For the past few months, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies has been working on identifying some of the most significant trends in technology innovation.  Published yesterday by WEF, these represent ten areas that we as a council felt are likely to shake things up over the next few years in terms of their economic and social impact.

The plan is to update this assessment on an annual basis

Here’s the list:

Informatics for adding value to information

The quantity of information now available to individuals and organizations is unprecedented in human history, and the rate of information generation continues to grow exponentially. Yet, the sheer volume of information is in danger of creating more noise than value, and as a result limiting its effective use. Innovations in how information is organized, mined and processed hold the key to filtering out the noise and using the growing wealth of global information to address emerging challenges.

Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering

The natural world is a testament to the vast potential inherent in the genetic code at the core of all living organisms. Rapid advances in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering are allowing biologists and engineers to tap into this potential in unprecedented ways, enabling the development of new biological processes and organisms that are designed to serve specific purposes – whether converting biomass to chemicals, fuels and materials, producing new therapeutic drugs or protecting the body against harm.

Green Revolution 2.0 – technologies for increased food and biomass

Artificial fertilizers are one of the main achievements of modern chemistry, enabling unprecedented increases in crop production yield. Yet, the growing global demand for healthy and nutritious food is threatening to outstrip energy, water and land resources. By integrating advances across the biological and physical sciences, the new green revolution holds the promise of further increasing crop production yields, minimizing environmental impact, reducing energy and water dependence, and decreasing the carbon footprint.

Nanoscale design of materials

The increasing demand on natural resources requires unprecedented gains in efficiency. Nanostructured materials with tailored properties, designed and engineered at the molecular scale, are already showing novel and unique features that will usher in the next clean energy revolution, reduce our dependence on depleting natural resources, and increase atom-efficiency manufacturing and processing.

Systems biology and computational modelling/simulation of chemical and biological systems

For improved healthcare and bio-based manufacturing, it is essential to understand how biology and chemistry work together. Systems biology and computational modelling and simulation are playing increasingly important roles in designing therapeutics, materials and processes that are highly efficient in achieving their design goals, while minimally impacting on human health and the environment.

Utilization of carbon dioxide as a resource

Carbon is at the heart of all life on earth. Yet, managing carbon dioxide releases is one of the greatest social, political and economic challenges of our time. An emerging innovative approach to carbon dioxide management involves transforming it from a liability to a resource. Novel catalysts, based on nanostructured materials, can potentially transform carbon dioxide to high value hydrocarbons and other carbon-containing molecules, which could be used as new building blocks for the chemical industry as cleaner and more sustainable alternatives to petrochemicals.

Wireless power

Society is deeply reliant on electrically powered devices. Yet, a significant limitation in their continued development and utility is the need to be attached to the electricity grid by wire – either permanently or through frequent battery recharging. Emerging approaches to wireless power transmission will free electrical devices from having to be physically plugged in, and are poised to have as significant an impact on personal electronics as Wi-Fi had on Internet use.

High energy density power systems

Better batteries are essential if the next generation of clean energy technologies are to be realized. A number of emerging technologies are coming together to lay the foundation for advanced electrical energy storage and use, including the development of nanostructured electrodes, solid electrolysis and rapid-power delivery from novel supercapacitors based on carbon-based nanomaterials. These technologies will provide the energy density and power needed to supercharge the next generation of clean energy technologies.

Personalized medicine, nutrition and disease prevention

As the global population exceeds 7 billion people – all hoping for a long and healthy life – conventional approaches to ensuring good health are becoming less and less tenable, spurred on by growing demands, dwindling resources and increasing costs. Advances in areas such as genomics, proteomics and metabolomics are now opening up the possibility of tailoring medicine, nutrition and disease prevention to the individual. Together with emerging technologies like synthetic biology and nanotechnology, they are laying the foundation for a revolution in healthcare and well-being that will be less resource intensive and more targeted to individual needs.

Enhanced education technology

New approaches are needed to meet the challenge of educating a growing young population and providing the skills that are essential to the knowledge economy. This is especially the case in today’s rapidly evolving and hyperconnected globalized society. Personalized IT-based approaches to education are emerging that allow learner-centred education, critical thinking development and creativity. Rapid developments in social media, open courseware and ubiquitous access to the Internet are facilitating outside classroom and continuous education.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report is one of the most authoritative annual assessments of emerging issues surrounding risk currently produced. Now in its seventh edition, the 2012 report launched today draws on over 460 experts* from industry, government, academia and civil society to provide insight into 50 global risks across five categories, within a ten-year forward looking window.

As you would expect from such a major undertaking, the report has its limitations. There are some risk trends that maybe aren’t captured as well as they could be – chronic disease and pandemics are further down the list this year than I would have expected. And there are others that capture the headlining concerns of the moment – severe income disparity is the top-listed global risk in terms of likelihood. But taken as a whole, the trends highlighted capture key concerns and the analysis provides timely and relevant insight.

Risks are addressed in five broad categories, covering economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological risks. And cutting across these, the report considers three top-level issues under the headings Seeds of Dystopia (action or inaction that leads to fragility in states); How Safe are our Safeguards? (unintended consequences of over, under and unresponsive regulation); and The Dark Side of Connectivity (connectivity-induced vulnerability). These provide a strong framework for approaching the identified risks systemically, and teasing apart complex interactions that could lead to adverse consequences.

But how does the report relate to public health more specifically?

The short answer is that many of the issues raised have a direct or indirect impact on public health nationally and globally. Many of the issues are complex and intertwined, and are deserving of much more attention than I’ve been able to give the report so far. I did however want to pull out some of the points that struck me on a first read-through:

Unintended consequences of nanotechnology. Following a trend seen in previous Global Risks reports, the unintended consequences of nanotechnology – while still flagged up – are toward the bottom of the risk spectrum. The potential toxicity of engineered nanomaterials is still mentioned as a concern. But most of the 50 risks addressed are rated as having a higher likelihood and/or impact.

Unintended consequences of new life science technologies. These are also relatively low on the list, but higher up the scale of concern that nanotechnologies. Specifically called out are the possibilities of genetic manipulation through synthetic biology leading to unintended consequences or biological weapons.

Unforeseen consequences of regulation. These are ranked relatively low in terms of likelihood and impact. But the broad significance of unintended consequences is highlighted in the report. These are also linked in with the potential impact and likelihood of global governance failure. Specifically, the report calls for

“A shift in mentality … so that policies, regulations or institutions can offer vital protection in a more agile and cohesive way.”

The report’s authors also ask how leaders can develop anticipatory and holistic approaches to system safeguards; how businesses and governments can prevent a breakdown of trust following the emergence of new risks; and how governments, business and civil society can work together to improve resilience against unforeseen risks.

Vulnerability to pandemics. Pandemic-associated risks are in the middle of the pack when it comes to potential impact, but not as high as might be expected on the likelihood scale. In 2007 and 2008 pandemics were listed in the top five global risks in terms of impact in the Global Risks Report, but have not appeared this high since 2009. With increasing talk about flu strains like H5N1, I wonder whether the relegation of pandemics from the top-tier risks is an oversight.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are flagged up right in the middle of the risk-pack as an emerging risk, and are one of the highest-ranked risks directly related to public health. The report provides little additional information beyond this though.

Food and water shortage crises. Thee are the highest-ranked risks in terms of impact below major systemic financial failure. And while they are both addressed as systemic risks, failure in each area has clear public health implications.

Rising rates of chronic disease. While overshadowed by higher profile risks, this remains an area of significant anticipated adverse impact and likelihood in the report.

Dystopic trends. The chapter addressing potential drivers of a dystopic future does not directly address public health issues. But trends that have an indirect impact on health thread through it. The impact of the current global financial crisis on jobs, working hours and benefits is highlighted, and it is noted that young people have been especially hard hit recently by a lack of career opportunities. The challenges of an aging population are also flagged. Both areas impact indirectly (and sometimes not so indirectly) on health and well-being. One of the questions for stakeholders posed here is “What measures should be taken today to deal with the changing socio-economic dynamics of an ageing population and a bulging young population?” One could equally well ask what measures should be taken to ensure the health of these two populations.

Regulatory risks. In the case addressing asking “How Safe are our Safeguards?” the report’s authors conclude that:

“far-reaching weaknesses in regulations [suggest] that we may be falling behind in our capacity to protect the systems that underpin growth and prosperity”

This report considers regulation extremely broadly, and spans everything from financial regulation to safety regulation. Yet it also stresses the need for integrated approaches to systemic challenges. The highlighted questions to stakeholders at the end of this section are particularly pertinent to health risk-related regulation and governance:

• How can leaders break the pattern of crisis followed by reactionary regulation and develop anticipatory and holistic approaches to system safeguards?
• How can appropriate regulations be developed so that firms will undertake effective safeguards?
• How can businesses and governments prevent a rapid breakdown of trust following the emergence of a new widespread risk?
• How can businesses, government and civil society work together to improve resilience against unforeseen risks?

Emerging technologies and emerging risks: In examining information on technologies and risks, the report concludes

“globally, the latest technologies are increasingly accessible to local industries, but indicators relating to confidence in the institutions responsible for developing safeguards, including those that manage the risks of emerging technologies, have not shown proportional increases.”

Special report on the 2011 Japan earthquake. The March 11 earthquake that hit Japan last year and the following tsunami resulted in widespread social, economic and health impacts. In a special report, the 2011 Global Risk Report takes a holistic look at factors, events and impacts. This is a case review that is well worth reading from a systemic risk perspective.

Risk centers of gravity. The report concludes with a fascinating analysis of risk “Centers of Gravity” within the five sectors it focuses on – these are described as the risks perceived to be of greatest systemic importance, or the most influential and consequential in relation to others, within each sector. The risk centers of gravity that emerged in each sector were:

• Economic: Chronic fiscal imbalances
• Environmental: Rising greenhouse gas emissions
• Geopolitical: Global governance failure
• Societal: Unsustainable population growth
• Technological: Critical systems failure

The bottom line? The report concludes that

Decision-makers need to improve understanding of incentives that will improve collaboration in response to global risks;

Trust, or lack of trust, is perceived to be a crucial factor in how risks may manifest themselves. In particular, this refers to confidence, or lack thereof, in leaders, in systems which ensure public safety and in the tools of communication that are revolutionizing how we share and digest information; and

Communication and information sharing on risks must be improved by introducing greater transparency about uncertainty and conveying it to the public in a meaningful way.

The Global Risks 2012 Seventh Edition is available at http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2012/

*I was marginally involved in the report as a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies

In his opening remarks at this year’s Summit on the Global Agenda, World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab placed the need for new models to support effective use of technology innovation firmly on the table.

This is the fourth year I have participated in the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Summit – an intense two-day meeting of over 700 thought leaders from around the world to explore global emerging issues and opportunities and to begin developing possible solutions.

On the Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies, we have been working hard on getting the opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technologies on the radar of top-level decision-makers.  Not because we think they should know about the latest cool technologies, but because we feel that effective solutions to complex challenges demand an integrated and proactive approach to technology innovation.

It’s been a tough task – high level decision makers are often uneasy talking about science and technology, and prefer to assume that “techies” will deliver technology-based solutions to pressing problems as and when they are necessary.  Sadly, this is a model that doesn’t work well, and is rapidly running out of steam in the face of accelerating technological capabilities, increasing global connectivity and diminishing resources.

So it was gratifying to hear WEF’s Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab highlight the need for new models to master technological trends in the Summit’s opening keynote.  Schwab emphasized the need for new models in five areas – the fifth being how we handle accelerating technologies:

“Ladies and gentlemen, fifth, we need a new model to master the trend of technology. The velocity of technological change, for which we are not really prepared, will accelerate in an exponential manner, having significant implication on all of us. What is particularly striking, for me as an engineer I may add, is the character-changing nature of technological change. Today’s technological evolution no longer solely affects what we are doing, but also affects who we are. Of course, the internet in many ways is still a tool. But it has also become a part of our internal DNA. This new dimension of technological progress and societal change is still in relative infancy. The other ways of forthcoming evolutions in technology such as genetics and STEM cell technology, nanotechnology, and numerous sciences and so on, will all provide opportunities and threats regarding the ultimation of ourselves. And this raises fundamental moral and ethical issues, for which we are not yet prepared, and for which we have to prepare new models.”

(The full address can be watch on YouTube)

This is an important high-level endorsement to think differently about how we develop and use technology innovation for the greatest good, and it sets the scene for the Council on Emerging Technologies’ work over the next year.

We still have our work cut out – but at least we know that we have the strong support as we explore new models of developing and deploying technology innovation as successfully, safely and sustainably as possible.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.

As it did last year, the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos has left me with a daunting task – how do I summarize the highlights of the meeting in a single, short post?

The answer of course is that I can’t – Davos is so complex, diverse and multi-layered that no single account could do it justice. But sitting here waiting for the flight home, I wanted to capture at least something of the past few days.

World Leaders – world issues

This year saw the usual parade of world-leaders passing through Davos, selling their wares in public, while cutting deals in private.

In public and private, the unfolding events in North Africa, the Moscow terrorist attack and the world economy dominated discussions.

As is fairly typical at Davos, not too much that was startling or new was announced in public. But this is a meeting where off the record meetings and encounters are everything. And given the isolation, camaraderie and personal access that pervades Davos, the barriers to meaningful exchanges are perhaps lower here than at almost any other gathering of the great and good.

As one person pointed out to me – many delegates simply cannot afford to bring their usual entourage, meaning that the chances of conversations that get to the heart of issues – rather than leading a carefully choreographed dance around them – are reasonably high. And of course this is further enabled by the many social occasions that smooth the way for serious conversations.

Business leaders – revealed values. This stripping away of the buffers between public personas and the people behind them is one aspect of Davos that continues to fascinate me. It’s one of the few places I know if where you can get a sense of who someone really is, not who the PR machinery tries to convince you they are (again, because most people end up having to leave the PR machinery at the door). And no-where do I find this more revealing than in talking with business leaders.

It may be because the World Economic Forum actively develops partnerships with organizations that share its commitment to improving the state of the world, but I’m encouraged by the number of high profile CEO’s and business leaders I speak with here who are motivated by far more than bottom-line dollars. A cynic might claim that it’s all part of the PR machinery, which managed to sneak past the barriers. But I don’t think it is. There’s no need for these people to spend a week of their busy schedule talking about how to make the word a better place – and what excites and inspires them – unless they really mean it.

Davos provides a rare glimpse of the idealists still alive and beating in these world-wise corporate leaders. Of course, talk is a lot easier (and cheaper) than action, and these people have to deal with colleagues, shareholders, stakeholders and an economic landscape that doesn’t necessarily allow their true values and passions to flourish . But I suspect that one of the “positive dangers” of Davos is that, having revealed their inner-self to others who have the capacity to fan the flames, many business leaders emerge just that little more motivated to look beyond the bottom line, and toward changing the world for the better.

Global risks – global opportunities

This year, global risks were a central theme of the Davos meeting. The World Economic Forum formally launched the new Risk Response Network, and risk permeated many of the sessions. The aim is to establish resources and mechanisms to respond to emerging global risks more effectively than in the past – whether they are associated with natural disasters, social collapse, financial melt-down or technological failure.

While most of the discussions revolved around avoiding risk or managing the consequences, there were a few that touched on actively mitigating risk – and supporting global economic and social growth through new approaches to risk. These included developing the means to actively reduce risks through technological, policy and social mechanisms. But they also included the need to increase resilience within global institutions, infrastructure and communities – so that when things go wrong, the system can respond and adapt quickly and effectively.

This need for resilience was highlighted in a final session on global risk I was participating in, as we considered what lessons can be learned from events in Tunisia and Egypt on our dependence on and the fragility of the internet.

Science and technology – more than entertainment

Science and technology were more prominent than usual at this year’s meeting. There were packed-out sessions on the current state of science, and on contemporary issues such as the nature of the universe and personalized medicine. Yet there was still a sense that this was entertainment for delegates – a light distraction from the serious business of putting the world right, and something for accompanying partners to attend.

Nevertheless, there were indications that this is changing. The World Economic Forum has established a science advisory council that will be looking at how science can be better-integrated into the program in future years. A number of conversations I had with scientists and technologists – and there were a surprising number of them at the meeting – revolved around their desire to see science and technology rise up the agenda. And business leaders like Ellen Kullman – CEO of DuPont – were vocal about the need to pay more attention to technology innovation in building a better world.

As this is one of the aims of the Global Agenda Council I chair, it was good to see the beginnings of a groundswell toward shifting from science and technology as the Davos entertainment, to making them a significant part of broader discussions on building a sustainable future.

Social media – WEF goes grass-roots?

The use of social media was huge at this year’s meeting.

I’m not sure whether the impact is there yet – that will come – but content generation was significantly higher than previous years. Over 400 delegates were tweeting from the meeting, providing real-time insight into proceedings. Delegates were also encouraged to record short YouTube videos responding to questions posed by members of the public – and many did (including a number of prominent participants). Many delegates contributed guest blogs to the WEF blog, providing further insight into the meeting. And FaceBook marketing director Randi Zuckerberg (sister of Mark) conducted livestream webcast interviews with everyone from Tony Blair to Bill Gates to Bono.

Having seen social media in action at this year’s meeting, I’m convinced that this is the beginning of a powerful outreach and engagement by WEF that breaks the established boundaries of the organization – watch this space!

Real lives – strong inspiration

There are numerous misconceptions about Davos – many of them characterizing it as a meeting where gray men in gray suits with gray imaginations get together to schmooze with other, equally gray men, usually with no appreciable outcome. But as anyone who has been a part of the meeting can attest to, this is about as far from the truth as you can get.

At the heart of Davos is a common desire to change the world for the better. Invited participants are carefully selected according to what they do – not just who they are (even the celebrities are here because of the initiatives they are involved in, rather than the star status attached to them. And paying participants are carefully filtered and cultured to encourage a meeting where common values permeate the conversations.

This is perhaps best summed up in this year’s closing session, where Klaus Schwab, the Executive Chairman of WEF, spoke with Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Economy, Nick Vujicic, President of Life without Limbs, and two of the Davos Global ChangeMakers – Raquel Silva and Dan Cullum.

The topic was “Inspired for a lifetime”. Unusually for a meeting characterized as full of “gray men”, there was hardly a dry eye in the house. (you wouldn’t have known at the time, but I’ve yet to speak to someone who was there who didn’t admit to tearing up at times). But I’m convinced that this wasn’t because of an overtly emotional program – it was simply because the delegates recognized in the panelists a common desire to act to make the world a better place.

Without the context of the preceding four days, the session might have come across as overly sentimental. But with the weight of Davos behind it, it was grounded in a reality that transcended mere sentimentality.

But don’t just take my word for it – the closing session of Davos 2011 can be viewed below.

This is not a science and technology post – which is a bit odd for a science and technology blog.  But I wanted to introduce five people who together shake up the whole idea of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos as being an elitist and increasingly irrelevant gathering of middle aged balding guys in suits – the Davos Teens.

Rather than write a deadly boring post (which this was until a couple of minutes ago), let me dive right in:

The Davos Teens are a small group of teenage (or thereabouts) social entrepreneurs, selected by their fellow Global Changemakers to attend the meeting.  The whole Global Changemakers shebang is organized and supported by the British Council, is committed to empowering youth to catalyse positive social change through Learning, Doing, and Advocacy, and includes over 600 young people from 110 countries.

This year’s Davos Teens are:

Anjali Chandrashekar (India) - a two-time national award winning visual artist and activist who has been using her artwork to raise funds and awareness for many national and international organisations

Dan Cullum (New Zealand) - a guy who has a vision to empower youth throughout the world to make a difference through simple act of wearing the same tee-shirt for a year – as well as working with underprivileged Maori and Pacific Island youth in South Auckland.

Mai Shbeta (Israel) – a young woman with Palestinian/Jewish parents, and living in a mixed religion/race village in Israel, who aims to bring Palestinian and Israeli youth together through peace camps.

Raquel Helen Silva (Brazil) – a social activist and community volunteer for the last decade, Raquel is working to improve the lives of girls and young women in Brazil.

Trevor Dougherty (USA) - an online activist since 2007, Trevor is dedicated to transforming the “me” on-line community into the “we” online community, through innovative uses of social media.

You can find out more about each of them here.

This morning, the five talked about their ideas and aspirations with Davos delegates in one of the most stimulating and worthwhile sessions of the conference.

Facilitator Nancy Lubin (CEO of dosomething.org) reminded us “old” people that we weren’t there to mentor these young people, but to work with them as equal partners in exploring new solutions to pressing problems. As a result, I found myself in a room full of energized and engaged business leaders, social/government leaders and entrepreneurs working with the Davos Youth to find new solutions to serious problems.  No paternalism or teaching or training – just a partnership between great ideas and seasoned know-how.

The collaboration between everyone in the room was electric, and I guarantee that it led to many people – young and old – leaving with new ideas and new plans.

Here and in numerous other places, these five young people are providing input to the Davos meeting that not only enriches it, but has the power to touch and influence event the most aloof of world leaders gathered here.

In other words, this is a model of partnership between youth and experience that is proving its worth many times over, and is ripe for growth.

Pretty enlighteneding for a gathering of “middle aged balding guys in suits”

The Davos Teens are guest-blogging for the Washington Post this week

Read last year’s blog on Global Changemakers at Davos here.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.

Take a metaphorical slice through this year’s annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, and Global Risk would be writ large through every part of it.  Hot on the heels of the sixth Global Risk report, this year’s meeting saw the launch of the Risk Response Network – a new initiative to facilitate responsive, informed and integrative action on global risks.  And throughout the meeting, sessions and conversations abound that are grappling with understanding and mitigating emerging risks in today’s complex and interconnected world.

But important and impressive as this agenda is, I wonder whether there is something missing.

I’m approaching risk at Davos this year from three perspectives: exploring the relationship between science, innovation and risk; understanding the impact of emerging risks on public health; and developing technology-enabled approaches to risk mitigation.  The common themes here are science and technology – both as potential drivers of risk, and as sources of possible solutions.

From my work in science, technology and public health, it is clear that a deep understanding of the roles of science and technology in addressing risk is critical to building resilient and sustainable responses to global risks.  It is also increasingly clear that integrating this understanding into the process of addressing global risks is vital.

Yet this is where the World Economic Forum’s timely thrust to address global risks seems to be somewhat lacking.

Science and technology are certainly well-repented on the Davos agenda.  But I get the sense that they are part of the alternative program – “the entertainment” as one colleague described them.  This is probably a little harsh.  But the science and technology sessions do tend to be aimed at wowing delegates, rather than engaging them in exploring integrated solutions to pressing problems – a bit of light relief from the serious business of fixing the world’s problems.  Even the IdeasLab sessions, which get the closest to engaging people on emerging issues, struggle to make science and technology part of a larger conversation.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m the first to admit that there’s a lot to get excited about in contemporary science and technology.  But if robust solutions are to be found to global risks, science and technology must be integrated into mainstream discussions – not treated as an entertaining but often incomprehensible sideshow.

And that means elevating science to a seat at the table as new solutions to emerging risks are explored.

I realize that this is a daunting task. I’ll be the first to admit that scientists can be an intimidating bunch – an image they don’t necessarily try too hard to dispel.  But until scientists, engineers and technologists are seen as partners in the process of risk mitigation, not just  consultants or contractors, building resilient solutions to global challenges is going to be one tough call.

I don’t usually write about personal interactions here, but this is one I couldn’t resist – physics superstar Lawrence Krauss talking cosmology with music superstar Peter Gabriel.

I was with Lawrence at a World Economic Forum dinner when he bumped into Peter – as one does!  He immediately launched into an animated discussion on the beginning and end of the universe, and everything else between, including the much-sought Higgs boson.

We all thought Lawrence just hadn’t got the foggiest who he was talking to.  But he admitted afterward that he was so over-awed, he just started talking – and carried on talking!

But the really cool bit – not only did Peter Gabriel graciously entertain the conversation; he was genuinely curious about what Lawrence had to say.

Very cool.

It was, as they say, a delicious Davos moment – and a science one at that!

Peter Gabriel and Lawrence Krauss talk cosmology

It’s that time of year again – 2000+ of the worlds top movers and shakers are beginning to descend on the Swiss ski town of Davos for this year’s Annual World Economic Forum meeting.  Political heavyweights like Clinton, Annan, Sarkozy and Cameron will be intermingling with the likes of Gates, Bono,  deNiro, Carreras and a plethora of CEO’s and others as they evaluate the state of the world, and plan for the future.

And amidst them will be a whole bunch of people who don’t live on such an ethereal plane – people like me.

This year’s meeting is on the theme “Shared Norms for the New Reality” – reflecting, according to WEF, the foremost concern of many leaders that we are living in a world that is becoming increasingly complex and interconnected and, at the same time, experiencing an erosion of common values that undermines public trust in leadership as well as future economic growth and political stability.

To address this theme, the meeting is built around four “pillars”:

• Responding to the New Reality
• The Economic Outlook and Defining Policies for Inclusive Growth
• Supporting the G20 Agenda
• Building a Risk Response Network

I’ll be speaking in a couple of sessions on risk, science and innovation in the 21st century, and will be blogging and tweeting from the meeting – when I get the chance.

The big session for me will be on Wednesday afternoon, when I undertake the role of “challenge” to a panel addressing the science agenda in 2011.

I think I’m supposed to be the one asking the awkward questions – the ones everyone’s dying to ask, but is to scared to.  A tough call given a lineup that includes Francis Collins (NIH Director), Rolf Heuer (Director-General of CERN), Christopher Viehbacher (CEO of Sanovi-Aventis) and Ray Johnson (senior VP and CTO of Lockheed-Martin).

I’ll let you know how it goes.

Through the rest of the meeting I’ll be catching people outside sessions and in the corridors to talk about the recent white paper Tim Harper and I published on technology innovation, and about new approaches to addressing health risks in a complex and interconnected world (aligning myself neatly with this year’s theme).

I’ll also be keeping an eye on the myriad other groups, events and sideshows going on here, including the “Davos Teens”.  These are a select group of five Global Changemakers – young social entrepreneurs – chosen to attend and participate in the meeting.  As well as being a brilliant idea (I wrote a little about the previous group last year), there’s every evidence that this will be a vibrant and challenging group of teens who will be making every effort to shake up the middle-age pomposity that sometimes threatens to overwhelm Davos.

Then there are the parties.  Actually, I’m not making much headway into the party scene yet – my attempts to press leading figures for tips on getting an invite to the infamous Google party went no-where.  Even Boris Johnson didn’t return my email, although I did get a reply from Alison Levine – who sadly was as much in the dark as me).  But the week is young…

In the meantime, time to catch the plane from a snowy Michigan to a Snowy Switzerland, and work out exactly what I’m going to be challenging Francis, Rolf et al. on…

Further information on the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos can be found here.  There will also be regular and relatively informal updates on the WEF blog (I might be writing a guest blog later in the week).  And participants tweeting from the meeting can be followed here.

“Technology doesn’t just happen” – people must be sick of hearing me say this.  Yet as chair of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies, it’s something I seem to end up saying rather a lot as we strive to help decision-leaders maximize the benefits of technology innovation, while avoiding untoward consequences.

The trouble is, it’s all too easy for people to assume that technology innovation will provide bolt-on answers to pressing problems as and when they are needed – a potentially dangerous misconception.  Which is why the Council has just published a new paper through the World Economic Forum that looks at how we develop and use technology within an increasingly complex and interconnected society, and how we can translate this into developing timely, cost effective and acceptable solutions to pressing global challenges.

Building a Sustainable Future: Rethinking the Role of Technology Innovation in an Increasingly Interdependent, Complex and Resource-constrained World is co-authored by myself and Tim Harper – director of CIENTIFICA Ltd. – and takes a hard look at the increasingly tough task of ensuring technology innovation helps solve the problems we need it to solve as a society, rather than just the ones that are easy to solve.

In it, we recommend that action is needed in seven areas, including increasing access to intelligence on new technologies; building new partnerships and engaging more effectively with stakeholders; re-examining how innovative ideas are translated into effective solutions to pressing problems; and rethinking the process of global technology governance.

Working with my colleagues on the Emerging Technologies Global Agenda Council, I kept coming back to three things in particular as we crafted the paper:

How can we ensure relevant and responsive technology-based solutions to problems are available as and when they are needed? I worry sometimes that focus too much on the successes of technology innovation in helping address issues,  and neglect to contemplate our failures.  Yet it is where we have failed to cure a disease, or to relieve poverty and hunger, or to increase someone’s quality of life, that we have the most to learn.  It’s easy to match a new technology to a pressing need and claim success. It’s much harder to start with a need, and develop technology-based solutions that will help resolve it – especially if timescales are long and profits are potentially marginal.  How can we change the paradigm so we start with the problem, not the solution?

How can we proactively invest in technology innovation so that it gets us where we need to be, when we need to be there? I am constantly surprised at the blind faith many people have in science and technology – assuming or hoping that it will deliver just-in-time solutions to just-discovered problems.  The reality is that it takes years – decades even – of targeted research and development to arrive at relevant and responsive technology innovations.  Which means that in today’s world, we need to become increasingly forward-thinking and integrative in how we craft and implement the science and technology agenda.  How can we move away from technology innovation being perceived as an off the shelf solution to problems, and toward it being understood as an integrated part of addressing issues?

How can we avoid new risks from new technologies, while also using them to reduce established and emerging risks? Emerging technologies lead to new potential risks – thousands of years of technology innovation attest to this.  As the rate of technology innovation increases and the world becomes increasingly interconnected, we are going to need new ways to respond to these risks if we are to build a sustainable future.  Yet there is another side to the innovation-risk equation.  Technology innovation also has the potential to provide the means of managing or avoiding old and new risks – but only if it is developed and implemented appropriately.  How do we ensure that emerging technologies are an integral part of the toolkit we use to reduce risks, and improve quality of life?

These weren’t the only drivers behind the paper – there were many other issues we grappled with, and high on the agenda was the economic imperative of thinking increasingly smartly about how we develop and use emerging technologies.  But the questions surrounding quality of life and risk struck a particular chord with me, having worked at the intersection between emerging technologies, risks and benefits for a number of years.

Next week sees the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.  This year the theme is Shared Norms for the New Reality, and is built around four “pillars”: Responding to the New Reality; The Economic Outlook and Defining Policies for Inclusive Growth; Supporting the G20 Agenda; and Building a Risk Response Network.

I will be there, talking to people about the Building a Sustainable Future paper in the context of each of these pillars.  But it is that last pillar that I will be focusing on in particular.  Sustainability depends on getting smart about identifying, addressing and managing risks – often before they have happened, and this means getting smarter on how we develop and use new technologies.  The potential is there to do great things.  There’s also the danger of technology innovation increasing the chances of harm if we aren’t careful.  The trick will be to learn how to be more sophisticated, integrative and informed in how we develop and use technology innovation.  And to ensure we are proactive in planning for a technology-driven future.

Because… technology doesn’t just happen – you know!

_______

The Building a Sustainable Future white paper can be read and downloaded here.  Tim and I also gave a guest blog on the paper on the World Economic Forum blog – ForumBlog.org

As I report on the Risk Science Blog, the latest iteration of the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report has dropped “Nanoparticle Toxicity” as an emerging and significant risk.  Instead, the far more generic “Threats from New Technologies” takes its place.

This is a welcome move – but I do have some reservations.

Certainly, identifying nanoparticles as a specific risk made little sense – research and thinking over the past few years has indicated not only how heterogeneous nanoparticles themselves are, but also the range of risks they are likely to present (spanning negligible to probably significant).  Perhaps more importantly, the possibility of nanoparticles to cause harm is exceedingly context-dependent, making it very dificult to generalize about risks.

Replacing nanoparticles with new technologies does introduce a placeholder for a far more interesting and potential worrysome array of technologies – including specific applications of nanoscale science and technology.  It also opens the way for discussions on the potential risks of technology platforms such as synthetic biology, geoengineering and robotics (just three of many).

But the sheer breadth of this placeholder surely makes it somewhat meaningless – how can you place an – albeit subjective number – on the likelihood and magnitude of “new technologies” creating problems in the future?

So while it’s good that the placeholder is there, there is a lot more work to be done in unpacking it, and having evidence-grounded discussions on the potential impacts of plausible and specific technologies.

Global Risks 2011 can be downloaded here. The website also allows the information presented in the report to be explored in greater depth.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/01/12/nanoparticle-toxicity-dropped-from-the-world-economic-forum-global-risks-report/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2010/12/03/lost-in-the-maize-12/ http://2020science.org/2010/12/03/lost-in-the-maize-12/#comments Fri, 03 Dec 2010 19:51:32 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3880

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/

This week I exchanged the maze of academia for an entirely different maze – I spent most of the week at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the New Champions in Tianjin, China.

World Economic Forum meetings are usually rather grand, complex, intimidating, stimulating and serendipitous affairs, and this was no exception.  Built around the theme of “driving growth through sustainability” (a subtly clever theme I thought), it brought together business, government and community leaders from around the world (together with a smattering of academics and others) to discuss and explore sustainable solutions to emerging challenges.

In the words of the supporting material,

“Sustainability requires committing to a new mindset – one that is determined to challenge long-held economic assumptions, rethink business models and explore scientific and technological solutions to foster innovation and creativity within organizations. As the global population moves from 6 billion to 9 billion, it is also a mindset that defines sustainability in the broadest terms, beyond its ecological impact, to develop a more holistic, systemic and integrated approach to leadership. Therefore, driving growth through sustainability is fundamental for global, national and business competitiveness in the 21st century.”

There was a lot of food for thought generated at the meeting, which is going to take some time to digest.  And as this is my weekly roundup, I’m going to resist the temptation to engage in deep analysis at this stage.  But in winding down as I travel back to Michigan, I did want to capture some of the more trivial highs (and lows) of the week here.

At one of the earlier sessions I attended, a rather bright researcher from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) talked about an innovative new product he is developing in his lab – History Glasses.  The glasses have an embedded camera and a single electrode that rests on the relevant part of the head when you wear them.  Whenever the wearer experiences a “wow” moment (in the words of the inventor), the camera takes a picture of whatever they are looking at – so you end up with a record of all those moments in your day/week/year that involuntarily capture your attention.

Being rather enamored by this idea, I thought I would use this week’s Lost in the Maize as my virtual “History Camera” of the Tianjin meetings – capturing some of those “wow” moments from the week.  Be warned though – just as the history camera doesn’t necessarily capture what you might expect, these are a rather eclectic collection of experiences!

Night driving between Beijing and Tianjin. Being driven in a coach between Beijing airport and Tianjin en the evening, I came away with the impression that there is just one rule for night driving in China – don’t hit anyone if you can avoid it.

Augmented reality – who needs it? A panel of four speakers tried to convince the audience that augmented reality is the next big thing.  (For the uninitiated, this is where a real-time image of reality captured on a cell phone, for instance, is overlaid with information, animations, or just about anything else). There certainly seems to be a growing demand for it.  But the question was left unanswered – will it make us any happier?

Water food and energy. In standing with the meeting’s theme, there was a heavy emphasis here on addressing the looming water, energy and food crises that global society will face over the next few decades.  What was surprising to a number of people – including myself – was how high up people’s agenda water was.

‘We’ll run out of water before we run out of oil” This from Peter Braebeck-Letmathe, Chairman of the Board for Nestlé

People – everywhere! The number of volunteers and others helping out at the meeting was truly impressive – everywhere you went, there was someone at your elbow offering aid.  This got a bit much though when bathroom attendants insisted in helping you wash your hands!

Nanosilver bug-killers. Who would have thought I would learn something new about nanotech at a WEF meeting!  Some provocative micrographs were presented of nanoscale silver particles disrupting the outer membranes of bacteria – but because the work hasn’t been published yet I can’t say much more than this at the moment, apart from stay tuned…

More people! At a cultural event hosted by the City of Tianjin we were greeted by what must have been a corridor of at least two hundred perfectly turned out attendants – alternating men and women dressed in traditional costume.  Walking down the line was simultaneously impressive and humbling.

Serendipitous taxi-sharing. This is a WEF tradition.  Heading back from the cultural event I bumped into the person responsible for the Young Scientist program at WEF (an initiative by UNESCO to get young scientists involved in the World Economic Forum) and had a great conversation about raising the profile of science and scientists within the organization.

Smart scientists. On the subject of scientists, I was impressed by the Ideas Lab with Young Scientists attending the meeting.  Each had 5 minutes/15 slides (timed) to introduce their work to a lay audience, followed by breakout discussions on significant challenges and opportunities they were facing.  This is a great format for engaging people in science, and one that I really need to explore further.

Awareness based collective action. In a session chaired by Tom Friedman, C. Otto Sharmer (MIT) introduced this great concept to aid the development of innovation in a technologically and socially complex world.

Tom Friedman’s column. …and while Otto was talking, Tom was furiously scribbling.  After a pause, he noted he was just writing a column – raising a round of applause from the audience.  (If he does write about Otto’s ideas, it’ll be a piece worth looking out for).

Arts meet science. Another serendipitous taxi ride – this time with an arts curator/promoter from India.  We quickly realized that the challenges and opportunities she faces in engaging people in the arts are remarkably similar to those faced by science engagement – and that there’s tremendous scope for the two worlds to come together in innovative new ways.

Day driving between Tianjin and Beijing. On the way back to the airport I had the chance to observe the Tianjin traffic in daylight, and the only word I can think of to describe the functioning confusion of cars, trucks, bikes, carts and trolleys is “organic”.  I suspect the day-time driving rule is “don’t get closer than 2 inches to other road users – if you can avoid it”.

Beijing airport.  Impressive.  If I was wearing my history glasses, I’d have some photos!

The inventor of the History Camera is already talking to a couple of manufacturers, so that’s something to look out for.  The only potential problem is that, in early trials with students, users ended up with endless pictures of handbags (if they were girls) or women’s legs (if they were boys).  Leaving the question – is this the sort of history consumers are really going to want to remember?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

The global financial crisis of 2008-09 laid bare the inadequacies of global systems in an increasingly interdependent world, and highlighted the need to rethink the “architecture of global cooperation” – the idea at the core of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Initiative.  As the World Economic Forum publishes and discusses the outcomes of this intensive twelve month initiative, the critical need for up-front and integrated investment in sustainable technology innovation cannot afford to be overlooked.

If anyone is still in doubt that sustainable technology innovation depends on up-front investment in responsible development, just take a look at the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.  With strategic investment in planning for plausible outcomes, the unfolding environmental and human disaster could have been avoided, or at least substantially reduced.  Yet the failure to plan for the future and invest in technologies and strategies that would underpin safe and sustainable operations is indicative of a naive mindset within corporate and policy circles – that when problems occur, science and technology will deliver timely and effective solutions. 

Sadly, this is not the case.  In the face of high impact and increasingly complex technologies, new approaches are needed to developing the science, policies and tools that will underpin sustainable innovation.  This is at the center of a new proposal coming out of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Agenda to develop a Global Center for Emerging Technology Intelligence – or CETI.  The proposed Center aims to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

CETI is just one of many proposals in the recently-published World Economic Forum Report of the Global Redesign Agenda – Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World.

As Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum writes in the report’s preface,

“Our purpose has been to stimulate a strategic thought process among all stakeholders about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges. This report summarizes and interprets the significance of the proposals that the Forum’s many communities have developed in response to this challenge.”

The ideas and proposals presented in the report are essential reading for anyone concerned about sustainable growth in a changing world.  But, just as the recent financial collapse and the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico were caused in part by a lack of foresight and investment in the future, many of the ideas here assume that science and technology will underpin proposed actions.  The reality is though that this will only happen with strategic investment in sustainable technology innovation on a scale that, as yet, does not occur.

And this is where the Global Center for Emerging Technologies Intelligence comes in.

The full CETI proposal can be read here.  But the main details of the proposed Center are outlined below:

Context

Emerging technologies are critical to long-term global prosperity. They represent the innovation that adds necessary economic and social value to materials, products and processes. And they provide potential solutions to a wide range of pressing global challenges including energy generation and storage, health care, climate change, food security and access to clean water. Yet without better global cooperation on technology innovation, many potential emerging technologies will not mature to the point at which they can be used effectively.

Government and corporate decision-makers are foundering in a world dominated by rapid and unprecedented social and technological developments. They are limited in their ability to anticipate and respond to new developments and they lack the mechanisms necessary to work with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups.

Proposal

The Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will directly address this need. A neutral, transparent and authoritative organization, the Centre’s leaders and staff will work with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations in ensuring the best possible tools are available to support the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The mission of the Centre is to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

Explanation/Rationale

Why a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence Is Necessary

Science and technology have been at the heart of economic growth, social prosperity and improvements in quality of life for close to ten thousand years. From the agricultural revolution to the information revolution, advances in society around the globe have been underpinned by new discoveries, and their innovative use in new products and processes. Nearly 250 years ago, the invention of the Spinning Jenny vastly increased speed with which cotton could be turned into yarn, revolutionizing the textile industry and helping usher in the industrial revolution. The discovery of penicillin in the early 1900’s allowed previously fatal infections to be treated, opening the door to modern surgical procedures. In the mid twentieth century, the invention and subsequent development of the transistor initiated a technology revolution that is still driving economic and social growth. And more recently, innovations in global communication, social networking and information processing have begun to empower global communities in ways unimaginable a few years ago.

Yet despite the clear impact of these and other examples, the continued success of science and technology as an engine for economic and social growth is not guaranteed. Over the past few decades, global economic and social landscapes have shifted radically, leading to new thinking on how to tap into the potential offered by emerging technologies. A growing global population, coupled with a widespread desire for a first-world quality of life, is placing unprecedented demands on resources around the world. Humanity’s actions are becoming uniquely entwined in environmental reactions, redefining our relationship with the planet on which we live and depend. And modern communications are making a mockery of geographical and institutional boundaries that have endured for hundreds and thousands of years. These three factors not only place new demands on how emerging technologies are used; they also rewrite the rules for using them effectively.

Recent attempts to introduce genetically modified foods into commerce in Europe provide a sobering lesson in how easy it is to mishandle emerging technologies. Despite little evidence to the contrary, apparent concerns over health and environmental impacts severely retarded the implementation of a technology that could save and improve millions of lives around the world. Yet these concerns were grounded in a backlash against corporate control that cut consumers out of the decision-making process. And through a socially-savvy media, people were galvanized to say “no” to “frankenfoods” – not because of the science and technology, but because of the way they were handled.

Missteps over the development of genetically modified foods are a prominent case among many where the trajectory of a technology has been dictated by social concerns as much as scientific evidence. It is becoming increasingly clear that hierarchical, evidence-based decision-making is not sufficient on its own to ensure the success of new technologies. In part, the situation is exacerbated by peer to peer global communications, where virtual groups can be informed about, motivated by and empowered to take action on emerging issues before institutional decision-makers are even aware there is an issue to respond to. We now live in a world where an incident in China, or the Middle East, can influence attitudes and actions in regions like Europe and the Americas in a matter of minutes through media like FaceBook and Twitter.

The impact on realizing the social and economic potential of new technologies is potentially profound. Established approaches to government and corporate policy-making founder in the new social order, and are limited in their ability to anticipate and guide new developments effectively. They lack the responsiveness, adaptability and foresight to anticipate hurdles to progress, or to work through partnership with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups – including consumers.

Yet this disconnect between established policy mechanisms and new approaches to implementing emerging technologies is occurring at a point where future global prosperity is more dependent than ever on new science-based solutions to pressing problems.

Providing people with access to healthy food and clean water; managing climate change and its impacts; treating disease; generating and using energy wisely; coping with pollution—over the next fifty years, global challenges in these and similar areas will reach an unprecedented level. Without rapid and targeted advances in science and technology, humanity will not be able to face them without paying a large price. Now, perhaps more than at any time in history, we need the tools that science and technology provide to face an uncertain future. And just as the challenges are global in scope, so the solutions will need to be global in reach.

In emerging areas such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geoengineering, there is growing awareness that a new paradigm is needed if the technologies are to be developed effectively—one that predicts and avoids potential hurdles, develops and implements new technologies in partnership with multiple stakeholders, identifies and addresses possible health and environmental impacts before they occur, and responds rapidly to new developments. Yet there is a gaping chasm between the knowledge that a different approach to policy-making is needed, and an understanding of what this new approach should look like.

This is the gap that the Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will fill. Working with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations, it will aim to ensure that decision-makers have the best possible tools at their disposal to ensure the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The Goals of a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence

Be an authoritative and neutral source of intelligence on emerging technologies and the opportunities and challenges they raise

The Centre will work towards becoming the premier go-to source of information on emerging technologies for decision-makers, the media and the public. This will be achieved through developing a global network of experts on emerging technology policy, potential and risks, building in-house expertise, producing high value/high impact products and working closely with the media. The Centre will also promote accessibility, inclusiveness and strategic partnerships in an attempt to bridge divides that can characteristic advance technologies.

Provide timely information on emerging opportunities and challenges

The Centre will develop in-house expertise in identifying, evaluating and assessing new opportunities and challenges related to emerging technologies. Assessments of emerging issues will be published and made publicly available on a regular basis.

Bring senior stakeholders together to identify emerging issues

The Centre will bring high-level experts and decision-makers together on an annual basis to identify emerging issues and inform a rolling two-year programme of targeted projects.

Publish targeted research, analysis and recommendations

Based on a two-year strategic plan, the Centre will publish analyses and recommendations on key emerging technology issues.

The bottom line here is that sustainable technology innovation doesn’t just happen – it requires sustained, strategic and substantial up-front investment in the knowledge, frameworks and policies that will allow innovation to address global challenges without creating new problems.  CETI is one approach to addressing this need.  But whether this proposal is developed or something else is adopted in its place, one thing is very clear – global redesign will not happen unless we rethink sustainable technology innovation.  And for that to happen, science and technology need to be pushed much further up the global agenda.

Well, I’ve survived my first “Davos” and lived to tell the tale.  I feel I should write about how profoundly important and influential these meetings are (and without a doubt, they are).  But it’s two o’clock in the morning, and I wanted to wrap up this blog series with a minimum of effort before hitting the sack.  So instead, here’s a quick overview of how “my Davos” went (as the phrase goes):

Anticipation: Without a doubt, this was the most anticipated meeting of the last few years for me.  The WEF Annual Meeting at Davos is the stuff of myth – the place where you can rub shoulders with the likes of Bono and Angelina Jolie, where political sparring partners hash out deals, where you can find yourself chatting to presidents and prime ministers – and not know it ’till half way through the conversation, and where chance encounters in the gents can lead to new deals.  I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to being a little excited to have been invited.

Confusion: All first-timers said the same thing to me when asked – working out what’s going on and where is a monumental task when you get here.  It’s not that WEF runs a poor show – quite the contrary, this meeting runs with Swiss precision.  But the combination of geography, snow, security, and multiple meeting tracks – not all of them publicized – is a little overwhelming.  I commented to a colleague in WEF on the third day here that I constantly had the feeling that there was a party going on somewhere I hadn’t been invited to.  he responded that there are probably at least five parties, not just one – that’s what it’s like until you begin to find your feet.

Cynicism: By the second day, I was beginning to wonder whether there was anything more to this meeting than bagging names to drop, finding backers for business deals, and partying.  In all the apparent confusion and chaos, it was hard to see anything of worth going on.  The WEF tag line is “Committed to improving the state of the world.”  They certainly seemed committed to meetings – lots of them.  But was there any real substance here?

Admiration. As I began to get the measure of the meeting though, it’s true worth began to shine through.  There are a lot of intangibles here – benefits that are very real, but hard to quantify.  It slowly began to dawn on me that there’s a lot less hot air here than it at first seemed.  Davos creates something of a safe environment where people can relax and get down to business without being burdened by too much posturing.  It’s also a great leveler. The assumption is that everyone here has something of value to bring to the meeting, and so is worth talking to.  A number of times I found myself talking to seemingly ordinary people, just to discover how extraordinary they were.  Not just the prominent public figures either  – this place is teeming with smart, inspirational people most readers probably wouldn’t know from Adam.  And everyone is eager to talk – I’ve never been to a more sociable meeting.  Sit down anywhere and the chances are that the person next to you will introduce themselves and strike up a conversation.  I thought at first it was because people were desperate to network.  But it’s more than that – somehow, Davos seems to remove the inhibition that usually stops complete strangers from talking about anything and everything under the sun.  When you get used to it, it’s incredibly invigorating.

Awe. And finally, I ended the meeting on a note of something approaching awe.  In amongst the business and political leaders at Davos, WEF – under the direction of the organization’s Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab – brings in a huge variety of other people.  The key here is that people are invited to the meeting who have the potential to make a difference, whether they are thought-leaders, activists, social entrepreneurs, whatever.  The bar for admission isn’t who you are, but what you can do.  This makes for an incredibly rich and diverse group of people.  But on top of this, the meeting celebrates potential, not status.  And to see this, you just need to look at the closing session of the meeting this year.  At the end of a meeting attended by some of the world’s most influential leaders, who did Klaus Schwab choose close with?  Six young “Global Change Makers” – each under 20 (the youngest was 16), and committed to making social change happen.  This is the point I think that I realized how special this meeting is.  In one of the most prominent sessions of the meeting, Klaus invited these six kids to talk about how they see the world, and how their outlook can inspire others to rethink and rediscover their values.  I was genuinely moved – not something that usually happens to me at events like this!  More than anything else, this closing session demonstrated that Davos is not about celebrities or power mongers or networking or having fun – it’s about inspiring people to change the world for the better.

Of course, there’s a lot that’s frustrating about the meeting as well – it isn’t perfect by a long way. But its potential to enable things to happen is real, and it is unique.

So all in all a very worth while trip.  I just need to start working on my invitation for next year now!

________________________________________

For more information on the “Global Change Makers” check out their web page, and their YouTube channel.  The closing session at Davos featuring them can be seen here – but you need to fast forward past the first 60 minutes of the video.  I’d encourage you to do it though – these kids are inspiring.  I should add a warning that the session included the Archbishop of Cantebury, who tended to get a little preachy at times.  But don’t let that deter you.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/01/31/davos-2010-wrapup-inspired-by-youth/feed/ 5 http://2020science.org/2010/01/27/davos-2010-fist-impressions/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/27/davos-2010-fist-impressions/#comments Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:55:17 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2843

Having just got back to the hotel at some unseemly hour (at least according to my body clock) from the first full day of meetings at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, I’m trying my best to be disciplined and write some of my impressions up.  As it’s late, I’ll be brief:

Scenery: Stunning (I’ll try for some photos later in the week).

Security: High.

Meeting: Steep learning curve to work out where everything is, never mind how to get to where I’m supposed to be

People: Surprisingly normal (apart from a tendency to spontaneously “network” – my theory is they have no idea whether who they are speaking to is someone important or a nobody, so they hedge their bets and go with the former.  Pity them when they encounter me!)

Celebs: Was too busy to to notice.  Okay so I did pass Bill Clinton in the corridor, almost had the chance to talk to Margaret Atwood, and shook Lang Lang’s hand.  But that’s all…

Sessions: Stimulating.  Interesting session with folks fro MIT on intelligence – a lot to assimilate there (must confess to being shocked at the idea of using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation – TMS – on kids.  Need to think more about this).  Sarkozy was riveting, whether you agree with him or not.  Dinner with Technology Review’s Jason Pontin was thought provoking and entertaining.  What was particularly interesting was that while the dinner was focused on technology breakthroughs, the discussion gravitated rapidly to talking about broader social, ethical and political issues.  I didn’t even have to prompt them!

And the mitts? Jason asked me to entertain to dinner and I took him literally, illustrating that the gloves are off when it comes to engineering matter at the atomic scale.   The point being that we now have far greater dexterity than ever before in how we engineer matter at the nanometer scale, and this is helping us to make things that work better.  Not too many people complained about the theatrics

More tomorrow, if I can stand the pace.

I‘m sitting here at Dulles Airport waiting for my flight to Zurich and the annual World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos, so I thought I’d dash off a quick blog.  If you’re on the ball, you will realize that by arriving tomorrow, I will be missing most of the first day of the meeting.  This is intentional – I’m doing Davos on a budget (which is why I am also flying on frequent flier miles – but more of that later in the week possibly.  In the meantime, I’m crossing my fingers that they don’t place me in the dreaded toilet seat!).

In preparation, I’ve spent the day pulling my talking points together.  I’m supposed to be speaking at four events, in addition to sampling the delights of the rest of the meeting.

To kick off, I’m talking about science and technology breakthroughs at a dinner hosted by Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief of Technology Review.  With my usual impeccable timing, this is in the evening of the day I arrive, so it’s touch and go whether I will actually be awake and coherent when speaking.  Always a sucker for cheap theatrics, this is where I will be using a just-purchased pair of faux sheepskin mittens for visual impact (at least that’s the intention, as long as I can get them on.  A last minute purchase, I had to settle for a rather narrow pair of woman’s mitts).

Thursday I’m talking emerging technologies and climate change management/mitigation with a bunch of industry leaders.  Again it’s a dinner event, so the chances of me eating a square meal that evening are slim.  The main aim here is to finish in time to hear James Cameron talking about Avatar later that evening.

Friday I’m pitching an idea for a new global center on emerging technologies intelligence, as part of the Davos IdeasLab series.  Should be interesting – I have five minutes to pitch the idea to a group of folk, against a backdrop of five text-less timed Powerpoint slides.  It’s a bit like a sudden death presentation…

Saturday I’m a free agent – unless someone finds out, in which case I could well find myself dragged into something at the last minute.

Sunday I join what looks like scores of presenters in a large brainstorming session on the “Global Agenda 2010″ – not sure what to expect here.

Then it’s party time, before heading back next Monday – again hoping that I avoid that seat especially reserved for frequent flier users and other undesirables.

That’s it for now.  See you on the other side of the Atlantic.

This week I’m heading out to the World Economic Forum jamboree in Davos, Switzerland.  I’d like to play this cool – as if rubbing shoulders with politicians, business leaders and celebs is something I do all the time.  But the reality is that this is my first time to what is probably the biggest annual gathering of world thought-leaders and decision-makers, and I’m just a little star-struck!

The World Economic Forum has been gathering world leaders together to address emerging challenges and opportunities in an informal and intimate setting for four decades now – this year’s Annual Meeting is the fortieth.  It’s a unique forum, where political and business leaders rub shoulders with academics, activists and celebrities as they get a handle on the major issues facing society around the world.  This is one of the few places where you run the chance of bumping into people like Bono, Bill Gates and Al Gore as you get your morning coffee.

Held in the Swiss Ski resort of Davos, a mix of formal, informal and private meetings brings a diverse group of people together to not only discuss the issues facing the world, but to craft workable solutions.  In the 2500 people at this year’s meeting, there will over 900 chief executives from a wide range of business sectors, government representatives from the world’s top 25 economies and fast-growing small countries (including heads of state and government), civil society leaders, academics, thought-leaders and media representatives.

Within this rather eclectic mix, I will be talking to people about emerging technologies, and their place in 21st century global society.  It’s an area that fits glove-in-hand with this year’s theme – “Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild” – but is often overlooked in the social, economic and policy debates.  There’s a tendency to simply assume that science and technology will come up with solutions to pressing problems – my job is to disabuse people of this fancy, and get some concerted action on how we are going to actively ensure science and technology help improve people’s lives without creating more problems than they solve.

Over the next few days, I’ll be blogging and tweeting from Davos (assuming I have any time in a schedule that starts early in the morning, and seems to extend to early the next morning).  Just to avoid disappointment, I won’t be dishing the dirt on off the record meetings – there are rules to respect here.  I will try and provide a sense of my experiences here though, and in particular how emerging technologies seem to be fitting in to the grand scheme of things.

But back to being just a little star-struck.  Glimpsing through the program (I’m still filling my dance card) I see that Lang Lang (the pianist) will be performing, Margaret Atwood will be talking about After the Flood and James Cameron will be discussing Avator – and that’s before I’ve even got to the serious socioeconomic stuff.

I wonder if any of them are interested in talking emerging tech over an espresso…

_______________________________________

As well as posting the occasional blog from Davos, I will be posting short comments on Twitter and the 2020 Science Facebook Page.  I also see that Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief and publisher of Technology Review – will be tweeting from the event (I’ll be talking with Jason and a few others on science and technology breakthroughs next Wednesday).

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/01/24/from-davos-with-love/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2009/11/22/whats-emerging-technology-got-to-do-with-it/ http://2020science.org/2009/11/22/whats-emerging-technology-got-to-do-with-it/#comments Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:00:31 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2437

As this weekend’s Summit on the Global Agenda came to a close this morning, I was left with an abiding impression of a looming yet largely hidden potential crisis in global security and prosperity: A failure to develop and use technology innovation effectively in serving the growing needs of society.

The summit set out to address a multitude of challenges to “improving the state of the world” (as the World Economic Forum tagline goes), and identified many innovative solutions to overcoming them.  Yet in many cases there was a disconnect between the ideas and their effective implementation…

Where the translation of an idea into practice depended on social or policy innovation, there were often clear thoughts on how to move forward.  But an integrated discussion on the role of technology innovation in enabling solutions to global challenges was conspicuous by its absence.

It wasn’t that delegates didn’t realize the importance of technology innovation.  On the contrary, many of the recommendations coming out of the Summit acknowledged the need to develop and use appropriately new and emerging technologies.  But there was a sense that technology innovation simply happens and that, as needs arise, solutions will naturally emerge.

I was reminded of this while listening to feedback from the Council on Water Security, whose members experienced a similar lack of awareness amongst Summit delegates.  When they asked people where the water would come from to support their ideas in various areas, the reply was inevitably “I guess it will come from somewhere” – to the amusement and consternation of the Council members.

The same blind spot seems to exist for technology innovation.  People realize that technology innovation is important. But when asked where it will come from, the assumption is simply that “it will come from somewhere.”

This is as dangerous as it is wrong.

Strategically relevant technology does not just happen.  It depends on targeted investment, coupling outputs to needs, and working with stakeholders to develop and implement appropriate and acceptable solutions.  And it takes time – lost of it.  Developing appropriate technology-based solutions to global challenges is only possible if  technology innovation policy is integrated into the decision-making process at the highest levels in government, industry and other relevant organizations.  Without such high-level oversight, there is a tendency to use the technology that’s available, rather than to develop the technology that’s needed.  And as the challenges of living in an over-populated and under-resourced world escalate, this will only exacerbate the disconnect between critical challenges and technology-based solutions.

The importance of technology innovation – and emerging technologies in particular – was highlighted by Lord Malloch-Brown in his closing remarks at this year’s Summit on the Global Agenda.  Yet there is still a way to go before technology innovation is integrated into the global agenda dialogue, rather than being tacked on to it.

At this year’s Summit, there was one Council out of seventy six that was specifically charged with addressing technology innovation – the Council on Emerging Technologies.  And in a move that speaks volumes about the economic and policy world’s disdain for science and technology, the Council was placed in the “Managing Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures” cluster.  Clearly, emerging technologies are perceived more as a threat than an enabler of solutions.

If progress is to be made, this must change in future years.  Technology innovation is key to improving the state of the world.  And getting it right – targeting research, translating innovation to practice and engaging stakeholders – is essential to addressing many of the major challenges being addressed by the Summit on the Global Agenda.  Rather than burying the Council on Emerging Technologies along with catastrophic risks, illicit trade, pandemics and other risk-focused councils, it surely makes sense to elevate it – along with other science and technology-rich councils – to a place where it can inform the dialogue at a much higher level.

Of course, I’m mindful here that this is the World Economic Forum I’m talking about, not the World Technology Innovation Forum.  But the cold hard truth is that without global intervention, there is no guarantee that technology innovation will provide solutions to the challenges that the Forum is attempting to address.

The bottom line is that whether we are talking about economic prosperity, social stability or personal well-being, we marginalize the role of technology innovation at our peril.  The broader work of the World Economic Forum reflects this.  Hopefully, so will next year’s Summit on the Global Agenda.

Good brainstorms are oft anticipated and rarely encountered.  So I tend to get a little excited when I find myself in one that stimulates rather than stultifies.

Today at the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda had more than it’s fair share of frustrations – including what I can only describe as a masterful demonstration in the art of assisted group-think entropy (sense in, nonsense out). But rather than moan about the negatives, I want to emphasize one of the highlights of the meeting – the Global Agenda Council Fair.

The Global Agenda Council Fair is the part of the Summit where attendees are free to roam amongst the 76 councils, talking about common interests and sparking new ideas off other delegates.  For me it’s like being a kid in a candy store – a chance to dip into seventy-six groups of people ready and willing to discuss everything from the Climate Change to the Future of Entertainment.  Sadly, with only an hour or so available and an Emerging Technologies agenda to follow, I had to restrict myself to two Councils today.  But it was still a lot of fun – and very worthwhile.

So let me give you a flavor of how things worked.

The first group I visited was the Catastrophic Risks Council.  When I arrived, there was a discussion in full flow about the need to get a handle on distinguishing more likely/higher impact global catastrophic risks from those less likely to happen or cause serious harm.  A more rational approach to risk identification and action – it was being argued – would help channel resources to where they could be used most effectively, while reducing anxiety from unwarranted speculation.  The solution – a World Risk Organization.

I had come to the group in part to talk about a proposal from my own Council on a new global center to inform policies on developing safe, sustainable and successful emerging technologies, and was immediately struck by how well the two ideas meshed together.  Emerging technologies have the potential to create serious problems if not developed appropriately.  Yet they also provide possible solutions to dealing with problems from other sources.  By taking an informed approach to weighing potential risks and benefits and taking action, I could see how the two ideas could be highly complimentary.

At this point, a delegate from the International Legal System Council entered the booth.  And the immediate reaction to the idea of a World Risk Organization?  “How about the risk-equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?”

It transpired that the International Legal System Council had been working on the idea of an Intergovernmental Panel on Global Risks.

Who would have thought there would be such synergy between catastrophic risks, emerging technologies and international legal systems!

The second group I visited was the Food Security Council.  Here the discussion was a little more diffuse, but stimulating nevertheless.  The idea of using mobile phones and cellular networks to monitor and treat crops came up as an innovative intersection between emerging technologies and ensuring good food production.  It’s not a new idea, but it is a great example of how new technologies can have unexpected benefits – if accompanied by some creative lateral thinking.

More interesting was a discussion about identifying counterfeit pesticides and fertilizers.  A delegate from the Illicit Trade Council had raised the issue of how important it is to track the origin of food products, preventing illicit – and potentially harmful – products from entering the food chain.  This led to an observation that counterfeit fertilizers and pesticides are a serious problem in some developing economies.  Not only do they undermine legitimate trade, but they often jeopardize the health and safety of crops – with serious consequences to communities that rely on them.  Apparently though – and this was news to me – the origins of fertilizers and pesticides in developing economies are often hard to identify.

There was a clear link here with the potential use of emerging technologies for enabling cost-effective and robust tagging of legitimate products.  Using advances in complex chemicals, engineered nanomaterials or bioengineering, it should be possible to develop new ways to ensure the quality of agricultural products – supporting higher quality and higher volume crop yields, and improving the health and lives of people dependent on them.

In the space of an hour I had learned some new stuff, added value to other people’s concepts, and started formulating some new ideas of my own.  And this was happening all around me – 700 people being exposed to dangerously high levels of mental stimulation!

For me, this was a highlight of today’s sessions.  Okay so the two-hour meeting on reducing ten sharp ideas to eight woolly ones was a little tedious, and working out what we were supposed to be doing was challenging at times.  But the sheer enjoyment and serendipity of the Council Fair more than made up for these.

The challenge now is seeing whether any of those sparks can be coaxed into a fully fledged fire!

It’s the end of day one at the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda, and I’m sitting in my rather comfortable hotel room overlooking Palm Island, trying to pull my thoughts together. It was a day for meeting old friends, making new acquaintances, listening to stirring speeches and exploring new challenges.  As you would expect from a 700 person-strong brainstorm, there were moments of disorientation and confusion.  But even these were stimulating in their own way – rather cleverly, the World Economic Forum has orchestrated a setting where serendipity becomes commonplace.

The real meat of the Summit begins tomorrow, when we start to swap ideas with other Global Agenda Councils (last year I spent an enjoyable hour talking about nanotechnology with the Council on Faith – not what I set out to do, but it’s these chance encounters that bring considerable added value to the Summit).  Today was more of a consolidation exercise – getting to grips with the areas that the Emerging Technologies Council will be focusing on over the next 12 months.

In our discussions, one topic came up that intrigued me – to the point that I made the mistake of suggesting I might follow up on it.  In talking about the role of technology innovation in society, we got onto the question of how technology innovation can enable social innovation.  As I suspect I will be expected to report back on this at some point, I thought I would start feeling out one or two ideas in today’s blog from the Summit.

The role of technology innovation in social innovation undoubtedly has a rich literature (although a quick Google search doesn’t reveal that much) – one which, I must confess, is beyond my reach sitting here at the end of a long, jet-lagged day.  But I do want to get a few thoughts down for further exploration regardless.

Much of the science and technology policy in the developed world is hooked on the idea of the technology fix: Got a problem – technology innovation can solve it.  I must confess, the idea (in a rather more sophisticated form) influences a lot of my thinking.  But this isn’t the only way of viewing the world.  There are those who argue that addressing some challenges will depend on social – not technological – innovation.  Advocating for lower energy use over better energy sources is one example.  Pushing for practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions rather than relying on climate engineering to “fix” global warming is another.

Challenges like energy generation, access to clean water, hunger and poverty are often held up as problems requiring technology-based solutions.  But they are also challenges that can be addressed – in part at least – through social innovation.  In fact, the argument that long-term solutions will depend on social change  in these areas is a pretty compelling one.

But this begs the question – can technology innovation be used to enable social innovation that leads to change?

Looking back over history, the answer seems to be yes.  The agricultural revolution enabled profound social changes, allowing stable communities to develop and freeing people to think about more than simply where the next mouthful of food was coming from.  The scientific revolution of the enlightenment transformed people’s understanding of the world and their place in it, and changed society as a result.  The industrial revolution laid the groundwork for today’s affluent first-world societies.

Of course, it can be argued that these technological innovations merely drove social change, rather than enabling social innovation, although I suspect the line between the two is more than a little blurred. But recent history seems to throw up numerous specific examples of technology innovation enabling social innovation – mobile phones connecting communities and providing access to expertise, low power LED lighting supporting increased literacy in developing economies, and social media building virtual communities that transcend geographical and political boundaries for example.

These and other examples suggest that, even when social innovation is important to addressing key challenges, emerging technologies can have a significant role to play in supporting it – technology innovation becomes an enabler of solutions, rather than a solution in and of itself.

But if this is the case, it makes sense to work out how best to use technology in this way, rather than leaving things to chance.

So these are the question that today’s discussions have lodged in my mind:  How can technology innovation be nurtured to provide tools that enable social innovation?  What are the key areas in which technology innovation has the potential to empower social innovation?  And how is the technology fix best balanced against the technology-enabled fix?

I see I’m going to have a restless night!

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.