decades’ (Berkman and Young 2009, p. 339).
5 The newly emerging convergence
model in the life sciences horizon is expected to re-integrate the life sciences with
the physical sciences and engineering, promising to help in developing an effective
strategy of knowledge-based governance for the ecosystems in distress, such as the
Arctic Ocean. Assuming that the real challenge is as simple as that, we must not fail
to ask the question: Where will the humanity go from here?
6 Creating Knowledge-Environments for Accelerated
Knowledge Resources Dynamics
But is convergence enough? If we consider the underlying complexities of global
problems, the answer is in the negative. Beyond convergence, there is apparently no
last step but an endless frontier that we may identify with knowledge resources
dynamics. Creating the knowledge environments for knowledge resources
dynamics is an imperative, at least in the author’s view. The question what kind of
resource is knowledge, briefly considered above, raises a further question: Is it a
public good in so far as public goods are neither excludable nor rival (Mankiw
2004)? According to Mankiw (2004, p. 225) the answer is that ‘… people cannot be
prevented from using a public good, and one person’s use of a public good does not
reduce another person’s ability to use it’. This becomes even more evident if we
look at the universities and research institutions as knowledge environments that
foster local interactions most conducive to the creation of knowledge resources. Yet
there are contextual complexities inherent in the concept of knowledge that makes
any task of articulating it independent of contextual diversities an impossible task.
In agreement with Clemenz (2007, p. 9) we can say that ‘Knowledge is created in
various forms, under various conditions and for various purposes, and it looks
impossible to determine its properties and its handling in markets or other institutions without specifying the context’.
In today’s KBCE, no doubt, the knowledge-discovery-innovation linkages play
a crucial role as an input in the engines of economic growth. For humanity’s
survival, it is imperative to understand first how the accelerated domestication of
nature (Pandit 2013), accelerated urbanization, increasing commodification of
ecosystem services by ‘creative destruction’ (Joseph Schumpeter) and destruction
of the planet’s carbon sinks adversely change the Earth’s ecosystems beyond
recognition, aggravating global warming, climate change, biodiversity loss and land
degradation. At a deeper level, in the context of the destruction that the Earth’s
ecosystems have suffered, the loss of knowledge, loss of a public good, has
far-reaching multiple implications. Destruction of ecosystem resilience, e.g.
5
See Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004).
148
G.L. Pandit
5 The newly emerging convergence
model in the life sciences horizon is expected to re-integrate the life sciences with
the physical sciences and engineering, promising to help in developing an effective
strategy of knowledge-based governance for the ecosystems in distress, such as the
Arctic Ocean. Assuming that the real challenge is as simple as that, we must not fail
to ask the question: Where will the humanity go from here?
6 Creating Knowledge-Environments for Accelerated
Knowledge Resources Dynamics
But is convergence enough? If we consider the underlying complexities of global
problems, the answer is in the negative. Beyond convergence, there is apparently no
last step but an endless frontier that we may identify with knowledge resources
dynamics. Creating the knowledge environments for knowledge resources
dynamics is an imperative, at least in the author’s view. The question what kind of
resource is knowledge, briefly considered above, raises a further question: Is it a
public good in so far as public goods are neither excludable nor rival (Mankiw
2004)? According to Mankiw (2004, p. 225) the answer is that ‘… people cannot be
prevented from using a public good, and one person’s use of a public good does not
reduce another person’s ability to use it’. This becomes even more evident if we
look at the universities and research institutions as knowledge environments that
foster local interactions most conducive to the creation of knowledge resources. Yet
there are contextual complexities inherent in the concept of knowledge that makes
any task of articulating it independent of contextual diversities an impossible task.
In agreement with Clemenz (2007, p. 9) we can say that ‘Knowledge is created in
various forms, under various conditions and for various purposes, and it looks
impossible to determine its properties and its handling in markets or other institutions without specifying the context’.
In today’s KBCE, no doubt, the knowledge-discovery-innovation linkages play
a crucial role as an input in the engines of economic growth. For humanity’s
survival, it is imperative to understand first how the accelerated domestication of
nature (Pandit 2013), accelerated urbanization, increasing commodification of
ecosystem services by ‘creative destruction’ (Joseph Schumpeter) and destruction
of the planet’s carbon sinks adversely change the Earth’s ecosystems beyond
recognition, aggravating global warming, climate change, biodiversity loss and land
degradation. At a deeper level, in the context of the destruction that the Earth’s
ecosystems have suffered, the loss of knowledge, loss of a public good, has
far-reaching multiple implications. Destruction of ecosystem resilience, e.g.
5
See Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004).
148
G.L. Pandit