complex problems of climate change due to the accelerated domestication of the
planet’s ecosystems (Pandit 2013; Marean 2015) and increasing concentration of
GHGs (mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in its atmosphere.
However, the good news is that science already is, or is soon going to be, in a state
of self-repair, a state of self-healing, where it has to work through convergence on
the life sciences horizon, also being described as the third revolution. Accelerated
convergence on common frontiers may facilitate this process of self-healing,
bringing newer perspectives to bear on possible solutions to global problems.
Advocating ‘A New Biology for the 21st Century’ as a convergence of life sciences
with engineering, physical, mathematical and computational sciences, the Nobel
prize winning molecular biologist Phillip A. Sharp (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014, p. 1470)’,
spoke of continued investments in basic research at their interface as an imperative
of future change. In the convergence model is seen a promise of meeting a host of
future challenges (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014, p. 1470; http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12764.
html, vii), envisaging a ‘… re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology,
and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle
a broad range of scientific and societal problems’. These challenges include the
challenge of beneficially impacting innovation and entrepreneurship and bringing a
newly reintegrated science to bear on society. It is not surprising if in this context
Sharp urged the scientists to ‘continue to talk about the link between research and
innovation, and economic and global need (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014)’.
No doubt, there is great merit in the convergence model. Convergence in the life
sciences’ horizon is seen as full of promise as regards the frontier of modelling
regional and global environmental changes, namely, the changes taking place in the
socio-ecosystems such as the Arctic Ocean. Let us take a concrete example. Think
of the application of DNA sequencing to analyzing the range of microorganisms in
healthy habitats and environments, on the one hand, and in Earth’s ecosystems in
distress, on the other. We are here thinking of ecosystem complexity as a function
of organisms, of species diversity and of environmental nesting within the
ecosystem. Since these are the very foundation of the food chain within and across
the ecosystems, any ‘shifts in their population will eventually drive change through
the surrounding environment (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014, p. 1471)’. To take another very
simple example, there would have been no Aral Sea catastrophe in Central Asia,
had a knowledge-based policy and governance been in place as part of the development strategy that had aimed at regional economic prosperity but that landed the
local population in the catastrophic collapse of the Aral Sea ecosystem itself (Pandit
2013). In general, this is true of all the Earth’s ecosystems that are undergoing
environmental change due to correlated anthropogenic global warming and
habitat-specific developmental activity. This becomes very clear when we look at
today’s rapidly changing ecosystems such as the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic Ocean is
a large, complex and highly dynamic socio-ecological system that is undergoing
environmental change beyond the environmental threshold, transforming it ‘from a
perpetually ice-covered region to a seasonally ice-free area within the next few
Knowledge-Based Climate Economy …
147
planet’s ecosystems (Pandit 2013; Marean 2015) and increasing concentration of
GHGs (mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in its atmosphere.
However, the good news is that science already is, or is soon going to be, in a state
of self-repair, a state of self-healing, where it has to work through convergence on
the life sciences horizon, also being described as the third revolution. Accelerated
convergence on common frontiers may facilitate this process of self-healing,
bringing newer perspectives to bear on possible solutions to global problems.
Advocating ‘A New Biology for the 21st Century’ as a convergence of life sciences
with engineering, physical, mathematical and computational sciences, the Nobel
prize winning molecular biologist Phillip A. Sharp (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014, p. 1470)’,
spoke of continued investments in basic research at their interface as an imperative
of future change. In the convergence model is seen a promise of meeting a host of
future challenges (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014, p. 1470; http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12764.
html, vii), envisaging a ‘… re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology,
and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle
a broad range of scientific and societal problems’. These challenges include the
challenge of beneficially impacting innovation and entrepreneurship and bringing a
newly reintegrated science to bear on society. It is not surprising if in this context
Sharp urged the scientists to ‘continue to talk about the link between research and
innovation, and economic and global need (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014)’.
No doubt, there is great merit in the convergence model. Convergence in the life
sciences’ horizon is seen as full of promise as regards the frontier of modelling
regional and global environmental changes, namely, the changes taking place in the
socio-ecosystems such as the Arctic Ocean. Let us take a concrete example. Think
of the application of DNA sequencing to analyzing the range of microorganisms in
healthy habitats and environments, on the one hand, and in Earth’s ecosystems in
distress, on the other. We are here thinking of ecosystem complexity as a function
of organisms, of species diversity and of environmental nesting within the
ecosystem. Since these are the very foundation of the food chain within and across
the ecosystems, any ‘shifts in their population will eventually drive change through
the surrounding environment (Sharp 19 Dec. 2014, p. 1471)’. To take another very
simple example, there would have been no Aral Sea catastrophe in Central Asia,
had a knowledge-based policy and governance been in place as part of the development strategy that had aimed at regional economic prosperity but that landed the
local population in the catastrophic collapse of the Aral Sea ecosystem itself (Pandit
2013). In general, this is true of all the Earth’s ecosystems that are undergoing
environmental change due to correlated anthropogenic global warming and
habitat-specific developmental activity. This becomes very clear when we look at
today’s rapidly changing ecosystems such as the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic Ocean is
a large, complex and highly dynamic socio-ecological system that is undergoing
environmental change beyond the environmental threshold, transforming it ‘from a
perpetually ice-covered region to a seasonally ice-free area within the next few
Knowledge-Based Climate Economy …
147