Reflecting on the appeal for ‘multispecies justice for all’, this chapter argues how this might be addressed to better challenge speciesism, and inform new radical geographies of liberation. To these ends, the main body of the chapter is composed of four case studies, commentaries and reflections, in which each author draws on a range of personal experiences and context to think through ways in which they are trying to share space more justly. Looking to the future, the chapter argues for the importance of embracing a vegan praxis more fully, to better inform and animate multispecies justice research, teaching and activism.

We are currently facing and traversing in the thick of a twin pandemic: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and disinformation. Disinformation is false information created and spread deliberately with the intention to mislead public opinion, obscure truths, and undermine trust in knowledge. The digital age we live in is quite different than the printing revolution and invention of the oil-based ink printing press centuries ago. Digital technologies can spread and repeat disinformation at extremely high speeds, while anyone, a qualified expert or not, and with internet access, can become an author. To fight disinformation, we ought to dismantle the entrenched and extractive epistemologies that act as upstream drivers and sites of disinformation production. Epistemology refers to the value-laden knowledge frames, overarching master narratives, and storylines, in which knowledge is produced. If the epistemologies in which we generate knowledge are false, then the knowledge products will be laden with disinformation. Moreover, the harms caused by disinformation can extend well beyond the immediate knowledge domain where disinformation has originated. This occurs when "false equivalence" is used as a form of rhetoric. False equivalence is a type of flawed sense making where equal weight is given to arguments with concrete material evidence, and those that are conjecture, untrue, or unjust. This article presents an analysis of the disinformation pandemic attendant to COVID-19, with an eye to its causes-of-causes: unchecked extractive epistemologies (e.g., technocracy), and the practice of false equivalence in pandemic discourses. We argue that holding the political agency of master narratives to account is essential (1) to fight the disinformation pandemic and (2) for prefigurative politics to build egalitarian and democratic societies in place of the instrumental/transactional relationships that typify the contemporary nation states and the neoliberal university whose ossified rituals lack the normative capacities for critical governance in a time of converging social, digital, and ecological crises. For liberation from disinformation, we should start with liberation from entrenched extractive epistemologies in science and society.

Lies and disinformation have always existed throughout human history. However, disinformation has become a "pandemic within a pandemic" with convergence of COVID-19 and digital transformation of health care, climate emergency, and pervasive human-computer interaction in all facets of life. We are living through an era of post-truth. New approaches to fight disinformation are urgently needed and of paramount importance for systems science and planetary health. In this study, we discuss the ways in which extractive and entrenched epistemologies such as technocracy and neoliberalism co-produce disinformation. We draw from the works of David Collingridge in technology entrenchment and the literature on digital health, international affairs, climate emergency, degrowth, and decolonializing methodologies. We expand the vocabulary on and interventions against disinformation, and propose the following: (1) rapid epistemic disobedience as a critical governance tool to resist the cultural hegemony of neoliberalism and its master narrative infinite growth that is damaging the planetary ecosystems, while creating echo chambers overflowing with disinformation, and (2) a two-tiered taxonomy of reflexivity, a state of self-cognizance by knowledge actors, for example, scientists, engineers, and physicians (type 1 reflexivity), as well as by chroniclers of former actors, for example, civil society organizations, journalists, social sciences, and humanities scholars (type 2 reflexivity). This article takes seriously the role of master narratives in quotidian life in production of disinformation and ecological breakdown. The infinite growth narrative does not ask critical questions such as "growth in what, at what costs to society and environment?," and is a dangerous game of brinkmanship that has been testing the planetary ecological boundaries and putting at risk the veracity of knowledge. There is a need for scholars and systems scientists who break ranks with entrenched narratives that pose existential threats to planetary sustainability and are harmful to knowledge veracity. Scholars who resist the obvious recklessness and juggernaut of the pursuit of neoliberal infinite growth would be rooting for living responsibly and in solidarity on a planet with finite resources. The interventions proposed in this study, rapid epistemic disobedience and the expanded reflexivity taxonomy, can advance progressive policies for a good life for all within planetary boundaries, and decolonize knowledge from disinformation in ways that are necessarily upstream, radical, rapid, and emancipatory.

OMICS: A Journal of Integrative BiologyVol. 26, No. 6 EditorialBroadening Diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Through Gender and 2SLGBTQ+ EquityVural Özdemir and Simon SpringerVural ÖzdemirAddress correspondence to: Prof. Vural Özdemir, MD, PhD, DABCP, Editor-in-Chief, OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, NY 10801, USA E-mail Address: OJIB@liebertpub.comE-mail Address: vural.ozdemir@protonmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5117-759XOMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, New York.Search for more papers by this author and Simon SpringerAddress correspondence to: Simon Springer, PhD, MA, BA, Professor of Human Geography, Director, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Newcastle, Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia E-mail Address: simonspringer@gmail.com;E-mail Address: simon.springer@newcastle.edu.auhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0064-7440Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Jun 2022https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2022.0059AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View articleFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 26Issue 6Jun 2022 InformationCopyright 2022, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Vural Özdemir and Simon Springer.Broadening Diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Through Gender and 2SLGBTQ+ Equity.OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology.Jun 2022.321-323.http://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2022.0059Published in Volume: 26 Issue 6: June 13, 2022Online Ahead of Print:June 6, 2022PDF download

What if this is it? The end of life. The final gathering darkness. The new era of death. What if, in this somber admission, we finally came to understand that the once radiant story of humanity, bl...

In a digital society, shall we be the authors of our own experience, not only during our lifetime but also after we die? We ask this question because dying and bereavement have become even harder, and much less private, in the digital age. New big data-driven digital industries and technologies are on the rise, with promises of interactive 3D avatars and storage of digital memories of the deceased, so they can continue to exist online as the "living dead" in a digital afterlife. Famous rock and roll icons like Roy Orbison, Frank Zappa, Ronnie James Dio, and Amy Winehouse have famously been turned into holograms that can once again give "live" performances on the touring circuit, often pulling in large audiences. Death studies, dying, and grief have become virtual in the 21st century. We live in truly unprecedented times for human-computer interactions. Thanatology is the scientific study of death, dying, loss, and grief. In contrast to the biological study of biological aging (cellular senescence) and programmed cell death (apoptosis), thanatology employs multiple professional lenses, medical, psychological, physical, spiritual, ethical, descriptive, and normative. In 1997, Carla Sofka introduced the term thanatechnology as "technological mechanisms such as interactive videodiscs and computer programs that are used to access information or aid in learning about thanatology topics." Onward to 2021, the advent of social media, the Internet of Things, and sensors that digitize and archive nearly every human movement and experience are taking thanatechnology, and by extension, digital transformation, to new heights. For example, what happens to digital remains of persons once they cease to exist physically? This article offers a critical study and snapshot of this nascent field, and the "un-disciplinary" sociotechnical issues digital thanatechnologies raise in relation to big data. We also discuss how best to critically govern this new frontier in systems science and the digital society. We suggest that new policy narratives such as (1) the right to nonparticipation in relation to information and communication technologies and (2) the planetary public goods deserve further attention to democratize thanatechnology and big data. To the extent that systems science often depends on data from online platforms, for example, in times of pandemics and ecological crises, "critical thanatechnology studies," introduced in this article, is a timely and essential field of scholarship with broad importance for systems science and planetary health.

"The pandemic is a portal." In the words of the novelist scholar Arundhati Roy, the COVID-19 pandemic is not merely an epic calamity. It has opened up a new space, a portal, to rethink everything, for example, in how we live, work, produce scientific knowledge, provide health care, and relate to others, be they humans or nonhuman animals in planetary ecosystems. Meanwhile, as the intensity of the pandemic escalates, digital health tools such as the Internet of Things (IoT), biosensors, and artificial intelligence (AI) are being deployed to address the twin goals of social distancing and health care in a "no touch" emergency state. Permanent integration of digital technologies into every aspect of post-pandemic civic life-health care, disease tracking, education, work, and beyond-is considered by governments and technology actors around the world. Although digital transformation of health care and industry are in the works, we ought to ensure that digital transformation does not degenerate into "digitalism," which we define here as an unchecked and misguided belief on extreme digital connectivity without considering the attendant adverse repercussions on science, human rights, and everyday practices of democracy. Indeed, the current shrinking of the critically informed public policy space amid a devastating pandemic raises principled questions on the broader and long-term impacts that digital technologies will have on democratic governance of planetary health and society. To this end, a wide range of uncertainties-technical, biological, temporal, spatial, and political-is on the COVID-19 pandemic horizon. This calls for astute and anticipatory innovation policies to steer the health sciences and services toward democratic ends. In this article, we describe new and critically informed approaches to democratize COVID-19 digital health innovation policy, especially when the facts are uncertain, the stakes are high, and decisions are urgent, as they often are in the course of a pandemic. In addition, we introduce a potential remedy to democratize pandemic innovation policy, the concept of "epistemic competence," so as to check the frames and framings of the pandemic innovation policy juggernaut and the attendant power asymmetries. We suggest that if epistemic competence, and attention to not only scientific knowledge but also its framing are broadly appreciated, they can help reduce the disparity between the enormous technical progress and investments made in digital health versus our currently inadequate understanding of the societal dimensions of emerging technologies such as AI, IoT, and extreme digital connectivity on the planet.

Mutual aid is the fundamental basis of all human societies, an understanding that is exemplified with striking clarity during times of crises. The coronavirus pandemic has brought the caring geographies of mutual aid into sharp relief with the failings of both capitalism and the state. Beyond fear and uncertainty, this commentary examines the one single theme that has resonated with the COVID-19 pandemic more than all others: care.

OMICS: A Journal of Integrative BiologyVol. 24, No. 8 EditorialFree AccessCOVID-19 Health Technology Governance, Epistemic Competence, and the Future of Knowledge in an Uncertain WorldVural Özdemir, Simon Springer, Colin K. Garvey, and Mustafa BayramVural ÖzdemirAddress correspondence to: Vural Özdemir, MD, PhD, DABCP, Editor-in-Chief, OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, NY 10801, USA E-mail Address: [email protected]E-mail Address: [email protected]OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, New York, USA.Search for more papers by this author, Simon SpringerCentre for Urban and Regional Studies, Discipline of Geography and Environmental Studies, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.Search for more papers by this author, Colin K. GarveyStanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.Search for more papers by this author, and Mustafa BayramDepartment of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:3 Aug 2020https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0088AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookXLinked InRedditEmail "In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-George Orwell (Venturini, 1982)To stem the crises brought about by pandemics, we need to address complex and interdependent challenges in health care and society. A crosscutting issue amid the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 is governance of emerging health technologies and innovations when the facts are uncertain and the stakes are high (Bayram et al., 2020; Sclove, 2020). There is extraordinary potential for abuse as everyday decisions that impact millions of people under lockdown are currently being made, ranging from access to COVID-19 diagnostics to acceleration of vaccine and drug innovation and to the rhythms of quotidian life, for travel, vacation, and how we live, work, and play (Özdemir, 2020a, 2020b; Wade, 2020).Historically, the debates on innovation policy have tended to focus on technical knowledge. Questions such as "what is the diagnostic performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests" and "which technologies should underpin the development of new vaccines and drugs against the pandemic?" among others usually come to the fore. These are essential questions. But they are insufficient to make responsible innovation policies that stand the test of time, not to mention the diverse social and political contexts across the planet (Von Schomberg, 2019; Von Schomberg and Hankins, 2019).To democratize the pandemic digital innovation policy, presence of elections and elected political leaders do not, in and of themselves, guarantee the democratic quality of the innovation policy outcomes. Indeed political scientists have long noted the imprecision of voting as mechanism for democratic decision making, and observed that elected officials and government functionaries can in fact act as barriers to greater popular control over policy making (Lindblom and Woodhouse, 1993). An innovation policy can help steer the COVID-19 science and technology to democratic ends (Table 1).Table 1. Rationale for COVID-19 Pandemic Innovation PoliciesInnovation policies are important. They can, in the ideal case, broaden our thinking, enhance the reflexivity of persons and communities, and conjure up collective imaginations on the: (1) broader social and political contexts in which scientific discoveries emerge, (2) alternatives to proposed technology solutions, (3) proponent as well as dissenting views on new technologies, (4) multiple possible future(s) and scenarios in which innovation trajectories evolve, and (5) unintended (positive or negative) consequences of emerging technologies.Adapted from Bayram et al. (2020).Because factors such as race, gender, and region are likely to be included in systematic data collection efforts related to COVID-19, addressing data provenance is crucial for avoiding biases and other unintended consequences that could "skew predictions, diagnoses, risk scores, and decisions about where, or to whom, finite resources and care should be prioritized" (Horvitz et al., 2020).We also need to check the frames and framing of science and technology before a body of knowledge is transitioned for implementation in planetary health (Koopman, 2017; Özdemir and Springer, 2018). Epistemology concerns the frames and framings of knowledge: how do we know what we know? Questioning the epistemology of a given body of COVID-19–related knowledge, before accepting its veracity and legitimacy, is a necessary new skill set in 21st century (Garvey, 2019; Özdemir, 2019, 2020c). An "epistemic check" provides a crucial opportunity to provide checks and balances against abuses of power, and ensures that whatever pathways we ultimately take, we have considered the contingencies and potential obstacles.We highlight this skill set as "epistemic competence," the ability and willingness to examine the frames and framings in which knowledge is produced.Epistemic Competence Matters for Innovation PolicyTo illustrate the concept and practice of epistemic competence, and even though vacations are currently postponed with the pandemic, let us imagine a travel scenario where we are taking the pictures of beautiful scenery. The breadth of our lens and the angle we choose for the camera determine the photograph contents and the types of images we create. If a 100-year old interesting and beautiful tree is left outside the camera frame, it will not be in the photograph. If we choose a close up versus a distant shot, that impacts what comes across prominently in the photograph or remains in the shadows in the background.Knowledge production is no different in life sciences or social sciences and humanities. How we frame a question determines the type of answers we create and represents a distinct application of power within contemporary society (Law, 2004; Özdemir, 2019; Özdemir and Springer, 2018). The framings of planetary health policy in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic are shaping what gets to be produced as solutions and who has access to them and who does not (Wade, 2020). The choice of a particular framing over another, for example, whether health care is a human right and ought to be available to all persons especially amid the pandemic or a commodity to be traded has direct impacts on the targets prioritized and the outcomes of COVID-19–related innovation policies. No doubt, we cannot stem a planetary scale health challenge such as COVID-19 if health care were available only to some but not all persons on the planet. This line of critical inquiry also begins to scratch the surface of the taken-for-granted understandings of wealth distribution in our societies, since we know that impoverishment, whether moderate or widespread, is not conducive to positive health outcomes (Kickbusch et al., 2020; Wade, 2020).Health is consequently "part of the right to an adequate standard of living," as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 2008). The right to health was also recognized as a human right in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (United Nations, 2008). To this end, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised both instrumental and principled questions.From a practical or efficiency standpoint, inclusive access to planetary health care, by all people from all walks of life and economic status, is important for robust and effective pandemic response. That is, who and what are omitted matter greatly (Barad, 2011). Absent inclusive access to health care, the marginalized, underserved communities, overcrowded work spaces that lack preventive health care and social distancing, not to mention war and social conflict zones, will pave the way for recurring peaks of new cases and deaths from SARS-CoV-2, especially if extensive diagnostics capacity is not in place to test, trace, and isolate the new cases. Prioritizing profit over people is never going to result in health care delivery that results in equitable outcomes (Kickbusch et al., 2020; Springer, 2016; Wade, 2020), and it is becoming increasingly evident that the public is ready for systemic change toward a greater ethic of community care (Butler, 2020; Springer, 2020).Framing and understanding of health as a universal human right are part of the epistemic competence crucial for emerging health technology governance (Özdemir, 2020b; Özdemir and Springer, 2018). Health technology governance ought to check the framings of the complex questions and solutions emerging as part of the pandemic (Bayram et al., 2020; Springer, 2016).Placing epistemology/framing before the knowledge serves as a "truth tracker" and can boost collective reflexivity as new science and innovation policies emerge in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, and other likely zoonotic outbreaks in the future (Holst and Molander, 2019).ConclusionsTo the extent that epistemologies shape the types of knowledge we produce in science and society, epistemic competence in emerging health technology governance and innovation policy has bearings on the future of trustworthy and veritable knowledge in the 21st century (Boschele, 2020). Moreover, if epistemic competence and framing of scientific knowledge are broadly appreciated, whereby society starts to recognize the "bigger picture" through greater understanding of the cognitive biases we maintain, it may offer opportunities for new and creative solutions.In particular, and of profound consequence in the current moment, we might begin to address the disparity between the enormous technical progress and investments made in health technologies versus our currently inadequate and underfunded understanding of the societal dimensions of health technologies that are being deployed to stem the pandemic (Frodeman, 2020).DisclaimerViews expressed are the personal opinions of the authors only.Funding InformationNo funding was received in support of this article.ReferencesBarad K. (2011). Erasers and erasures: Pinch's unfortunate "uncertainty principle." Soc Stud Sci 41, 443–454. Crossref, Google ScholarBayram M, Springer S, Garvey CK, and Özdemir V. (2020). COVID-19 digital health innovation policy: A portal to alternative futures in the making. OMICS 24 (in press). Link, Google ScholarBoschele M. (2020). Politics and Its New Dimensions in the 21st Century. (Original in Turkish: 21. Yüzyılda Yeni Boyutlarıyla Siyaset). Istanbul: DER Publishers. Google ScholarButler J. (2020). The Force of Nonviolence. Brooklyn, New York and London, UK: Verso. Google ScholarFrodeman R. (2020). What happens when society emphasizes technical education and treats the humanities as irrelevant? The Dallas Morning News, February 3rd. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/03/what-happens-when-society-emphasizes-technical-education-and-treats-the-humanities-as-irrelevant/ Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarGarvey C. (2019). Hypothesis: Is "Terminator Syndrome" a barrier to democratizing artificial intelligence and public engagement in digital health? OMICS 23, 362–363. Link, Google ScholarHolst C, and Molander A. (2019). Epistemic democracy and the role of experts. Contemp Polit Theory 18, 541–561. Crossref, Google ScholarHorvitz E, Clyburn M, Griffiths JM, and Matheny J. (2020). Privacy and Ethics Recommendations for Computing Applications Developed to Mitigate COVID-19. White Paper Series on Pandemic Response and Preparedness, No. 1. Washington, DC: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, May 2020. Google ScholarKickbusch I, Leung GM, Bhutta ZA, Matsoso MP, Ihekweazu C, and Abbasi K. (2020). Covid-19: How a virus is turning the world upside down. BMJ 369, m1336. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarKoopman C. (2017). The power thinker. Original, painstaking, sometimes frustrating and often dazzling. Foucault's work on power matters now more than ever. Aeon, March 16. https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarLaw J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London and New York: Routledge. Crossref, Google ScholarLindblom CE, and Woodhouse EJ. (1993). The Policy-making Process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2019). Toward an "ethics-of-ethics" for responsible innovation. In: International Handbook of Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource. von Schomberg RHankins J, eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 70–82. Crossref, Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020a). The science and politics of coronavirus. Istanbul: DUVAR English. https://www.duvarenglish.com/opinion/2020/03/16/the-science-and-politics-of-coronavirus/ Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020b). Toward digital personalized medicine and responsible innovation. The New England Journal of Medicine Panel on Personalized Medicine, the World Economic Forum 50th Annual Meeting, Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, January 23. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020c). Why are some omics biotechnologies more popular than others? The sociomateriality of glycans offers new clues. OMICS 24, 57–59. Link, Google ScholarÖzdemir V, and Springer S. (2018). What does "Diversity" mean for public engagement in science? A new metric for innovation ecosystem diversity. OMICS 22, 184–189. Link, Google ScholarSclove R. (2020). Democracy and technology: An Interview with Richard Sclove from Beth Simone Noveck. Digit Gov Res Pract 1, Article 5. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3368273 Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarSpringer S. (2016). The discourse of neoliberalism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Google ScholarSpringer S. (2020). Caring geographies: The COVID-19 interregnum and a return to mutual aid. Dialogues in Human Geography 10(2), Epub in advance; DOI: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2043820620931277 Accessed June 2, 2020. Google ScholarUnited Nations. (2008). The Right to Health. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarVenturini VG. (1982). Partners in Ecocide: Australia's Complicity in the Uranium Cartel. Clifton Hill, Australia: Rigmarole Book Publishers. Google ScholarVon Schomberg R. (2019). Why responsible innovation? https://app.box.com/s/h8gib5ga6wtcv81dste3kjlhyz1zpu91 Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarVon Schomberg R, and Hankins J. (2019). International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Crossref, Google ScholarWade F. (2020). Judith Butler on the Violence of Neglect Amid a Health Crisis. A conversation with the theorist about her new book, The Force of Nonviolence, and the need for global solidarity in the pandemic World. The Nation May 13. https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/judith-butler-force-of-nonviolence-interview/ Accessed May 20, 2020. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byCovid-19 and organisational development: important signs of a new pillar for sustainability11 October 2021 | Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 18, No. 8Decolonizing Knowledge Upstream: New Ways to Deconstruct and Fight Disinformation in an Era of COVID-19, Extreme Digital Transformation, and Climate Emergency Vural Özdemir and Simon Springer11 May 2022 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 26, No. 5Digital Is Political: Why We Need a Feminist Conceptual Lens on Determinants of Digital Health Vural Özdemir8 April 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 4From the Editor's Desk: Systems Science 2010–2020, and Post-COVID-19 Vural Özdemir10 February 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 2"One Nature": A New Vocabulary and Frame for Governance Innovation in Post-COVID-19 Planetary Health Vural Özdemir4 November 2020 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 24, No. 11Growing Up in a Digital World with COVID-19 and Governing Health Futures: Who Guards the Guards? Vural Özdemir4 November 2020 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 24, No. 11Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods René Von Schomberg and Vural Özdemir2 September 2020 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 24, No. 9 Volume 24Issue 8Aug 2020 InformationCopyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Vural Özdemir, Simon Springer, Colin K. Garvey, and Mustafa Bayram.COVID-19 Health Technology Governance, Epistemic Competence, and the Future of Knowledge in an Uncertain World.OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology.Aug 2020.451-453.http://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0088Published in Volume: 24 Issue 8: August 3, 2020Online Ahead of Print:June 8, 2020 TopicsCOVID-19 PDF download

This article examines the plight of homeless peoples in Phnom Penh, Cambodia as a consequence of their enmeshment in a new logic of urban governance being rolled out by city officials and municipal planners. The widespread adoption of neoliberal economics has resulted in a globalised version of urban entrepreneurialism, to which Phnom Penh is a participant. The (re)production of enterprise zones, cultural spectacles, waterfront development, and privatised forms of local governance all reflect the powerful disciplinary effects of interurban competition as cities aggressively engage in mutually destructive place-marketing policies. Against this neoliberal backdrop, the ongoing pattern of violence utilised by municipal authorities against homeless peoples in Phnom Penh is part of a gentrifying process that the local government has dubbed a 'beautification' agenda. Of particular concern is how city officials have begun actively promoting the criminalization of the urban homeless and poor through arbitrary arrests and illegal detention, holding them in so-called re-education or 'rehabilitation' centres. Yet these centres are not what they seem. Such euphemisms attempt to mask the systemic abuse of marginalised peoples who are deemed to present Phnom Penh in a negative light and are consequently unwanted on the streets of the capital city.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Beyond state centricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Of monopolies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The problem with revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Tak, jebać go. Neoliberalizm jest do bani. Nie potrzebujemy go.Tłumaczenie: Filip Brzeźniak

Las raíces anarquistas de la geografía nos aproxima a una política radical de libertad y posibilidades a través de la discusión de las geografías insurreccionales que permean nuestras experiencias cotidianas. Al adoptar estas geografías como espacialidades caleidoscópicas que posibilitan conexiones no jerárquicas entre entidades autónomas, Simon Springer configura una nueva perspectiva política. La experiencia en y a través del espacio define la historia de la humanidad y su lugar en la Tierra, mientras que la estasis y el control que ahora se imponen son un desafío a la subsistencia humana. Aproximaciones basadas en ontologías singulares favorecen una única forma de ver y actuar y, con esto, niegan a la geografía, en tanto práctica de lo espacial y como un ensamblaje mutable íntimamente vinculado a la temporalidad. Al permear nuestras geografías con el anarquismo desatamos el espíritu de rebelión que involucra nuevas posibilidades de ayuda mutua a través de la acción directa. ¿Pueden seguir vigentes las geografías jerárquicas que nos encadenan al estatismo, capitalismo, dominio de género, opresión racial e imperialismo? ¿Debemos reorientar el pensamiento geográfico hacia los horizontes anarquistas de la posibilidad? Este libro nos acerca al devenir vigoroso de una geografía vinculada con la emancipación del pensamiento y de la acción humana.

Diversity is increasingly at stake in early 21st century. Diversity is often conceptualized across ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual preference, and professional credentials, among other categories of difference. These are important and relevant considerations and yet, they are incomplete. Diversity also rests in the way we frame questions long before answers are sought. Such diversity in the framing (epistemology) of scientific and societal questions is important for they influence the types of data, results, and impacts produced by research. Errors in the framing of a research question, whether in technical science or social science, are known as type III errors, as opposed to the better known type I (false positives) and type II errors (false negatives). Kimball defined "error of the third kind" as giving the right answer to the wrong problem. Raiffa described the type III error as correctly solving the wrong problem. Type III errors are upstream or design flaws, often driven by unchecked human values and power, and can adversely impact an entire innovation ecosystem, waste money, time, careers, and precious resources by focusing on the wrong or incorrectly framed question and hypothesis. Decades may pass while technology experts, scientists, social scientists, funding agencies and management consultants continue to tackle questions that suffer from type III errors. We propose a new diversity metric, the Frame Diversity Index (FDI), based on the hitherto neglected diversities in knowledge framing. The FDI would be positively correlated with epistemological diversity and technological democracy, and inversely correlated with prevalence of type III errors in innovation ecosystems, consortia, and knowledge networks. We suggest that the FDI can usefully measure (and prevent) type III error risks in innovation ecosystems, and help broaden the concepts and practices of diversity and inclusion in science, technology, innovation and society.