Table 1.

Reflexive aspects to think “Global” about, before and while planning and deliberating on the surveillance program^a.

	Definitions*	Reflexive questionings**
Dimensions of existence	Empirical experience: what have we experienced as human (the subjective point of observation) and expert (the person deepening the knowledge)? Three existing worlds globally posing complexity  1. Biological: the physical dimension of life  2. Sociological: the institutional dimension, including laws and culture  2. Anthropological: the intellectual dimension and values (e.g., health, well-being, biodiversity)	Localism as “To think” per community Sustainability: How to strategically distribute the “observer” reflexivity and evaluation to integrate multiple dimensions of existence, to assess several organizational scales, and to judge biases and prejudices over time?
Levels of knowledge	Cultural learning: what have we learned through history (the human existence) and as communities (the overall existence above)? Three existing thoughts posing human complexity  1. Descriptive: understanding of the cognitive and surrounding world (to acknowledge the above dimensions of existence)  2. Normative: systematized course of action, e.g., laws, techniques  3. Appreciative: thought qualifying the past, present, and future	Experimentalism as critical questioning Acceptability: How to judiciously choose the “right” knowledge to the proper end, to integrate learning, to engage the community, and to critic decisions constructively?
Point of observation	Intellectual critics: How to criticize each other's positioning and abstract collective actions? Three existing states of organizational complexity  1. Networks: interactions between actors and their environment (see the actor-network theory)  2. System: a dynamic assemblage of several networks evolving according to their own principles (see the concepts of social collective or ecological community)  3. Organization: an open system with various alternative states of succession remaining stable through retroactive processes of self-determination (see the concepts of biological organism and ecosystem).	The multi-scale analysis deliberating process Responsibility: How to ethically manage program development to improve transparency in governance, arbitration of resource allocation, transition of cultural change, progression of decision-making, advancement of collaborations, and communication in the manner of a community-based, adaptive, precautionary governance process?

^aReferring to the Morin's paradigm of “human complexity” and “Penser Global”, applied to One Health, from a synthesis of complementary theories, notably Max-Neef, Latour, and Ingold work on the translation, organization, and evolution of scientific and traditional knowledge. This synthesis is rooted in Potter's bioethical normative theory and approach for pragmatically bridging Sciences and Society to reach the goal of improving toward a better future. As any “shaped” map (technological, geological, or ecological), the landscape is in motion which requires having the case and its context under study.

^*Scientific paradigms must be used to ensure that collective ethics is shaped within the frame of sustainability (the “what is feasible by nature”) to broaden our understanding of the case study (29). Built on values, the purpose of this synthesis is to broaden the vision to set ever better ethics to guide conduct, policies, and governance processes toward responsibility, i.e., the practice of empowerment ethics.

^**The synthesis was translated into questions to ease their use in situ. The purpose is to broaden the collective vision of a common change for better policies and governance processes by building a program based on core values (sustainable, acceptable, and responsible) that emerge from deeper reflections on what is “feasible.” Values must apply to the ethics of science (e.g., methodology, scientificness, and accountability) to improve evaluation practices throughout deliberation and reflexivity in program implementation. This helps to justify advanced surveillance goals and processes based on a broad vision that is anchored in the paradigm of complexity (15, 109), using the precautionary principle to justify action before a causal mechanism is fully understood, such as in the case of climate change, biodiversity loss, and antimicrobial resistance.