Birth of Industry 5.0: Making Sense of Big Data with Artificial Intelligence, "The Internet of Things" and Next-Generation Technology Policy.

Driverless cars with artificial intelligence (AI) and automated supermarkets run by collaborative robots (cobots) working without human supervision have sparked off new debates: what will be the impacts of extreme automation, turbocharged by the Internet of Things (IoT), AI, and the Industry 4.0, on Big Data and omics implementation science? The IoT builds on (1) broadband wireless internet connectivity, (2) miniaturized sensors embedded in animate and inanimate objects ranging from the house cat to the milk carton in your smart fridge, and (3) AI and cobots making sense of Big Data collected by sensors. Industry 4.0 is a high-tech strategy for manufacturing automation that employs the IoT, thus creating the Smart Factory. Extreme automation until "everything is connected to everything else" poses, however, vulnerabilities that have been little considered to date. First, highly integrated systems are vulnerable to systemic risks such as total network collapse in the event of failure of one of its parts, for example, by hacking or Internet viruses that can fully invade integrated systems. Second, extreme connectivity creates new social and political power structures. If left unchecked, they might lead to authoritarian governance by one person in total control of network power, directly or through her/his connected surrogates. We propose Industry 5.0 that can democratize knowledge coproduction from Big Data, building on the new concept of symmetrical innovation. Industry 5.0 utilizes IoT, but differs from predecessor automation systems by having three-dimensional (3D) symmetry in innovation ecosystem design: (1) a built-in safe exit strategy in case of demise of hyperconnected entrenched digital knowledge networks. Importantly, such safe exists are orthogonal-in that they allow "digital detox" by employing pathways unrelated/unaffected by automated networks, for example, electronic patient records versus material/article trails on vital medical information; (2) equal emphasis on both acceleration and deceleration of innovation if diminishing returns become apparent; and (3) next generation social science and humanities (SSH) research for global governance of emerging technologies: "Post-ELSI Technology Evaluation Research" (PETER). Importantly, PETER considers the technology opportunity costs, ethics, ethics-of-ethics, framings (epistemology), independence, and reflexivity of SSH research in technology policymaking. Industry 5.0 is poised to harness extreme automation and Big Data with safety, innovative technology policy, and responsible implementation science, enabled by 3D symmetry in innovation ecosystem design.

[1]  Robin Williams,et al.  Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures , 2006 .

[2]  H. Radder,et al.  The Academic Manifesto: From an Occupied to a Public University , 2015, Minerva.

[3]  Bruce Alberts,et al.  The End of “Small Science”? , 2012, Science.

[4]  B. Penders Marching for the myth of science , 2017, EMBO reports.

[5]  David H. Guston,et al.  Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp , 2008, Nature.

[6]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations , 2015 .

[7]  Lennart Martens,et al.  Delsa Workshop IV: Launching the Quantified Human Initiative , 2013, Big Data.

[8]  Carl Mitcham,et al.  Acknowledging AI's dark side. , 2015, Science.

[9]  A General Theory for “Post” Systems Biology: Iatromics and the Environtome , 2017 .

[10]  Jean-Christophe Nebel,et al.  Nutrigenomics 2.0: The Need for Ongoing and Independent Evaluation and Synthesis of Commercial Nutrigenomics Tests' Scientific Knowledge Base for Responsible Innovation. , 2016, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[11]  Eugene Kolker,et al.  Precision Nutrition 4.0: A Big Data and Ethics Foresight Analysis--Convergence of Agrigenomics, Nutrigenomics, Nutriproteomics, and Nutrimetabolomics. , 2016, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[12]  Antonio Gramsci Selections from the prison notebooks , 2020, The Applied Theatre Reader.

[13]  Kate Bulpin,et al.  Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition , 2013, BioSocieties.

[14]  C. Mitcham,et al.  Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within , 2006 .

[15]  David H. Guston,et al.  Scientists Not Immune to Partisanship , 2009, Science.

[16]  P. Delvenne,et al.  Have STS Fallen Into a Political Void? Depoliticisation and Engagement in the Case of Nanotechnologies , 2012 .

[17]  LLerenaAdrián,et al.  CYP450 Genotype/Phenotype Concordance in Mexican Amerindian Indigenous Populations–Where to from Here for Global Precision Medicine? , 2017 .

[18]  Marco Alessandrini,et al.  Pharmacogenomics and Global Precision Medicine in the Context of Adverse Drug Reactions: Top 10 Opportunities and Challenges for the Next Decade , 2016, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[19]  George P Patrinos,et al.  David Bowie and the Art of Slow Innovation: A Fast-Second Winner Strategy for Biotechnology and Precision Medicine Global Development. , 2017, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[20]  Z. Bauman Times of interregnum , 2012 .

[21]  A. Gulland Sixty seconds on . . . digital drugs , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[22]  Sanjeeva Srivastava,et al.  Personalized medicine beyond genomics: alternative futures in big data—proteomics, environtome and the social proteome , 2015, Journal of Neural Transmission.

[23]  KolkerEugene,et al.  Precision Nutrition 4.0: A Big Data and Ethics Foresight Analysis—Convergence of Agrigenomics, Nutrigenomics, Nutriproteomics, and Nutrimetabolomics , 2016 .

[24]  WonkamAmbroise,et al.  Public Health Burden of Hearing Impairment and the Promise of Genomics and Environmental Research: A Case Study in Ghana, Africa , 2017 .

[25]  David H. Guston,et al.  Responsible innovation: who could be against that? , 2015 .

[26]  B. Penders,et al.  Understanding life together: A brief history of collaboration in biology , 2013, Endeavour.

[27]  Mads Borup,et al.  The sociology of expectations in science and technology , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[28]  J. López,et al.  ELSIfication in Canada: Legal Modes of Reasoning , 2012 .