 Hello everyone and welcome to our webinar. Today's event is organized by the MoonShot millennia program in which 21 young research teams are brainstorming their vision for an ideal 2050 society. Their mission is to use ambitious science and technology to overcome social challenges and ensure that diverse members of society can all live in security and well-being. In July, the teams will submit their candidate moonshot goals and research plans, and some will be considered for the official moonshot goals of the moonshot research and development program. To help our teams brainstorm, we have invited a very special guest who is no stranger to ambitious and innovative solutions to social challenges. And of course, I'm talking about Taiwan's digital minister, Ms. Audrey Town. As Taiwan's first digital minister, she has redefined the concept of inclusive government, creating an unprecedented level of trust and mutual understanding with Taiwan's citizens. She has become well known for her work in containing COVID-19 and is now fighting against the recent surge of COVID-19 cases through her innovative nationwide vaccine booking platform. And recently, the Japanese government decided to send vaccines to support these efforts, and we are very happy to be cooperating with our team friends in Taiwan. Today, I hope that the minister's vision will inspire our moonshot millennia teams and take us a step closer to an ideal 2050 society. Now, without further ado, I would like to invite Audrey Sun to give her opening remarks. Audrey Sun, please go ahead. Hello, and good local time, everyone. I'm really happy to be here virtually to first thank you for the AstraZeneca shipment, which we will put into immediate use. Actually, I think the vaccination will start four days from now. So we've expedited all the processes just as you did. So thank you again for the generous gift. It's always good to start my talk with some cute Shiba Inu. So here is the Shiba Inu. The name is Zhongchai. And in my mind, the digital social innovation relies on us using the internet to find the plurality, that is to say, the common good enough consensus out of the various different positions, rather than to use it as a way to polarize or to divide people. And a cute dog meme is maybe one of the most unifying things on the internet. Second, maybe only to the cute cat meme. But anyway, so this is our counter COVID idea. In addition to wear a mask, keep three Shibas away when you're indoors. Keep two Shibas away when you're outdoors. Remember to cover your mouth and nose when sneezing. And wear a mask because a mask protects your own face against your own washed hand. So these are very easy to remember. And these are easy to go viral, to share. And that's because we have a team of participation offices, the people who are responsible for engaging hashtags, engaging the public, just like parliamentary offices engaging the MPs, and the media offices engaging the journalists, the participation offices find ways to engage the people so that people understand the science, the epidemiology in particular about social distancing, the R value and things like that, before we get any mandated top down measures. And by far this is what I call the digital social innovation approach of fast, fair, and fun. So in my mind, a ideal 2050 society should not be determined by people living in the 2020s. We should instead provide the platform for the descendants for the next generation to grow, to make the collective intelligence a truly assisted one, not an authoritarian one, which would entail that people in the 2020s determining the lifetime of the people in 2050, which would be quite authoritarian, not assistive at all. So one of the principle of collective intelligence is quick response and quick action. So for example, in Taiwan, we were able to start health inspections for flight passengers starting last year, first day of last year actually, thanks to a civic infrastructure in the digital space called the PTT. Now the PTT, it's sometimes liked to read it, but it's not quite read it. It's actually sponsored for 25 years now by the National Taiwan University. The NTU students head project that has been running for 25 years is hosted on GitHub, is open source, is governed in a co-governing fashion. So it doesn't have any advertisers nor any shareholders. And that means that when a new emerging situation comes, we just look into the PTT to see that it being triaged and a good collective intelligence suggestion offered. That is what alarmed us to the Dr. Lee-Wenel's message in 2019 December of there's being seven new start cases in the Huanan civil market, which translated into decisive action because of the triaging that takes place on the PTT. And this basically says that our daily press conference also comes from people who are not even connected to the PTT. That is to say, because we have broadband as a human right, people can use such services at no marginal cost by either joining a old fashioned bulletin ball system by engaging their chatbots, which is free of charge, thanks to that line technology provided by Japan Line Corporation, and also even toll-free numbers. So people can call into the toll-free number 1922 to suggest, for example, about mask rationing. What about pink masks suggested by the young boy who said, all my classmates who are boys in my class have navy blue masks. What to do if I have only pink masks? So the very next day, all the medical offices add a suggestion of the participation officer who lives with Dashiba Inu. So he suggested that everyone wear pink for a while. And then that did not just gender mainstreaming, but also explaining the science behind mask use in a way that goes viral without alienating anyone or any conspiracy theories. And the same idea behind the mask rationing map also informed our, for example, SMS checking system. So in Taiwan, nowadays, you can see in thousands, actually hundreds of thousands of different places, you now see those QR code. But instead of requiring any specific application, it just requires a QR code scanner that pops a SMS message. And again, sending the SMS to the checking number is toll-free. And as you can see, this random code is randomized so that it can only be used for contact tracing and exposure notification purposes. But it does not carry, for example, advertisement or other values because it's not re-identifiable just by this code alone to the shop owner or store owner. And because we limit the one night two to use to only about pandemic prevention. So people can send such toll-free SMS numbers knowing that they will not be surveilled or advertised upon other than the contact tracers necessary services. And so I think the principle here is also about collective intelligence. People voluntarily participating in the data collaborative that enable the check-ins to happen. But they also do so understanding they're contributing to the commas under a very strict specific purpose, common purpose use. And because it's built on, you know, previous generation technology, it builds familiarity. For example, people receive earthquake advance warnings from the SMS system to people receive flood advance warning to. And so they understand that this appears on a different layer. It's not likely that they will be reading their line messages when an emergency comes. But when one night two to SMS number notifies them, they do take heed and understand how to engage with that. So like for people who use line, we have a dedicated line bot that offers QR scanner for people who are comfortable with Bluetooth. We have a Bluetooth exposure notification app that also doubles as a QR code scanner. And even for people who are not using smart phones like feature phones, they just type in those 15 digits into a SMS app in that feature phone and then send the message out. I take the time to explain the details about this particular data collaborative case because I believe that it illustrates the core idea, which is the effective partnership relies on reliable data. But reliable data relies on open innovation. That is to say the way of innovation that joins the various forces in the society. So instead of fighting against each other, one can see that each corner in the society is indeed contributing to the partnership of the goals so that instead of a showdown between opposing values like privacy and human right on one side and counter pandemic on the other, we can actually innovate to bring these different values together. I understand that I'm allocated 10 minutes, so I'll just stop here and I look forward to the Q&A. Thank you Audrey-san for your special lecture. It was very informative and I'm sure that it has inspired today's participants, the young researchers and the leaders of the millennia program. Your speech can expand their minds and broaden their visions of an ideal 2050 society. Personally, I was very impressed with your innovative approaches using digital technology. So prior to our Q&A session, from my side, may I ask a question? So my question is about quick decision making. From your speech, it seems that Taiwan began house inspection for flight passengers from Wuhan to Taiwan just the next day after Wuhan health officials announced the discovery of the virus to the WHO. And now against the recent COVID-19 surge, Taiwan has already succeeded in developing a vaccine appointment reservation system and is ready to make it available to the public. So you mentioned that the key to the success is mutual trust between Taiwan's government citizens, but however, how can Taiwan make a decision so quickly? That's my question. Thank you. That's an excellent question. We adopted a model that I called People-Public-Private Partnership. This differs from the traditional partnerships because the people, the social sector sets the agenda. Just as the PTT sets the agenda on what to, how to react to the new development from Dr. Lee's announcement from Wuhan, this entire SMS checking system, the specification is actually done by GovZero people. There's a group of people called GZeroV who essentially forks the government for all the digital services that's not provided or provided quite ineffectively by government's website, which all ends in something.gov.tw. There's a bunch of people since 2012 that provide similar services, but under the domain, something that GZeroV.tw. So just by changing an O to a zero, like join the Gov.tw, changing that to join the GZeroV.tw, just one letter to digit change, you get into the shadow government that prototypes the kind of service that people want in the open source fashion. And because it's open innovation, that means that fork is a soft fork. It's meant to be merged back. So once people who are designing, for example, the check-in system agree on something and this agreement doesn't need to be very fine detail. It's not the contract. It's what we call rough consensus or good enough consensus. So once all the checking systems developers reach a good enough consensus, they very quickly produce a working specification. And so I call this reverse procurement. So for us, in order to implement a vexing employment system, that's fair. Or the checking system that's secure and privacy-preserving or a mask rationing system that's fast and privacy-preserving, we just look into the Gov.0 specifications and we implement the kind of API that the Gov.0 has already produced. And so this way I think is quite unique because instead of very large corporations like Google or Microsoft dictating the specifications of contract tracing or the state dictating the specification of contract tracing, which all take time to be ratified, once the social sector proved already that it's the norm that people are going to work with, then we just implement the people's norms and we don't face as much backlash because we already understand the leading checking system designers, mask rationing system designers, and so on, all already produce a good enough consensus. Thank you for your explanation about the quick decision making and the rough consensus. Thank you. So that's all for my question. And now I would like to move on to the question and answer session. And in the audience, we have the team leaders and sub-leaders for the 21 Moonshot millennia teams if we are currently brainstorming research roles for an ideal 2050 society. We have participants with many different titles including minister, professor, doctor, and more. So to keep it simple and informal, let's use the title song for everyone. So it's okay to team leaders and sub-leaders. I would like to move on to the Q&A session. So we received several questions from the millennia teams in advance. And our first question is from Higuchi-san, the team leader for the ultimate personalized medicine project. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm very impressed with your talk. And my major interest is stem cell therapy. And my research is how to deliver therapeutic cells to the site of therapy. So my question is about how to dissolve the conflicts, the humor or overall strategy to cope with COVID-19 seems to work well in Taiwan, but may not work so well in Japan. So when attempting first introduction of new technologies or a framework, there can be differences in students willingness to accept them into society. For instance, the intergenerational conflicts. So my question is about how you ever faced such a conflict. And if so, what was your strategy to resolve it? Thank you. This is an excellent question. In my opinion, the intergenerational conflicts or the transcultural intercultural conflicts and so on are often a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. If the social media becomes more antisocial or if the traditional media focus on the conflicts and tensions, then people get into this mood that heightens the tensions and the differences, which would indeed make what we call norm building difficult. And so what we should do though is not to hate the media, but be the media as McLuhan is willing to say. So instead of hating social media, let's build a pro-social social media is my answer to your question. So for example, in Taiwan, we have a public digital infrastructure called Polis, the GOV, the TW. Now Polis is a free software tool that uses assistive intelligence, namely the K-means clustering, the principle component analysis, to get a good enough consensus for any divisive topic. So the topic, for example, you're looking at here was back in 2015 when we first used Polis for public national level decisions about the UberX case. So these phases are my real social media friends and families who all feel very differently about UberX. But they were all my friends and families, and we just didn't talk about this over dinner. So now we know, we have different opinions. But instead of asking about suggestions, we first present people with the facts, let's just say the open data. And we use the Polis only to gather people's feelings. There's no right or wrong about feelings. And in decision making, too often we jump straight to the voting or to the referendum. Instead of holding a conversation like a town hall over three weeks or four weeks, where people check each other's feelings. And in my experience, if we set time aside to check each other's feelings, then we do get the ideas that take best of people's feelings and therefore produce better decisions. So for example, I would feel that passenger liability insurance is very important, regardless of whether UberX is classified as platform economy, gig economy, or sharing economy. Now if you agree with my feeling, you move toward me. If you disagree with me, you move farther away from me. And then you will see another sentiment from another citizen, and you can also pose your own sentiments. But there's no reply button. So there's no room for troll to grow. And after three or four weeks of this assisted dialogue, we always see the good enough consensus here. And so my short answer to your question is this picture. Every time we run a police conversation, we see that the ideological differences, people don't spend calories on it because there's no reply button. Instead, people keep proposing even more nuanced and eclectic ideas that will then turn into good decisions because we already know that people always share such basic idea about a fare meter for the taxi driver or the Uber driver. They care about the insurance. They care about registration, fare use of road, and so on. So now Uber is a local taxi company called Q-Taxi in Taiwan for some time now. And the local temples, churches, and so on, the nonprofit organizations can also organize their own taxi fleet thanks to the multipurpose taxi that's co-developed with the society again in what we call people public-private partnership. Thank you. So it's a very clear concept. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Do any of the other participants have any question on these topics? Okay. So then thank you, Higuchi-san. Let's move on to the next question. The second question is from Akiyama-san, team leader for the post anthropocentric values, behavioral styles, science and technology project. Akiyama-san, it is your turn. So please go ahead. Okay. Good morning, Audrey. Thank you very much for today's talk, despite the fact that we are living in a really difficult situation on the containment of COVID-19. Oh, by the way, you can call me Hajime. You don't have to call me Akiyama-san. Just Hajime is enough. Okay. My question is about, I'm actually the researcher on humanities and social sciences. So I'm really interested in the role of digitalization and the governance. My question is about the trust or mutual trust between general public and the government. Listening to your speech, I thought that you don't have a really kind of polarized idea of government and people, but you kind of try to make them kind of not mixed, but you want to see the fusion of the government and the individual, which is great, I think. But at the same time, historically speaking, we have a kind of clear distinction, or conceptual clear distinction between the government and the individuals and the tension between them. And I think this is one kind of traditional idea. Then from my perspective, my question is, what is the basis of the mutual trust between the government and individuals? I think this seems to be the key to the realization of digital governance. And also, I think this is not only important for Japan or Taiwan, but also all over the world, to see how we can overcome the polarized society. Thank you very much. Thank you. So indeed, I think in order for people, public-private partnership to foster based on mutual trust, we first need to establish the idea of a social sector. So not the third sector, not the voluntary sector, but the social sector, meaning that it's neither the third, like the less important, or just based on voluntary basis, but a dedicated group of people who look forward to working with both the economic sector and the governing sector, but maintains their own integrity, values, and identity. And this is what Gov Zero is about. In Taiwan, we say the civic tech people are not just prototyping for the government. They're prototyping with the government. Again, the government doesn't work for the people. We work with the people. But to give no trust is to get no trust. So someone has to trust first. So the Gov tech people need to trust the citizens by, for example, publishing the real-time mask availability data in order 6,000 pharmacies. That's an enormous trust because publishing real-time means that the public servant doesn't have time to review the numbers. If you publish every quarter, you can make sure the numbers are correct. But if you publish upon collection every 30 seconds, it's like a distributed ledger, right? All the data bias, all the data inaccuracies in the pipeline are going to be visible. And so being vulnerable to such inspections and giving the trust to the citizen and not afraid of such inspections, I think, is extending the trust to the citizen. And so some of the citizens, such as Howard Wen, who developed the first map rationing, just reciprocated by providing the pharmacists with the assistation of the digital technologies instead of replacing the pharmacists are focused on making sure the pharmacists can reduce their risk and also reduce their time spent. And it also includes people who are not programmers, but service designers. So Zhuo Zhiyuan here, who in 2017 are fed up with the tax filing experience, a popular e-petition that said the tax filing experience is explosively hostile. That was the original title. And people who complain about it, people who called for the Ministry of Finance to resign or whatever, are all invited by the participation officer. As part of our institution, we invite for twice a week, sorry, twice a month, we invite people to co-create on the services that they dislike. And so, for example, the tax filing system is then chaired by this lead petitioner. And thousands of people online produce hundreds of post-it notes that redesigned the service completely in 2018 to 96% approval rate unheard of in digital service. And that's because the people who complain spend the most time to think about how to make it better. And once we have this, because our procurement is based on API, so we can actually just use them like legal blocks. This tax filing system, after a few parameter change, immediately became the Musk pre-ordering platform. After a few parameter change became the stimulus voucher vending program. It then became the QR code SMS, 1-2-2 checking production platform. And then now it's becoming the vaccine appointment platform. So each time by connecting it to a different database, the co-creation of design synergy improves because in the original 2017 co-design, we assigned deliberately the participation officer who are not finance ministries offices as the lead facilitators for each table. So they are still career public service but they may come from the Ministry of Economy, of Health and Welfare, of Interior and so on. And so when they're facilitating the conversation, they take the standpoint of ordinary citizen because they're not working for the tax agency. They will not defend the policy. They will instead contribute to their expertise to design it better. And once it's their time to produce something like that, they remember, oh back in 2017, I facilitated this conversation. So I can use it for mask rationing, for vaccine appointment, and so on. And so we even deliberately invite the Ocean Affairs Council to facilitate discussions about tax filing system. But when it comes to talk about the Ocean Affairs platform, then it's maybe the tax agency participation officer facilitating the small group discussion because they may like surfing a lot, right? So the citizen who participate in the conversation, understand the public service are there to work with them, not defending any existing policy because they too are citizens when participating in such collaborative meetings. Okay, thank you. Okay, Akiyama-san. Okay. Thank you, Akiyama-san and Audrey-san. And so now let's move on to the next question. Thank you very much. Thank you, Aji-min. The next question is from Okada-san and she's trying to make an ultra-diversity society where no one feels lonely in the world. So Okada-san, it is your turn. Please go ahead. Okay, thank you very much. So thank you for the meaningful and valuable you were talked. Sorry, I'm a little nervous because you are the puzzle. I look happy too. So anyway, so some of our brainstorming teams deal with the same of happiness and so are hoping to overcome social isolation by applying passive knowledge, cyber communication platform and attitude connect various individuals. So while linking people in this way, so how can we implement effective control and leadership? So while still ensuring that individual maintains their freedom and creativity. Thank you. That's an excellent question. I think the most important design criteria here is to believe that our descendants will be smarter than us. So we should strive to be a good enough ancestor. So not a perfect ancestor because we simply don't know how the descendants are going to use the system that we design. So the idea of legal blocks of toolkits is very important because if we only design one top-down solution in the name of effective control and leadership, even if it may be very useful for that particular scenario, scenarios change all the time, sometime very suddenly. But if we implement the initial effective way of institutions and explaining the individual legal blocks, then for example, in API-based procurement, we specifically say if a system integrator, a vendor in Taiwan, builds a website that only serves people with the site, but not for people with seeing difficulties, then they could be disqualified for not doing accessibility homework enough. But we also, since 2016, add a clause that says if they make a web service only for humans to input and to reach its output without considering open API, then they could also similarly be disqualified for discriminating against robots. We don't say that, but that's the effect. And that means that any new system can build on the bedrock of existing systems. And that means that our design, while it's useful for that particular case, is even more useful once any citizen is equipped with a new insight into a new emergent situation. They can simply reuse the cybersecurity audited hardened privacy-preserving building blocks that we previously have designed but opened as an API for everyone to use. And that spreads the power to the edges, not concentrating it to the center. So by making the power spread to the edges, we empower the people closest to the pain. So design with that in mind, then you will not do a trade-off between the leadership and control on one side and empowerment to the people on the other. You will simply say this is a reference implementation, but if you can do so better, then feel free to do better. Thank you very much. So can I add this additional question? Sure. Thank you very much. So I see about the leadership. So I directly know about the followership. How do you think about the followership for the citizens? The what of citizens? Followership and leadership. So you tell me about the leadership. Right. So I believe that the leader is not about ordering anyone. Rather, it is about finding the common values out of the different positions. And in that sense, anyone can be a leader if they practice facilitation, practice active listening, practice technologies such as open space technology, nonviolent communication, and so on. And in my demo of Polis and so on, you can see it's the same open space technology, nonviolent communication, dynamic facilitation skills in the social technology sphere translated into a digital infrastructure. So I focus on the leadership of the space, not the leadership of individuals. In other words, I'm designing myself out. So it doesn't require me to personally hold each facilitated conversation. Rather, we design a norm upon which people can facilitate such conversations themselves. And this is important because I'm limited in my own experiences. If I force myself to hold conversations on topics with people that I have no idea their life experience is, then I cannot make good decisions. So in that sense, I'm just designing the norms that they can use so that everyone can hold their own Polis conversations and Town Halls and so on. And I become a follower of the norm that I myself help set, but do not actually operate. Thank you very much. Thank you for your great questions. So now let's move on to the next question. The next question is from Kumagai-san and he has been researching into social implementation of ideal mental states based on traditional wisdom. So Kumagai-san, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your great talk and I am really touched by your discussion and by your talk. I really love Taiwan and Taiwanese food and sweets. Yes, and yeah, I really appreciate your activities, especially about the mask and purchase system. And you integrated cyber space and physical space better. I think that you edit compassion and kindness to the system. I really appreciate your activities. And thanks to the advances in science and technology, humankind can enjoy material abundance. On the other hand, mental problems are often left behind. For example, after completion of a vaccine, people started to fight to, you know, take as much as, as much as possible. And so my research team is focusing on humankind. And we are now trying to integrate traditional wisdom and cutting edge science to develop a new technology called psycho navigation system, which supports human mind and contribute to the well-being and well-being of human and society. And I have a question for you. And you have used programming and computing to build large cyberspaces, which is a collection of intelligence and information. I'd like to ask you about your understanding of the concept of human mind and humanity. And what is your conception of human mind and humanity? And how do you think it applies to the creation of digital systems? Thank you. In my mind, we are just a vehicle of our conversations, communication and relationships. So the thoughts inhabit us in a sense. And I serve mainly as an amplifier, increasing the basic reproduction number of the ideas we're spreading. And so taking this view, I'm seeing the assistive intelligence or AI as taking place between our communication to facilitate our communication, not presiding above us to replace individuals, to take away jobs, or things like that, but sitting in between the human communications, which is why I draw the distinction between authoritarian intelligence, which is about top-down individual control, and assistive intelligence, which is about increasing the communication bandwidth and quality of humanity as something not replacing but between amplifying our conversations. And so for the digital system design, I find some words, for example, virtual reality and things like that seems to suggest a different direction where people are trapped into their own realities. And that does have an effect on the human mind, because when people live in different realities, sympathies are less likely to develop. It's less likely to develop sympathy into empathies and so on. So in my job description, which I wrote in 2016, a month before becoming the digital minister, I try to outline the differences between the authoritarian view of AI and the assistive view of AI. So I'll just quickly read my job description, which goes like this. When we see the Internet of Things, let's make it an Internet of Beings. When we see virtual reality, let's make it a shared reality. When we see machine learning, let's make it collaborative learning. When we see user experience, let's make it about human experience. And whenever we hear the singularity is near, let us always remember the plurality is here. Hope that answers some part of your question. Oh, thank you very much. Thank you, Kumakai-san. And so let's move on to the next question. The next question is from Kato-san, and he has been considering innovative technologies for Typhoon control and Typhoon power generation. So Kato-san, please go ahead. Hi, Odo-san. It's great honor to talk to you, my colleagues and my family and be me differently. And then my question is about the human intervention in the natural environment. So my question is two points. One point is, what are the most important steps to create disaster-resurient society by 2050? And the second one is, to what extent should human beings be allowed to disturb the natural environment? Sorry, be allowed by whom? Sorry, to what extent should human beings be allowed to disturb the natural environment? That's right, but allowed by whom? Is there something above human beings that allows us to disturb? So my point is that can human beings can change or control the natural environment for the human beings? Okay, right. So it's more like an ethical question. It's not a capacity question because the capacity question doesn't really have an answer. So I think the ethics question depends on the local social norm. And for things like the pandemic or the climate change and so on, the most difficult challenge is norm building. Because norm building requires shared values and shared values require shared sense of urgency. We see that for the pandemic prevention efforts for the first time, the entire globe do feel like a community because we assign very similar urgency to this same task. And so we're able to build global norms in a very short amount of time. On the other hand, for say climate change. Previously, people who live on islands assign higher urgency to climate change, including Taiwan and Japan, but people who live on very large land masses, maybe assign a less urgency on climate change. And that affects the norm building and that then affects the kind of conversations that we need to hold in order to limit our damage to the environment and so on. So my suggestion would be to build on the shared urgency platforms such as nowadays pandemic control but also infodemic control. That's also something that people feel, especially democratic polities, feel a shared sense of urgency. If we can feel the same sense of urgency, then we can actually understand the memes and the virus doesn't know country borders. And then we can implement useful norms and building upon such legal blocks to limit ourselves, our actions to be more pro-social because people already understand the importance and necessity of doing so. But if we do our action planning based on different urgencies, then what seems normal to one society may look excessive or too conservative by another society and that makes it harder to implement the norms that do the damage control. So I think in order to be more resilient, to make the consequences of the disasters more tangible to ordinary citizens, that's the most important. In Taiwan, for example, our presidential hackathon every year awards five trophies to five social innovation teams that raise such awareness. Last year is all about climate change and action mitigation. And so there's a Japanese app called Maimitsu that shows the water drinking fountains near you. And the Taiwanese team took that idea but adds the climate change adaptation idea into it. So not only does it show how many plastic bottle is safe, how many carbon footprint is safe, it also push notification once you are about to suffer heat damage from unexpected high amount of heat. It also suggests other ways to act in a pro-environmental way and so on. So became like a Pokemon game where you can complete tasks to collect coins and redeem environmental friendly goods and services and so on. And so all this is important because without such shared sense of urgency, the various different pro-environmental and pro-social groups don't act in coordination. And such apps, such participation tools is one of the ways to raise the common urgency and therefore share value. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, Kato-san. So now let's move on to the next question. The next question is from Fujiwara-san and he's researching social implementation of embedded cyborg technology. Fujiwara-san, please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thank you for your talk. Now I'm researching about implantable devices to enhance our capability. So my question is if the technology to implant electrical chips becomes available with shared efficiency and safety, so do you think its usage will be beneficial to the general public people, in particular patients with dementia? Yeah. Do you think about that? Are you talking about the kind of Nordic countries who use the NFC chips for identification and carry them within their skins all the time? Are we talking about such just carrying card implants or deeper like Neuralink implants? Yeah. The later part. Okay, sure. So I think this is an excellent question for the kind of consultation that Polis are designed for because each society assigns very different norms to such things and because an electronic implant cannot be confined to internal processing only, it's inevitable that it will be linked into sensor devices as well as output devices to enable, say, something like mind communication, right, mind to mind communication and things like that. And that, of course, changed the human condition. So I don't think the usage will be beneficial if it's only applied to the part of society that centralizes the development of such technologies. It may be beneficial if the entire society established a norm of how much and when to use such technologies. Do we use it only for repairing purposes? Or do we implement it to augment everyone's intelligence and so on? If the society agrees on such a norm and the norm is participatory in the sense that people understand the consequences and voluntarily join in it and allow a long enough time to make individual decisions, then I believe it may be pro-social. But if without such a conversation and then force upon people on the values of convenience and so on, then we may see things like touch screen addiction only amplified like 10,000 times. Many episodes in Black Mirror depict such scenarios. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So I think the next question would be the last question. And the next question is from Ueno-san. His research is about dynamic living space by projectable infrastructure technology. So Ueno-san, please go ahead. Maybe your microphone's off. Sorry, can I hear you? Maybe you could speak a bit. You're a little bit soft. I hear you, but the voice is a little bit soft. Okay. It's better? Yes. Okay. Ni hao, Tan-san and Hangao-shin-ren-shin-yi. That's the limit of my Chinese speaking ability. And I need to proceed to my question. And if system development and interaction into society carried out in parallel, we can expect faster development, but also faster appearance of adverse effects. And the original question I made was what pre-question must we take when using society as a test environment of new technology like the COVID-19 apps development? But with your previous answers, my question is changing. Fast appearance of adverse effects can be picked up very easily, but delayed effects, adverse effects, is very difficult to pick up. So how can we pick up those kind of delayed effects? We cannot respond to the fact or something immediately, but our mind is always delayed. So how to pick up those adverse effects? Okay. That's excellent. So first of all, I think there are people who basically plan out more, right? So for them, if they adverse, effect comes one years from now or even 10 years from now, they're more worried about it just as people who worry about the climate crisis now. But before it's caught a crisis or emergency, there's already people who worry about such long-term effects of human actions. So what's important is that we need to shape the society. So it's not just a few people, scientists and technologists, worry about such long-term effects, whereas most of the people think about the convenience and the instant gratification offered by technologies on the short term. If it's shaped like this, then the society cannot have a real conversation. We need to build a ladder of expertise like this, where every point of understanding about epidemiology, about the human sciences, about science and technology and society, every point in this population distribution, when people want to learn a little bit more about long-term effects, they know who to talk to. And the people who are a little bit more informed about these in turn also knows once they want to contextualize the information they receive and send out, who are the professionals they can seek out to, and the professionals can then reach out to the interdisciplinary research groups, such as the very one gathered upon here to contextualize their discoveries and so on, and they can seek even more experts and so on. And so when we shape this effect of the society, then we can provide not just what we call digital literacy or media literacy or science literacy, we then offer something different. We call it the digital competence. And recently, I talked with Jun Mulan-Sang, who says digital competence may be translated to Nihongo as digital, like judo or aikido, the way of digital competence or digital. I think it's a different take on the traditional literacy idea, which is more in the times of radio or television, where a few people speak and many people listen. One professor lecture and many students listen. But nowadays, it's all multi-directional anyway. As the professor lectures, all your students are fact-checking you on Wikipedia, right? And so when such things happen, the individuals are empowered to become producers of digital media, of data, of narratives, and so on. And so once they become co-creators and producers, the education is focused on the competence of the ethics, the norms, the contextualizing mindset instead of just on the critical thinking literacy mindset as in the previous century. So once our entire lifelong education, higher education, basic education, switch to the competence-based curriculum, where people who, for example, learn about data privacy, data stewardship, like GDPR and so on, they learn so not by memorizing the GDPR, but by measuring the air quality, the water quality, measuring whatever they want to measure and joining a data collaborative or a information bank, I think that's the term used in Japan, then they know exactly what those privacy terms are about instead of just memorizing it. So a competence-based education, I believe, is required so that when we develop things that may have adverse effects, the people who see such adverse effects potentials can very quickly then propagate down the ladder so that people co-create mitigation, but instead of falling through the ladder, which is almost impossible. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Enosan. And thank you, Audrey-san, and all participants for your questions. I would like to end the Q&A session. It was a great Q&A session. Thank you. Thank you. So now to close today's webinar, President Hamaguchi of JST will give his concluding remarks. So Hamaguchi-san, please go ahead. I really thank you, Audrey-san, for your excellent talk and impressive dialogue with us and sharing time, your precious time with us. And I also thank you, everyone, for attending today. I hope it was an eye-opening and inspiring experience for us. And of course, a special thank you to Audrey-san for your talk and I really feel you are a genuine leader of our time. Your talk, this democracy controlled by IT, enforced by IT, is a very important idea. I think it'll be essential for our ideal 2050 society. There is a lot we can learn from your work. And actually, I read your book. And also, I have your sign here. Thank you very much for signing this book. This year, the Japanese Cabinet Office announced the start of the Sixth Science and Technology Basic Plan, the plan focusing on achieving a human-centric society supported by technology, which enables a variety of diverse lifestyles. I hope our millennia teams, everyone here, keep this in mind when proposing their new moonshot goals. Technology must benefit all people and leave no one behind. Our ultimate goal for 2050 must be universal human well-being. And we got hint from Tan-san today, a genuine idea we got today so you can make it. Today's event was an example of what we can achieve together, despite the ongoing COVID crisis. Let's continue to use digital tools to connect and learn from each other. Okay? And Audrey-san, the moonshot millennium teams and everyone watching today, thank you again. And until next time, please stay safe and well. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Hamaguchi-san, for your comments. And thank you also once again Audrey-san for inspiring the 21 young millennia teams with your vision and your suggestions are very valuable and will surely help the teams tackle the future research challenges. And I think we have a few minutes left, so Audrey-san, do you have any last words or messages to the millennia teams? Okay, thank you for the kind remarks and the excellent questions. I look forward to visit Japan like in person. And in fact, I've learned just today that I do have the second AstraZeneca shot. I had the first jab in mid-April, thanks to the generous gift from Japan. So I will receive my second dose of AstraZeneca thanks to the Japanese people likely later this month, which means that I'm safe to travel by July or a latest August. And so it means that in the second half of the year, I look forward to visit Japan in person. And I also look forward to meeting in person once we're all vaccinated. And we get over this pandemic together until that time, live long and prosper. Thank you very much. And once again, thank you so much. And now I would like to end today's webinar. Thank you. Bye bye and say hi.