By the Editor

A long time ago, it took days, months or even years for information to reach its destination. Today, it is almost like lightening. While we enjoy the speed at which we can send and receive information, we are also inundated with the sheer volume of the information we share, especially what we get. In the April Edition, different articles will discuss information as to what it is, who uses it, when it is used, for what purpose and how it is used. Is it factual, neutral, apolitical, and objective as we are often led to believe?

The April edition is also concerned with biases involved with the production, distribution, and utilization of information. To begin with, one would think that those who inform us about science would be objective. But no! To show that science is not immune to biases, on the commemoration of the 100th birthday of the late Professor Han Gobind Khorana, Sahotara Sarkara tells us that even winning a Nobel Prize does not seal one from biases.

In the area of governance, Professor Jamil Majuji showa that under electoral authoritarianism, laws are for some people to follow, and they are for others to break with impunity. Though one country is discussed here, there are many other countries in the world in which this is a matter of common practice. While dictators often sing the loudest about being democratic because they hold regular elections, they simply use the claim to cover up their abuse of democracy.

The last three articles tell us about how information can be used in a biased manner to serve national interests despite any claim of objectivity. The last one also shows that an international institution may not be looked at favorably when it does not serve national interests. But when it is deemed a useful tool, it will be shamelessly embraced as if it was not shied away from before. Likewise, different countries will ignore or use the same set of information if it serves the national interest.

When all is said and done, facts are not just facts. How it is presented or received depends on whether it is from friends, foes, or neutral parties. As such, the world will be a better place if we could envision a world of togetherness than one of being us against them. However, to actualize it, we need to work on it and not simply give up by saying that it is impossible. After all, many seemingly impossible things we now take for granted took a belief in the possibility and determined efforts to actualize them.