Can we work towards and AI for "Inclusive" Good?

In my childhood home in Delhi, in my father's meditation room was a framed picture of Mahatma Gandhi, with his talisman written in beautiful calligraphy under it: 

 "I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her].“ - Mahatma Gandhi 

 The face that comes before my eyes whenever I am in a space of doubt is that of a poverty stricken, yet dignified, young female farmer in India. I met her only briefly as I was conducting surveys among farmers in remote rural regions of India during my Ph.D. field work She came and sat on the floor in front of me, with her hands folded – “can you help me get access to money for my food and for seeds for the next season’s crop?” I will not reveal her real name, but will refer to her as Sumi. 

  The memory of Sumi's face is enough to eliminate all doubts and bring me back at my work desk at all odd hours of the day or night. The fields of my research focus may, at first glace, appear to have changed rapidly over the last 10 years - from traditional knowledge, to patent law, to plant variety protection, to blockchain and now to ethical issues in AI and Earth Observations. But the power that pulls me and keeps me going in any and all of these fields of research is the power of that face - the power of the circumstances that the weakest and poorest segments of our society live in, endure, suffer, and some even flourish in, in their own resilient ways. 

 My research always starts with this question - how can this work positively impact the life of Sumi and millions like her? If and once I find an answer, I also find endless motivation and energy. As the world becomes increasingly aware of the need to steer research in emerging technologies in the direction of good, with due emphasis on ethics, I ask myself, can it also be steered in the direction of inclusive good? Good for all? Even those living in the remotest regions of the world? How many AI and Blockchain usecases are aimed at benefitting the poorest, including them in the mainstream, giving them a political voice, or even to putting a dignified two meals on their plates without having them resort to begging? 

  I fear the answer may be "not enough". Yet, these emerging technologies have the potential to lead the world towards more inclusive justice. Ethics and mindfulness, while having become buzz words in the AI era, need to now also become more inclusive in their content and focus. There can be no ethics in the broader sense and from a larger perspective, unless adequate attention is (also) given to the development of the poorest segments of society. With billions of dollars being given for AI research and innovation, governments and funding agencies need to ensure that a clear and sizeable portion of the research funds goes towards the inclusion of the poor - with dignity and not as charity. 

 As I surveyed scores of farmers across some of the poorest regions of India, what I noticed frequently was that no matter how poor, they all have a clear understanding of what is going on on their fields. They also have incredible insight on the impact of chemical intensive farming on their lands and on their health. But they feel helpless in the face of the sheer pressure to adopt and maintain "high yeilds" in a chemical intensive and chemical driven environment. Caught between debt traps and increasingly unproductive soil conditions, they are driven away from their farms, towards a life of labour either on another (rich) farm, or to the cities and slum life. 

  It is said that charity too can be classified, ranging from lowest to highest classifications, based on the type and duration of impact. While giving money or food in charity is good, it is classified in a lower category, as both food and money will last only for a very short duration - perhaps only till the next meal (depending on what the money is used for). But giving knowledge is the highest charity. If education can be imparted to these farmers on how to revive their fields, stop being reliant on expensive chemical inputs and become entrepreneurs and innovators on their own fields, saving and sharing their own farm saved seeds, and sharing their know-how, for a small price, with researchers or other farmers who are in similar farming conditions, our poor farmer/laborer community can be converted to a proud and productive force of innovators. 

  I have spoken and written about this earlier in this post, and subsequently, Natalie, our post-doctoral researcher for a UK funded project also published a paper on this idea. But what needs considerable deliberation and hard work is HOW. In our position paper to the government of India (see here), we have recommended a three pronged approach to accomplishing this goal. These prongs are: 

(i) reviving traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) systems; 

(ii) educating farmers and rural agricultural extension officers on means of useing these TEK systems on farm to sustainably increase profits and productivity, and become providers of know-how and materials rather than mere takers, and 

(iii) develop and implement an AI and blockchain or distributed ledger backed solution to ensure equitable, transparent and traceable transfer of know-how and materials from farmers (grassroots) to diverse stakeholders. 

These prongs, if implemented, would help diversity directions of value and knowledge flows and give back dignity to small and marginal farmers engaged in sustainable agriculture using indigeneous seeds and local biodiversity. Earth Observation and Remote Sensing data can further support payments for sustainable agriculture that revives and improves agrobiodiversity in situ - this incentiving such activities that bring both environmental and economic gains to small farmers. 

 Regulations in Europe are changing to facilitate sales of so called "heterogenous materials", i.e. seeds that are not uniform, but genetically diverse and variable. Such seeds have been found to be more resilient to climate change as well as to biotic and abiotic stresses. Through EO, AI and Blockchain, one can track the progression and climatic impact of these farming systems on one hand, and incentivize optimal and increasing adoption of sustainable farming methods by more and more farmers (especially small and marginal farmers) - for their own beenfit and for the benefit of the environment and biodiversity. Policy and regulatory changes the world over should finance, support and promote the creation, improvement, dissemination and adoption of such technologies. 

Only then can we say that we are truly using state of the art technologies, not just for "good", but for inclusive good.

Sustainable Seed Innovations: Concept and agenda for the forthcoming conference and multi-disciplinary, research based position paper for the Government of India

Its been a while since Prof. Gregory Radick (University of Leeds) and I, together with our wonderful post-doctoral research associate, Natalie Kopytko and our global NGO partners, the Art of Living Foundation, won funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). The research fund was granted to conduct multi-disciplinary research on means of promoting sustainable seed innovations by small farmers and to organize a multi-stakeholder conference/roundtable putting my Ph.D. research as well as Greg Radick's theoretical framework of IP-Broad, to test in real life, practical settings (the "Sustainable Seed Innovation Project 1.0"). After the excellent conference discussions, on the request of participating farmers, policy makers and other stakeholders, the research team, led by Greg Radick and myself, have made several concrete recommendations on how to make sustainable seed innovations by small farmers not only a reality, but also a reality that brings actual economic benefits to farmers and rural communities, while also promoting in situ agrobiodiversity conservation and maintaining the culture of seed saving and seed exchange. We are delighted to announce that we have now recieved additional funding from the UK Global Challenges Research Fund to accelarate the impact of our research by compiling a position paper based on our follow on research for the Government of India and organizing a follow on conference to publicly discuss and widely disseminate the recommendations of paper with the aim of bringing about practical change on the ground. Here we describe the concept and agenda of the Sustainable Seed Innovation Project 2.0.


Sustainable Seed Innovation Project 2.0: Concept Note and Agenda

Gregory Radick and Mrinalini Kochupillai

30 March 2019

I Background

How can government policy in India – in particular, around intellectual property (IP) rights – incentivize innovation with indigenous varieties of seeds and other propagating materials? That was the question investigated in 2017 by a 9-month UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project led by Principal Investigator Gregory Radick and Co-Investigator Mrinalini Kochupillai, in collaboration with the Art of Living (AoL) Foundation – a Bangalore-based worldwide charity with a strong commitment to promoting sustainable development – and Post Doctoral Research Associate (PDRA) Natalie Kopytko, whose paper on the project research is currently in preparation (together, the ‘Research Team’).
The question is an important one because, unlike the environmentally and socially damaging varieties imported during the ’Green Revolution,’ indigenous varieties have been adapted for growth in local soils, climates, and human skill sets. As such, their promotion also has the potential to give struggling farming communities a distinctive commercial niche and a renewed sense of dignity. Through interviews with farmers and their representatives across India, culminating in the Sustainable Seed Innovations Conference 1.0 (‘SSI 1.0’) in September 2017 bringing together academics, farmers, lawyers, and government officials, the project has generated a set of new proposals for maximizing public credit for individuals (farmers, especially small farmers) and farmer groups who innovate with indigenous seeds.

Additional funding has now been awarded by the UK GCRF to accelerate the impact of the 2017 research and conference findings. The aim of this impact-acceleration project is to help translate the proposals made in the 2017 conference into action, through:

(1) the holding of a second conference, the Sustainable Seed Innovations Conference 2.0 (‘SSI 2.0’) to publicize and further discuss the work done by the Research Team since SSI 1.0 with the aim of finalizing the contents of a research based position paper for the Government of India,
(2) the writing and publicizing of the research based position paper for the Government of India, co-authored by the Research Team and others, with the aim of bringing about necessary evolution in Indian laws and policies to support small farmers’ innovations and in situ agrobiodiversity conservation;
(3) the web-based dissemination of the stories of innovative farmers, inter alia, through a dedicated website to be hosted by the University of Leeds and parallel stories linked and published through Art of Living’s websites; and
(4) the unveiling of a novel blockchain/Digital Ledger Technology (DLT) facilitated framework for managing and monetizing plant genetic resources (PGRs) contained in farmers’ and indigenous plant varieties to bring socio-economic benefits to small farmers and their rural communities.

II Aim and Agenda of the Sustainable Seed Innovations 2.0 Conference

The 1.0 version of the project was concerned with incentivizing farmer-level innovation on and with seeds from often-neglected indigenous varieties in India. It was also concerned, in particular, with the greater role that public recognition for farmers’ seed innovation might play in that incentivization. This line of inquiry emerged at the meeting point of two research programs: first, Kochupillai’s study of how conventional IP together with certain governmental policies tend to undermine the traditional culture of seed saving and exchange on which farmer-level innovation with indigenous seeds depends, and, from a broader perspective, on which in situ agrobiodiversity conservation depends; second, Radick’s study of how innovation in the technosciences generally involves interactions between patent claims – IP narrowly construed – but also two forms of IP more broadly construed: priority claims (claims to have discovered or invented something first); and productivity claims (claims for the practical usefulness of a particular body of knowledge).

The 1.0 version of the project concentrated exclusively on priority claims and whether, in the spirit of Robert Merton’s classic sociological analysis of the incentive structure in science, a better organized, state-run system for managing public credit for seed innovation might itself help stimulate further innovation. The results of Kopytko’s interviews with farmers, along with the testimonials and inputs of participants at the roundtable held at the AoLF campus in September 2017, were encouraging, and the Research Team planned, as per the recommendations that came up during SSI 1.0, to develop this research into a position paper to bring before the Indian government. At the time, there was no notion that such a credit-tracking/publicizing system might be monetized. At that time, monetization of innovation was still being thought as strictly to do with patent claims and other forms of “IP-narrow”. There was also no link to the productivity-claims part of Radick’s “IP-broad” proposal, aside from the suspicion that exaggerated claims for the productivity of genetics, as the indispensable key to successful plant breeding, were part of the explanation for why the seed-saving-and-exchange culture needed support for its continuation in the first place.

Since then, however, new work by members of the Research Team, done, inter alia, keeping the recommendations of the SSI 1.0 Conference/Workshop in mind, has led to breakthroughs on both of these fronts. From Kochupillai has come an exciting vision for how blockchain technology can be used not only to track and publicize innovation with indigenous seeds, but also to ensure that profits from the sale of those seeds go to the innovators and innovators’ communities and countries. The blockchain facilitated vision also ensures that these monetary benefits can accrue while following a differentiated sales system that supports, rather than undermines, the culture of seed saving and exchange. In addition, the blockchain/DLT system would facilitate greater practical feasibility and ease of use to systems established under international instruments such as the Nagoya Protocol. These instruments support a kind of “productivity claim” by mandating “benefit sharing” with local and indigenous communities that grant access to specific Plant Genetic Resources (PGRs). Yet, because of the practical and administrative complexities inherent in the provisions of these instruments, they are sub-optimally utilized at present. DLT would help change this, ensuring that the spirit of these instruments is ethically and legally realized for the actual socio-economic benefit of indigenous communities, and for the overall economic development of the countries they are part of.

Further, from Dr. Prabhakar Rao of the Art of Living Foundation, has come a brilliant example of how traditional and farmers’ varieties have their own deeply impressive productivity claims to make (“inherent productivity”): the old/new “Wonder Wheat,” just named Sona Moti – a 2,000-year-old Indian variety of wheat with three times more folic acid than any existing variety. Also coming from the NGO partners Art of Living, is valuable practical insights of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) based farming systems that support this inherent productivity of traditional and farmers’ varieties. Indeed, several of the SSI 1.0 conference participants (particularly the farmer groups) shared similar experiences. Within specific indigenous cultural contexts where this inherent productivity enhances the self-respect and worth of the entire community that has helped preserve/resurrect the variety or engaged with TEK based farming systems that facilitate this, the relevance of productivity claims going beyond IP Narrow is further enhanced and finds concrete expression.
And finally, from Radick has come a new way of teaching basic genetics which, by highlighting the importance of genetic backgrounds and gene-environment interactions as the main story (rather than an exception to the Mendelian rules), can help farmers understand why indigenous seeds grown in their home regions using traditional methods can be so much more productive as well as ecologically sustainable than the alternatives.
With this background, the aim of the Sustainable Seed Innovations 2.0 conference is to:

1. Recommend shifts in the curriculums of agricultural universities to facilitate a more well-rounded education that focusses not only on genetics, but also environmental factors,
2. Recommend revisions in the content and focus of government agricultural extension services to support the revival of holistic farming systems, including those based in traditional ecological knowledge of India (such as Natural Farming),
3. Recommend shifts in agricultural law and policy in India to support small farmer innovations,
4. Unveil a novel DLT/blockchain facilitated framework for managing and monetizing PGRs contained in farmers’ and indigenous plant varieties in order to bring social, economic and cultural benefits to farmers as well as to the larger national economies of the countries in question, while incentivizing the in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity,
5. To obtain additional feedback from the participants of the SSI 2.0 conference and other experts on the above 4 recommendations (in this regard, it is envisaged that most or several of the participants of the SSI 1.0 conference will be invited back to the SSI 2.0 conference) to finalize the position paper.

In addition to the above, one of the longer-term aims of the conference is to spur Indo-European research collaborations in the field of farmers’ innovations and in situ agrobiodiversity conservation. Such collaborations are required, inter alia, for converting the DLT/Blockchain framework into a working model. The conference will also invite the Government of India to explore the possibility of it (co)funding the creation of the envisaged DLT/Blockchain solution.

The collaborations are envisaged as comprising representatives from the government, NGOs, academia and farmers’ groups, inter alia, for conducting multi-and trans-disciplinary fundamental and applied research necessary to convert the DLT/Blockchain framework into a working model keeping various laws and ethical codes, as well as practical realities, in mind. It is anticipated that the recommendations of the Research Team together with the working blockchain/DLT model, once adopted and implemented, will support the socio-economic growth and well-being of indigenous farming communities. It will also help revive and protect agrobiodiversity in situ, support and facilitate innovations by small farmers, and promote more widespread adoption, especially by small and marginal farmers, of eco-friendly, sustainable farming practices including farming practices derived from Traditional Ecological Knowledge systems.

III Draft Outline of SSI 2.0 Conference (subject to change following discussions)

1. Welcome addresses
2. Keynote speech
3. Presentations by research team as a follow up to the SSI 1.0 conference (what all has been done since the SSI 1.0 from a research and action perspective, and what needs to be done in order to make most of the recommendations realizable in practice), including:
a. recommending new curriculums for Universities,
b. recommending new curriculums and objectives for agri-extension services
c. recommending changes to current Indian laws/policies, and
d. recommending a Blockchain/DLT framework as a means of accomplishing several of the goals identified by SSI 1.0 participants.

4. (Small/Specialist) group discussions on (additional) issues to be addressed when making concrete recommendations within the position paper for the GoI and when designing the working model for the DLT/Blockchain framework.

5. Additional discussions on possible sources of funding (including designing of international cooperative research grants/calls for proposals), action-items and timelines (this can start in Delhi and continue in Bangalore).

Note: A preliminary draft of the position paper will be provided to the SSI 2.0 conference participants and to the public before the conference. After obtaining additional feedback from all participants as well as from the general public, the final position paper will be released to the Government, the public and to the media by the end of the SSI 2.0 project (31 July 2019).

Promoting Sustainable Innovations in Plant Varieties

My Ph.D. thesis, titled "Promoting Sustainable Innovations in Plant Varieties: Revisiting “Creative Destruction” and “Market Failure” was published a couple of years ago by Springer Nature under the simplified title: "Promoting Sustainable Innovations in Plant Varieties." The Ph.D. was fully funded by a fellowship from the International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation (IMPRS-CI) during 2009-2013 and recieved top grades (Summa cum Laude) from both academic reviewers. The book has recived considerable attention since its publication. A very creative, engaging and unusual review of the book was recently written by Prof. Graham Dutfield (University of Leeds), and was published by Elsevier (see here). Here I provide an overview of some of the findings of the book, which, in my view, might be the most exciting for anyone researching this field. This overview has also been published in the latest Progress Report (Tätigkeitsbericht) of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition.

Promoting Sustainable Innovations in Plant Varieties, Mrinalini Kochupillai. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2016). xxi + 335 pp., ISBN: 978-3-662-52795-5


The study develops the term “sustainable innovations” and defines it, in the context of plant variety innovations, as innovations that by their very nature (i) permit in situ conservation, improvement and evolution of agrobiodiversity; (ii) maintain the rich genetic variability inherent in this agrobiodiversity in diverse geographic and climatic conditions; (iii) do not exclude any potential innovators from the process of innovation; and (iv) thereby ensure that both formal and informal innovations can continue to take place in the generations to come (in both the developed and developing world). Accordingly, the Indian Plant Variety Protection Act, the UPOV Acts and associated agricultural policies are studied from a legal, philosophical, historical and economic perspective with the aim of determining the means of promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties and identifying laws, policies and practices that are currently acting as impediments to promoting and accomplishing the same.

The study looked into the following research questions from a multi-disciplinary and/or empirical perspective: How should the study define the term “sustainable innovations”? What means (at the legal, policy and practical levels) are currently adopted (internationally) to promote any kind of innovation in plant varieties? Do these means also promote “sustainable innovations”? Are there any facts, circumstances, policies, laws or practices that make the accomplishment of the ideal of promoting sustainable innovations, difficult or impossible? What are the trends vis-à-vis seed saving, seed improvement/innovation and in situ agrobiodiversity conservation among farmers of various regions in India, for various crops?

A partially mixed, concurrent and sequential, equal status design was adopted for the study (i.e., mixed methods research, combining qualitative and quantitative research methods). For the qualitative research, the historical research method, combined with traditional legal literature review, interviews with relevant stakeholders and descriptive analysis of qualitative data so collected, was undertaken. For the quantitative research, data was collected using the stratified random sampling scheme, with the help of a structured questionnaire. Econometric analysis using Stata was conducted on the quantitative data collected via farmer interviews. As is a suggested practice in partially mixed research, the “mixing” of the qualitative and quantitative findings was done at the data interpretation stage.

Using this methodology, the book investigates and questions some commonly made presumptions on which the current plant variety protection regime in India and under UPOV (1978 or 1991) are based: It is frequently presumed that seed saving by farmers to save costs associated with purchase of new or improved seeds from the market is an equally prominent trend among farmers in various regions of India, notwithstanding the land holding size, the level of education, and/or the crop being cultivated by the farmers. In fact, the farmers’ exemption under the Indian law as well as under UPOV (1978) are based largely on this presumption. Empirical research conducted as part of this study, in two regions of India, involving more than 200 farmers, agricultural extension officers and academic researchers proved otherwise. Further, in the Indian context, it was expected that following the adoption of the Indian PPV & FR Act, the private and public sector’s interest in R&D will become more diversified to include self-pollinating crops and typical seeds, and will not continue to focus on crops whose floral biology is conducive to creating F1 hybrids that prevent farmer level seed saving. A detailed statistical analysis of the plant variety protection applications filed in India from 2007-2013 again revealed the opposite.

The book finds that from a normative perspective, neither the Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPV & FR Act), nor the UPOV texts are equipped to address the market failures that are unique to the plant variety innovations sector in developed or developing countries; neither are they fully suited to promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties. In fact, the Indian Plant Variety Protection Act and similar regimes that promote optimal innovations in plant varieties tend to undermine and even actively disincentivize farmer level seed innovation and in situ agrobiodiversity conservation. Indeed, since in situ agrobiodiversity conservation through saving and exchange of traditional as well as newer seed varieties, is a perquisite and even a synonym of farmer level seed innovations, intellectual property rights and associated policies such as the seed replacement policy of the Indian government, act as ‘perverse incentives’, turning farmers away from their traditional role of conserving and improving seeds in situ.

Further, technological development in the formal seed sector (private sector), which permits the creation of F1 hybrid seeds (as well as newer technologies engaging cytoplasmic genetic male sterility or GURT technologies) that do not reproduce true to type and preclude farmer seed saving, are, in themselves, adequate to incentivize private sector participation in plant varieties innovation. A study of plant variety protection data from India clearly shows that even after the adoption of the PPV & FR Act, the private sector in India is engaged in R&D primarily for crops whose floral biology permits the creation of F1 hybrids (e.g. tetraplod cotton, maize, pearl millet). Private sector R&D is almost entirely absent in self-pollinating crops, especially pulses. Accordingly, the passage of the PPV & FR Act has not accomplished its aim of promoting private sector R&D, and those crops that were neglected by private sector (R&D) before the introduction of the Act, continue to be neglected even now.

The PPV & FR Act as well as provisions in UPOV 1978 and similar legislations that support farmer level seed saving (inter alia, for sowing subsequent generations of crops) presume that farmers, if given a choice between saving seeds from a harvest for sowing the next generation, versus buying new (improved) seeds from the market in each subsequent sowing season, would choose to save seeds. Empirical (quantitative) data collected via farmer surveys suggests that this is not true; farmers, when faced with such a choice, choose improved seeds and abandon traditional in situ agrobiodiversity conservation and seed improvement efforts. This choice is guided and encouraged by the seed replacement policy of the government of India. Conservation trends are seen only in crops for which “improved” varieties are not available in the market. This finding calls to question the rationale of provisions codifying the farmers’ privilege, especially when parallel and stronger efforts are underway to encourage farmers’ purchase of formally improved varieties.

National and international (government) policies and laws that are currently supporting private/public (formal) sector R&D and innovation in plant varieties over and above innovation in the informal (farmers’) sector have the effect of excluding farmers from the innovation eco-system. Farmers, that have traditionally been innovators, are rapidly reduced to the status of labourers. Modern, input intensive agriculture that requires farmers to not only buy new seeds, but also pesticides, fertilizers and water to ensure the high performance of these seeds has also left farmers caught in a debt trap, leading, in some regions, to large scale farmer suicides. The innovation environment and eco-system needs therefore to be redesigned with a focus on promoting sustainable innovations, including especially in the informal (farmer) seed sector.

The findings of the book have been taken forward in a project titled "Intellectual Property and Global Develoment" funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. The details of the project are available here.

Re-thinking the 'Ethics' in 'Innovation': Inviting Students, Researchers and Practitioners to contribute to the first of its kind International 'Open Source Research' in Social Sciences

Dear Everyone

It has been a few months now since the 1st Ethics in Innovation Conference Series, including the World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation (WYF 2017) in which 52 students from 29 different countries participated with enormous enthusiasm and commitment. Although the WYF 2017 took a very broad, multi-disciplinary and practical approach to the theme 'Ethics in Innovation', it also launched the first of its kind 'Open Source Research' platform inviting participation from all student-participants of the WYF, and also the general public.

Here, I provide you the details of this Open Source Research project that will lead up to a series of blog posts and book publications that will serve as a useful tool for policy makers, lawyers, inventors, educators, corporate leaders and researchers the world over. With this post, I invite all readers to participate! For a background on what the broad overarching goals of the WYF 2017 and the linked Ethics in Innovation conference were, please see the previous posts here and here.



I. General Information

The book resulting from the Open Source Research Project will be a first of its kind multi-disciplinary book looking into the broad topic of Ethics in Innovation from a diversity of view points, spanning a wide range of cultures and disciplines. The focus areas will of course be the same as the 4 main focus areas of the Ethics in Innovation conference and WYF presentations, namely:

1. Innovation
2. Education
3. Corporate Social Responsibility
4. Leadership

Referred to hereinafter as the '4 focus points'

We have invited WYF graduates to submit case studies or articles on any one of the above 4 focus points, provided it still links up clearly and concretely to the overarching theme of the WYF/EII conference, namely, promoting ethics in innovation. In this regard, please see point number "II. Research Concept and Key Questions" below.

Editors: As the number of disciplines that the WYF participants all together might be covering is expected to be very diverse, I will put together a panel of expert editors to review any contributions that come in from disciplines other than law, for example, educational research or pure sciences. In relation to the contributions that are linked to the specific research questions of the WYF, I will be the primary editor. However, the larger book, including the contributions from experts, may also have other supporting editors and the publishing house will usually also conduct its own peer review before the final publication.

I expect to publish the book either with Cambridge University Press, Routledge or Springer. (PLease note: this book project is different from and completely independent of the book project being done by me officially within the scope of my research at Max Planck, which relates primarily with law. Those who are submittind pieces on law will be considered for both books. Those submitting pieces that are not linked with law, will be considered only for this book - The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will not be a part of this book project as they do not have the necessary expertise and capacity for editing the volume inhouse. All submitting a piece for this books must first submit a blog post style contribution that will be put on the WYF blog or on this blog to invite public comments. The comments can then be incorporated into the final piece to the extent the author considers necessary. See below for further details.)

II. Research Concept and Key Questions

The research linked with the WYF is the first of its kind 'Open Source' type research is the social sciences where the basic research concept, together with research questions and example case studies are made available via an open platform such as a blog. In addition to my own blog (this one), each of you is welcome to submit case studies also on the WYF blog created by the WYF 2017 blog team (please see point "III. Open Platforms for Encouraging Public Engagement" for further information on this). This blog was created with the aim of keeping up the open source nature of the research till the publication of the book (and beyond).

Here is the WYF Blog Link again in case you want to post something right away : https://wyf-2017.tumblr.com/

The research linked with the WYF has two main prongs:

1. Fundamental Research Prong: Determining (through well developed case studies) whether the current definition and popular understanding of the term 'innovation' is inclusive and culturally sensitive. In other words, whether the definition of innovation (including its usage when preparing documents such as the 'Global Innovation Index') is itself 'ethical'. More details about this prong of the research are available at this link: http://lostclauses.blogspot.de/2017/06/re-thinking-ethics-in-innovation.html (please note that the language used here has been deliberately kept as simple, engaging, and non-legal/technical as possible in the light of the large diversity of disciplinary backgrounds and age and experience groups the participants of WYF belonged to. The final contributions will need to use more discipline specific terminology and neutral academic writing style).

2. Practical Research Prong: Identifying (through well developed case studies) ethical issues inherent in current and emerging innovations in the ICT sector.

All contributors are welcome and invited to think about and address these two research prongs in creative ways and not necessarily follow the chain of thought followed in my blog posts or in my or others' case study examples. For example, you may want to look at these issues from the perspective of whether class room education at the primary level in your country is such that encourages students to also think about culture specific innovations or about innovations that bring forward traditional or cultural knowledge that may otherwise be dying out. From the Indian context, for example, I remember being taught principles of Vedic mathematics in primary school (without it being called Vedic maths), which made it easy for me to make complex calculations really fast. Today, these principles are no longer taught in most primary schools in India - which is perhaps a pity. Yet, principles of Vedic mathematics are now being used to develop complex software algorithms for large machines in order to make them more efficient).

Or, for example, you might want to bring in a case study that shows how algorithms used in social media platforms raise fundamental issues of ethics from the perspective of larger issues of democracy and governance in the 21st century multi-cultural society.

Or you might come up with a case study (in relation to the practical research prong) on how an ICT innovation in your country effectively addresses a social/cultural issue that has major ethical/moral implications.

In order to keep things somewhat streamlined despite the diversity of approaches and disciplines, you are encouraged to look at these two research prongs and the case studies you formulate, from the perspective of the 4 focus points that you worked on during the WYF and the EII conference.

Although case study research is a very broad research methodology that allows for variations in focus and breadth depending on the discipline in which the case study is placed, I provide herewith a primer on case study research (see attached). This primer is from the perspective of Educational Research that requires some degree of rigor while preparing case studies - I therefore find it useful as a starting point. However, I encourage you to research case study research examples within your own disciplines before preparing your contributions.

Contributors are required to pay special attention to the following points when compiling your contributions:

1. You are welcome to submit just a case study or a full blown article for the consideration by the editors. However, even in full blown articles, if the starting or central theme is linked to a real life example (e.g. a true case study or a real life news item), it would be very much appreciated as it will then link up nicely to the broad research approach adopted for the WYF research.

2. Please include a detailed segment in your contribution explaining the approach adopted by your for compiling and documenting the case study, citing to relevant literature as applicable and explaining in adequate details any departure from regularly followed norms (if any) in relation to case study research in your discipline.

3. Please do clearly outline (preferably in the introductory segment of your contribution), how your case study/article links up to either the 'Fundamental/Practical Research Prong' described above.

4. Finally, as the aim of the book is to provide concrete guidance to policy makers at the highest level, we request you to make concrete recommendations, justifiable at least within the specific context of your case study, that can be given to policy/law makers who are involved with designing laws or policies associated with any of the 4 focus points. To carry forward my above example from Education, your recommendation might be (to put very simply here for sake of brevity) to make the education system such that does not focus only on 'modern' subjects but also imparts knowledge relevant to developing/innovating on traditional knowledge systems that are specific to the country/culture that may be the focal point of your study.


III. Open Platforms for Encouraging Public Engagement

As mentioned, the research is designed as a first of its kind multi-disciplinary 'open source' research in social sciences. This research method is what led to the the idea of the WYF blog. The blog created by the WYF blog team in the short span of 2 days is truly an excellent open forum for all of you to constantly contribute your work and thoughts into and engage others too in debate and deliberation in the true spirit of 'open source' research.

We also encourage you to continue to use the hashtags #EthicsinInnovation and #WorldYouthForum2017 to promote any new content that is posted on either of the blogs, on various social media platforms - this is a wonderful way to engage your friends and colleagues in an open discussion on the views you post on the blog. All contributors can also post contributions in their own blogs and send us a link so we can publish the links on the WYF blog and this blog.



IV. Writing Style and Final Output

Please use neutral academic writing style and avoid writing styles that are more close to journalistic approaches when preparing your contribution to the book. (Please note, however, that in your blog posts, the journalistic approach may be more effective in winning public interest and engagement. Even in the blog posts, however, I suggest providing links at appropriate places, as footnoting is not convenient or attractive in blog posts).

Also, we request that all contributions to be considered for the book follow this style and page limit:

1. Case studies: 8-12 typed pages (single spacing), including all footnotes, 12 font size, times new roman (footnotes can be in font size 10)
Articles: 15-25 typed pages (single spacing) including all footnotes, 12 font size, times new roman (footnotes can be in font size 10)

2. Please use footnotes, not endnotes and use OSCOLA referencing style as the guide for footnoting. OSCOLA can be downloaded here: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf

V. Deadline for submission

Please submit an extended abstract (1000-1500 words) of your piece by 15th November 2017 to mkpillai80@gmail.com.
Please submit the final and complete contribution by 15th January 2018 to mkpillai80@gmail.com.

Please watch this space for updates linked to the project!

Late submissions may not be considered for inclusion in the book.

Re-thinking the ‘Ethics’ in ‘Innovation’

Towards a More Inclusive and Culture-sensitive Definition of ‘Innovation’!

How do laws and policies aimed at promoting and disseminating beneficial innovations define the terms ‘beneficial’ and ‘innovation’? Do these definitions ensure equitable socio-economic development of all countries based on their culture-specific innovations? In other words, are these definitions themselves fundamentally ‘ethical’? These are some of the questions that the selected top 60 students from over 20 different countries across the globe will discuss in the forthcoming World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation (WYF 2017). The intensive three day workshop will see these top 60 students and young professionals go through a state of the art self-management and leadership training, and discuss some of the most pressing issues relating to ethics and innovation that affect the 21st century global village. The students will discuss case studies from their own countries/cultures and arrive at high level recommendations for academics, industry and top governmental representatives in the form of the 'Call of the Youth' that will be presented by three groups of students during the 1st Munich Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation (EII Conference) at the DPMAforum, German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Munich on 26-27 June 2017. Those who couldn't make it to the World Youth Forum, are invited to register for the EII conference at this link.

Here are some of my thoughts on the issue of 'ethics', 'innovation', 'ethical innovations', and most importantly, the 'ethics in innovation'. These thoughts are part of the research project linked to the WYF 2017. WYF 2017 participants, as well as anyone else interested in the issue of ethics in innovation, are encouraged to read these and provide comments so as to facilitate in-depth discussion of topics during the WYF and the EII conference.

What is considered ‘ethical’ and ‘innovative’ varies from person to person, culture to culture, and even from industry to industry. This difference in perception may, at first glance, seem to be of interest only from a purely academic perspective. In reality, however, it plays a crucial and practical role in ensuring a healthy and balanced public debate, which, in the end, can influence all segments of human life, including the approach to education, the focus of scientific research efforts, the availability of funds for such research, the framework of laws and policies, and even the flow of capital at the level of societies, communities, countries and regions.

In fact, despite widespread globalization, even in the 21st century, it is not corporate profits alone that drive the direction and success of any socio-economic activity, including ‘innovation’. Diverse ethical views, including socio-cultural norms, social or individual history and the historical evolution of world views predominant in various regions of the world, all play a significant role in determining the direction and goals of such activities/innovations within the societies or communities where they emerge on the one hand, and the manner in which they are viewed, disseminated and adopted around the globe, on the other.

In this situation, it is relevant to examine whether all types of socio-economic activities and linked material and immaterial products and processes, emerging from diverse socio-cultural and socio-economic contexts, are all equitably recognized as ‘innovation’ at all. Whether it is by common people or by international agencies engaged either in law making or in ranking countries and societies (for example, on an innovation index), such recognition (or its absence) can have far reaching consequences. These consequences may include an impact (positive or negative) on the economic growth of nations where these products/processes emerge, availability of venture or seed capital for their promotion, dissemination and widespread adoption, availability of funds to conduct scientific research on such products/processes, as well as on the overall morale of people engaged in creation of beneficial products/processes that are historically unique to their societies and cultures. Put together, such consequences can either expand or limit the diversity of choices available for people in the global marketplace.
Furthermore, if ethical issues and dominant world views emerging therefrom, broadly speaking, guide the formulation of laws and policies associated, inter alia, with testing, adopting, disseminating, using and even patenting of certain types of innovations, to the exclusion of others, it also becomes necessary to re-think what is ‘ethical’ from a multi-cultural and fundamentally ‘human’ perspective.

With the increasing confluence of diverse cultures through immigration, job hunts and growing frequency of inter-cultural marriages, it is necessary to re-think the fundamental understanding that we as a human society have of the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘ethics’ as such, and of their relationship with one another in narratives employed at national and international debates linked with the term ‘innovation’.

Research Goals: (i) Re-thinking the definition of ‘innovation’ and ‘ethical innovations’ in the present day multi-cultural global village. (ii) Identifying means of promoting inclusive, sustainable and ethical innovations among all sections and segments of society worldwide by examining (through case studies, surveys and empirical research) means by which products, services and processes that are beneficial to humankind have (historically and contemporarily) been created and disseminated in diverse cultural and socio-economic contexts. (iii) Investigating whether all such products/processes/services are recognized as ‘innovation’ by the societies in which they emerge on the one hand, and by the world in general on the other.

Comments, current research, news links, blog articles and anything else that helps add to, contradict or enrich the above research goals would be much appreciated - please use the comments segment below.

Natural Farming Summit 1.0

In July last year, Prof. Gregory Radick of the University of Leeds and I designed a research project to study the innovativeness among Indian farmers engaged in natural/organic farming and the role that intellectual property (broadly and narrowly defined, as per Prof. Radick's theoretical framework on IP-Broad and IP-Narrow) plays in this process. The research was designed to take forward Prof. Radick's work, as well as my work in the field of promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties (see my research on the topic, available here). The project named the International Art of Living Foundation as its NGO partner and sought to hire a post-doctoral research fellow, to be jointly supervised by Prof. Radick (at the University of Leeds) and me (at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition) who would conduct the necessary study, including field work, in India over the course of approximately one year. The project received funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council in November last year. The research has started since January this year after we were fortunate enough to find a brilliant young post-doctoral researcher - Dr. Natalie Kopytko, for the study. Natalie is currently in India and is conducting field studies with support from the Art of Living Foundation in several remote areas on India. We are all looking forward to her research findings - updates can be found on the website she maintains here.

In the mean time, the Art of Living decided to organize its annual conference on organic farming (Natural Farming Summit) in early May this year. This proved to be perfect timing for our project as it coincided with Natalie's field work kick off. The Art of Living foundation, whose work I have been observing and following for over a decade now (and with whom I did a couple of yoga teacher training courses) also invited us to make presentations on our research during the summit. After the conference, I (and other speakers) were interviewed by the Art of Living Bureau of Communications (ABC). I reproduce the text of the interview hereunder:


From the Art of Living Bureau of Communications:

Agricultural Summit on Natural Farming:

The Natural Farming Summit 1.0, organized by the Art of Living Foundation was held on 9th and 10th May 2017 at the Art of Living International Centre, Bangalore. The summit brought together a diverse set of stakeholders engaged in natural and organic farming, and associated sectors of work at both practical and policy levels. The two day summit saw these stakeholders sharing their experiences, research findings and policy recommendations with a rich audience comprising of farmers, distributors, business houses, academic experts, policy makers and NGOs.
The conference participants re-emphasized the benefits of natural farming, including its impact on individual health, quality of soil, improved financial status of farmers and many more. World renowned activist Dr. Vandana Shiva ji, founder of the NGO “Navdanya” also shared her thoughts on how farming which is aligned to nature is the only means of maintaining biodiversity, which is the most urgent need of the hour.

Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai:

Forums like the Natural Farming Summit are an opportunity to bring together various stakeholders who share a common vision and goal, namely to make the agricultural sector sustainable and prosperous from an ecological, as well as economic perspective. One of our international speakers from Germany was Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai, who has a masters and doctoral degree in intellectual property law, with special focus on Indian plant variety protection law and policy. According to Mrinalini ji, “practical solutions at the farm level need support at the research and policy level to ensure that socio-economic benefits flow to farmers.” She said that “the farmers of this country have always been innovators – it is unfortunate that following the Green Revolution, the role of farmers was reduced to mere technology takers who sow and harvest crops. In order to re-establish and re-define the role of farmers in the agricultural sector, it is necessary to remind farmers that traditionally, they have always been innovators on the farm – improving traditional seeds in situ and improvising means of maintaining soil health, while also managing pests in an eco-friendly and sustainable manner.” In relation to her current research, Mrinalini Ji said: “We feel that the work of farmers who are engaged in natural farming using traditional varieties of seeds improved and preserved in situ, is not recognized as innovation. In fact, their work and role in maintaining and enhancing germplasm reserves while ensuring sustainable high yield and nutritive content in the food, has not even been adequately researched! The research project, designed jointly by Prof. Gregory Radick of the University of Leeds and Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai, which received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Government of UK in November last year, is perhaps the first qualitative, empirical study into:

(1)Seed exchange and seed saving culture among Indian farmers and how it affects innovation at farmer level;
(2) how the Indian government's seed replacement policy affects innovativeness among Indian farmers;
(3) the manner in which the Indian Plant Variety Protection law affects in situ agrobiodiversity conservation; and
(4) the relationship between the above and (a) the growing crisis in international agriculture, including (b) suicides by Indian farmers and (c) dwindling number of young people willing to take up a way of life seen as menial labour

Using the funds received, the University of Leeds has engaged a highly qualified post-doctoral research fellow, Dr. Natalie Kopytko, to study innovation among farmers in India, especially farmers who have received training in Zero Budget Farming from the Art of Living, farmers who have won the genome savior community recognition award by the Government of India, and farmers that are engaged in conventional farming using modern seeds.” Mrinalini ji‘s five year long empirical study on the Indian Plant Variety Protection Law and associated governmental policies, conducted as part of her Ph.D. research with MPI, established the basis for this joint research with the University of Leeds. Her research was published by Springer Nature in Max Planck’s Munich Studies on Innovation & Competition series.

Global scenario:

Mrinalini ji shared her thoughts on the scenario in India and the world regarding agricultural technologies, especially new and improved seeds. She said that since the Green Revolution, farmers in India are relying on Universities and large corporations to provide them improved seeds and improved agricultural technology. Undoubtedly, the green revolution increased crop yields in some crops. What policy makers in India have failed to pay adequate attention to, however, is that the green revolution as well as most formal innovations coming from the private sector focus only on specific crops. Food security for the nation and for the globe, however, does not depend on high yield alone, but also on a divserse diet rich in micronutrients, minerals and vitamins that cannot be provided by staple crops such as wheat and rice that the green revolution focussed on. Also, the green revolution made farmers not only reliant on new improved seeds, but also on expensive fertilizers and chemical pesticides that modern science has shown to be extremely damaging to the environment. Indeed, under the green revolution, only few types of seeds were artificially designed to "perform" under the influence of chemical fertilizers. As a result, soils and farmlands where these fertilizers are regularly used, see drop in the yields of other crops whose seeds are not designed to tolerate chemical inputs. The entire strategy for food security and sustainable innovations in seeds therefore needs to be re-thought.

Furthermore, reliance on green revolution and modern "hybrid" seeds that require farmers to replace their seeds each season (by buying new seeds from the marker) is harmful for farmers' socio-economic status in society. Farmers who are potentially entrepreneurs and innovators, their status in society is reduced to that of laborers that merely sow seeds created by others, harvest crops and sell the yield to make a living. “Our farmers have to go back to the times when they were technology makers, rather than mere technology takers.” She emphasized that “India doesn’t only have religious and cultural diversity – India also has incredible geographic, climatic, biotic and abiotic diversity. If we give this diversity the importance that it deserves, and make our research local, we can export agricultural technology (including seeds, and sustainable pest and soil management technology) to every agro-climatic zone in the world!” She insisted, however, that “India and Indian farmers must stop giving or expecting anything for free. If we are ourselves developing indigenous, ecologically sustainable high yielding seeds of a large number of diverse crops, we also need to be economically aware enough to charge a proper price for it. India’s economic development would then not be dependent on obtaining foreign technology as charity, but on exporting high quality, eco-friendly technology at fair and reasonable price to the rest of the world.” Mrinalini ji shared with our team that she is also inspired by Art of Living founder, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Ji's vision of "creating wealth" for all. She said that “we have to use our own traditional systems and traditional values of innovation to create wealth for our farmers and provide food security to the whole world. Any effort or emphasis placed in trying to bring us foreign, non-sustainable technology at cheap rates is not going to help India become economically strong in the long run. Only indigenous, high quality, appropriately priced innovation can bring back India’s lost prosperity. We have to create wealth for ourselves and for the world by using our own intellectual property. Then, those technologies that are developed (and patented) elsewhere, which complement and support our indigenous innovations (e.g. innovations in the digital age) can also be used more meaningfully by our farmer-innovators for further mutually beneficial wealth creation.

The larger project, funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council also seeks to determine the history of India’s ‘Seed Replacement Policy’ and whether farmer to farmer seed exchange was, is, or should be included within this policy. The research project takes forward Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai’s PhD research in the field of promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties and Prof. Gregory Radick's theoretical and conceptual work on Intellectual Property over the long-run of the history of science, and seeks to learn from Art of Living’s vast practical and on-farm work with farmers across the length and breadth of India. Mrinalini ji shared that the innovative potential of the Indian farming community if already clear from the presentations made at the Natural Farming Summit. She said that she got a lot of interesting and insightful information about Indian methods of natural farming and the work of the farming community. “The work and what has been accomplished despite difficult and adverse legal/policy environments is commendable! A truly enriching and eye opening experience!” she said.

Sudarshan Kriya: It is not 'just Yoga’, it is innovation from India!

“It is a wonder that when 50% of the Indian population is engaged in agriculture or allied activities, agriculture and allied sectors are contributing less than 14% to the Indian GDP. To increase agriculture’s contribution to the Indian GDP, on the international level, Indian farmers can and must become technology makers & know-how suppliers,” remarked Mrinalini ji during her presentation at the Natural Farming Summit. Drawing a parallel with Sudarshan Kriya, she said that “In my view, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar ji is not only a humanitarian leader, but also an innovator. He has created, packaged and disseminated the highly beneficial traditional knowledge based innovation, Sudarshan Kriya, to more than 150 countries around the globe." ‘Sudarshan Kriya’ is not protected by patent, the name is protected by trade mark and the tapes are protected by copyright. Copyright is considered a relatively weak form of intellectual property protection. Yet, using incredible skill, together with what can be considered the highest form of ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’, Indian innovators like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar have brought the economic benefits accruing from the dissemination of Sudarshan Kriya back to India and to other poor countries of the world – supporting important river rejuvenation projects, organic farming projects, projects for building homes for the poor and many other socially oriented projects. This is the goal that every Indian farmer-innovator should aspire to. We should stop adjudging profit making enterprises as greedy and stop glorifying poverty.” In relation to Sudarshan Kriya, Mrinalini ji said that the variety of projects of global significance that have taken a license to teach Sudarshan Kriya is mind boggling! Yet, India has itself failed to see technologies like Sudarshan Kriya that are widely researched in top scientific institutions around the globe, as Indian innovations! Such innovations based in Indian traditional knowledge ought also to be taken into account by the United Nations or the World Intellectual Property Organization, when they create country rankings for indices such as the Global Innovation Index.


The Munich Conference Series on “Ethics in Innovation: Innovation 4.0”

Mrinalini ji said that “in fact, not just India, but all nations across the world need to re-consider their own approach to identifying, promoting and beneficially disseminating innovations that are unique to their cultures. Encouraging culture specific innovations would not only bring equitable economic development to all nations, but would also increase the choice and diversity available for the citizens of the 21st century multi-cultural global village. This, in fact, is one of the aims with which we are organizing the World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation.” According to the write up provided to us by Mrinalini ji, “the fundamental research projects associated with the World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation is designed to engage the student participants of the World Youth Forum in multi-disciplinary & multi-cultural discussion to consider three questions that are of significant concern in our increasingly diverse, 21st century global village:

1. How individuals from different cultures, countries & educational background understand the terms ‘ethics’ & ‘innovation’
2. What in their opinion, constitutes an ‘ethical innovation’, including whether a re-assessment is necessary of the manner in which the term ‘innovation’ as currently defined & understood is culturally, socially & economically inclusive.
3. How existing laws, policies & practices can/should be modified to promote ‘ethical innovations’.”

Conferences like these add great value to global knowledge reserves and showcase innovations from different cultures, regions and sectors. We highly encourage everyone to participate in the 1st Ethics in Innovation Conference Series in Munich from 23-27th June 2017.

The research linked with the World Youth Forum 2017 is now being taken forward by Mrinalini ji as a first of its kind open source social science research project. All students, professionals, experts and interested people are encouraged to participate. For more information, see here.

1st Munich Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation

After a long break, I am excited to inform you that the Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition and the World Forum for Ethics in Business, in partnership with the German Patent & Trade Mark Office, the Peter Löscher Chair of Business Ethics at the Technical University of Munich, and the European Patent Office, are organizing a series of conferences titled the ‘Munich Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation.’ The 1st Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation comprises two segments:

1. The World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation (WYF 2017) from 23-25 June 2017 (hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition, Munich); and
2. The multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder conference on Ethics in Innovation (EII Conference) from 26-27 June 2017 (hosted by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Munich)

We invite the readers of Spicy IP, including students and young IP professionals from around the globe to apply for and participate in either or both of these events. An overview of the conference concept and all relevant links are provided below.

Introduction & Concept

What is considered ‘ethical’ and ‘innovative’ varies from person to person, culture to culture, and even from industry to industry. This difference in perception may, at first glance, seem to be of interest only from a purely academic perspective. In reality, however, it plays a crucial and practical role in ensuring a healthy and balanced public debate, which, in the end, can influence all segments of human life, including the approach to education, the focus of scientific research efforts, the framework of laws and policies, and even the flow of capital at the level of societies, communities, countries and regions.

It is perhaps no wonder, therefore, that despite widespread globalization, even in the 21st century, it is not corporate profits alone that drive the direction and success of an innovation. Diverse ethical views, including socio-cultural norms, social or individual history and the historical evolution of world views predominant in various regions of the world, all play a significant role in determining the direction and goals of innovation in various societies or communities on the one hand, and the manner in which these innovations are viewed, disseminated and used around the globe, on the other.

Ethical issues and dominant world views emerging therefrom, broadly speaking, may often also guide the adoption of laws and regulations associated, inter alia, with testing, adopting, disseminating, using and even patenting of certain types of innovations, to the exclusion of others. Yet, in the 21st century global village, with the confluence of diverse cultures through immigration, job hunts and growing frequency of inter-cultural marriages, it is necessary to re-think the fundamental understanding that we as a human society have of the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘ethics’ as such, and of their relationship with one another in narratives employed at national and international debates linked with innovation.

Structure & Topics

The first Munich Conference on Ethics in Innovation therefore asks several fundamental questions that cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries and calls for an open, multi-disciplinary, and multi-stakeholder discussion of these fundamental questions. Day 1 of the conference outlines the most fundamental questions of ethics and innovation from the perspective of disciplines and discourses that affects all segments of human life. The questions considered on Day 1 of the conference include, but are not limited to, the following: ‘Is there a ‘common minimum’ ethical value system that binds us as a human society? What are the socio-cultural and economic consequences, if any, of labelling certain material and immaterial creations as ‘innovations’ and not others? What role do ethical concerns play in the life and work of those engaged in some of the most groundbreaking innovations? What approaches to education can help nurture both ethical and innovative outlooks in individuals from diverse cultures? In what circumstances can people of one culture accept and embrace innovations from other cultures? Can such acceptance lead to greater communal harmony and secular yet economically prosperous living? Can innovations in the digital age serve to bring diverse cultures closer together in a democratic and secular framework? Is there a need to regulate innovations that might have an opposite effect?

Day 2 focuses on issues of ethics and innovation in a specific field, namely, information and communication technologies, including means of promoting equitable and inclusive innovations in the ICT sector globally. The discussions will look into diverse issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective and consider how ethics in innovation can be promoted by, inter alia, providing equitable access to venture and seed capital funding, promoting innovations in the digital field that are supportive of larger societal goals (such as democracy, peace, sustainability and inter-cultural harmony), determining the means/need of regulating content in online media, discussing issues of ethics linked to the cutting edge innovations in the field of artificial intelligence and the internet of thigs, and re-assessing means inclusive and exclusive of traditional intellectual property protection regimes to promote, recognize and disseminate innovations emerging from diverse socio-cultural and economic contexts.

To ensure a rich multi-cultural and multi-stakeholder discussion of these issues, engaging experts as well as students and young professionals from diverse disciplinary fields from across the globe, the first Munich Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation is split into two segments:
• The World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation (WYF 2017) from 23-25 June 2017, at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition, Munich. For more information on the concept and program of WYF 2017, please visit www.wfeb.org.
• The multi-stakeholder conference on Ethics in Innovation (EII Conference) from 26-27 June 2017, at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Munich.

The deadline to apply for the World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation is 10th May 2017. The top 5 applicants will receive a scholarship from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition, covering flight and accommodation expenses for the duration of the forum and conference.

For more information, email Camille Abgrall at WYF2017_Munich@wfeb.org

For more information on the Ethics in Innovation Conference Series and its research goals, contact Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai: Mrinalini.kochupillai@ip.mpg.de