Value based science is a field that is currently being developed and that can learn from attempts in science and engineering, especially micro- and nanotribology, and vice versa. The current manuscript undertakes a transdisciplinary approach to identify commonalities between the fields and develop approaches to obtain synergistic solutions. Based on global challenges and the most pressing problems that humankind is currently facing, the methodology applies transdis-ciplinary knowledge integration and the innovision method to arrive at new, potentially disruptive recommendations. Innovision is a novel method that addresses the transdisciplinary topic without the aim of creating a new discipline and that is characterised by the development of a new framework of thinking that is the prerequisite for the provision of solutions. Results comprise learning methods for the development of global ethics, a three-gaps approach highlighting pitfalls and potentials ways to bridge gaps, and three exemplary technologies that provide tribologically optimised solutions.
BarnoskyAD, MatzkeN, TomiyaS, WoganGOU, SwartzB, QuentalB, MarshallC, McGuireJL, LindseyEL, MaguireC, MerseyB, FerrerEA. Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?Nature. 2011;471:51–57.
3.
Rockstro¨mJ., SteffenW., NooneK., PerssonA., ChapinF.S.III, LambinE.F., LentonT.M., SchefferM., FolkeC., SchellnhuberH.J., NykvistB., de WitC.A., HughesT., van der LeeuwS., RodheH., So¨rlinS., SnyderP.K., CostanzaR., SvedinU., FalkenmarkM., KarlbergL., CorellR.W., FabryV.J., HansenJ., WalkerB., LivermanD., RichardsonK., CrutzenP. and FoleyJ.A.: ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, 2009, 461, 472–475.
4.
SteffenW., RichardsonK., Rockstro¨mJ., CornellS.E., FetzerI., BennettE.M., BiggsR., CarpenterS.R., de VriesW., de WitC.A., FolkeC., GertenD., HeinkeJ., MaceG.M., PerssonL.M., RamanathanV., ReyersB. and SorlinS.:’Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet’, Science, 2015, 347, 6223.
5.
GlennJ.C., GordonT.J. and FlorescuE.: ‘2013-14 State of the future’; 2014. Washington, The Millennium Project.
6.
DiamondJ.: Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed; 2005, New York, NY, Viking Books.
Levi-StraussC.: ‘Structural anthropology’ ‘Problems of method and teaching’, Ch. 16 335–336; 1963, New York, NY, Basic Books.
10.
AllchinD.: ‘Values in science and in science education’, in ‘International handbook of science education’, (ed. FraserB.J. and TobinK.G.), 1083–1092; 1998, Dordrecht, Kluwer.
11.
AllchinD.: ‘Values in science: an educational perspective’, in ‘Science education and culture: the contribution of history and philosophy of science’, (ed. BevilacquaF..), 185–196; 2001, New York, NY, Springer.
12.
JacobsonA, KammenDM. Science and engineering research that values the planet. The Bridge. 2005;35(4):11–17.
13.
GodemannJ. Knowledge integration: a key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008;14(6):625–641.
14.
HinkelJ.: ‘Transdisciplinary knowledge integration. Cases from integrated assessment and vulnerability assessment’, ‘PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands’; 2008.
15.
GebeshuberI.C.: ‘Green nanotribology and sustainable nanotribology in the frame of the global challenges for humankind’, in ‘Green tribology—biomimetics, energy conservation, and sustainability’, (ed. NosonovskyM. and BhushanB.), 105–125; 2012, Berlin, Springer.
16.
GebeshuberIC, MajlisBY. New ways of scientific publishing and accessing human knowledge inspired by transdisciplinary approaches. Tribology. 2010;4(3):143–151.
17.
ZmudRW. An examination of ‘‘push-pull’’ theory applied to process innovation in knowledge work. Manage. Sci. 1984;30(6):727–738.
18.
HansenMT, BirkinshawJ. The innovation value chain. Harvard Business Rev. 2007;85(6):121–133.
19.
BerneR.W.: ‘Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology’; 2006, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
GustonDH. Book review: a still small voice. Rosalyn W. Berne. 2006. Nanotalk: conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. J. Nanopart. Res. 2006;8(1):149–152.
21.
GebeshuberIC. ‘Green nanotribology’, Proc. IMechE Part C, Mech. Eng. Sci. 2012;226(C2):374–386.
22.
MannS.: ‘Biomineralization’; 2002, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
23.
GebeshuberI.C. and CrawfordR.M.: ‘Micromechanics in biogenic hydrated silica: hinges and interlocking devices in diatoms’, Proc. IMechE Part J, J. Eng. Tribol., 2006, 220, (J8), 787–796.
24.
BarthlottW, NeinhuisC. The purity of sacred lotus or escape from contamination in biological surfaces. Planta. 1997;202:1–8.
25.
HanJT, KimS, KarimA. UVO-tunable superhydrophobic to superhydrophilic wetting transition on biomimetic nanostructured surfaces. Langmuir. 2007;23(5):2608–2614.
26.
AndersonW.N.C.: ‘Hyperaccumulation by plants’, in ‘Element recovery and sustainability’, (ed. HuntA.J.), 114–139; 2013, London, Royal Society of Chemistry.
27.
KarmanSB, DiahSZM, GebeshuberIC. Raw materials synthesis from heavy metal industry effluents with bioremediation and phytomining: a biomimetic resource management approach. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015;185071.
28.
LinJ, JiangW, LiuD. Accumulation of copper by roots, hypocotyls, cotyledons and leaves of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Bioresour. Technol. 2003;86(2):151–155.
