FOOD for thought

In today's world, hunger is still a prevalent notion in many third-world countries. Many people are starving to death each day. In the developed countries, a less serious problem is present. Generally, it is the problem with nutrition. Regardless of the severity of the problem, it revolves around one thing: food. The solution to both problems? Biobusiness in agriculture. From genetically modified (GM) food to increasing crop yield, the face of agriculture could be changed forever.

Gene modifications in food is not a new concept. In fact, mother nature was the one who fed us the idea of genetically modified food. Corn is a famous example of how mother nature decided to mix and match plants to form a new product. Was that meant to be an inspiration for the human race? Was mother nature urging us to look into the prospect of GM food? If it was, then we have not let her down. Nowadays, GM food is on the rise, and anyone could have ingested some GM food at some point in their lives, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Some people are skeptical of GM food, and understandably so. However, it is interesting to note that GM foods are paradoxical. Even if you insert a gene into plant A to allow it to survive pesticide-free, people are afraid to eat it. The benefits of GM food has been negated by our psychological fears. Are we gaining anything at all? Since most of the foods we eat are harmful anyway, why don't we give GM food a chance with the potential benefits they bring?

From a psychological point of view, it seems that humans are generally more willing to accept something that is altered by nature (regardless of the extent), as compared to a man-made alteration. The reason provided is that the change is much more 'natural'. Is that so? People can accept corn and kiwi, but they are unable to accept GM food. Looking at it from another perspective, a natural disaster is accepted more readily than the explosion of a nuclear plant that had been supplying enormous amounts of energy to a country for decades. Are we logical in this sense? No, I don't think so.

Religion might become an impeding factor in biotechnology in agriculture as well. For example, if fish could grow larger in size by implanting a gene from a pig into the fish, would muslims be able to consume the fish? It is probably one of those issues that would never have a conclusive answer. However, as we take bigger steps into the realm of scientific research, we discover than genetic material - on the molecular level - is minimally different from species to species. If we were to believe in science, then muslims should be able to consume the fish. However, this would overthrow the entire concept of religion, and the controversy would become a cliche battle between science and religion.

Norman Borlaug was a scientist, who is nicknamed 'the father of the green revolution'. He had a famous quote, which read 'Food is the moral right of all who are born into this world.' It is sad that our world is far from achieving this target. In developed countries, people are overfed, obese and unhealthy. In third-world countries, many are starving and suffer from nutritional diseases. There must be a better way of food distribution. However, I do not think that nations lack the capability to get this done, albeit slowly. It is simply a case of neglect and insufficient empathy. Biotechnology doesn't need improvement or changing; our attitudes need.

I feel that the topic is a very wide one, and regretfully discussions in class were touch-and-go. The class could have delved deeper into certain aspects of agriculture, as I believe we can indeed acquire a lot of knowledge that way. However, as mentioned before, we are always short of time, even in a 3 hour lesson. Do we go for depth or for breath? Sometimes, I don't even know which is more beneficial.

Initially, I felt that bioagriculture would be an uninteresting topic. Clearly, it is a misjudgment.

8/10

My presentation day

The topic of biotechnology is actually very far-reaching, covering many areas from medicine to agriculture, and from genetic engineering to bioremediation. The list of subtopics were extremely extensive, and many were mentioned and discussed during class. Yet, interestingly, the subjects for the presentations for the day mainly revolved around the medical sector. Is that purely a coincidence?

I would like to point out that I was often a patient; in fact, I was a patient for 4 solid months on one occasion. It is simple to understand my choice of topic. What about the others? Were they also victims of cruel fate or is there another underlying reason for the stress on medical biotechnology? I believe this is a clear display of the impact that medicine and medical technology had on all our lives. We might not have seen actual agriculture, we might not have experienced genetic engineering, nor do some of us actively participate in putting the brakes on environmental degradation. But one thing is clear: We are in contact, experienced, or at least have heard of people falling sick, getting tumors, or even dying. Illness is a huge aspect of life, and our fear of it have been unconsciously seeping into our projection of life, and even in this simple case, our choice of a presentation subject. Yet, with biotechnology on the rise, need we continue fearing?

Diagnostics have drastically improved over the years. Nowadays, a CT scan is sufficient to map out the vital organs in your body - in 3D even. Nutraceuticals is also another interesting concept, derived from the idea of healthy eating as you become what you ingest. My presentation spoke about NOTES, a relatively new surgical procedure yet to prove itself but has the potential to be the future of surgery. However, despite so many advancements in the biomedical industry, the fear will always be there, as the pain and suffering of going through an illness would always exist. It is something that makes us very human. Similarly, we humans have another fear - of the inability to sustain our existence on this planet.

Biobusiness could be one of the only ways by which humans can attain true sustainability. Will being green be literal for humans in the future? If we could manufacture our own food in our bodies, how useful could that be? Simple chlorophyll and biobusiness could change the entire world. The idea might be aesthetically unpleasant, but who cares if the whole world is green anyway. Just like in avatar. Everyone is comfortable being blue. Now, the true problem comes. Knowing our race well enough, it is expected that we eventually would create other problems that leads to (for e.g.) the sun being blocked out from our atmosphere for good. We just have to find another idea then, do we? Our species is intriguing, as we are ironic, conflicting and at times self-destructive. Will we ever achieve sustainability?

Petroleum, a non-renewable fossil fuel, is a key ingredient of plastics. It is quite weird, because while we are running out of fossil fuels for the provision of energy, we are actually still using our precious petroleum to make plastics, which are non-biodegradable. We just killed 3 stones with one bird. Bioplastics to the rescue! They are made from renewable sources, and are biodegradable. It is clear we are heading in the right direction for sustainability.. unless we create new problems for ourselves.

Biotechnology has come a long way, with a rich history in producing some of the most common items in our everyday life, including bread, cheese and beer. It has risen to become one of the biggest components of the GDP of many nations after all these years. Biotechnology has proven its worth and lived up to its potential, now it is down to how we employ it to create a better life for everybody. One regret would actually be the inability for every subtopic to be covered in detail due to the shortage of time in class - despite already spending 3 whole hours on it. My presentation is also over, and it takes a little off my chest, at least for the moment.

:)

9/10

ICT is not in-camp training

Information and communication technology. It is all around us, undeniably. We have fallen into the hole of ICT, and it is fair to say that humans no longer have a way out of it. ICT is revolutionary and have reshaped the lives of everyone. It has become a great convenience, to the extent that we cannot shake it off and return to the past anymore. It has become normal to be immersed in ICT; without it, you will be left behind. There is an abundance of examples of the applications of ICT, such as Facebook, wireless communication, and so on.

One of the next big things mentioned is the concept of cloud computing. In computer terms, it is similar to the Linux, being open-sourced and attainable for use tapered to uniquely suit one's needs. It has tremendous benefits in the long run, and the world has already began heading towards that direction. However, other than the ethical and privacy concerns, the major overhaul of an existing system to be replaced by cloud computing would definitely generate one thing: a lot of excess work through maintenance. It can be the legislative issue of monitoring and keeping up with digital crime, or it can be the financial issue of collecting monthly fees from millions of people who might or might not pay up, or pay up late. Sure, the software updates are much easier and quicker. However, in the aspect of maintenance alone, could we be taking on step forward and two steps backwards?

Moving on to knowledge management, I had an interesting experience of it during my army days. I was appointed to be the main man for a newly introduced knowledge management system, known as e-SILK. It is basically a 'cloud' system whereby knowledge and information can be shared in the armed forces. It was an intricate system based on precise computing, and thus it isn't very user-friendly. After wrestling with the system for a while, I had assumed my role. However, close to the end of my tenure in the SAF, it occurred to me that a knowledge management system required knowledge management too. Ironic? While passing down my 'knowledge', it became evident that it was impossible to completely educate someone of a system i spent months running through. Knowledge is non-transferrable in many scenarios. When there is a change in personnel in an organization, it is inevitable that gapping holes are left behind, depending on the individual's knowledge and involvement during his or her stay. It actually made me wonder if knowledge management is hokum.

While I was teaching my understudy how to use the system, it was on a personal level. I sat next to him and taught him. There was a presentation in class on this form of education, as compared to one which threw you information in a system and trusted you to be able to come up with your own epiphany eventually. Of course, people like us who are immersed in the digital world would yearn for a more personal touch to everything. On the other hand, ICT is driving the input of knowledge in a server where it can be easily accessed and acquired without the work of personal touches. However, as mentioned above, the personal touch is still (sometimes) essential to impart knowledge in the field of ICT. It's starting to sound like the chicken and egg story. Isn't it such a paradox?

Once again linking to my army story, it has another lesson that goes in line with one of our discussions. It is the lesson that effective management can make or break ICT development. There are many kinds of people: some of them are quickly adaptable, some are skeptical and some can not even be budged from status quo. Managing various kinds of people well is the key to effective ICT distribution and development in an organization. You cannot just implement a system forcefully or just throw them a manual and expect them to learn. You may have attained your objective of implementing the system, but if the use of it is not effective, productivity suffers and the whole organization can be seen as suffering a loss. Patience is indeed a virtue in this case. Educate slowly and patiently.

Spending 3 hours on 1 topic is actually quite ideal, as both the depth and breath of the topic are sufficiently covered. Moreover, ICT is a topic that would have most people raising their eyebrows. On the whole, it was a great lesson. Kudos.

9/10

Why does change happen?

It was the essence of the lesson for the week. What is change driven by and how can it be managed? It is essentially a cycle. Change is envisioned by leaders, put into place by change managers, and after change occurs, change leaders are inevitable 'created' again. Thus, the relation of these two topics are very close. Globalization can be said to be the biggest driver of change today.

Everyone seems to agree that after the complete rise of China and India, the United States of America is going to lose a significant amount of influence in the world, both economically and socially. Power is going to shift from the west to the east. It is hard for anyone to refute that, but what is going to happen after America loses its grip on the world? There might be consequences that we cannot foresee, despite gaining some benefits as well. As the chinese saying goes: 一山不能藏二虎. Simply put - in one mountain, there can never exist 2 tigers. Could war be a result when China becomes as big as America? Could India and other world powers seek domination? Even if the war isn't a physical one, it would definitely create a mess at the end of the day.

Moving on to change innovation, there was a concept that caught my eye. While the leader is important, how important is the first follower? The first follower is actually the most important person of all, because he is actually a true leader, albeit one that is not often recognized for his or her efforts. It takes courage and vision for a leader to stand up, but the first person to follow must not only command a similar standard of qualities, he or she must also be persuasive and have the ability to set a trend. The first follower is the link between an idea and the mass application of it. Leaders of such nature are often under-appreciated, and few people would want to take up such a role. However, without them, where would our leaders stand?

It is also key to note that the idea of a follower is not to COPY. One of the readings actually mentioned this: By the time you get to copy an idea, you would probably be copying the route to its demise rather than its success. It would seem contrary to the idea I proposed in my previous blog entry, whereby we can copy and still attain great success. Yet, it is not so simple. We CAN copy and still be successful, but we need to copy smartly. We would have to alter the tiniest details to suit the material to our situation and ensure that we adjust according to change. Yes, copying blindly would get us nowhere. Copying in an intelligent manner is the key.

Change management is an intriguing concept that is similar to, yet vastly different from innovation management. In both forms of management, it is hard to have an outline to follow or a direct route to a certain management outcome. They are very ambiguous, and requires a lot of intelligence and wise decisions to be made at the right timing. I felt that it would have been great if we had put both side by side and did an analysis on them.

It is good that we are made aware of the drivers of change and how it can affect us 20 years down the road. It allows us to be prepared and ready when the change finally arrives. Getting a deeper understanding of change management also allows us to be effective managers in tomorrow's world.

9/10

How long can we last?

This question was eventually coming. After developing so many years in a linear manner, how do we shift to a sustainable circular development cycle now? It has been mentioned that our old form of industrialization needed the human race to discover 4 more earths in order to.. last a little longer. We have been damaging the planet in order for development to take place; it is ironic that we now need to conserve the environment to ensure all that development didn't go down the drain overnight.

The importance of sustainability cannot be undermined. However, we have only come to recognize it now. Why is it so late? My answer would be that humans have one weakness and that is - we are often blinded to everything else other than the most important thing (to us) at hand. Back then, it was economic growth. The world needed to move out of poverty and jobs had to be created. Now that much of the world is better off (disregarding many who are still in poverty), we have come to realize global warming and pollution are serious threats that could potentially be the downfall of the human race. So, our focus has shifted. The question is, in a hundred years time, what will be the focus then?

Examining the prime culprit for our current plight, a concept caught my eye. It was that of the 'latecomer theory' in industrialization. Basically, you watch people come up with something, learn from the negative consequences they suffered, create an upgraded version of it (optional) and propel yourself quickly to the front of the line. The only difference is that you are not credited with the invention. Countries that have followed this chain of thought have started their development later, but have reached the end of the race in a much shorter interval. They absorbed the positive ideas, and avoided the potential pitfalls. Now, isn't that a brilliant way of doing things? It looks good on paper, but it is insufficient and innovation is still critical. If everyone waited for somebody else to make the first move, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today.

Speaking of innovation, managing innovation is very crucial as well. Interestingly, the 2nd part of the lesson was about innovation management. How can we ensure that everyone contributes creatively to a company's or country's development? How do we maintain maximum efficiency at the same time? It is a daunting task. Spencer's presentation mentioned innovation management in Singapore. Honestly, I feel that Singapore has fared below average in this aspect, albeit understandably so. Being a small country with an aging population, we do not have excessive manpower to spare, and thus most of us are trapped in a relentless cycle of studying very hard in school and then raising kids who study very hard in school. As a developed city, it is the best and surefire way of keeping our economy growing. However, I feel that our creativity has been stifled and probably put to sleep in our early years, thus rendering even the most outstanding innovation management useless. Without seeds, we cannot plant trees.

Innovation management is a tough concept. It involves the management of a creative variable. It sounds like a paradox. I felt that it could have been a topic that can be widely expanded on, if given the time and space. Unfortunately, time is a luxury good in class.

The lesson has been very interesting, with the showing of nice videos and intriguing concepts. I guess certain topics just stick more to certain individuals.

9/10