Innovators’ Legacy：The Wisdom of Trailblazers New Ethics for an Era of Human Security and Well-being[Part 1] Thoughts on the Post-COVID-19, Post-Ukraine Era (1 of 3)

Structural Problems Behind Emerging Infectious Diseases

Today’s world has reached a crucial turning point. We have heard such theories from many sources since the start of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In December 2019, a patient with pneumonia from an unknown cause was reported in Wuhan, China. In only a few months, this disease spread around the world, with infection rates rising and falling repeatedly as the virus mutated. According to data from Johns Hopkins University, a total of nearly 600 million people worldwide had been infected by August 2022. More than 6.4 million people had died. Looking at the excess mortality rate^*1, we can conclude that the true figure is even higher. On the other hand, we have taken steps to enable coexistence with the novel coronavirus by developing vaccines and drugs for the mutant strains and establishing new treatment regimens.

Meanwhile, on February 24, 2022, the Russian army invaded Ukraine. This sparked a new host of problems for an international community that was just starting to escape from the pandemic, encompassing energy, food, and global security^*2.

These two problems may seem unrelated at first glance, but on deeper consideration we can see that they share many common elements. One commonality is that they are both turning points that have transformed conventional ways of thinking and objective frameworks, and another is that each is caused by deeper social issues. Many people have debated how the world will be different in the future beyond these turning points, post-COVID-19 and post-Ukraine. For an accurate prediction, we must look at both problems from a wider perspective and clarify the larger trends that are common to both. We must learn the genealogy of the religions that form the background to these trends, while also looking back at the complicated history of Europe.

The wider the view we try to take of the natural world and the human societies it contains, the more we need to return to the basics of our individual disciplines. Unless we clearly understand the core of our own field, we will not be able to connect or integrate it with others. But merely picking subjects from our own disciplines based on our own judgment will result in a random agglomeration, and will not form a useful basis for integration or connection to other fields. The Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture (EMFCSC), located in Sicily, has been grappling with this difficult issue for more than half a century. This institution was founded in 1962 by Victor Weisskopf (1908–2002), Isidor Isaac Rabi (1898–1988), Antonio Zichichi, (1929– ), and others. Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac (1902–1984) and Richard Feynman (1918–1988), who lived during the formative age of quantum physics and quantum electrodynamics and continued to think about the essence of matter until their later years, were also deeply involved. The medieval town of Erice stands on a 751-meter cliff that looks down on the Mediterranean Sea. Attracted by its mesmerizing churches and monastery ruins, many interdisciplinary international graduate programs have been held here every year. Of the young people invited to this program over the last half century, 102 went on to be awarded Nobel Prizes (The History of EMFCSC). Until the start of the coronavirus pandemic, I had been helping with this program every year for more than a decade. Since this program is not very well known in Japan, I would like to unveil some of its secrets in this series.

Figure 3―Hall at Ettore Majorana Foundation (Left), Discussion Room (Right) Photo by H.KoizumiIn the hall, mentors who are world-famous in their individual fields first provide an overview of their disciplines and identify the essence of the issues (“mentor,” a word originating in Greek mythology, is a character who fulfills the role of passing on knowledge to a young or inexperienced person). Sometimes, as clouds float past the discussion room, dozens of young people selected by the mentors engage in lively debate in front of the posters. Breakfast starts early in the Foundation’s dining hall, mixed with more discussions of course, while lunch and dinner are enjoyed at one of the many delightful restaurants in Erice (expenses are fully covered by the Foundation). Later, the underground Marsala Room, replete with on-tap alcoholic drinks and a piano, provides the venue for more lively discussions well into the night.

Pandemic Response

The first I heard about the novel coronavirus was in January 2020, when still no infections had been reported in Japan. I happened to hear about the situation in Wuhan while I was giving a New Year’s speech at the request of the Chinese Embassy in Japan^*3. Since then, I have been advocating via symposiums and media organizations for a trans-disciplinary approach to tackle infections.

One feature of emerging diseases is the difficulty of responding to a rapidly changing situation that is outside our prior knowledge. Furthermore, exploding infection rates across many countries make it difficult for any one country to contain outbreaks. At another international conference discussing the novel coronavirus held in October 2020 (four related sessions at the Science and Technology in Society (STS) STS forum 2020), the head of China’s infection control bluntly said, “When an apartment building (the Earth) is burning, it’s not enough just to put out the fire in your own apartment (country).”

We should have learned from past pandemics the difficulty of dealing with viruses for which we have no previous data. On the other hand, this pandemic triggered the development of new genetic analysis methods, including amplification functions such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR). For the first time in history, we became able to clearly observe the evolutionary processes of viruses based on genetic information. Such new measurement methods and information technology should have been utilized to collect precise information and then enable scientific measures to be taken on a clear, logical basis.^*4 But what actually happened is that each country chose its own methods to deal with the pandemic. This shows how difficult issues arise even when we try to take “scientific” action. Furthermore, the pandemic revealed the importance of taking a trans-disciplinary approach in a situation where concrete measures are urgently needed (the trans-disciplinary concept will be described later in this series), as well as the difficulty in rapidly bringing together scientists and engineers who were previously siloed away from each other.

Even countries with advanced healthcare systems suffered terribly in the pandemic. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA is the most famous and advanced center of disease control in the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that as of August 15, 2022, a total of 3,185 people per million had died of COVID-19 in the USA. With its focus on basic research and its numerous winners of Nobel Prizes, the USA should have one of the world’s best healthcare systems. Fatality statistics in other countries with advanced medical systems include 2,731 per million in the UK, 2,341 in France, and 1,738 in Germany.

I discussed this directly with Harvey V. Fineberg at the 2020 STM Forum. Dr. Fineberg is the former president of the Institute of Medicine (now National Academy of Medicine), a former provost of Harvard University, and former Director of the Harvard School of Public Health, and he was an excellent chairman at the 2022 STS Forum COVID-19 Symposium. Dr. Fineberg has formed collaborations with member academies of CAETS with the aim of establishing a scientific approach.

In contrast, the cumulative rate of confirmed COVID-19 fatalities in Japan is 281 people per million, despite delays in implementing scientific measures and drastic policies. One possible explanation is genetic differences in susceptibility to severe infection between human populations, arising from ancient regional differences in interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. This was discovered by Svante Pääbo, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2022. The ultimate goal of infection control in a pandemic is to reduce deaths as much as possible. While some people expressed the opinion that disrupting the economy to control infection is unethical because the number of suicides will increase even more, a sound statistical analysis based on the previously described excess mortality rate shows otherwise. The differences in the response of each country can be explained by differences in society, culture, political systems, and ethical values. These differences are also connected to the Ukraine crisis on a deep level.

In both epidemiology and military affairs, measurement is a fundamental requirement. Measurement was fundamental to research at the MIT Radiation Laboratory, which changed history by helping to develop radar during the Second World War (described later in this series).

It is premature to think that Japan should follow the example of the USA and quickly establish its own version of the CDC. Japan should first develop its own future vision rooted in interdisciplinary collaboration in science and technology, and then build the actual agency based on this vision. Back in the 1970s, I conducted research at institutions in the USA, which seemed far in advance of other countries at the time. With the discovery and practical application of the polarization Zeeman method [Analytical Chemistry, Science (1977)], I was invited to be a visiting researcher on an annual or monthly basis by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL), University of California, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), [now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)], and the US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center (the oldest research institute for water resource management in the USA and the first to identify global environmental problems). Based at these institutions, I also conducted joint research with state bodies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), CDC, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Once we became able to measure things that could not be measured before, I got bombarded with requests from a wide variety of fields.

Furthermore, NIST, which is at the center of global development of measurement methods, is expected in the future to prioritize the development of more technologies to respond to pandemics. This is because the discipline of infection testing is only one small part of the analytic sciences, and it was previously in its own silo. When we have to deal with unknown phenomena, the very first step is to gather evidence. Only then can we move on to developing vaccines and drugs^*4.

Japan’s response^*5 to the novel coronavirus has been rated highly, thanks to the excellent quality of the national health insurance system, as well as the dedication to hygiene among the general population. Even so, the unnecessary loss of life that occurred despite the best efforts of clinicians over long periods of time revealed latent issues in the Japanese healthcare system. These include structural issues in medical systems, political leadership, and the command of administrative systems and infection control. In Kyoto and Osaka, where the pandemic was particularly bad, young physicians took the lead in overcoming difficulties experienced by hospitals and established temporary PCR test sites. They also conducted home visits 24-hours a day on a rotating basis to try to bypass the limitations of emergency care facilities. I also think that the on-site capabilities that resulted in the successful development of antibody cocktail therapeutics at home (Masanori Kobayashi, Director of Kassai-Iin Clinic) should be highly praised. Some system design experts are emphasizing the need to improve medical systems without waiting for the full containment of the pandemic.

I too have conducted on-site collaborations, and made repeated suggestions for a new integrated measurement system in particular. This will enable us to understand current conditions and take the first step to dealing with the pandemic. Although concepts for new testing systems are not yet fully understood, one such new testing system in China won a CAETS award in 2021.

Another measurement system receiving attention is advance assessment of conditions based on sewage (measuring virus mutations and other trends). This is a new measurement concept where environmental meta-analysis is expanded to wastewater analysis. Environmental meta-analysis is a marine environmental analysis method where advanced genetic analysis is performed of a sample of seawater from a certain location, while at the same time identifying species from the genetic fragments using AI. Masaaki Kitajima, a member of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry (JSAC) and Associate Professor at Hokkaido University wrote the world’s first review on wastewater analysis and has worked on improving the precision of such methods; for example, by increasing detection sensitivity up to 100 times. [M. Kitajima et al., “Analysis of Novel Coronavirus in Wastewater,” Bunseki (Nov. 2020)]. In wastewater, viruses are adsorbed onto the surface of solid matter, requiring experience and knowledge in the field of analytical chemistry for high-sensitivity and high-accuracy analysis under such contaminants. The world’s leading ultra-high sensitivity wastewater analysis method was developed capable of detecting one infectious person from among a population of 100,000. This method was actually applied in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Village, and Professor Kitajima’s group published the distribution of the novel coronavirus (including variants). [M. Kitajima et al., “COVID-19 Wastewater Surveillance Implemented in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Village,” Journal of Travel Medicine, 29, 3 (Apr. 2022)]

Devising an appropriate response to a pandemic is difficult for the field of infectious diseases to do alone from its silo. To gain a correct understanding of current conditions, the people who are infected must be identified, but in doing so, it is also important not just to focus on individuals, but also to keep the global picture in mind. In addition to the traditional direction of analysis focusing on the individual and then the global, we should also reverse the direction of this concept, and work our way back from the global to the individual level.

I believe that such trans-disciplinary concepts lie at the very heart of innovation, and this will be demonstrated throughout this series in various case studies.

Figure 4―“From Individual to Global” and Simultaneously “From Global to Individual” Note: This conceptual diagram was created based on statistical data from Sapporo Medical University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
This conceptual diagram was proposed in a discussion with Ikujiro Nonaka at the 15th Topos Conference of the Future Center Alliance Japan, held on May 20, 2021.In conventional PCR testing, the number of infected people is compiled by region, providing a view of infection conditions in that region. This is surveillance transitioning from the individual to the global perspective. Conversely, wastewater testing gives us an advance view of infection conditions across the entire region. Through the early detection of regional infections, authorities can deploy individual PCR tests and transition from a global to an individual perspective. The current highly sensitive wastewater testing method can detect infections on the order of one person in 100,000, enabling surveillance that is dramatically more efficient than individually testing the entire population.
Furthermore, mutated variants can be accurately identified from virus fragments using AI.

Figure 5―Response of Various Countries to Novel Coronavirus Note: This diagram was created based on statistical data from Sapporo Medical University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Hideaki Koizumi’s lecture materials from the CAETS COVID-19 Special Committee held on October 12, 2020, were translated and updated to current conditions in August 2022.By tracing the tragic loss of life over time in this graph, which shows the cumulative COVID-19 deaths per million people, we can assess how each country responded to the pandemic. The examples of the USA, UK, South Korea, Sweden, Japan, and China are described in this article, but other notable countries with reliable statistics are also included here with a brief comment. Since the ultimate goal is to protect human life, the most appropriate benchmark for evaluating the success or failure of comprehensive infection control is the number of cumulative deaths or the excess mortality rate.

Figure 6―Number of Cumulative Deaths per One Million People Due to Novel Coronavirus Note: This diagram was created based on statistical data from Sapporo Medical University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Statistical accuracy varies by country.
The actual number of deaths due to the novel coronavirus can also be estimated based on a statistical analysis of the excess mortality rate.Although the statistical accuracy of the cumulative death data may vary by country, we can see the general trends in this graph. The cumulative number of COVID-19 deaths per capita in some advanced countries paints a tragic picture of the pandemic (data current as of Sep. 2022). The Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) in the UK has also started research from the perspective of science and technology.

Response by the Swedish Government

Sweden continues to develop into one of the future role models for the world, scoring amongst the highest levels in objective indicators such as productivity, science and technology standards, educational attainment, and satisfaction of its citizenry. Its distinguished history includes not only the Nobel Prize, but also the establishment of the world’s first engineering academy more than 100 years ago, the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA).

Although Sweden is one of the countries I most respect in the world, and even though it is a rational welfare state with a proud history of progress in science and technology, its so-called “scientific” approach to the novel coronavirus was problematic. As this touches on the core of Human Security and Well-being that I will describe later, I would like to discuss it in a little more detail here. In general, failure has the negative, backward-looking connotation of remorse, but correctly controlled, failure is very important for ensuring a better future. In innovation, failures are often more meaningful than small successes. For example, the Institute for Brilliant Failures, led by Dutch Professor Paul Louis Iske, conducts research on the value that is created from failure.

In the early period of the pandemic, the Swedish government, which has an advanced health and welfare system, very quickly completed the preparations needed for genetic testing using methods such as PCR. (In contrast, the Japanese government was stuck within old frameworks of disease control, and unfortunately bottlenecks in testing and digitization of data continue to this day.)^*6

On the other hand, the Swedish government did not implement strict restrictions on behavior, such as lockdowns, neither did they recommend the wearing of masks^*7. Anders Tegnell, who was in charge of the government’s COVID-19 policies, explained that the basis of these decisions was that, “The effectiveness of lockdowns or masks in infection control has not been demonstrated.” The Swedish government was not necessarily aiming for herd immunity. In the early days of the pandemic, most people went about their lives with few social restrictions, and the government’s actions were popular in many quarters.

But while this policy may seem logical at first glance, the end result was that the death rate per million people in Sweden of about 600 in August 2020 was more than ten times the level in the neighboring countries of Finland (about 50 people per million) and Norway (about 40 people per million).

I believe that the reason such a thing happened in Sweden, which has high standards of medical care, is rooted in the rationalistic view of life and death of their mature society, which places first priority on those people who are, ultimately, most likely to be saved. When I questioned Ayako Miyakawa of the Karolinska University Hospital at a remote symposium, she told me that in Sweden, it was difficult for patients over 80 years old or patients with existing conditions over 70 years old to be admitted into Intensive Care Units (ICUs).

An unforeseen issue was that because many of the care workers at facilities for the elderly were part timers (about 30%), they would bring in the virus from the outside and cause large clusters. In a mature medical system that performs medical care based on rational principles, it is possible that elderly patients will not be able to receive advanced or comprehensive treatments. These views may seem alien to our East Asian values of life and death, but I believe that discussion of such ethical issues will be unavoidable for Japanese people as well.

Ethical Issues

In Sweden, “unexpected” events caused an explosion of infections on an order of magnitude greater than in its neighboring countries. The government gradually changed the trajectory of its policies, until it introduced travel restrictions as well. At the end of 2020, King Carl XVI Gustaf himself expressed his own desire to see policies more directly linked to human life, while still respecting the constitution. The existence of the royal family in a highly advanced society like Sweden is important. I respect the fact that the King wanted to say that the royal family stood in solidarity with the citizenry. I have also had the pleasure of speaking with His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen Silvia on several occasions, and I have been deeply impressed by their thoughts on valuing science and ethics.

Responding to the novel coronavirus has required high ethical standards. In recent years, we have often heard about the concept of “triage,” the idea of prioritizing medical treatment in the event of a disaster according to who is most likely to survive. Although this may seem unavoidable under certain circumstances, the idea that terminal care should be shortened as a matter of course to maintain healthcare systems in an aging society is already at the root of WHO’s healthcare policies. This issue lies at the heart of “Well-being.”

Northern Europe stands at the pinnacle of “Well-being” in both physical and psychological terms, but is also in the midst of discussions that are reconsidering its ethical values, including views on life and death. Such issues cannot be avoided when deliberating how to create an ideal population pyramid in the future.

Importance of a Scientific Basis

At the start of the pandemic, the Swedish government (more precisely, an expert group at the Public Health Agency of Sweden) declared that it would not take any actions that had not been scientifically proven to be effective in the past. I guess you can call this “scientific” in a certain way. But this kind of “positivism” has problems of its own. We need to be humble and recognize that we have only scientifically explained a small part of the natural world.

In Sweden, IVA, the world’s first engineering academy that celebrated its 100-year anniversary in 2019, and the national parliament jointly established a “Pairing System” in the 1950s to foster lively discussion about policy based on science. This system pairs members of parliament with academy members and they exchange mobile phone numbers so they can communicate with each other at any time. Recently, expert knowledge of science and technology has been required even in the legislative process. Academy members who receive requests for advice from members of parliament perform research from their expert perspective to enable them to give more detailed explanations to the members of parliament, and prepare a range of options. The member of parliament then considers or chooses from the options based on a political perspective. This system is very useful because it enables both the members of parliament and the scientists to learn about each other’s fields and to connect their separate spheres of work.

But even in Sweden, where information is transparent and policies are devised based on advanced ideas influenced by science, such science-based policies can be problematic. I think we need to keep this in mind. Even an illustrious agency like the CDC in the USA can end up falling into a tragic situation, as I previously described. This reality shows that to respond to complex issues for which we have no previous experience, we need to form a new trans-disciplinary framework that enables us to view problems from a wider range of perspectives than before.

In the USA, a new organization called The National Academies was established a few years ago. This organization brings together the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, as well as the National Research Council, and it responds to questions from Congress and the government and helps execute projects. In China too, an institution called the “Two Academies” composed of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and Chinese Academy of Sciences serves as an advisory body, mainly for science and technology policies. This shows a global trend of governments trying to gain a deeper and more multi-faceted understanding of science and technology, and reflecting this in legislation and policies.

Currently, the Engineering Academy of Japan, together with young Diet members involved in science and technology issues (recently some of these members have been promoted to important posts such as Minister, Vice-Minister, and Deputy Secretary-General) and the National Diet Library (part of the legislative branch), have started to study a system modeled on the Swedish “Pairing System” (Co-creation Committee of Public Policies, the Engineering Academy of Japan (EAJ), Dialogue between Policy Makers and Scientists: Chairman Hiroshi Nagano).

“Openness” is the Foundation of Trust

But at the current time, when trans-disciplinary frameworks are not yet functioning, how should we respond to situations for which we have no previous experience?

The first step is to diligently collect accurate information, perform statistical analysis, and open up the data to the wider public. We should quantitatively disclose to the public what kind of data we have collected, what kind of trends we can deduce from the data, and what policies we have decided based on this analysis. If we can do this, then it will increase trust in the government and foster greater understanding of its policies.

In one of philosopher Immanuel Kant’s later works, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” he outlined his ideas about a global republican system and cosmopolitan mindset that would achieve everlasting world peace, and argued that openness was a key method to ensure this. Politics should prioritize “morals” and politicians should be open about their maxims (subjective rules of behavior); that is to say, their intentions when implementing a particular policy. Kant believed that politicians should confirm with the general public whether their maxims are widely acceptable^*8.

Kant argued that morals should not be a matter of individual conscience, but rather universal rules that are accepted by everyone; acting according to such morals will prevent oppressive exercise of power by government. By being open about the intentions behind their actions and policies and the basis for their decisions, politicians can learn whether they are acceptable to the public. Kant believed that by incorporating these concepts into their everyday policymaking, politicians would be able to avoid war. I think that openness being the starting point for peace is a key insight. Historically, every war or conflict turns into a propaganda war to varying degrees once it starts. This is why it is so important to disclose correct information in times of peace. After war starts, the disclosed information cannot be concealed again.

According to the World Press Freedom Index, a ranking compiled and published every year by Reporters Without Borders, Japan dropped from 67th place in 2021 to 71st in 2022. The index evaluates and scores press freedom based on a range of criteria. The lower the ranking, the lower the openness, which is something I am concerned about. The top-ranking countries in 2022 were composed mainly of countries in Northern Europe. Norway was in first place, followed by Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Finland, and Ireland. Even Sweden’s COVID-19 policy was ultimately debated in an appropriate manner because the policy was introduced with high levels of openness and transparency. Such open debate is the driving force to a better future.

In January 2022, the Swedish government approved a construction plan for the final storage location of highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants. The plan is to store the waste for 100,000 years in a facility 500 meters underground. According to a Swedish opinion poll, approximately 80% of the population supports nuclear power. Such high support has been built up thanks to efforts to deepen the understanding of the citizenry, such as regular briefings and facility tours for local residents held by government, local authorities, and companies; the high degree of independence of the safety inspection bodies; and a system that ensures even small problems are reported to the government and disclosed to the public. The same is true in Finland, which started construction on its final storage facilities before Sweden. These countries disclose not only good news, but also problems, and show their citizens how they are working to resolve them.

I was a member of the Research Evaluation Subcommittee at the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) just before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake (Mar. 11, 2011). I repeatedly said that we should make greater efforts in researching the safety of nuclear power plants using specific statistics and theories, but I felt that my colleagues were not yet ready to accept my arguments.

Consulting primary sources of information is key to preventing ourselves from being misled by propaganda. Dr. Sadako Ogata (1927–2019, Japan’s first United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) was very concerned about the lack of primary sources of information released in Japan. I myself make great efforts to directly obtain information about matters that occur outside Japan. I use every opportunity at various international conferences and working as an advisor overseas to make sure I obtain accurate information^*9.

Until Next Time

When I was young, I worked at the Naka Works, Hitachi, Ltd. I was invited to join the Hitachi Henjin-kai, a gathering of doctoral degree holders, whose name is a play on words and can be loosely translated as, “The Society of Nerds.” Without thinking, I replied, “I’m not a nerd, so I’m not joining!” Unfortunately, the executives heard about this, and they scolded me, “So you think you’re too good to be a nerd? We’ll make you work hard for the Society of Nerds!” They made me plan and run the society’s symposiums and other events; I was so busy! Later, one of the executives, Hiroshi Asano (1925–2003, former Executive Vice President of Hitachi, Ltd.), told me he wanted to show me something. He politely pointed to a simple bookshelf in his office.

The bookshelf was categorized into primary information at the top, containing on-site information or information he himself had heard directly; secondary information in the middle from reliable people and original sources; and tertiary information at the bottom that seemed to be reliable. Each level was organized from left to right in chronological order from newest to oldest. I felt like I had uncovered a kind of secret knowledge, and if possible, I too would like to use this knowledge as a model with “on-site” information as the starting point in my own mind. Since then, I have always reminded myself of the importance of on-site and primary sources of information.

For example, in this series of articles, there are times when I describe statements by Pope Francis, President Xi Jinping, or Prime Minister Mahathir. This is primary information that I heard directly from them myself^*10. The secondary information here corresponds to original sources or information directly confirmed from the actual experience of people. When using tertiary information, I have tried to clarify as much as possible the sources of all such information.

I believe this stance is ever more important today, because we often see reports that diverge from the truth not only on the internet, but even in the mainstream media.

As I touched upon in my discussion on the response to the novel coronavirus, I believe that this divergence between on-site conditions and leadership underlies many of our modern problems, including the Ukraine crisis. This is the background to the pitfalls and assumption of our information-driven world, a discussion I would like to continue in the next article.

• 1 of 3
• 2 of 3
• 3 of 3