Science And Society Dialogues

AI isn’t just a powerful tool for accelerating sustainability work. It can also help us move faster in advancing human rights - and we’re piloting AI models that do just that. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of suppliers worldwide - that’s a massive scope. So we’re harnessing AI to keep pace, prevent, and respond to human rights risks in our network. Here are two examples of how that’s taking shape: 🔍 Smarter Risk Prediction: We developed an AI model that can analyze tens of thousands of historical social audits to identify patterns, spot warning signs, and flag high-risk suppliers - essentially helping us zoom in on what matters. The testing results were impressive - the tool successfully identified about 9 out of every 10 high-risk sites, with 85% overall accuracy. ⏱Faster insights: It can take a human rights manager up to four hours to manually review a supplier audit report. But we developed an AI tool that processes a report in just minutes - identifying risks, rating the seriousness, and suggesting next steps. Early versions helped us process audit reports 65% faster - a remarkable difference! It’s important to note - these AI tools aren’t replacing human decision-making. They’re designed to support, enhance and accelerate our work. Every AI recommendation gets reviewed by our experts - and their input actually helps improve the system over time. We’re still in early stages, but I’m inspired by the potential. On this #HumanRightsDay, I invite you to learn more about our work from Devex’s comprehensive interview with Leigh Anne DeWine, our Director of Human Rights & Social Impact, who is making a great impact every day here at Amazon. Thanks to Leigh Anne and our entire Human Rights and Social Impact team for the incredibly critical work you do. 🙏 https://lnkd.in/gSWZAWFB

"Evidence is of irreplaceable value to policymaking. However, holding regulatory action to too high an evidentiary standard can lead to systematic neglect of certain risks. In historical policy debates (e.g., over tobacco ca. 1965 and fossil fuels ca. 1985) "evidence-based policy" rhetoric is also a well-precedented strategy to downplay the urgency of action, delay regulation, and protect industry interests. Here, we argue that if the goal is evidence-based AI policy, the first regulatory objective must be to actively facilitate the process of identifying, studying, and deliberating about AI risks. We discuss a set of 15 regulatory goals to facilitate this and show that Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, South Korea, the UK, and the USA all have substantial opportunities to adopt further evidence-seeking policies." A provocative paper, filled with interesting evidence and insights, from Stephen Casper, David Krueger, Dylan Hadfield-Menell

UNESCO for the People – Harnessing Science, Technology, and Innovation as Global Public Goods Science, technology, and innovation (STI) shape not only what we know but how societies thrive and tackle pressing challenges. The International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development (2024–2033), led by UNESCO, presents a unique opportunity to strengthen international cooperation, boost public and private research investment, reinforce local research ecosystems, and place science at the core of inclusive development strategies that empower women, youth, and marginalized communities. Over three decades in academia, I have witnessed how scientific research transforms societies. I have mentored students and young scholars, collaborated with leading global academic institutions, and helped establish joint academic and research programs that unite scholars across borders and empower early-career researchers. Throughout my campaign, I have met scientists who are making a meaningful impact despite limited resources. As I emphasized during a lecture at UNESCO’s Arab Week, strong education systems, adequate funding, and international collaboration are essential to building diverse, resilient research communities capable of driving real change. “UNESCO for the People” envisions STI as tools for inclusion and sustainable development—creating tangible benefits for people’s lives by: • Supporting Member States in developing national research strategies that strengthen inclusive science ecosystems, uphold the right to science, ensure scientists’ safety, improve working conditions, and advance gender equality and youth participation. • Advocating for greater investment in research and innovation by increasing national budgets and fostering partnerships with international financial institutions and donors. • Reducing disparities among countries by promoting an inclusive digital transformation, fostering skills in emerging and converging technologies, implementing the Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, and establishing ethical guidelines for frontier technologies such as neurotechnology, quantum computing, and synthetic biology. • Expanding capacity-building programs, increasing research grants for young scientists, investing in STEM education, and supporting the development of think tanks, science parks, and technology incubators. • Enhancing cooperation and knowledge-sharing through global academic networks and UNESCO Chairs, and by strengthening South-South and triangular partnerships. • Promoting open and responsible science, scaling up access to data and publications, and integrating Indigenous and local knowledge into policy and innovation strategies. • Strengthening the science-policy-society nexus by ensuring evidence-based decision-making rooted in robust data collection and analysis, while aligning research with national priorities to effectively address societal challenges.

Neurotechnology holds extraordinary promise - but also raises profound risks for our rights, freedoms, and sense of self. Today, the Australian Human Rights Commission has released 'Peace of Mind: Navigating the Ethical Frontiers of Neurotechnology and Human Rights' - a groundbreaking report calling for a human rights-based approach to guide the development and use of neurotechnology. Neurotechnology reshapes what it means to be human, and this report is a timely reminder that innovation must always be grounded in human dignity, autonomy, and equality. Read the full report at: https://lnkd.in/gBPm-vVs

In reading Emily Adkin’s most recent HEATED newsletter, I was confronted with a profound question that exposes a paradox in the climate crisis narrative: Who, in actuality, is being jailed for climate crimes? The narrative of Hoàng Thi Minh Hồng, a Vietnamese activist who was scheduled to elucidate climate activism strategies in politically contentious environments at the TED Conferences Countdown event, underscores the problem. Detained by her nation's authorities, her testament via video crystallized the perils activists encounter when defying influential bodies exploiting our ecosystem. In light of surging global temperatures and devastating floods, an intriguing dichotomy emerges: those protesting climate injustice often face harsher retribution than those perpetrating it. Simultaneously, we have stories like that of Rose Abramoff a climate scientist who exercised civil disobedience, not once but twice, to hasten global climate action. Signifying an emergent cohort of scientists discarding their non-activist labels, she is an active participant of the Scientist Rebellion, a global movement urging for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. I am inspired by her bravery, and that of many others. This growing boldness from climate activists and organizers prompts a thought-provoking insight. As the severity of climate change escalates, the outcry for action grows increasingly louder, with some individuals risking personal freedom for the greater good. It challenges us to critically evaluate the question of accountability: Should it lie with those endeavoring to salvage our world, or those pushing it towards a precipice? #ClimateJustice #Activism #ClimateChange

Rewinding the Clock on Human Cells – The Next Frontier of AI in Science OpenAI’s collaboration with Retro Biosciences to “rewind the clock” on human cells is one of the most striking examples yet of AI’s convergence with biology. By training a specialized model (GPT-4b micro) on protein sequences and re-engineering the Yamanaka factors, researchers achieved 50x efficiency improvements in restoring aged human cells to a youthful state — repairing DNA damage and regaining stem-cell like properties. If this proves safe and scalable, the implications are profound: - Health & Longevity – slowing or even reversing aspects of aging, tackling age-related diseases at their root. - Medicine Reimagined – from regenerative therapies to personalized stem cells, potentially eliminating organ shortages. - Human Potential – extending not just life span but health span, reshaping how we work, learn, and live. Of course, such breakthroughs come with equally significant ethical and societal questions: ▪️ Who gets access? ▪️ How do we adapt our economies, pensions, and life planning to much longer, healthier lives? ▪️ What new definitions of aging — and purpose — will humanity adopt when decline is no longer inevitable? For me, this development is a glimpse of what’s coming: a future where AI is not only transforming economies and industries, but also redefining life itself. The challenge will not just be in the lab — it will be in how we as societies choose to govern, distribute, and live with these possibilities. The future of longevity may now lie at the intersection of AI + biology + ethics. And it is coming faster than most of us imagined. #AI #Longevity #Biotech #FutureOfHealth #Ethics

In Indonesia’s courts, truth can be a lonely witness. For more than two decades, professors Bambang Hero Saharjo and Basuki Wasis of the Bogor Institute of Agriculture have stood where science meets power, testifying against companies accused of torching forests and draining peatlands. Their measurements of ash and carbon and their calculations of hectares lost have given judges a way to translate ecological ruin into the dry language of liability. For that service to the public, they have been repaid with lawsuits, harassment, and danger, reports Rendy Tisna. Last October a court in Bogor, west of Jakarta, offered a rare reversal: it dismissed a civil suit brought by PT Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri, a palm-oil firm once fined for fires that scorched more than 800 hectares of Borneo peat. The company had sought billions of rupiah in damages from the very experts whose testimony helped convict it years earlier. The judges ruled for the scientists. “Hopefully this will set a good precedent to protect environmental defenders,” Bambang told Mongabay-Indonesia Indonesia after the verdict. It was the fourth such case he has endured. Each time, the aim has been less to win than to exhaust—one more strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to make truth-telling unbearably costly. “If we keep getting sued like this,” he warned, “the environment will become increasingly neglected.” Their victory was cheered by activists and the environment minister alike, who called the suit a “form of SLAPP” and praised the decision as proof that Indonesia’s judiciary could still defend its defenders. Yet it is a fragile shield. Dozens of scientists, journalists, and campaigners have faced similar tactics, and enforcement of environmental judgments remains weak. The fires continue to burn. Both men might have chosen easier paths. Their expertise in forestry and soil science could have earned them corporate consultancies or quiet academic lives. Instead they have lent credibility to the state’s most controversial prosecutions—often at personal cost, under threat, sometimes alone. In 2019 Bambang received the John Maddox Prize for standing up for science; the honor did little to stop the attacks. What sustains them is a conviction that evidence matters, even when power denies it. They keep returning to court, peat samples in hand, as if proof itself were an act of faith. “The environment,” Bambang once said, “is the lifeblood of the planet, and we must protect it together.” 📰 Story: https://lnkd.in/gP3cHi_4

For too long, we have applied a narrow lens to our policy decisions, often overlooking nature's vital role in our economies, societies, and very survival. This approach has led to unintended costs, missed opportunities, and an inaccurate representation of our true national wealth. As a paradigm shift, we must embed the consideration of nature throughout our policy processes, from economic planning to national security strategies and all sector development initiatives. Why is this so crucial? Our sectors, national security, and economies all depend on nature. Yet, we continue to develop policies in these spheres independently, rarely considering nature's roles. This siloed approach is no longer sustainable or sensible in our interconnected world. Mainstreaming nature-based solutions or echo-system adaptation in our decision-making has the potential to create greater gains across economic, social, and environmental outcomes. It will provide us with a more accurate picture of our choices' true costs and benefits, allowing for more informed and sustainable decisions. To achieve this, we need to adopt what we call the "CASE" approach: Cross-sectoral: We must craft policies that make relevant and aligned changes across multiple sectors rather than addressing them one at a time. Appropriate: Nature should be considered at all appropriate points in the decision-making process, even in sectors where it has not been historically accounted for. Strategic: We must focus on decisions that influence impactful pathways, ensuring that our mainstreaming efforts achieve the pace of change needed to improve wellbeing and reverse nature loss. Evidence-based: Our efforts must be grounded in robust scientific evidence, drawing on multiple sources of knowledge and understanding. Implementing this approach will require changes in how we account for our assets, consider our options, evaluate those options, and ultimately make decisions. It will mean including natural capital in our national accounts, considering nature-based solutions alongside traditional approaches, and ensuring that our cost-benefit analyses fully account for environmental impacts and ecosystem services. This is not an easy task. It will require investment in new capacities, the development of new methodologies, and a willingness to challenge long-held assumptions. But the potential benefits are immense. As leaders, we are responsible for ensuring that our governance systems evolve to meet these challenges. By mainstreaming nature in our decision-making processes, we can create a more sustainable, resilient, and prosperous future for all. #naturemainstreaming, #natureinpolicy, #naturebased, #ecosystemservices, #naturalcapital, #sustainabledecisions, #holisticpolicy, #naturepositive, #biodiversityeconomy, #greenaccounting, #natureinclusive, #ecosystemvalue, #naturefirst, #integratedpolicy, #naturesmartdecisions, Green Climate Fund

Here’s a truth about the future of humanity we don’t talk about enough: Genetic enhancements aren’t just about improving health—they could redefine what it means to be human. We often hear things like: “Designer babies are the future.” “Genetic enhancements could eliminate disease.” “Human enhancement will create a better world.” But here’s the thing about genetic modifications: It’s not just about health improvement; it’s about deciding which traits are ‘normal’ and which are ‘enhanced’—and that’s where the ethical debate begins. Here’s how genetic enhancements could change humanity: → Redefining Health: Genetic edits can eliminate inherited diseases and disabilities, offering future generations the chance to live healthier lives. → Enhancing Abilities: Beyond health, advancements in genetic editing could enhance traits like intelligence, athleticism, and emotional resilience, raising questions about fairness and equity. → Ethical Dilemmas: Concerns about eugenics, societal divides, and parental authority come to the forefront. Should we allow parents to decide their children’s genetic traits, or does that violate autonomy? → Balancing Innovation and Caution: While genetic tech offers huge potential, we must establish guidelines to ensure it’s used responsibly. Ethical frameworks and public dialogue will shape these decisions. But here’s the important part: This isn’t just a scientific issue—it’s a societal one. As we explore genetic enhancements, we must consider questions of equity, autonomy, and the essence of humanity itself. The takeaway? Genetic enhancements can improve lives, but they also challenge fundamental ideas about equality, fairness, and the human experience. Are we ready to embrace this next frontier? Let’s discuss the ethical boundaries of genetic enhancements.

Two recent papers in Nature have reignited discussions about heritable polygenic editing (HPE) in human embryos and its profound implications for human health and ethics. The first paper by Visscher et al. explores the potential of editing polygenic traits to drastically reduce risks for common diseases like Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and heart disease. Using theoretical models, the authors argue that targeting a handful of genetic variants could dramatically lower disease prevalence in future generations. However, they also highlight significant challenges, including ethical concerns about equity, pleiotropy (when one gene affects multiple traits), and unintended long-term consequences. The second article by Carmi et al. critiques these findings, emphasizing the speculative nature of the technology. It raises questions about the feasibility, safety, and societal risks of HPE, particularly its potential to exacerbate health inequalities and reinforce eugenic practices. The authors stress that while the modeling is provocative, the assumptions—such as perfect editing precision and predictable outcomes—are far from reality. Both articles raise lots of important questions and are definitely worth a read! Here are some initial thoughts on the ethical implications. . 1) Equity vs. Inequality: HPE could deepen health inequities, giving affluent populations access to superior genetic health while leaving others behind. How do we ensure equitable access to such transformative technologies? 2) Genetic Diversity: Large-scale editing could reduce genetic diversity, potentially making populations more vulnerable to future environmental or pathogenic challenges. 3) Eugenics and Societal Norms: There’s a risk of reviving eugenics, consciously or unconsciously, by prioritizing certain traits over others. What societal values should guide this innovation?