 I have the very tough task of launching our next panel discussion after such a powerful keynote speech. And I just wanted to offer a few introductory remarks in order to set the stage for the panel before I invite the panel members up one by one to give their talks. So there are basically three overarching points that I wanted to put on the table as we go into this panel. And we've already discussed this morning the idea that we need to look a bit further. We need to look at the medium to long term as well as the short term and to think big and to think outside the box. And so the three points I'd like to make are first, what was radical or innovative 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 years ago is no longer considered that is now widely considered to be acceptable, commonplace, business as usual. And so perceptions of what is radical or innovative I think change greatly over time. Second, I'd like to make the point that the world is changing both in terms of the problems we're facing as well as the types of solutions and where those solutions will come from. And then third is the idea that the global innovation system, if we can think of it that way, can usefully be thought of as a complex adaptive system and that has certain implications for the types of policies we might want to put in place. So let me go quickly through these points. First, the notion of what was radical or innovative back then. If we think back to the 1980s, back to the famous Merck Mectis and Donation program when that was launched in the 80s, it was not considered normal at the time for a large firm to make a large scale donation in perpetuity for a problem affecting people in developing countries. Donations are now considered a relatively widespread commonplace response to at least some access issues. In about the early 2000s, tiered pricing was also not very widely practiced. And it was in the context of the HIV crisis that it became much more widely adopted by a number of different firms. In about 2010 or so, voluntary licensing was also not very widely practiced. Gilead was one of the first firms a few years before then to launch voluntary licensing policies. But after the creation of the medicines patent pool, this has now become relatively commonplace in the area of HIV and perhaps in other disease areas as well. Finally, in about around the same time mid-2000s, 2010, the creation of public-private product development partnerships, PDPs for short, were considered very innovative and out-of-the-box. The whole idea that you could do product development, develop new drugs on a not-for-profit basis was considered quite radical at the time. And now we have a number of different PDPs who've developed a number of new products on a not-for-profit basis. So all of this is to say that the theme of this panel is supposed to be cutting-edge thinking, new approaches to achieving both innovation and access. But perhaps some of these new ideas are not necessarily out of reach. Some of these new ideas are not necessarily far-fetched, or in fact, many of them are being implemented today. And there are a number of examples that I think will come up both during the panel as well as during our discussion afterwards. So that's the second point I wanted to make, excuse me, the first point. The second point regarding the world changing. So we heard very powerfully just now a reminder of some of the new problems that we're facing. For example, the outbreaks of infectious diseases, which were not really on the global agenda of the access to medicines community even two or three years ago. In addition to that, the problem of antimicrobial resistance was not a problem that was high on the political agenda of heads of state. And this fall at the UN there will in fact be a high-level meeting focused on the issue of antimicrobial resistance. The issue of improving access to drugs for non-communicable diseases. Not an issue five or ten years ago that was very high on the political agenda. And all of these today are considered to be new challenges in addition to what I would call the unfinished agenda. We're not yet done with the work around malaria, around HIV, tuberculosis, tropical, neglected diseases or neglected diseases of poverty. So the world is certainly changing in terms of the types of problems that we're trying to address, but also in terms of where do we believe the solutions will come from. And one of the phenomenal, I think, shifts in mindset that I've seen just in the short span of the UN Secretary General's high-level panel is a growing recognition that the problems we're talking about with affordability and with innovation are not just problems of developing countries but in fact are very much problems also affecting high-income countries. Certainly problems that affect middle-income countries, and that therefore the ways in which we approach these problems and the ways in which we might find solutions to these problems also need to involve all of those countries. And it's a very different way of thinking, and I think the high-level panel is going to be challenged to provide us all with advice in how to really solve global problems with a global set of potential actors. We spoke a lot this morning about external donors and financing coming from the Global Fund, from PEPFAR, from GAVI, from UNITAID, from some of the traditional initiatives that have been around now for 10 or 15 years, but I think it's also important to see that in the broader context of what's changing in the world. So right now, Development Assistance for Health is about $35 billion per year. It's flatlined over the last few years, and it's not expected to increase dramatically in the years to come. At the same time, we've heard, for example, during the discussions today that middle-income countries are not only increasing in their wealth, still have a very heavy disease burden, but are also considered very much commercial markets by the pharmaceutical industry. And middle-income countries, their spending on health actually dwarfs Development Assistance for Health. Middle-income countries now spend over $1 trillion, so $1,000 billion per year, compared to $30 billion total in Development Assistance for Health. So if we think about these numbers, we can see that the way the system is going to look, and the way it has to look in the future is going to be very different from the way that it's looked up until now. How do we improve both innovation and access in a world where middle-income countries are, both the commercial market, a place where there is deep need, but also a source of huge amounts of potential financing? These are all questions I think to wrestle with in the future. So the world is changing both in terms of the problems and the solutions that will be where the solutions will come from. Finally, the last point I'd like to make is regarding innovation as a complex, adaptive system. One of the hats that I wear is I lead a project at the Kennedy School, working together with researchers in energy, in agriculture, in water, health, and in manufacturing on technological innovation for sustainable development. And one of our conclusions is that it is very useful indeed to think about global innovation systems as complex, adaptive systems, and there are at least two implications of that characterization. So first, is that you can't really just affect one stage of the innovation process itself because you're going to create lots of other changes in the system. And so if we want to address access issues, we also have to look at the innovation piece of the puzzle, that we need to address the incentives for innovation at the same times that we're thinking about putting in place measures for access. That access, for example, should not be an afterthought that comes after the innovative process is over. That's one very clear implication of a complex, adaptive system. And so what we need to do is to be able not just to balance innovation and access goals, which is the language that we often hear, but rather we need to be able to achieve both jointly. So how do we actually jointly achieve innovation and access? And I think there's a lot of very interesting new thinking about that, some of which you've already heard today and hopefully will go a bit more into depth during the next couple of sessions. Secondly, is that it's important to take a system-wide view? And I think we've heard a number of interventions today that address, again, not only the issue of pricing, but all of the different points along the chain where both innovation and access may break down. So those are the three major points I wanted to make. We have three speakers who are going to speak to each of these themes on the panel. So we have Kevin Outterson, who is going from the Professor of Law at Boston University, who is going to be speaking to us about some of the latest thinking around innovation and access for antimicrobial resistance. We have Tom Boyke from the Council on Foreign Relations, who's going to be speaking to us about new ways of doing innovation for achieving both innovation and access, excuse me, for outbreaks such as Ebola, Zika, perhaps others that are coming down the line. And then finally, we have Jamie Taylor from Johnson & Johnson, whose title in your program is incorrect, by the way. And in fact, I have her new title sitting on that piece of paper on my table. So I'm going to have to reintroduce her when she speaks, but she's going to be giving us a system-wide view and explain how Johnson & Johnson takes a system-wide view. Thank you very much. System-wide view of innovation and access challenges. Let me give you her proper title, which is the Head of Global Public Health Systems Policy and Partnership. So excuse us for the error in the program. So let me, without further ado, pass over to our panel speakers. I've asked each of them to speak for no more than 12 minutes. And we're going to be quite strict because this is a really phenomenal, intimate gathering of people. And we want to engage in Q&A for about half the time, for about half an hour. Malia is going to give each of the speakers a signal when they're done with their 12 minutes. But because I'm very bad at interrupting people, I'm actually a really terrible timekeeper on panels. I'm also going to set an alarm, a very loud, annoying alarm, which will go off. And so I apologize in advance for the rudeness, but it's in order to keep us on time. And that way we'll have time to really engage in back and forth, which I think will be incredibly rich. So first let me invite Kevin up to speak to us about AMR.