philosophy – John Vincent

Patch?

Hobbyists built it. So, how come billions are invested by the huge corporations that use it? Only a fraction of their resource was used to create it in the first place. The INTERNET is as much a wonder of the world as the pyramids. I don’t say that lightly. Today’s level of interconnection, intercommunication and interaction across the whole globe was merely speculated about 50-years ago. In historic terms that’s the blink of an eyelid.

Where we are now it’s impossible to imagine a future without the facilities that are at my fingertips. Tap out recognisable words and they can go anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere.

[That part is poor. Keyboards are where my fingertips connect with the world. Surely there will come a better way in the not-too-distant future? Evolution didn’t make us this way.]

Looking at some other major advances of civilisations, they came about in separate ways.

Long distant roads were originally military assets. Getting legions of troops from one place to another in a sprawling empire. Dominating the landscape. Reinforcing even the most remote outpost. Crossing a great distance on land has moved through several phases, waterways gave way to railways and they back to roads, as a primary means of transportation.

The telegraph was more, what I might call, can do technology. Experimentalists like Marconi put two and two together to make five. Scientific investigation provided the possibilities. He, and his like, were entrepreneurs. They saw the piece parts of technology as a business opportunity.

Aviation was more of an evolutionary advancement. A dream that the ancients held and wrote about. Slowly down the centuries theories and experimentation came together until powered flight became viable. Then decade after decade, more technical possibilities were exploited. Warfare, enterprise and adventurers have driven continuous development.

The INTERNET wasn’t seen as a commercial opportunity at its inception. It was a put together simply as a means for scientists to share their work. Maybe more than hobbyists doing the work but technicians with no master plan for world domination. They certainly were not Bond villains.

That is one possible one reason for the vulnerabilities inherent in our global electronic infrastructure. This week, the implications of those intrinsic vulnerabilities are becoming all too apparent. Embedded code that only a few experts take any notice of, that is until something bad happens. Their vital work never especially celebrated or significantly rewarded.

I don’t say it will ever happen but what if there was a practical plan for an INTERNET-2. A whole new set of protocols? An attempt to build-in integrity, expandability, and security from day one. Learning from experience.

The word “patch” is an indication of how crazy the current situation remains. It’s like that silly word “glitch.” Even the word “junk” seems quite inadequate if a crook “hacks” someone’s private account. These words make serious issues seem like minor inconveniences. Distinguishing between annoyances and harmful situations has become muddy waters.

Why is this the case? Is this the only way to communicate what’s going on.

I think it goes back to simple utility. Is the INTERNET, in its current form, so incredibly useful that society can tolerate any number of “inconveniences.” I wonder. Or will the story be like the waterways and the railways. Neither will ever go away but one will dramatically improve on the other. Push past the other. Thus, civilisation advances.

Not again

The art of politics. If you view politics as a war of ideas, then there’s a role for both attack and defence. Where dividing lines are drawn harshly and prisoners are not taken. One idea wins and the others, however sound are banished.

I suppose that’s a reason there are so many barristers (lawyers) in British political life. They learn how to win by framing arguments in an adversarial setting. There’s little room available for compromise or concession. No second place as winner takes all. That said, the “war” analogy is not terribly useful in many respects. One aspect of a barrister’s life is to be single minded when in court but more amical in the tearoom after business is done.

Slightly different subject. I still believe in the “bell curve.” Juvenile as that may seem, in present circumstances that simple curve says a lot. Over the years I’ve stood on a lot of doorsteps. Had lots of fleeting conversations about every subject under the sun. Well, almost. The impression that stays with me is that the general public is nowhere near as polarised in their views as the News of daily politics would have us believe. The gap between life as it is lived and life as it is depicted in council chambers and parliament is persistent. That is whoever is in power.

Traditional the political bell curve has “right” and “left” painted on either end. That’s a polarisation that the media is comfortable with as it mirrors long memories. Wasn’t the world simpler in Cold War days when the camps of East and West were so easily characterised. When Socialist workers and Tory landed gentry were firmly fixed stereotypes.

Anyway, it’s a reaction to a seasoned politician (lawyer), on the far-right of politics, defending his position, on the BBC Today programme this morning, that I’m reacting to. A documentary is to be exposing some members of a British political party as being outspoken, making objectionable remarks and being extremely offensive (in my opinion).

Listening to a politician’s defence, that mainly consisted of deflection, was boringly predicable. When it clearly doesn’t, making claims that a system of vetting weeds out people who do not share the values of a Party, that becomes a hollow argument. The age of wisdom of the saying – when you are in a hole, stop digging – comes to mind.

So, what about the mismatch? The gap between where the public are and where the ends of the political spectrum would like us to think they are. This is not a new dilemma. In fact, our British adversarial structures of governance encourage it.

Sadly. if the media output and political debate are polarised there’s not much chance of getting to grips with cost-of-living pressures or getting the trains to run on time or stopping the water companies polluting our waters or caring for those in society who need care.

The polar ends of the political spectrum have nothing to offer in building a better world.

Let’s hear more from those who are trying to fix things that need fixing. Less from those who place more value on conflict and divisive language. Drawing from the pulpit, blessed are the peacemakers. Well, I’d be happy with; blessed are the less well-known people who strive to make things work. Who works tirelessly to build a better world.

Qualitative and Quantitative

Do I need to define these two? Yes, because they are not words that automatically come up in everyday conversation. Not even in technical conversations.

A qualitative approach to an argument deals with words, meanings, and experiences. Not so much opinions but defensible objective judgements based on best available information.

A quantitative approach to an argument deals with analysis, numbers and statistics. A scientific approach rooted in believable evidence that is reliable, repeatable, rational deduction.

In the aviation safety world, we use both. It’s my view that one is not subordinate to the other. However, the persuasiveness of one is greater than the other. At the end of the day, persuasiveness matters. If a key decision is to be predicated on an argument, then how it is constructed and presented matters a lot.

Many is the time when I have sat in a room listening to a person make a case in as elegant and enthusiastic a way that they can, but the results have been less than impressive. I’ve made the mistake myself. Coming prepared with a barrage load of sound evidence accompanied by a flaky presentation that misses the mark.

That is why the order needs to be thus. Establish a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information. Not the other way around.

In the field of aircraft system safety assessment this is vital. Probabilistic analysis is a powerful tool. Relating numbers to human experience is not so easy. So, detailed charts and logic diagrams sprinkled with numbers are unlikely to be enough on their own.

Stating an objective is met by handing over a pile of calculations is half the job. However impartial and truthful the numbers may be, arguments are not made until they are explained.

Many is the time when I have lifted a large report from my in-tray, studied it and concluded that there’s something missing in that gap between the QED and the statement of compliance.

Maybe this an element of safety regulatory psychology. It’s difficult to approve something if it becomes difficult to explain to others what’s been done. That evidence trail needs to be explainable. And easily explainable to a wide audience.

This doesn’t change with digitalisation. Replacing large piles of paper with large files of results puts the reader in the same position. Impenetrable evidence needs understandable explanation. Presenting a qualitative argument supported by quantitative information is a good way to go.

Servicing the future

Extrapolation is a dodgy game. That is to take a set of figures from past performance and then projecting them into the future. All too often, even in the world of artificial intelligence, a linear projection is deemed sufficient. Having a mass of collected data and then plotting a line that nicely fits somewhere in the middle. Assuming that there’s a value that is atypical of the accumulated data set.

It’s well accepted that predicting the future is fraught with assumptions. Real life is multidimensional and full of combinations and permutations of possibilities that are off the charts. However, everyday there is enough stability to make planning a useful activity.

There’s the phenomenon of the step change. Overnight a new law may be applicable. In the morning a new system may be switched on. In the evening, a major crash may stop transport links for hours. Events, both predicable and unpredictable throw a spanner in the works.

Trying to predict future workforce needs based on current facts and historic trends is something every major industry must do. I say “must” accepting some struggling and pathological organisations survive on a day-to-day basis.

So, if I start with a 100 people and expect a growth of 5% each year, it’s not unreasonable to think that I might need 105 people next year. It’s surprising how often this basic calculation is presented. Same with the predicable response from a chief executive who would prefer an improvement in productivity. Deliver the same output with the same, or less, people.

Predicting one year ahead is a must. Predicting 10-years ahead is nice. However, in certain industries where, say the products have long lives or the demand for services isn’t going away a long-term projection has meaning.

The search for productivity goes on. Digitisation has made inroads into the paper-based world of a couple of decades ago. I remember when I first held a digital camera in the office. In the mid-1990s it was a whizzy bit of kit to be loaned out on rare occasions.

Artificial intelligence, and all the technology wrapped around it, are reshaping business strategy, risk assessments and workforce planning. Everyone is seeking a competitive advantage.

This morning when I woke up, I was introduced to a new word. It was a BBC radio broadcast called: Rethink: manufacturing or services?[1] It doesn’t exactly roll off the tong. It’s servitization.

The premise is that the line between organisations manufacturing products and those who provide services isn’t a ridged one. Progressively, whatever the product, train, plane or automobile, they use masses of data not only to make but to operate. The data flows rapidly backwards and forwards between maker and operator. And lots of it too.

So, if I had to estimate the number of service engineers that would be needed in the next 10-years, I’d better be aware that their jobs are going to change dramatically. Radically.

However, overall will the numbers of people needed by an industry decrease or not? Or is it just that the nature of work will change for roughly the same overall numbers? That’s not so easy as a straight-line graph. Maybe, as productivity increases so it becomes possible to take on new tasks that previously were not viable. The performance of a product continuously improves.

I’d buy a service and not so much a product. I’ll buy 100,000 miles, not a car.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00325dd

Stop and think

Anthropomorphism is more than the world of “Alice in Wonderland”. A talking rabbit is not the least bit strange fictional tale. Our minds happily accept this as a normal part of storytelling. The anthropomorphic qualities of an animal, or an object is not so easy to explain. But we do it all the time. That is thinking of non-human objects as human in a mystical transformative way.

A teddy bear is an object. One eye, fur, fluff and stuffing however shabby. It’s an object but the teddy bear I had when I was 6-years old is something more. It has a personality. Having travelled with me, over the decades, it’s not an object to be thrown away without a thought.

Like others, I do the same with animals. Not always. Occasionally, I go to the bottom of the garden where it adjoins a grassy field. I may talk to the cows. That’s if they are grazing up against the fence. Now, I know those Dexter cows have no idea what I’m saying but that’s unimportant.

Personal computers haven’t been in our lives as long as teddy bears and animals. From the unwieldy plastic boxes that filled our desks they have transformed into tablets, lap-tops and super smart phones. These devices can be sources of great utility or, on bad days, incredible annoyance. Fliting with both times saving or time destroying.

It’s likely that a machine’s anthropomorphic qualities come out when we are most frustrated. That instantly takes me to the scene from the BBC’s Fawlty Towers[1]. It’s a memorable comic scene. It’s Basil Fawlty’s frustration peeks when his car breaks down at the most inconvenient moment possible. He gives his car a damn good trashing. The car doesn’t flinch or runaway.

Who hasn’t sworn at a computer? I’d label you untrustworthy if you answered – never. I’ve done it more times than I can remember, as if my computer could feel my annoyance. An inanimate black box, full of integrated circuits, memory chips, circuit boards, components, connectors, and multi-coloured wires.

One aspect of computing, that I can state without fear of contradiction. They don’t care. Not one bit. How can they? Caring is a human reaction.

By the way, in 1975, Basil Fawlty’s Austin 1100 Countryman (Estate) car had negligible electronics even if it was probably the car’s electrics at the root of his overwhelming frustration.

I’ve lead you down this path because the thought I have in mind is – will AI make a difference?

We humans are highly influenced by the nature of tasks. Having to read a simple advertising slogan is a million miles from learning from a dense book packed with complex detail.

It’s easy to forget that a computer has no opinion on the tasks that it’s given. Big or small. Awkward or easy. There may be ten lines of code to execute, or a thousand or millions.

My question is – are we anthropomorphising AI? When I read some articles about the future there’s a suggestion that computer code has become like the talking rabbit. It’s more than a synthetic voice composed from trillions on electrical ones and noughts. Blind we become to the reality of billions of machine instructions being crunched. Invisible is the reality of the billions of semiconductor junctions working at unfathomable speeds.

Using jazzy description like; “super intelligence” gives machines a mythical god like status. This is way off the mark in 2026. Powerful computing is truly amazing. AI is developing at an astonishing speed. That said, it’s an exceedingly long way from being anything like us. It’s true I may not be able to say the same in 2046, but we are not there now. What we can say confidently is that nature has had a head start of billions of years. And conscious creatures are vast orders of magnitude more complex than silicon-based electronics.

[1] https://youtu.be/78b67l_yxUc

Shaping Our Digital Landscape

Waking up in the morning I look out of the window. A street scene. A well-maintained road. Houses and the greenery of their gardens. Parked cars and flowering shrubs. I hear muted traffic noise from the main road. Birds and the wind rustling through the tall trees.

I didn’t make these or ask them to be there, but I did choose to live on this residential street. In everyday experience there’s a million and one aspects of life that I take for granted. These surroundings have evolved, or should I say developed. Flicking back the calendar, there was a transformational moment. There was a time before this built environment when this area was open fields, hedges, and trees. A rustic farmed landscape.

Systematically, a local authority gave permission for the development of this residential area back in the 1950s. Generally, what they delivered has passed the test of time. The infrastructure works. Notwithstanding the propensity to dig-up the pavements and roads when it doesn’t.

In taking our surroundings for granted there’s not much thought given to the transformational moment that produced this tranquil scene of urban peacefulness. Yet, it was key to what happened for the next 70 years.

Like it or not, a paper based bureaucratic process involving and engaging the councilman and councilwoman of the town and motivated private builders produced this urban setting. Public and private interests working together.

Compare and contrast how our society is making the digital environment that we now inhabit. I could say that it’s not making it at all but rather letting it happen. As an illustration of how strange the transformation impacting us all, I got an e-mail with this intriguing line:

This is an operational email required for your ABC account to function properly and cannot be unsubscribed from.

Here’s an interesting digital imposition in my inbox. I don’t want this ABC account. I thought I’d deleted it. Yet, it’s provider politely tells me that such emails can’t be unsubscribed. I assume they think that’s to my benefit in some mysterious way.

[I won’t get sniffy about west coast Americans ending a sentence with a preposition.]

Where are my elected representatives when it comes to the regulation of the construction of our digital environment? Do the ones in my municipal, regional, or national government have any say over what happens in this fast-moving environment?

I won’t throw my hands up in horror as if there’s no one. I’m aware that there are national politicians who take an interest in the development of the digital world. Debates rage after the fact. An event occurs and an element of society’s digital transformation becomes topic for conversation. It’s all highly reactive. Our sleeping sentinels wake up when the media points out a catastrophe or some pivotal moment of transformation.

Theres little attempt for, systematically, an authority to give permission for a development or even to assert that right on our behalf. We live in a democracy where elected politicians are either asleep at the wheel or too timid to lock horns with the global digital giants.

The question I have is what kind of society will be built under these conditions?

Modern Polymath

It’s easy to conclude that there’s no such thing as a polymath in the 21^st century. So expanded is the field of human knowledge that no one person can have a sufficient overview of every academic, cultural, political, and economic discipline. Not only that but the ability to articulate concepts and ideas in an understandable manner.

If I were to think of a classical polymath, I’d instantly go to American Benjamin Franklin. It’s even how he is described in literature. Here, I’m going back to the 18^th century. In the multimedia age, there are numerous influential intellectuals who have become spokespersons for their discipline, but none stride across a vast range.

We segment and partition knowledge, and pepper it with dedicated terms, that it’s way more than a human head full. Specialisation is both a curse and a God send. Generally, the intensification of study of each and every subject has been a bonus to human progress.

There’s become an excess in manipulation of language to suite each scientific endeavour. That goes for politics and economics too. Particularisation does tend to create distance between those who dig deeply into specific subjects.

To help unravel ingrained complexity there’s a respectable number of writers and YouTubers who try their best to communicate. If anything, the demand for this skill is increasing as we move from the traditional paper-based publications, say New Scientist, to the myriads of social media platforms. Then the issue becomes which one speaks with authority.

I started this piece with a thought in mind. It really was to say something complementary about the BBC. Yes, a media organisation that gets a fair share of criticism, but the world would be a much poorer place without it. Its roots are deep.

A popular British pastime is quizzing. That has played a part in TV and Radio since they were invented. A quiz is both entertaining for the participants and those who look on. Like a modern-day mediaeval tournament, a display of quick thinking and astonishing depth or range of knowledge. A test that allows us all to take part even if we come away all too aware of how little we know. Not so much unsettling as a quick return the earth.

Is there’s no such thing as a polymath in 2026? As an avid watcher of the BBC’s University Challenge[1], I’m struck by the breadth of questioning and the ability of the teams of students to find answers to the most tortuous questions. Obscurity knows no bounds.

On questions of famous paintings, I have a preprogrammed response. It’s either Titian or Tintoretto. It’s surprising how many times that works. Try as I might, I rarely get into double figures however much I guess. It’s always worth a punt. Sitting in the back if my memory are facts that I’ve no idea how they lodged there over the years.

Watching the winning teams of students, I do wonder if the notion of a polymath is dead. It does restore my faith in the infinite variety of human capabilities. This counteracts the fancy marketing blurb that accompanies machine learning software. Practically, humanity is far from becoming obsolete.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t6l0

The False Dichotomy

Like a clock work toy. Wind them up and away they go. It goes something like this. Space exploration is a waste of scarce resources. We’d better spend them fixing problems here on Earth. Compare and contrast as if a viable choice was just to move piles of money from one place to another. This line of argument is favoured by nationalistic green politicians and liberal journalists tasked with filling newspaper column inches. A bunch of academics like to jump on the bandwagon too.

They like to divide the world into billionaire technologists ardently in pursuit of progress at the expense of everyone but themselves and open-toed sandal shoed environmentalists who’ve inherited the legacy of 1970s hippiedom. These two exists, of course, and they have influence, but they are oddities to most people.

So, much of the debates that fill the media are carved out of planks of wood. As if there are only ever two sides to every argument. Two choices to make. Two views open to debaters. As a good liberal, I must reject this dichotomy.

However, to address the subject, I’m corralled into the compare and contrast stock yard.

On the one hand, the environmental challenges before humanity are such that they need ardent attention. The stupidity of “drill baby drill” is mindbogglingly thoughtless. Stupid at a level it’s difficult to comprehend. It’s true that taking short term gains that lead to long term pains is not new. It’s one of humanities troublesome failings. Surely, we can learn from history.

On the other hand, Exploration is human. From the moment primitive bipeds took off across open plains we’ve wanted to know what’s over the horizon. What’s around the corner. Are there opportunities or threats? It’s linked with the fragility of our existence. Space isn’t a boundary that puts a stop to this curiosity. We must see with our own eyes.

Now, I’ll demolish the false dichotomy. Both above, to degrees, need to be respected. Both can be seen through the lens of human imperatives – safety and security. In fact, to an extent both are linked.

Understanding how to mitigate the negative impact of our technology, we need to develop better ways of doing business. Solar power is an example.

The fate of our planet is better understood by studying other planets, and our own from space. Nature presents itself in a myriad of complex different formula across the universe.

To get away from the either/or mentality there does need to be a marshalling of political will. This is probably the greatest challenge at a global level. I believe we can both confront climate change and progress human exploration. It requires imagination.

Life in the 22nd Century

It’s not an original thought but science, and its advancement, is like a venerable oak tree. Roots spread over a large area, are not seen, but are critical to the health of the whole tree. Branches expand as the tree grows. Branches divide, some branches fade and others gain ever more strength. A tree that lives as long as a civilisation, ever changing.

I put this view forward only to admit that there are flaws with this way of thinking. For a start, in the past, a branch of science may have been pursued in a pure manner. Accumulating ever more knowledge on a specific subject. Now, the branches of science have become far more intertwined. Complexity is a given.

This makes a futurologist job harder. It’s no good to dream along straight lines. To see progressive development as the most likely direction. In the past, there was mileage in projecting forward along a clear line of thinking. Take for example the opening up of the atomic world. Futurologist in the 1950s imagined a world of limitless energy. Inexhaustible sources of electrical power that would be cheep and available to all. For good or ill, the age of plenty didn’t happen. That doesn’t reduce the importance of fundamental discoveries. It cautions us in extrapolating from a simple beginning to a fantastic new world.

What will life in the 22nd Century be like? I can say with certainty that I will not see the year 3000. Well, that is unless the cryogenics of science fiction stories soon becomes reality.

One approach is to look back 75 years. Compare and contrast. Then look forward 75 years. That is factoring in an acceleration in discoveries and the exploitation. And as I’ve alluded above not being shy of growing complexity.

This is again an approach to be taken with a fair degree of caution. Back in the 1950s there was talk of electronic brains, as the computer emerged as a viable and useful machine. What was imagined then is now quite different. That use of the word “brain” isn’t common parlance. Instead, the advent of so-called artificial intelligence is becoming everyday language.

Another set of cautionary factors are trying to guess the branches of the tree that will decay and fall. What seems promising based on current technology only to be bypassed by discovery and innovation. Here I’m thinking that the building of massive power-hungry data farms may be a technological cul-de-sac. Vulnerable and hugely expensive physical infrastructure that’s out of date the minute it’s switched on.

Each of us has a brain that weighs a lot less than a room full of cabinets of conventional electronics. Nature manages vast amounts of data without a power station in tow.

In the year 3000, I maintain we will have a rich and rewarding intellectual life. It will be different in form, although the things that amuse and entertain us may not be so different. The themes of a Greek play are still likely to be echoed in the stories of the next millennia.

Artificial intelligence will be a junk yard term. The whole of the world of data communication and processing will be hidden under layers of obscuration. It’s possible that a form of agent will be overseeing the mechanisms for providing the services we demand. The great challenge for democracies will be how to ensure that agent works for the public good. Not so easy.

Determinism in Aviation Safety

The arrow of time. We fly from past, to live in the present and anticipate the future. Sir Isaac Newton would be proud of us. By unravelling laws, that where always there, the means to anticipate the future was illuminated.

In civil aviation, we have devised and grown a whole regulatory system that depends on learning from the past, doing calculations today and flying with a belief that we know what’s going to happen next. Flying is predicated on a reasonable degree of predictability. There’s clear logic in this way of thinking. Just imagine powering up a couple of massive jet engines and starting a take-off roll without being extremely confident that at a certain speed the laws of physics will do their part and the ground is left behind.

We don’t establish a reasonable degree of predictability by looking at a crystal ball or taking up alchemy. Yes, we do still depend on reasoned expert opinion in addition to doing calculations. The minute those expert opinions start to shift away from grounded reasoning and careful deliberation then danger is afoot. This is one of the arguments for treading carefully when political opinions start to come to the fore. The laws of physics are not established by a public opinion poll. Nevertheless, it’s equally polarising to say that there’s no political dimension in the aviation regulatory system.

Anyway, that’s not the subject that was on my mind. Conversations about Artificial Intelligence (AI) are more prolific than those about self-help books. Even the shelves of popular high street bookstores are starting to fill up. The non-fiction titles with AI, either as the main subject or as an adjunct are numerous. It’s the fashion to write something literate or purely speculative.

I’ve mentioned the word “determinism” before. It can be interpreted philosophically or in a more scientific and technical manner. Determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causation. That chain of cause and effect that is so familiar to anyone reading an aviation accident report.

Understanding what causes something to happen in a moment in time goes back to my initial subject of a reasonable degree of predictability. In aircraft certification, no matter how complex the system, when presented with a system safety assessment we expect a comprehensive and reasoned set of statement. Predictions about the “what ifs”. What if an aircraft part fails and what happens next? What happens in combination with other failures?

This is where AI is potentially problematic. All the reasoned arguments in the world go out of the window if a system, subject to the same conditions, behaves one way on a Monday and differently on a Friday. Not to mention the weekend. I could say, AI is remarkably human in that respect.

The subject that was on my mind is not the inner working of complex aircraft systems. Certification experts are on that one. It’s possible to put boundaries around the behaviour of some aircraft systems. What’s more fascinating is the evolution of AI interactions with us mere mortals.

Let’s say I have the responsibility for return to service of a transport aircraft that has been subject to maintenance. A pile of documentation will provide the evidence that the work conducted has been correctly completed. It conforms. Amongst that paperwork might be an output from an AI driven diagnostic system that flashes a green light to say everything is fine.

Now, playing with the “what ifs”. What if it’s not fine given that the conditions experienced were way outside the AI systems training and it does a creative hallucination. The person signing the release to service documentation would have no idea or facility to question the green light. But it’s their signature that matters in the process of return to service.

There is a point of concern.

POST: There’s a lot going on out there Enhancing aviation safety with artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review on recent advances, challenges and future perspectives – ScienceDirect