Responsible Innovation
This post is inspired by the few discussions I have had recently and then also seeing Bilal’s post that talked about the framework of “Intentions x Incentives”. When we talk about responsible innovation, timescales matter. Different industries operate at varying timescales to see the second- or third-order effects of the ‘intentions’ of the new technologies. While this timescale in the social media or vaping industry is approximately a decade, in many climate related sectors it is (could be) much longer. My focus is climate, and as I reflected on it and discussed further, it led to further discussions around unknown unknowns.
Here are a few examples.
India’s Green Revolution began in the 1960s with a good intention of improving the agricultural productivity and livelihood of farmers. It included various changes to the farming practices, including adoption of mechanized tools, higher use of pesticides and fertilizers. And productivity increased. It is reported that between 1960 and 2000, in India and other developing countries the yields rose 208% for wheat, 109% for rice, 157% for maize, 78% for potatoes, and 36% for cassava. So far, so good. Over time, it was reported that inappropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides polluted waterways, killed beneficial wildlife, and subsequently led to soil degradation and loss of biodiversity. More troubling is the effect on public health, which is not as widely reported. In the state of Punjab, the epicenter of India’s Green Revolution movement, it is reported that there are at least 90 cancer patients for every 100,000 people compared to the national average of 80. Studies have shown that the overuse of chemicals found its way into Punjab’s food, water, and soil and we are witnessing these third-order effects after almost fifty years.
Mad cow disease likely originated in the 1970s when cattle were fed meat and bone meal in the UK with the intention of increasing milk yields. This unnatural diet containing remains of other animals is believed to have infected the cattle. Between 1980s and 1990s over four million cattle were slaughtered to contain the outbreak. The first human casualty was reported in 1995 and all the way into early 2000s.
Another example, looking into the future is sulfur. Sulfur in the form of sulfuric acid is a crucial part of modern society, required for the production of phosphorus fertilizer, lightweight electric motors, and lithium-ion batteries. Today over 80% of global sulfur supply comes from desulfurization of fossil fuels to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide. As the world decarbonizes it is projected to create a significant shortfall in the supply of sulfuric acid. Now I have spent my career in developing and commercializing solutions in climate-tech, so I’m very much in the decarbonization camp. It is important to reflect what effects could the shortfall in sulfuric acid supply create? Will we start new mines for sulfur in a couple of decades? What second- or third-order effects might it create?
I am not providing answers here. These are only a handful of examples to highlight that we are dealing with complex systems and long time scales. While the intentions with innovation and investing might be genuine, the actual outcomes could be orthogonal. These outcomes could be negative or provide new growth opportunities. It will be prudent to involve a diversity of perspectives as we develop and deploy the innovative solutions to address the big problems of our times like climate change.
