Scientist Infects Himself with a Computer Virus- why? because you can
Business Futurist | Foresight Strategist
If you’ve read this far, something probably connected.
Maybe it put words to something you’d been sensing but couldn’t quite land. Maybe it made something complicated feel clearer. Maybe it unsettled a position you thought you’d settled.
Good. That’s where this work lives.
Not forecasting. Not scenarios at 2050. Not more noise. What’s already moving. The shifts most organisations can’t yet see, name, or understand the full weight of. What it means. What to do about it while it’s still a possibility, not a problem. Short term and long.
Morris Misel has been doing this for 30 years across 160 industries, with boards, executive teams, and leadership groups in Australia and internationally. More than 2,800 engagements. Over a million people a year through conferences, boardrooms, and media.
If you want more of this thinking while it’s still a signal, not a headline, subscribe to Immediate Futures.
If you want ongoing access to everything I do for clients, packaged for you, with direct access to me, join the Signal Room.
If you’re considering bringing this work into your conference, boardroom, or organisation, enquire here.
Choose Forward.
Scientists sometimes push boundaries to understand mechanisms that aren’t obvious from observation alone. Self-experimentation reveals what theoretical models cannot. In this case, the scientist chose direct experience to study virus behaviour. The decision reflects a particular view on risk, knowledge, and certainty.
The scientist’s choice reveals how humans weigh known risks against unknown unknowns. Sometimes we accept a calculated danger to remove ambiguity. This pattern appears constantly in organisations: leaders choose discomfort now to avoid larger uncertainty later. Understanding this choice helps explain both courage and recklessness.
Most organisations avoid self-inflicted risk deliberately. Yet this scientist demonstrates a different calculus: the knowledge gained justified the personal exposure. Leaders face parallel questions constantly. Which risks are worth taking? When does pushing boundaries create resilience rather than just danger?
Deliberate self-infection isn’t recklessness—it’s informed choice. The scientist understood the virus, the exposure pathway, and potential consequences. This mirrors how organisations should approach new territory: with knowledge, clear-eyed risk assessment, and intention. Without these, boundary-pushing becomes merely careless.
The scientist’s approach suggests that some preparation requires direct encounter. Your organisation can model scenarios and study cases, but genuine understanding sometimes arrives only through engagement. The question leaders face: what risks are worth taking to understand what matters most?
