WMG STATEMENT at the 7th Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for SDGs

Watch on Youtube

7th Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals

Thu 05 May 2022, 9.00 am — Fri 06 May 2022, 6.00 pm

Friday, May 6th

Special Event 3: Supporting national capacities and the Partnership in Action for STI4SDG roadmaps

SPECIAL EVENT

12:15 PM-1:15 PM

[STATEMENT}

WMG Statement 

Gihan Soliman, BA, PGCE, MSc, RSci, Soil Sci

International-Curricula Educators Association

Presented at the 7th Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals

www.icea-global.org

03/05/22

As we look forward to fully recover from COVID 19; thanks to the advances in science, technology, and innovation (STI), we also worry about the injustice STI brings to the table. Technology has surely enhanced human performance to an unprecedented level yet intensified inequality among individuals and nations. The pandemic exposed such paradoxes in the uneven distribution of vaccine and medication, for one. In fact, the year 2021, witnessed three STI paradigm shifts in the human history, introducing boundless opportunities as well as fears for the future beyond Covid 19; 1) the STI-triggered emergence of a self-replicating xenobot [1], 2) the ‘Human Augmentation’ thinkpiece [2] published by the UK Defence and Military, accepting that technology is a form of evolutionary Selection resulting in an ‘augmented’ existence of the human kind comprising physical, biological as well as socioeconomic dimensions [3][4][5]; 3) and finally, the issuance of the first 1-12 AI curriculum by the UNESCO [6], marking a significant adjustment of the educational system to accommodate our relationship to machines. Despite the improved overall capacity [7], our interaction with technology is generally mediated by a global economic system deeply rooted in Neoliberalism: cut-throat competition and inequality among people, genders, age-groups, and nations. Responses [8] include, but not limited to, a) Transformative education and interdisciplinary research, assessing the environmental and socioeconomic implications of the ever-evolving human-machine symbiosis; b) Media literacy (and indeed democracy). c) Incentivising STIs solutions that boost synergies among people, species, genders, and nations and empowering indigenous women, in harmony with the dynamics of nature. d) Weighing opportunities against risks as we evaluate nature-based solutions against massive-scale industrialisation and reliance on automation. Without systemic change and active involvement of all stakeholders, structural inequalities and human rights violations will continue to shape our post-pandemic world.

Full document and Reference List

Gender Equality in the Era of 'Human Augmentation': Technology Transfer for Conservation, Quality Education & Gender Equality; Case Studies from the Global South

 

A side event to the 7th Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology, and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (STI Forum), to be held on 5-6 May 2022 by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Sustainable Development.

Gihan S. Soliman 

International Curricula Educators Association

Gender Equality in the Era of 'Human Augmentation': Technology Transfer for Conservation, Quality Education & Gender Equality; Case Studies from the Global South

WATCH VIDEO

Technology has surely enhanced human performance to an unprecedented level. Technology may also have its downside in that it intensifies inequality among people, genders, species, and nations. The 'Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm' is a recent publication by the UK Ministry of Defence designed to set the foundations for more detailed research and development of Human Augmentation. Human Augmentation [1], also known as, the Human Enhancement or Human 2.0 is not in fact a new concept. What’s new, and indeed considered a paradigm shift, is that the publication accepts Human Augmentation as a form of evolutionary advancement in the Darwinian sense (as seen in the illustration). A concept that I presented back nine years ago in a form of an Open Letter to the IUCN World Congress 2014 proposing that ‘We Are NOT just another species’ [2] and that the correction of the human taxonomic identity is way overdue; that we are rather a highly-complex kingdom of life, so to speak, comprising a biological, physical, and socioeconomic entanglement that I called the Homocybernetica [3]. The issue with the Human Augmentation perspective, though, is that it reduces the evolutionary advancement in the human organisation to a matter of ‘size’ with an implication that enhancement is guaranteed. It also represents human beings as mere users of technology and subject to its modification, disregarding the fundamental distinction as the ‘innovator’ or the maker of technology and thus overlooking the role of communication and socio-economics, as well as justice and equality in this evolution. Such disregard is alarming because technology is generally mediated by a socio-economic system deeply rooted in inequality and competition and might, if not appropriately addressed, continue to intensify injustice among people, genders and species - and that is a recipe for failure in the long run. The more viable route is to focus on the unity of kind, the role of communication, and the mobilisation of energy into our organisation through social and eco-friendly innovation not necessarily as a moral choice but simply for survival. We need to remember that the first form of technology was ‘making a fire’ and the first form of mass technology was organic agriculture and that augmentation does not necessarily make us better, more adaptive, or more efficient as the expression and illustration imply. Two study cases from Mexico (De la Chinampas) and Bolivia (PROINPA) showed alternative technology integrated successfully into the community with other non-invasive forms of technology to enhance production, social solidarity, and resilience while preserving the environment and species.

Reference List:

[1] Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm. 2021.A think-piece designed to set the foundation for more detailed research and development on human augmentation. Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom.

[2] G. Soliman. 2014.We are not Just another Species;An Open Letter to the IUCNWorld Park Congress 2014,Australia. International-Curricula Educators Association.Available at http://www.icea-global.org/Publications.html. Accessed on 03/05/22.

[3] G. Soliman. 2019.‘Cybernetic Recombination, on the Biology of Technology, Revisiting Linnaeus Kingdom Minerals’ in G.Soliman. 2022.The Cybernetic Animal & the Shortfall in Taxonomy.The Cybernetic Society.Available at https://cybsoc.org/?p=2206&fbclid=IwAR15hpQCu2bpGaaYULVsjjeDy3oklBA6YbZ6zksEOmi5QGXnTlNLuSuFlWA.Accessed on 03/05/22.

Open Innovation in Life Science - Closing the Loop

 Peer-reviewed

 

The first decade of the 21th century has been noted to witness a decline in the pharmaceutical innovation (Kaitin and DiMasi, 2011), with some recent signs of revival (Ward, 2014). According to the Centre for Medicines Research International in the USA, the average success rate of bringing a new drug to the market has declined, since the mid-nineties. Failure occurs predominantly in the later phases of clinical testing, which makes them even more expensive. The business witnessed only 24 new-drug approvals by the United States Food and Drug Administration during 1998 with a $27 billion Research and Development (R&D) cost. However, the industry in 2006 spent $64 billion, for only 13 new drugs, making it to the market (Kaitin and DiMasi, 2011). Some have proposed that the traditional linear model of bioinnovation, is no longer viable, concluding the need for a "fully integrated pharmaceutical networks," (FIPNets/FIPCO) or simply an "ecosystem". In this essay I explore reasons and practicalities of turning to Open Innovation. I also argue a potential enhancement in the quality of input into the earlier phases of drug production, with fungal conservation and bioprospecting as a case in point.

Download the paper