Session 6 : Live a life "as though everything is a miracle" - Albert Einstein

This session is on the revolution of BioBusiness, focusing mainly on the healthcare & agri-veterinery aspects of it. I will mention some key concepts which i find interesting and thought-provoking.


Moral Hazard



"The United States takes up 5% of the global population but accounts for over 50% of the global healthcare expenses" This is actually not a shocking news. Previously, we learnt that the US uses an unproportionate amount of resources in the world. There has always been a great disparity between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots. However, the great expenses in healthcare is costing the nation as they insurance companies face bankruptcy. This leads to the issue of moral hazard.


I have always heard of the term 'Moral Hazard' but have not go into what it actually means. In my understanding, moral hazard is the situation when an individual acts differently when he/she is exposed or protected from certain risks. Healthcare insurance is something that may lead to moral hazard. When a medical insurance holder fell ill and needs to be hospitalized, he is likely to make full use of his insurance, regardless of whether he really needs that amount of medical attention. On the other hand, hospitals do no have the incentive to stop him from doing so because they gain from the high medical fees collected. This is a win-win situation for both parties. However, what happens to those people, not covered under insurance, who really needs extensive medical attention and facilities but are unable to afford them???


That is the problem of moral hazard and the rising healthcare cost. Medical attention is not given to people who are most needy of it, but to people who can afford it. I feel that this defeats the purpose of healthcare. Shouldn't curing the sick and poor be the main priority of medical innovations and technologies? There are healthcare innovations because we want to be immune to illnesses, adapt and survive. However, having said that, in reality, many healthcare innovations are market-driven and cater to the rich because no industry can survive without a market or profit. Hence, whether medical innovations should be for the general good or be market-driven is highly debatable and an issue that should be further discussed in class. 


The issue on moral hazard becomes increasingly important in the greying society now. Countries with ageing population are beginning to find ways to curb the rocketing healthcare costs. In Singapore, the introduction of the Medisave and Medifund. These healthcare policies help to reduce the effects of moral hazards. Medifund acts like a social safety net by subsidizing the healthcare cost of the needy. Medisave helps people to save up for their medical fees and no problem of moral hazard occurs because the more people use their Medisave now, the less they are left with in the future.


However, are these healthcare policies effective in helping the poor gain greater access to healthcare services? Does Medishield- a policy that involves the purchase of health insurance using Medisave, cause moral hazards? The Medisave withdrawal limits are generally sufficient to pay the charges incurred by a patient staying in a Class B2/C ward in a restructured hospital. However, should Singaporeans decide to stay in higher class wards or seek treatment from private hospitals, they may have to pay part of the bill in cash. Does this restrict the poor from seeking the best medical attention they need?


Cost effectiveness


Is it more cost effective to save a poor man's life as compared to a rich man's? Statistics have shown that the rich spends alot on healthcare just to increase their life by a year while some poor requires only cheap/affordable healthcare services to maintain years of their life. In economic sense, it indeed seems more cost effective to save the poor man's life. My opinion still stands with what I mentioned above that I believe medical attention should be given to the party that requires it the most, however, this is sadly not the case in reality. 


Issue on Patents


The dilemma: Patents will encourage medical innovations because intellectual property is protected, but at the same time denies the poor from such innovations because they are unable to afford them. 


Research companies will lose the initiative to innovate if patents are removed because their ideas are can be easily stolen and therefore they cannot reap the benefits of a supernormal profit by relying on high barrier of entry to their industry. On the other hand, the removal of patents will allow drugs to be mass-produced and with greater economies of scale, they will be more affordable to the poor. 


However, an alternative view to this dilemma will be that even if patents are removed, companies can still profit depending on the market structure in which they choose to operate in. They can earn a large amount of revenue by selling drug to many people at a cheap price instead of selling the same drug to a small market at a high price. I felt that this is an interesting idea which I have not considered before. 


Genetic engineering: For or Against?


I feel that the answer depends on the purpose of the GE. If it is for therapeutic purposes, such as the therapeutic cloning of an organ to replace a damaged one or to correct a genetic disease such as albino or down-syndrome, I feel the GE is justified because it corrects life-threatening/impeding diseases. However, if it used as a tool to enhance the quality of an already normal human, GE will not be justified because the use of it is abused beyond the means of saving lives. Instead, genetically modified humans will have an unfair comparative advantage over the others who are unable to afford it. 


Ultimately, our answer will depend on whether we view life as though "everything is a miracle" (rising star) or "nothing is a miracle" (falling star). Hence, to be a rising star, we should not reject the idea of GE as there are certainly benefits to be reaped from it. Instead, regulations should be in place to prevent the abuse of such benefits. 

I rate this session 9.5/10 because I really enjoyed this topic and the discussions raised in class are insightful!

Sesion 5 - "Our technology has exceeded our humanity" - Albert Einstein

In brief, this session is about Information & Communication Technology (ICT), how it has changed our planet & the potential risks involved.


What amazes me in this session is how involved I am in various types of ICT, without even realising. I didn't know that by using Google's search engine, I am actually using Internet web 3.0! And although i know what hotmail, facebook, skype are and use them on a daily basis, I didn't know that they are part of cloud computing! Initially, I thought that cloud computing is some complex system that is very technical and involves computer language (perhaps intimidated by the word 'computing').


Some insights I gained about Web 3.0 is that is a semantic web - there is communication between machines  such that technology is omnipresent. I remember Paula presented on the Ford's new invention of cars that communicate with each other to avoid accidents, which is an application of web 3.0. Although such a breakthrough is appealing and tempting, I believe that drawbacks exist too. One of them will be our over-reliance on technology. Imagine a world that is made absolute convenient by technology. Will we still retain the our abilities to do work once technology fails? I believe we will be gravely handicapped and almost all activities will cease.


An interesting concept which i acquired is the notion of business cloud computing. Instead of having their own servers, companies uses software as a service whereby they do not pay for the license, but according to how much they use. Low cost, increased reliability and greater productivity- such benefits greatly improve productivity and hence business efficacy.


It is interesting how businesses are increasingly making use of ICT to improve cost-efficiency by cutting down labour costs. However, the rate in which humans are being replaced by machines is also alarming at the same time. With cloud computing, companies will not need to set up their own server and as a result the need for software engineers decreases. Not long, jobs that involve routine tasks such as that of an administrator or factory worker will soon be replaced by machines. An example in case will be LEGO's first fully automated factory whereby the manufacturing, transport and packaging of lego sets are fully automated and managed by robots and machines. 


Indeed, ICT drives world change. I won't say it eradicates poverty, but ICT does alleviates it. ICT makes information available for free or at a low cost, hence information becomes highly accessible. It also helps people to retain information better and information is necessary for knowledge building. Having said that, ICT alleviates poverty because the empowers the poor with information. With information power, they will be less ignorant of how the world is like now and perhaps adapt themselves to the current situation. The one-labtop a child project by UN in Africa aptly shows how ICT can be used to educate the poor and to give them an equal chance to succeed in life and break free from the vicious poverty cycle. 

One labtop per child project

However, the potential risks if ICT makes the benefits of it less appealing. The threat of privacy invasion, identity theft and other security concerns remains realistic. It all boils down to the issue of trust. Are humans able to maintain mutual trust such that we do not resort to ICT in the case of espionage? Do we trust ICTs to keep our information confidential and to prevent infringement of our privacy? In my opinion, it depends on individuals. 


I rate this session 7/10. I was pretty enlightened in this session by the various types of ICTs that appears in my daily life. If not for the splitting headache, I would have given it an 8.

Individual Review Topic Outline (EUTHANASIA)

i.   Proposed Approach to Development of Paper:

•   Executive Summary

This paper aims to discuss the revolutionary changes that euthanasia brings to the world, highlighted the future of this technology and how we can overcome its negative implications.

•   Background/Introduction - Refer to part (ii)

ü  Definition of Euthanasia

ü  Types of euthanasia

ü  Different procedures of euthanasia

ü  History of euthanasia – highlighting Nazi’s use of involuntary euthanasia

ü  Current situation of euthanasia

•   Historical Perspective

ü  Lack of right to die

-       Terminally ill patients are left to die a slow and painful death

•   Current Situation – Refer to part (iii-1)

ü  Social ethical issues

ü  Religious issues

ü  Legal issues

•   Future Considerations – Refer to part (iii-2)

ü  Legal future

ü  The Ageing population

ü  Human Organ Trafficking

•   Conclusions

ü  Keeping the future of euthanasia controlled.

- Contingent code of ethics - the code must fit the situation and the ethics must change as the situation changes.

ii.            Specific Innovation of Interest:

Brief Description of specific innovation:

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from a terminal and agonizing disease or in a perpetual coma. Basically, there are 3 types of euthanasia: Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary. The main difference between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia is the will of the subject being euthanized. In voluntary euthanasia, the subject requests to die and fully consents to the killing.  In non-voluntary euthanasia, the subject is not willing to die but is euthanized anyway, against his will. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, involves taking the life of a subject who cannot or is unable to show his will to live or die, without consent. Euthanasia can be carried out passively or actively. Active euthanasia, such as a lethal injection, involves intentionally performing an act to end the subject’s life. Passive euthanasia, such as switching off life support machine, is the withdrawal of an act that could have otherwise saved the subject.

Throughout history, euthanasia has always been associated with the violation of the Hippocratic oath and the degree of its acceptance varies from time to time. As the rationale behind euthanasia establishes, it has become increasingly justified as a mean to end prolonged suffering. However, the moral, legal and religious battle over euthanasia is far form over. Does euthanasia extends our freedom of choice or is it still tightly bounded to ethical issues? It remains controversial.

iii.          Rationale for Selecting this Innovation:

1) How Euthanasia has changed the world today?

ü  Social Ethical Issues - Euthanasia introduces our rights to die & sparked off a debate on ethical issues.

Against	For
ü  Violate Hippocratic Oath	ü Right to die
ü  Devalues sanctity of life	ü End prolong suffering
ü Prone to abuse of the weak	ü Can be regulated
ü  May not be of the best interest of the subject	ü Reduce huge financial burden of family

ü  Religious Issues - The degree of acceptance of euthanasia among different religions and how they change over time

ü Buddhism	ü Whether suicide/euthanasia is approved depends on subject's state of mind at the time of death.
ü Christianity	ü Generally against euthanasia on the beliefs that life is given by God and one should not interfere the natural process of death.
ü Islam	ü  Against euthanasia as life is sacred <Qur'an 17:33>

ü  Legal Issues –How different countries have set different laws to regulate euthanasia

UK	The House of Lords have blocked the progress of a controversial bill, which would allow terminally ill people to be helped to die.
USA	Active euthanasia is illegal but assisted suicide is allowed in some states.
Japan	Unclear (Illegal in the Japanese criminal code, but the "Nagoya High Court Decision of 1962," ruled that one can legally end a patient's life if 6 specific conditions are fulfilled)
Netherlands	Legalized in 2001

2) How Euthanasia is likely to change the world in the future?

ü  The legal future: Richard John Neuhuas, “From the unthinkable, to the debatable, to the justifiable, on its way to the unexceptional.” More countries are legalizing euthanasia. In the future, euthanasia may be just another medical procedure.

Evidence: Japan slowly legalizing euthanasia (above)

Implication: Suicide will not be a crime and non-voluntary euthanasia can possibly justify murder.

ü  Ageing population challenges the notion of euthanasia. With our greying society today, euthanasia may be a justified mean to cut medical cost that can prevent family members from going into debt and bankruptcy.

Evidence: Elderly people in the Netherlands are so fearful of being killed by doctors that they carry cards saying they do not want euthanasia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8466996/Fearful-elderly-people-carry-anti-euthanasia-cards.html

Implications: Selfish family members may abuse euthanasia to lessen their financial burden against the will of the vulnerable elderly. 

Yet, advances in palliative care could eventually rule out euthanasia. Palliative care aims to alleviate the pain and suffering of the terminally ill. Instead of killing the patient, medical staff aims to kill the pain.

ü  Human Organ Trafficking: If euthanasia is legalized, unsavory acts and shrouded murders to feed to organ trade industry may be spurred.

Evidence: Top Russian Scientist Warns Euthanasia Will Increase Human Organ Trafficking

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/apr/07041909

Implication: Severe human rights violation, increase in organized crimes, social instability.

Session 4 - "It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory" -W. Edwards Deming

In summary, this week's lesson is centered on the different factors that spur world change as well as how we can respond, manage or lead such changes. 


One of the key-takeaways from this lesson will be the difference between evolutionary change and revolutionary change. Disruptive changes are brought about by revolutionary innovations. These are irreversible changes that happen rather quickly and triggered by the reinvention of a technology, that completely changes the way things are done. On the other hand, evolutionary changes happens over a period of time and its impacts are subtle. 


I realized the lesson emphasized more on revolutionary changes. So, why is the focus on revolutionary changes? I suggests it is because we live in a fast-paced knowledge-based society today. There is no time to wait for evolutionary changes to occur, one must take the initiative to carry out revolutionary changes in order to gain a comparative advantage and edge over competition. Revolutionary changes are also innovations which is highly valued in the type of society we live in now - people are always hungry for novelty. However, adapting to such changes is even more important which leads to my next key-takeaway. 


Apparently, there is also a difference in leading and managing change. Oddly, this reminds me of Leadership and Team building lessons again. 


"The manager does the right things, the leader does things right."


I like the sentence above very much. It is so true. The leader ensures that the organization is striving towards the right goals and direction while the managers implements appropriate strategies to reach those goals. However, i think it is important to point out that there is also a great need for collaboration between the leader and manager to ensure that there is a mutual understanding. Or else, there will be a breach in psychological contract and misunderstanding will arise. Hence, effective communication is necessary- leaders must expressly communicate the goals to the managers and the managers must show the detailed steps to reach them in order for change to take place. 


How about responding to changes? I find the birds' analogy an interesting concept! In response to changes, one can either: Be an eagle, an ostrich or a dodo bird! As much as it is easy to be an ostrich or dodo bird, it is equally disadvantageous to hide from or be oblivious to changes. The best approach is to be an eagle, to embrace and adapt to changes. Yet, it is easier said than done. Adapting to changes requires one to come out of his/her comfort zone and that in turn, requires courage. 


For example, my mother just created a facebook account. Initially, she is worried about security issues and infringement of her privacy. However, if she doesn't become my facebook friend, it is almost impossible for her to know what i actually do outside home since my daily activities can almost be tracked on FB. Hence, i guess i can say that she is an eagle? Because she adapts to social networking, something that was alien to her, in return for benefits. Haha, not sure if this example is appropriate/relevant though...


Lastly, an issue for further discussion could be on CO-OPETITION (credits to brian who presented on it and daniel who googled for its spelling). Co-opetition is a hybrid of cooperation and competition and is the term coined for the teaming up of two rival companies. But I'm confused. Although it prevents unnecessary and destructive competition which results in wastage of resources due to duplication, can co-opetition really exist? I don't think rivals can cooperate fully. Parties will want to triumph over their rivals and with this motive, co-operation will not be successful. 

Illustration of Co-opetition 

I rate this lesson 7/10. 

Session 3- "The trick is the doing something else" - Tom Peters

The Gist & Key Takeaways


We discussed about technology and sustainability, as well as innovation management in this session. 


The video on "How Stuff Works" aptly describes the need for industries to more from linear to cyclical development. With the growing middle-income class, the demand for goods and services greatly exceeds the supply- there is a problem of SCARCITY. We do not have enough natural resources to satisfy all our wants at the rate we are consuming today. And although developed countries had used resource-exhaustive methods of industrialization in the past, industrialization today requires a different model- One that is green and sustainable. 


Innovation plays a huge role in ensuring sustainability. Capturing the "summit" opportunities, or in some cases the "cloud opportunities", and using the RDA process, interesting ideas or dreams can turn into great innovation in reality. I was amused by what comes in between dreams and reality- nightmare. That is indeed  very true! 

For instance, YouTube creators Steve Chen, Chad Hurley And Jawed Karim captured a "summit opportunity" - the market demand of a common platform for video sharing, to turn their dreams into reality. The dream: According to Jawed Karim the inspiration for YouTube came from the halftime faux pas committed by Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, when Janet’s breast was accidently exposed. Karim could not easily find that video clip online and which leads to the dream of having a common video-sharing platform. Nightmare: Imagine the incredible amount of effort and time put in by them to come out with codes to make Youtube work. Reality: 48.2 million Youtube users benefit from watching and sharing videos with the world- YouTube has become the most popular video-sharing website. 

Interesting Concepts


This session complements what I have learnt in Economics and even in Leadership & Team-building (LTB) module.


Going back to the video on "How Stuff Works", like Annie Leonard, I also find it queer that how, sometimes, i can find stuff that are unreasonably cheap in the market. I never thought that is is due to the externalization of costs! For consuming the product, we probably would have indirectly supported cheap labour and environmental degradation, both which are negative externalities of production. In economics, I learnt that negative externalities are a type of market failure and therefore there is a need for government intervention. Since the price of the goods are solely determined by demand and supply in the market, negative externalities are not reflected in it. Hence, relevant authorities can implement policies such as tradable pollution permits that limits the amount of pollution an industry can emit (eg. the EU emission trading scheme). However, the limitation of such policy will be that pollution will only be reduced if companies can do it cheaply. If the cost of green technology is more than the cost of trading permits, pollution is not reduced! Which defeats the purpose of the policy...

One of the key elements for successful innovation is culture and Prof mentioned about the effects of different work culture on the performance of people. This sounds so familiar to me! Because a few days ago, in LTB, we learnt about Leadership Behavior Theory that predicts how different leadership styles lead to different performances of followers. Basically, a democratic leader who is motivating and encouraging will find that the productivity of followers is high and innovations will be spurred. For instance, the founder of local MNC Creative, Mr Sim Wong Hoo, has an inquisitive approach to technology - his approach that often asked 'Why?', 'How?', 'What if..?'. He also takes note of the inputs of his employees and curiosity and innovation have become the core values permeating their work culture. As a result, their mp3 player 'Zen' has been well received in many countries. Evidently, there is a strong correlation between work environment and innovation. 

Issues for Further Discussion


Invention VS Innovation


As mentioned in class, invention is the coming out of ideas while innovation is making it into reality. Is there an importance of one over the other? Or are they mutually dependent on each other, meaning to say that both are equally important? According to Cheryl who presented on Apple, Apple did not invent tablets, but re-invented it by coming out with the iPad. So why is the iPad so successful as compared to other tablets? Brand loyalty could be one reason. But what drives this brand loyalty is the ability of Apple to re-invent technology in such a way that is not only looks better but is also more consumer-friendly. This is innovation. Hence, although invention is necessary before innovation can occur, innovation is still the key to success in this era. 


Rating


I rate this lesson 8/10. Amused by Prof's "Valley, Summit, Cloud" drawing using Paint. Although I have learnt some of these concepts before, I gained new insights in this lesson.