Kelwalin Dhanasarnsombut

Patent Analyst, Rouse & Co International


This conversation is closed.

Global corroboration in innovations and sciences: what's the limitation? What would it lead us?

Thinking the world become like TED community where people from different professions come together, share their passions in specific object, get other people inspired and (I hope) they become partner in the corroboration projects, is it possible? in real world?
I know that there are many business partners out there, trying to develop innovations together, which is not a bad thing. But I think more about innovation such as drug discovery, alternative energy, or other sciences breakthrough which will be benefit for everyone. Instead of each organisation doing their hard work, should they talk more to each other and work together?
What do you guys think? What would be the obstacle? And what we can do to encourage corroboration for global benefit?

  • Jul 5 2011: I think a major obstacle towards collaborating on a mightier scale towards groundbreaking research and innovation in some of the sectors that you mentioned is that there are more barriers and restrictions to it than ways to make it happen, whether they be geographical, bureucratic or technological.
    So , it would require some very highly motivated bunch of individuals to really go through with and push towards such collaborations. The more the barriers to entry are torn down....The easier it becomes for all of us
  • thumb
    Jul 2 2011: Kelwalin, I think there are already global scientific sites like Cornell's, though I'm not too familiar about it because I'm not a scientist myself.

    But let me reply with what you really mean corroboration and when considered for global benefit. I think we should also consider the obstacles in its reception like Chris Mooney observed:

    We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

    We're not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn't take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that's highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about

    we have other important goals besides accuracy—including identity affirmation and protecting one's sense of self—and often those make us highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should.

    paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

    from his article - The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
  • thumb
    Jun 29 2011: Yes Kelwalin, global collaboration is needed to implement our solution strategies. My key suggestions are to ignite the power of our hearts and minds to care and learn and to translate and contribute the power of beliefs and convictions into the language of our mutual interests and transform our world.