Bridging Industry 5.0 Theory and Practice

Knowledge production is at the heart of science, technology, and innovation. Few revolutions in knowledge production create a complete rupture between the past and the present. There has, however, been a proliferation of discourses on industrial revolutions from the 18th century to the present. The first industrial revolution or “Industry 1.0” was built on steam power, the rise of the iron and textile industries, and a shift from rural to urban life in the 18th and the 19th centuries. The second industrial revolution, Industry 2.0, was in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, and had a focus on mass production by electric power.

The oil and steel industries were part of the Industry 2.0 paradigm of production as were innovations such as the light bulb and telephone. Industry 3.0 or the third industrial revolution was in the second half of the 20th century and characterized by automation with the use of computers, and the mainstreaming of personal computers and the Internet. Computers in Industry 3.0 did what they were told to do; however, Industry 4.0 or the fourth industrial revolution was built on computers with new sensing capabilities.

This was in part achieved by wireless Internet connectivity and miniaturized sensors embedded in various smart objects such as factory assembly lines, science laboratories, and objects of quotidian life such as refrigerators that can detect an almost empty water container using sensors, real-time analytics, and wireless connectivity. Sensors embedded in such a rich diversity of smart objects collect and generate big data that are harnessed by artificial intelligence and other digital technologies in the Industry 4.0 mode of production.

An overarching narrative, one that is uncritically embraced in Industry 4.0, is extreme digital connectivity to the point that everything is connected to everything else. Extreme digital connectivity has both strength and vulnerability, however (Aydoğan, 2022). The same tools that enable digital automation and real-time big data analytics can create echo chambers, lackluster innovations, digital disinformation, and democratic deficits when, for example, a concentration of unchecked political power leads to mass surveillance and authoritarian regimes in science and society (Springer and Özdemir, 2022).

Industry 5.0 as featured and theorized in OMICS emphasizes the hitherto missing societal dimensions in the Industry 4.0 technocratic mode of production, and the need for democratization of digital transformation. For example, we have noted that “Industry 5.0 is about building complex and hyperconnected digital networks without compromising long term safety and sustainability of an innovation ecosystem and its constituents” (Özdemir and Hekim, 2018). A recent editorial compared the Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 paradigms of production with attention to the democratization deficits in Industry 4.0 (Özdemir, 2023).

Digital transformation and automation by way of Industry 5.0 raise enormous prospects as well as challenges in life sciences and planetary health care as evidenced in the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. I welcome your articles dealing with the applications of Industry 5.0 in systems science and health care, and in ways that bridge the current gaps between theory and practice, and digital technology and the attendant societal dimensions of Industry 5.0.