I have to wonder: if integrative solutions are the key to complex and interdependent issues like resource depletion, how can we ensure that technology innovation is part of the conversation, rather than a somewhat optimistic bolt-on?

This concern is fueled by many similar experiences, and is one reason why raising awareness of the need to integrate an understanding of emerging technologies into dialogues on a multitude of global issues is high on the Council on Emerging Technologies’ agenda.

And no-where is this more important than in responses to global risks. As society faces new systemic risks, emerging technologies have three key roles to play.  They can provide tools that enable emergent risks to be monitored, tracked and better-understood; they offer potential solutions to addressing emerging issues; and they can act as agents of change which may lead to a dramatically altered risk-landscape.  But for the positive potential that is nascent in emerging technologies to be realized, integrative approaches to their development are essential.  The danger of neglecting to do this is a potential failure of emerging technologies to lead to workable solutions to pressing issues.  Or worse – the emergence of technologies that instead of reducing risks, lead to greater risks.

Of course, there are many discussions taking place on how emerging technologies might solve global problems.  But they are usually separate from the social, economic and political factors that so often drive decision-making.  And in a technologically complex and interconnected world, this is a recipe for disaster.

In moving forward, emerging technologies need to be brought in from the cold.  They need to be moved up the global agenda.  And they need to take their place alongside social, economic and policy factors in crafting integrative solutions to interconnected issues.  Because the one thing we can be sure of is that if we don’t take an integrative approach to emerging technologies, when we most need a technology “white rabbit,” the hat will be empty!

I should add that even though I am the chair of the Emerging Technologies Council, these are my own views, and do not necessarily reflect those of the council.

Quick update 11/30/10: Tim Harper – fellow Council member – has just posted this helpful piece on the definition of emerging technologies: http://cientifica.eu/blog/2010/11/the-long-journey-from-nanotechnology-to-emerging-technologies/

For the next three days I will be participating in and blogging from the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda in Dubai.  If last year’s summit – described as the “World’s largest brainstorming” – is anything to go by, we’re in for an intense few days.  The summit draws on the WEF’s Global Agenda Councils, and creates a forum for over 700 thought-leaders representing over 90 countries to mix and match ideas on issues as diverse as catastrophic global risks to the role of faith in society, and sustainable consumption to the future of entertainment.

This year, the Summit is focused on contributing to the World Economic Forum’s Global Redesign Initiative (GRI) – a multistakeholder dialogue addressing the challenges of the 21st century. Tapping into expertise within industry, governmental, civil society, academic and media communities, the GRI is addressing six themes:

1. Creating a Values Framework considers the universal values needed for constructive coexistence in an interdependent world characterized by cultural diversity.
2. Mitigating Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures – includes all eventualities and risks which may have adverse consequences on a global level.
3. Strengthening Economies encompasses all aspects of economic growth and development.
4. Enhancing Security speaks to the need for global, national and human security.
5. Ensuring Sustainability addresses human behaviour in the global ecosystem.
6. Building Effective Institutions reflects on the necessary institutional context for effective global governance.

Discussions over the next three days will revolve around these themes, as well as feeding directly into the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters.

Last year, I found it intriguing and more than a little worrying that, while many of the issues being addressed by the Global Agenda Councils depend on science and technology innovation, science and technology were not central to the discussions.  Hopefully this year will see a shift in emphasis.  The good news is that we now have a Council on Emerging Technologies (which I participate in), which will be working with a number of other Councils to help establish science and technology-grounded discussions.

Whether or not we achieve as much integration as I would like remains to be seen.  Either way, if last year was anything to go by, we’re in for a stimulating, challenging and exciting few days.  I must confess, I get a tremendous buzz out of dropping in on intense conversations in areas I know nothing about, with experts I would normally never cross paths with – and experiencing the mental light bulbs flash on as we compare notes and exchange ideas.  And with 700 smart people cloistered together for three days, I can guarantee there are going to be a lot of bulbs lighting up in Dubai this weekend.

Of course, the location helps – but it’s the people that matter.  Really…

If all goes according to plan, I’ll be posting each day between now and Sunday November 22nd on how the Summit’s going from my perspective, so stay tuned.

First thought I have to get there.

Signing off from JFK, waiting for the flight out to Dubai.

Do emerging technologies have a place at the table?

As world leaders congregate in Washington DC this weekend for the G20 summit on the global financial crisis, discussions will be informed in part by what has been described as the “biggest brainstorming on the global agenda that has ever taken place.”  I mention this because a small but nevertheless significant part of that brainstorm involved nanotechnology.

The brainstorm in question was the inaugural Summit on the Global Agenda, organized by the World Economic Forum and held in Dubai last weekend.  The summit brought together “the 700 most knowledgeable people related to 68 global challenges” (WEF’s words) to address two questions…

• What is the state of the world on this issue and how is the economic crisis impacting this issue?  And
• What should be done to improve the state of the world on this issue/region/industry and by whom?

68 councils were convened to address global challenges as diverse as financial empowerment to faith, and global climate change to gerontology.  And as well as discussions within these councils, there were ample opportunities to interact between the groups—leading to sometimes bizarre but always stimulating and thought-provoking conversations (imagine morphing discussions on the challenges of gerontology with empowering youth, or economic imbalances with the future of mobility, and you begin to understand why this has been described as a 700 person-strong brainstorming session!)

And there in the mix was the Council on Challenges of Nanotechnology—the only council directly addressing an emerging technology.

A common theme through the summit was the need for technology-based solutions to global challenges (including alternative energies, climate change, water security, and many other issues), and the importance of sustaining the “innovation pipeline” through the current economic downturn.  And not surprisingly, discussions in the Nanotechnology Council revolved around the technology’s contribution to these challenges—as well as the potential pitfalls in developing the technology without forethought.

These discussions are reflected in the summit’s highlights [downloadable here. PDF, 176 KB]:

“On Nanotechnology, the science and technology of the nanoscale are critical drivers of innovation. The resulting “nanotechnologies” have the potential to underpin solutions to a broad range of global challenges beyond what conventional technologies are able to achieve. Major global challenges that will be impacted by nanotechnologies include energy security (alternative energies), healthcare, microelectronics and quantum computing, and water provision (clean water and desalination even on a small scale). The successful implementation of nanotechnologies could be impacted by a lack of strategic funding, poor education of practitioners and decision-makers, limited engagement of key communities, outmoded business models and unresponsive approaches to risk assessment, management and oversight.”

Nanotechnology may not be the most pressing issue on the minds of the G20 leaders meeting in Washington DC as I type this.  But as the summit in Dubai made clear, nanotech—along with other emerging technologies—will provide critical knowledge and skills to help address global challenges that will still be with us long after the current financial crisis is over.

And more likely than not, a failure to invest now in the long-term sustainable development of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies will only store up problems for the future—with interest.

Something to ponder over as solutions to the more immediate crisis are hashed out.

____________________________________________________
Notes

Further details of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils can be found here.

Responses to the two questions above from the Council on Challenges of Nanotechnology can be downloaded here [PDF, 56 KB].  This reflects work that is still in progress. It will continue to be updated and revised.

Key points made by the nanotechnology council include:

What is the state of the world on this issue and how is the economic crisis impacting it?

The science and technology of the nanoscale are critical drivers of innovation. The resulting “nanotechnologies” have the potential to underpin solutions to a broad range of global challenges beyond what conventional technologies are able to achieve. Major global challenges that will be impacted by nanotechnologies include energy security(alternative energies), healthcare, microelectronics and quantum computing, and water provision(clean water and desalination even on a small scale).

Many emerging nanotechnologies (21st-Century technologies) represent a radical departure from conventional (past) technologies in terms of their development, their use, and their potential to lead to unconventional adverse impacts. As a consequence, non-conventional (21st century) approaches are needed for their development, commercialization and oversight, in order to foster sustainable innovation.

In particular, nanotechnology belongs at the interface between areas of expertise, bringing new challenges to interdisciplinary collaboration, and cross-disciplinary decision-making.

The successful implementation of nanotechnologies could be impacted by a lack of strategic funding, poor education of practitioners and decision-makers, limited engagement of key communities, outmoded business models and unresponsive approaches to risk assessment, management and oversight.

Nanotechnology transcends global boundaries, and will require innovative approaches to global governance to underpin its long-term success.

What should be done to improve the state of the world on this issue and by whom?

Resolving confusion between nanotechnology, and the outcomes of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is a toolkit, or a way of doing things, that is stimulating innovation.  In contrast, the outcomes of nanotechnology are processes, materials and products that exploit the added value that results from engineering matter at the nanoscale.

Educating developers and users of nanotechnology. New skill-sets are needed to develop and exploit the benefits of nanotechnology. These primarily involve bridging the gap between deep knowledge and broad knowledge, and enabling people to interface across very different disciplines. There is also a need to provide investors and users with an understanding of what the technology is, and what it can do. Education is needed to avoid misconceptions surrounding the technology, both in terms of its potential uses and its potential impacts.

Enabling effective engagement between stakeholders (including academics, policy makers, industry and citizens). Dialogues need to be established that facilitate an exchange of information between stakeholders, and enable informed decision-making. Transparency over how and where nanotechnology is being used is essential for investor and user confidence. A key goal is to stimulate a culture of curiosity amongst potential investors in, developers of and users of nanotechnology.

Developing innovative business, policy and financing models for the 21st Century. Going from basic research to market in nanotechnology generally requires more time and capital than in other technology areas, while also posing more risk. Conventional financing structures and start-up business models are ill-matched to these challenges, as attested to by limited returns from venture-backed nanotech start-ups to date. Meeting these challenges will require new financing approaches including incubator funds, participation from strategic investors, and staggered exits to liquidity. It will also require start-up companies and large corporations to consider new, cooperative business models that jointly develop technology applications and share risk and reward across the value chain from materials through to end products.

Enabling effective risk assessment and management. New nanotechnologies will come with new risks to human health and the environment.  In some cases, these may involve risks that lie outside conventional understanding of how materials and products might cause harm. Ensuring that risks remain acceptably low will entail new research into understanding and addressing how nanotechnology-based materials and products cause harm, and how this harm may be avoided and/or controlled.

Ensuring oversight clarity. Clarity is needed on how existing oversight mechanisms (including hard mechanisms such as regulation and soft mechanisms such as voluntary codes –some of which exist but limited knowledge of these highlight the lack of effective engagement between key stakeholders) apply to new nanotechnology-based materials and products.  Where existing oversight mechanisms are of limited applicability, new mechanisms are needed that minimize potential harm associated with nanotechnology-based products and materials, and that provide businesses with a clear regulatory framework within which to operate.

As might be inferred from this piece, and in the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the Council on Challenges of Nanotechnology.