Search the archive.

One of the most difficult ingredients for creativity and innovation is access to capital. Frequently the leading thinker or innovator of the group is forced to spend 80% of their time raising capital to cover salaries and access to resources rather than thinking and/or leading. Worse yet, those ideas which have the highest probability of producing true breakthroughs are the most novel and therefore the most difficult to prove and therefore fund.

Incentive prizes provide an environment which attracts a new “flavor” of money that has different objectives. Again the Ansari X PRIZE offers an excellent example. Before announcing the $10M purse, any team wishing to fund a private sub-orbital spaceship would need to approach an angel investor or venture fund for capital. Any sophisticated investor would immediately say “no” given the inherent risks, specifically: no proven market, regulatory risks (the laws to allow private human spaceflight did not exist), technology risk and risk of very visible public failure. As such, few investment funds flowed towards this technology development arena, and those who did invest lost significant amounts. It was space community expressed this thought with the following joke: “what is the best way to become a millionaire in the space business? Start as a billionaire!”

Innovation is a critical part of tackling problems in areas as diverse as transportation, housing, public health and energy. But the scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs who might generate creative solutions often investigate issues or pursue economic opportunities in other less urgent fields. Incentives for science and innovation try to steer efforts toward the most pressing societal problems.

Prizes – cash rewards for scientific, engineering and other achievements – are one form of incentive that has been around for a very long time. In the 18th century, for example, organizations such as the Royal Society in the U.K. awarded medals to scientists for their breakthrough research.

The ImageNet team analyzed their data set to uncover these and other sources of bias, and then took steps to address them. They used crowdsourcing to identify and remove derogatory words. They also identified terms that project meaning onto an image, for example “philanthropist,” and recommended excluding the terms from AI training. Keep Reading illustration of a head The latest on artificial intelligence, from machine learning to computer vision and more The team also assessed the demographic and geographic diversity in the ImageNet photos and developed a tool to surface more diverse images. For instance, ordinarily, the term “programmer” might produce lots of photos of white men in front of computers. But with the new tool, which the group plans to release in coming months, a subset of images that shows greater diversity in terms of gender, race, and age can be generated and used to train an AI algorithm. The effort shows how AI can be reengineered from the ground up to produce fairer results. But it also highlights how dependent AI is on human training and shows how challenging and complex the problem of bias often is.

The Data & Trust Alliance[‘s], tapping corporate and outside experts, has devised a 55-question evaluation, which covers 13 topics, and a scoring system. The goal is to detect and combat algorithmic bias. “This is not just adopting principles, but actually implementing something concrete,” said Kenneth Chenault, co-chairman of the group and a former chief executive of American Express, which has agreed to adopt the anti-bias tool kit. The companies are responding to concerns, backed by an ample body of research, that A.I. programs can inadvertently produce biased results. Data is the fuel of modern A.I. software, so the data selected and how it is employed to make inferences are crucial. If the data used to train an algorithm is largely information about white men, the results will most likely be biased against minorities or women. Or if the data used to predict success at a company is based on who has done well at the company in the past, the result may well be an algorithmically reinforced version of past bias. Seemingly neutral data sets, when combined with others, can produce results that discriminate by race, gender or age. The group’s questionnaire, for example, asks about the use of such “proxy” data including cellphone type, sports affiliations and social club memberships. Governments around the world are moving to adopt rules and regulations. The European Union has proposed a regulatory framework for A.I. The White House is working on a “bill of rights” for A.I. In an advisory note to companies on the use of the technology, the Federal Trade Commission warned, “Hold yourself accountable — or be ready for the F.T.C. to do it for you.” The Data & Trust Alliance seeks to address the potential danger of powerful algorithms being used in work force decisions early rather than react after widespread harms are apparent, as Silicon Valley did on matters like privacy and the amplifying of misinformation. “We’ve got to move past the era of ‘move fast and break things and figure it out later,’” said Mr. Chenault, who was on the Facebook board for two years, until 2020. Corporate America is pushing programs for a more diverse work force. Mr. Chenault, who is now chairman of the venture capital firm General Catalyst, is one of the most prominent African Americans in business.

Similarities in outlook, however, do not mean the countries generally assumed to belong to the global South act as one. Non-Western leaders are no different than their Western counterparts in their desire to pursue their states’ own interests, and not all of them see their countries as members of a broad-based group. Take, for example, their recent actions at the United Nations. In debates in the General Assembly over development policy, a small caucus of hard-line G-77 members, led by Cuba and Pakistan, insists on an aggressive approach to negotiating reforms to the international financial system with the United States and the European Union, and the group denounces the West for failing to live up to past aid pledges. Russia, in coordination with this caucus, used discussions of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in 2023 as a platform to criticize the global economic impact of U.S. sanctions. Yet in private, many other G-77 members expressed discomfort with this sharp-elbowed diplomacy, arguing that it undercut efforts to find common ground with Washington and Brussels to reduce their debt burdens. Splits within the putative global South extend beyond economic issues. Some Latin American countries led by liberal governments, for example, would like to promote progressive agendas on gender issues and LGBTQ rights at the UN, but they run into opposition from more conservative G-77 members, including many Muslim-majority states. Brazil and India have long pursued permanent seats on the Security Council, but regional rivals such as Argentina and Pakistan aim to stymie them. And although non-Western diplomats often have practical reasons to stick together, those representing larger powers put their national positions ahead of group solidarity when it suits them. While many purport to speak for the global South—at the UN or otherwise—no single country can claim the mantle. Over the last year, Brazil, China, and India have tussled to present themselves as the group’s most effective leaders. All three countries are founding members of the BRICS, whose core members also include Russia and South Africa. During India’s 2023 G-20 presidency, Modi promised to represent “our fellow travelers from the global South” and helped the African Union gain a permanent seat. China, meanwhile, concentrated on expanding the BRICS, leading a successful push to extend invitations to Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to join. (Argentina declined its invitation.) Brazil plans to use its role as president of the G-20 this year and host of the COP30 climate summit in 2025 to advance what President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (known as Lula) has presented as a vision of a “multipolar, fair, and inclusive order” in which countries of the global South would have greater influence than they do today. Yet even as these powers vie to lead developing countries, some of their recent foreign policy choices suggest they prioritize other relationships. China has been quietly strengthening its ties with Russia since the two powers declared a “no-limits partnership” in 2022. India has increased its trade with Russia and has drawn closer to the United States and U.S. allies in its role as part of the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue), a maritime security forum that also includes Australia and Japan. The Modi government broke with a majority of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement at the UN in October, too, when it refused to sign on to a General Assembly resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. Although New Delhi supported a subsequent resolution in December, the October vote testified to India’s deepening ties with Israel in recent years. 

So, is it “game over” for America in the Global South? Not quite. What has gone generally unrecognized is how dramatically the relationship between China and the Global South is changing, and how those changes—and Beijing’s fumbled response to them—are hampering Chinese ambitions to lead the nations of the developing world and capitalize on their support to remake the global order. The growing difficulties, disputes, and disparities between China and much of the rest of the Global South are opening up new opportunities for Washington and its partners to reassert their influence in the developing world and push back against China’s growing power. The game over influence in the Global South is really just beginning. China is also generating ill will in the Global South by abusing these countries’ natural resources. In the days of Western imperialism, European countries enriched themselves by siphoning off the wealth of their colonies, whether spices or silver. Modern China may not be capturing these riches through conquest, but it is exploiting them, nonetheless. Natural resources are the top target of Chinese overseas investment. Data from the American Enterprise Institute shows that more than 40 percent of Chinese outbound direct investment—or some $600 billion—has been plowed into energy and metals since 2005.35 A current point of contention between China and some developing countries is aggressive fishing practices. Chinese trawlers have been accused of stripping fishing grounds off the coast of West Africa, shoving aside the smaller, less advanced craft of local fishermen. “They are stealing what should be ours,” one aggrieved Ghanaian told The Telegraph.36 The Philippines in recent years had tried to forge stronger relations with China, but now, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has swerved firmly back into the US camp. One sensitivity between Manila and Beijing has been fishing rights in the contested waters of the South China Sea, where Chinese fleets have muscled out their rivals. “I explained to President Xi that last year was the first year in the entire history of the Philippines where we had to import fish, which is a ridiculous situation for a country that consists of 7,100-plus islands,” Marcos said, adding that he had told President Xi, [37]”Perhaps we can take the little step of allowing, once again, our fishermen to ply their trade.”

Such self-interested behavior has left Beijing open to criticism on other fronts, including climate change. Beijing has been an advocate for the developing world in climate forums for some time and has earned significant support on this issue from the Global South. But its position has come under pressure as China’s economy has developed. China has been the largest emitter of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since 2006,38 and despite Beijing’s pledges to attain carbon neutrality, those emissions are still increasing. China’s leaders, however, have taken the position that they are not responsible for the damage done to poor countries by global warming, and though they have offered to aid them in certain ways, they have refused to contribute funds to compensate them for losses. That has made China an outlier on this point since the United States and other industrialized countries agreed to create such a fund at last year’s UN climate summit, COP27.  That refusal has not gone down well with some developing countries. Small island nations called on Beijing to financially compensate poor countries for damage and loss due to global warming at the summit.39 Chinese officials “are always seeking language that would protect them, give them less responsibilities, no obligations for developing countries,” one former climate negotiator from the Global South grumbled to The Washington Post.40 The widespread and enduring support for democracy flies in the face of Beijing’s claims to speak for the Global South and may act as a barrier to the expansion of Chinese influence. In January, a new, democratically elected government in Fiji scrapped an agreement that the previous administration had made with China to train the Pacific island’s police force, citing a divergence of political values. “There’s no need for us to continue; our systems are different,” Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka explained to The Fiji Times. “Our system of democracy and justice systems are different so we will go back to those that have similar systems with us,” by which he meant Australia and New Zealand.56

[Percy, “Why China is not planning to conquer other nations” John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal, Sep. 30, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/why-china-is-not-planning-to-conquer-other-nations-part-2/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

China is not exporting ideology

[Stephanie Pappas is a freelance science journalist based in Denver, Colo. “Will Humans Ever Go Extinct?” (March, 21, 2023) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-humans-ever-go-extinct////GDI KR//] 

The end of humanity is far more likely to be brought about by multiple factors, Kemp says—a pileup of disasters. Although apocalyptic movies often turn to viruses, bacteria and fungi to wipe out huge swathes of the population, a pandemic alone probably won't drive humanity to extinction simply because the immune system is a broad and effective defense, says Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease physician and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. A pandemic could be devastating and lead to severe upheaval—the Black Death killed 30 to 50 percent of Europe's population—but it's unlikely that a pathogen would kill all of humanity, Adalja says. "Yes, an infectious disease could kill a lot of people," he says, "but then you're going to have a group [of people] that are resilient to it and survive." Humans also have tools to fight back against a pathogen, from medical treatments to vaccines to the social-distancing measures that became familiar worldwide during the COVID pandemic, Adalja says. There is one example of a mammalian species that may have been entirely eliminated by an infectious disease, he says: the Christmas Island rat (Rattus macleari), also called Maclear's rat, an endemic island species that may have gone extinct because of the introduction of a parasite. "We are not helpless like the Christmas Island rat, which couldn't get away from that island," Adalja says. "We have the ability to change our fate." If infectious disease contributes to the downfall of humanity, it will probably be as just one piece of a larger puzzle. Imagine a planet pushed to upheaval by sea-level rise and disruption to agriculture from climate change. The humans of this climate-ravaged world attempt a geoengineering solution that goes wrong. The situation worsens. Resources are scarce, and a bunch of countries have nuclear weapons. Oh, by the way, the mosquitoes that carry yellow fever range as far north as Canada in this scenario. It's not hard to see how the human population could decline and disappear in the face of an arsenal of challenges, according to Kemp. 

[Denise, “Vaccine Innovation Continued in 2023 with Several Important Approvals” Managed Healthcare Executive, January 19, 2024, https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/important-vaccines-approved-in-2023-but-vaccine-hesitancy-persists, Accessed 7.21.24 GDI-HB]

Even though advances have been made in the area of vaccines, the question remains whether people in the United States and elsewhere will accept and get these vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy, which ranges from misgiving to outright resistance, took hold during the COVID-19 pandemic because of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines, and it has shown staying power. The proportion of U.S. adults who have received COVID-19 vaccines, flu and RSV remains low, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just 21.4% of adults over the age of 18 have received the COVD-19 vaccine, while 41.5% have gotten a flu vaccine.

[Denise, “Vaccine Innovation Continued in 2023 with Several Important Approvals” Managed Healthcare Executive, January 19, 2024, https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/important-vaccines-approved-in-2023-but-vaccine-hesitancy-persists, Accessed 7.21.24 GDI-HB]

Vaccinations are one of the most important public health efforts for preventing serious illness, avoiding hospitalizations and saving lives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine technology made a huge leap forward with the introduction of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines developed by BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA instead of weakened viruses or virus fragments to teach the body’s immune system how to respond when presented with an infection.

[Alivia, “Innovative Tech for Drug Manufacturing: Revolutionizing Pharma” Pharma News Intelligence, October 31, 2023, https://pharmanewsintel.com/features/innovative-tech-for-drug-manufacturing-revolutionizing-pharma, Accessed 7.21.24 GDI-HB]

October 31, 2023 - The pharmaceutical industry is no stranger to technological innovation. Over the years, it has seen numerous advancements in drug development, manufacturing processes, and quality control. However, in recent years, the pace of innovation in drug manufacturing has accelerated dramatically.

[Percy, “Why China is not a threat: Sinophobia Unites Americans” John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal, Sep 29, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/why-china-is-not-a-threat-sinophobia-unites-americans/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

Sinophobia unites Americans

[Tobita, “How China threat narratives feed anti-Asian racism and how to fight back” Justice is Global, July 3, 2021, https://peoplesaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/JIG_AntiAsianRacismReport_2021_0608.pdf, Accessed 7.21.24 GDI-HB]

Why is it so easy for people to hear these narratives about the country or the government of China and translate them into racist sentiments against individuals?

[Tobita, “How China threat narratives feed anti-Asian racism and how to fight back” Justice is Global, July 3, 2021, https://peoplesaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/JIG_AntiAsianRacismReport_2021_0608.pdf, Accessed 7.21.24 GDI-HB]

“CHINA THREAT” NARRATIVES FEED ANTI-ASIAN RACISM

[Chandran, “Anti-China Rhetoric Is Off the Charts in Western Media” The Diplomate, February 21, 2023, https://thediplomat.com/2023/02/anti-china-rhetoric-is-off-the-charts-in-western-media/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

Typically, the negative stories adhere to three core ideas, which inform the unspoken guidelines within these press rooms when it comes to reporting on China.

[Percy, “Why China is not planning to conquer other nations” John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal, Sep. 30, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/why-china-is-not-planning-to-conquer-other-nations-part-2/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

China’s obsession is secession

[Percy, “Why China is not planning to conquer other nations” John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal, Sep. 30, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/why-china-is-not-planning-to-conquer-other-nations-part-2/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

China’s focus is economic

[Percy, “Why China is not planning to conquer other nations” John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal, Sep. 30, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/why-china-is-not-planning-to-conquer-other-nations-part-2/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

Here are four more reasons why China is not planning to conquer and occupy any other nation.

[Percy, “China’s Military is built for defence, not to threaten others” John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal, Oct 1, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/chinas-military-is-built-for-defence-not-to-threaten-others-part-3/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

China’s military is defensive

[Percy, “Why China is not a threat: Sinophobia Unites Americans” John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal, Sep 29, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/why-china-is-not-a-threat-sinophobia-unites-americans/ Accessed 7.19.24 GDI-HB]

Here are seven reasons – set out across a three part series – why China is not planning to conquer and occupy any other nation.