I was thinking of expanding on my ability to develop and connect cross-functional fundamental and applied research connecting various areas to build a global team, and the best way would be to build research centers around the globe. I would like to take leadership role on this front.


The overall objective of these research centers would be to develop, level-headed teams around the globe, who may coordinate to address various problems revolving around STEM, BUSINESS, PUBLIC POLICY, LAW & SOCIAL SCIENCE (not limiting to these areas). Moreover, these research centers would not be completely successful without the ability of these individuals to communicate, market and teach in their own countries/continents. For that reason, these research centers would also include training facilities to work on the soft skills as much as hard skills.

How is it different than those that are in place?

In this interconnected world with so much data out there, there is so much connectivity that gets missed out. Yes, there are computers to do those jobs, but there is still the emotional part which is the missing element. The day when technology picks up emotion, we, humans, have to figure out a way to find another planet to live, and also become as competitive as the technology. For that reason, to compete with technology, we need to consider building such research centers around the globe.

Considering the objective of these research centers, it is important to be careful with the selection process while bringing in talent. The talent force for these research centers should be a right mix of IQ, EQ, AQ, Experience, Achievements. At the same time, I would prefer these individuals would also have a life of their own. The policy and law should not characterize them anything other than normal individuals with ability to solve complex problems involving various areas.

I look forward to hearing from the leaders.

Thanking you,


Updated 7/22/2015

Are there other offers?

If an individual in South Africa can get $1.3B for human brain research alone, and DeepMind gets $652 million, you can look at my profile, and how I am unique in connecting so many areas. I am keen to bring in around $2.5B for Val-U-Pro Consulting Group, LLC for establishing a CoE (Center of Excellence - a mix of fundamental and applied research) center preferably in Europe first, as Europe has built connections with every continent over the years, and Europe is the one which appears to need the most refinement right now. Further, the law has evolved over there to changing times on top of EU taking bold steps to move forward. Most importantly, the thought process of EU to put citizens' first catches my attention. Look forward to an offer.

Please note that this center of excellence (CoE) is not going to compete with others, but the objective would be to bridge gaps around the globe on every front. This CoE will keep accountability and sustainability in ROI (directly or indirectly) part of the organizational mantra.


Updated 7/31/2015

Looking forward to having four or five investors along with the greatest investor in the world.

Updated 8/3/2015

I would like to set the primary center in Sweden (birth place of Alfred Nobel) as an independent unit, with satellite centers in every continent. The goal of these centers would be to identify every gap, and to provide solutions for those gaps on top of looking into fundamental and applied research areas. This center will also play a key role during times of crises through product innovations, process mining, and strategic solutions. Most importantly, it will try to enhance the feasibility and accountability of projects/products/processes (constructive only) across the globe through the primary players in those regions. We will also offer educational training to go with these developments.

Why Independent centers?

To make this center as unbiased as possible with diversity on every front.

Other interests?

I can take professorial roles in various universities around the globe, and utilize this role to transfer knowledge to younger generations..

Specifics on Investors: As these centers are going to be in different continents, it would be helpful to have investors' diversity as well.

Updated 8/25/15

Interesting article -

My views on some key points in this article -

1. "In a widely cited study from 2013, Oxford professors Carl Frey and Michael Osbourne say that machines could replace about 47 percent of our jobs over the next 20 years, but in a new report released today, Gownder takes a more conservative view. Drawing on government employment data and myriad interviews with businesses, academics, and, yes, pundits, Gownder predicts that new automation will cause a net loss of only 9.1 million U.S. jobs by 2025." -

My comments - Gowdner's prediction of 9.1 million jobs still equates close to 6% compared to the current labor force of 155 million. Moreover, the 9.1 million jobs lost will be the number within the next 10 years. Technological evolution goes through a life cycle, and if the operational improvements are significant in the next 10 years, then it will expedite the mechanization process in the following 10 years. Moreover, current compensation structure along with technologies such as, IoT provides avenue for power mongers to drive the global system towards slavery (or, it is already happening). It is also the reason that I keep on calling for prudent policies, and evolving rule of law.

2. "But Gownder rightly points out that such technology is still in the early stages of development—and that it still requires much help from humans." -

My comments - AI has been going through incremental progress over the years, and as with smartphones ecosystem, there will be a time when incremental developments will evolve to a disruptive technology. For example, image processing and natural language processing that is cited in the article, which when combines with emotional intelligence can make machines not only compete with humans, but also take over the decision-making process. As stated in one of my other article, when this transformation happens combined with individualization of the world -

a. provides 7+ billion ways (based on current population) to misuse the technology

b. the worst would be when the machines/humanoids with EI takes over the decision-making process

3. “Technology does change the mix of jobs. You’re going to see doctors taking more of the role that involves the personal interaction with patients and less of the role of trying to keep huge amounts of evidence in there head. The nurse may become more prestigious than the doctor,” Moore says. “But if you look around, there are also new kinds of creatives roles being produced across the market. There are so many jobs that didn’t exist just a few years ago.”

My comments - Basically, what this means is that we would not need doctors any more. When a particular area of profession dwindles down, though there will be more demand for nurses, it will also make more individuals opt for nursing programs, and in the end, supply demand dynamics still will compress the wage rates for the general masses.

When it comes to keeping huge amounts of evidence in the head, humanity has progressed through the ability to think. When humans become more and more dependent on machines, there is no incentive for humans to figure out things in a hands-on manner (may be, people should watch the movie - "Idiocracy" - Though funny, that story in a way captures what is happening right now, and what will happen in the future). For example, though it is easy to google for information on how to make something, it will not be the same as making it ourselves. When humans move away from this process of experiential and tacit learning, many part of the brain will not be wired as it should be, and limit the decision-making process. In a way, over-reliance on technologies will be equivalent to technological addictions, and addictions of different forms (substance or behavioral addictions) have shown to hinder the decision-making process, and can also cause other societal issues.

Here is one example -

4. "He says that he has seen no evidence that this technology is stealing jobs—and that, as time goes on, it will likely create an enormous number of jobs."

My comments - It is not completely true. With wage not increasing compared to inflationary rate (revolving around key areas such as, education, health care etc), majority of the masses are not able to keep up with the inflationary rate irrespective of new jobs created or not. Moreover, cumulative span of employment is also coming down around the globe. These changes, in a way, is equivalent to supply-demand mismatch. For established professors in academics, as they are assured of a job until retirement, they don't see the changes. May be, there needs to be some performance metrics system, which should place academicians in the same environment as the rest of the world (or, may be, they will understand when disruption happens in their space). When this happens, academicians will take the time to see what is going on around the world.

5. Am I contradicting myself?

No. Technology has made the world flat, and has created more jobs in absolute numbers. But, the fraction of the world population without meaningful and stable jobs over the career life span have also increased over time. Further, the technological enhancements is providing opportunities for people with resources and power (whether politics, industry, and/or academics) to become even more powerful. Over time, misapplication of technological developments has the potential to drive the humankind back to the days of slavery (or, may be, it is already happening).

When a mix of AI, EI takes over, the nature of disruption will be of proportion never seen in the history before.