 I'd like to begin our discussion on the Global Science Outlook, which I hope you have all been looking forward to as keenly as I have. I have quite a distinguished panel of speakers here with me today, starting at my left, Tan Chow-Tuan, President of National University of Singapore. Next to him, Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, President of the European Research Council. Chen Zhenleng, Vice President of the China Association for Science and Technology, People's Republic of China. Welcome. Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health from the United States. And Minister Ichita Yamamoto, recently of Science and Technology and Minister of Space Policy of Japan. Thank you and welcome. I'm also joined by our topic champion, who's, I just want to ask you Michael to raise your hand there, Michael Siegel of Nautilus, who may further challenge us when it comes time for the discussion period with some interesting thoughts and perspectives on science. So as I mentioned earlier, we're going to speak about the Global Science Outlook. And this is a particularly propitious time to be discussing this here. Science of course is the engine of innovation. And at this meeting, which is the eighth annual meeting of the new champions here in China, is especially devoted for the first time to science, technology and innovation. And for that reason, maybe a particularly exciting time to discuss these issues with this panel, which will describe and discuss trends and challenges around the state of science. And we'll also take a bit of a look ahead and have some questions from the audience as well. If you want to send questions via Twitter, you can send them with the hashtag Global Science. So if you look up on the screens there, you can see tweets as they come in. And I have have one here as well in front of me. So I can see your questions. If you don't like Twitter, which is fine. You may also send an email to GlobalScience at wef.ch. So you can send an email there for questions as well. So either hashtag GlobalScience or GlobalScience at wef.ch. So the charge, and I meant to say, my name is Mariette DeCristina. I'm the editor-in-chief of Scientific American. And I think the main charge of the panel today is to talk about how science community can generate further value for society. And I think a great way to begin would be to get a couple of minutes of perspective from each of the speakers here on what the situation looks like in their country or their region. Would you please start? Yes, sir. So I started physical Singapore. Of course, it's the smallest country. But you know it. Yeah. And so we have to think a lot more strategically about how we develop our R&D system. I just shared three quick points from a review which is still going on. The first is we need to continue a strong focus on basic investigative research. And this is very important for the reasons of attracting, nurturing and retaining talent, but also in creating a brain trust. A brain trust that allows you greater flexibility to explore new areas of innovation. And also a absorptive capacity in order to connect with the research community around the world and thereby access the science that's being developed. So a strong focus on basic science. At the same time, we have to try our best to realize the full value of the research that we do. And broadly speaking, you can classify it as producing health, producing wealth, or producing influence, for example, on policy. And the main question, of course, is how do you do that? How do you bridge between the basic science strengths that you build and the creation, the realization of value? And here Singapore is focused on a number of strategies including cooperative grants that bring multidisciplinary teams together from across the country and with international partners. Working very closely with industry partnerships to create consortia. And we also have a mission-oriented research organization, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research, which sits between the interface of academic research and industry. Thank you. Dr. Bourguignon. Thank you. Well, I'm going to present a picture viewed from Brussels, where the European Commission is sitting. And actually we're entering a period which is typical of the European system, where more or less the financing is fixed for seven years. So the new program, which is called Horizon 2020, is valid for the period 2014 to 2020. This program is quite different from the previous one in the sense that it has been organized to really cover both the fundamental side of science up to very areas which really are corresponding to societal challenges. So actually, there are three pillars. The first pillar is excellent science. The second pillar is industrial leadership. And the last pillar is societal challenges. And the ventilation of the budget is roughly one-third, one-third, one-third, which is not exactly correct. The European Research Council sits in excellent science. It's 17% of the overall budget. The amount of money which I'm talking about for this seven-year period is substantial. It's 77 billion euros. So it's over about $85 billion for seven years. So it's a substantial amount of money. And definitely the whole point of this new program being more readable, because you see more where you sit. There's still room for, I mean, I would say basic science in both industrial leadership and the societal challenges. But really, the main focus has been really European Research Council. And the new feature of the European Research Council, which was created only in 2007, is really actually two main things. The first one is a strictly bottom-up process. That is, we receive proposals by researchers and we just let them go and we just evaluate them and decide which one we want to support. The only criterion is the quality, scientific quality of the project submitted. And then the next point is, of course, clearly in what I described, the key element will be the selection process. And then the scientific council is both responsible for how the money is spent, but also choosing the people who make the selection. So, of course, that's actually a substantial amount of work, because we have 25 areas and actually it means more than 2,000 scientists to be mobilized. And we have to find something at 400 to 500 a year. So it's a substantial number. So this is the way the European Union is considering. But of course, the key element, which for the moment, if I'm allowed to be a bit critical about the whole system, is not really functioning. This has to be articulated with what happens country by country. For the moment, the mechanism for this is not really clear. And I hope, as president of ERC, that we will make progress in this coordination between what happens at the European level, which is more or less fixed with little variation, but not much, and what can happen at individual countries. And I must say that at the level of individual countries recently, of course, in connection with the financial crisis, there have been a number of negative tendencies in terms of not offering positions or freezing positions, also diminishing the support, also all of a sudden suppressing completely bottom up. There's a financing of research in some countries. And this is very important that the countries really agree on at least some minimal actions in relation with really bottom up research, because the overall budget that the European Commission puts if you sum up all the money devoted to research in Europe is really something like 8%. So of course, if the other part is missing, in the end, you're going to miss the right support. So I think we're very proud that ERC has been able, in a very short period of time, seven years, to establish itself as a reference program, considered as an excellent program. So people who get ERC grants are really very well-recognized, very often with a big push in their career. But that's not enough, because the success rate is about 10%. So clearly there are many excellent scientists which are missing this. So we need to be supported nationally in a good way, and not only through top-down research. So this overall balance for the moment is a bit complicated to monitor and to understand. In my new position, I do meet ministers regularly. It's difficult for me to know exactly how we can discuss this, because of course I have absolutely no power on them. It's completely normal. But whether they will be willing to listen or not, that's something which needs time to be measured. Thank you. Dr. Chen. My name is Chen from China Association of Science and Technology. After 30 years of such a rapid development economy in China, we are facing a kind of very severe challenge in country, how to continue, to make sure that continue rapid economy development. So therefore, as our premier, Li Keqiang mentioned yesterday that country invests lots of money in research and development, trying to push that new technology into a market. And so far that we're quite happy. I'm a scientist, but I'm happy about that since being done in China. For example, number one, that the total budget to R&D, they increased dramatically in the past couple of years. To last year, total investment in R&D in China is reached to 1.18 trillion R&B. This is about 200 billion US dollars just for R&D. They make about 2.03 percent of total GDP. This is the highest in our history, country history, that reached to 2 percent of GDP to science and technology, R&D. We are happy about that. So the outcome so far that we can see the achievement in country. One data to show you that in year 2000, the total exports goods from China exports, the high technology products, the value just about like 6.5 percent. But to last year, year 2013, the total exports, the high tech products among the total exports products, the value, we reached to 30.6 percent. So 36.5 percent. They increased 30 percent. We are happy about that situation, that technology being applied in the marketing area. We pay attention to following areas. Number one is IT, that the information technology that push really high in this area and that achieve quite significant development. And second is biotechnology. But in biotechnology, two areas. One is pharmaceutical technology. And we call biopharmaceutical. Second is biotechnology in agriculture. We call GMO and the kind of research in the area push quite high in this area. So there's a second high technology. And the third one is new material. Number four is new energy. But the new energy are the area in solar energy, wind energy. And we call biomaterial energy or people call biological energy called biomass energy. And the last is environmental technology. So those areas that we pay so much attention to it. And I can see a good progress and I can see a good future to help this country in economic development in the future. Thank you. So I'm Tom Insel from the National Institutes of Health. That's the NIH in the U.S., which is the government's investment in biomedical research. So I'll really speak about that specifically. The NIH has 27 institutes that cover a range of areas from cancer, heart disease, brain disorders across the board. We've got one new program that's developed in the last few years, which is called the National Center for Advancing Translational Science. And that gives you some sense of one of the places where we try to confer value, Maryette. This is a place which tries to fill in this valley of death between basic science, as we know it, and the development of new medications or new interventions. And it's really not so much developing the compounds themselves, but working out the process by which that's done, trying to fix the pipeline, trying to fix the the mechanism of translation as a problem, something that no other sector has done. In general, though, the NIH is pretty much evenly divided between its investment in basic science and more applied, more clinical science. And this translational piece is really part of that bridge. I want to speak just for a moment about the challenges that we face, which are not that different from what you've heard already. We're a large agency for biomedical research that's been a $31 billion is our budget. That funds scientists really all around the world. We have a big global health commitment. But the key for us, and I think something I hope we can talk about further in this session, is that the budget has really stalled out. So we've actually seen no growth relative to inflation for over a decade. And in the last 10 years, we've lost about 20% of our purchasing power. At the very time when healthcare reform has come in to play in the US, the costs of healthcare have continued to grow on an annual basis. And yet our ability to invest in the science to bring those costs down has really stalled out. So we've been struggling, I'd say. And we really feel I think the pain of this we see in a success rate that's now dropped to about 15% or less. So there's this awful and painful disconnect between supply and demand. When you say success rate, you mean people applying for grants? People applying for grants, their likelihood of getting funded has dropped. We're seeing young investigators actually getting really discouraged, some leaving the field altogether. What do we do in this case? Part of it is we're seeing at the same time this very interesting growth in private funding. So philanthropy is a major player for biomedical research in the US. And now we're seeing private industry getting involved, even in some basic science projects. So the recent announcement by Google to begin our project, looking at brain aging and Alzheimer's disease, very interesting. The Allen Institute has become a major player in neuroscience in my area and has really transformed that field by the commitments that Paul Allen has made with, again, private funding. So we're looking increasingly towards partnerships and saying, well, at a time when we have less and less to work with and others are investing more and more, how do we leverage that? How do we get together with the pharmaceutical industry? How do we get together with philanthropy? And how do we create value through a partnership model, which is quite different from what we've done in the past because we haven't needed to look at in those directions. So this is a very interesting time, the whole ecosystem of science funding in the US is shifting. I am Minister Yamamoto, Japanese former minister for science and technology. And I had been the minister since the inauguration of the current administration in December 2012 until a few days ago when the prime minister reshuffled the cabinet. So based upon my experience as a minister for two years, I'd like to share with you updates of Japan's science and technology and innovation as well as my own thoughts. The greatest mission of the current Japanese administration is, of course, is the restoration of a robust economy. And for this purpose, the government of Japan has been promoting what is called three allows of Abenomics, which are bold monetary policy, flexible fiscal policy, and most importantly, growth strategy, which encourages private sector investment. And I think the impacts of the Abenomics has been working quite effectively as far as we can see various indicators. But we should not be too optimistic because the most recent figure of the real GDP growth rate decreased by 7.1 percent on annual basis due to the effects of the consumption tax rate hike from 5 to 8 percent. But I think this is a temporary issue because prime minister is pretty much determined to promote Abenomics. In fact, at the doubles meeting in January, which accompanied prime minister, he spoke about Abenomics in the plenary session, which he said he is willing to act like a drilling bit, strong enough to break through the solid rock of vested interests. So that's attracting interests of many of the participants. So I did everything I could do to contribute to the third allow of Abenomics, namely the growth strategy. I too pushed forward my allows. All of them concerned the reinforcement of headquarter function of the science and technology innovation policy of Japan. And firstly, I improved the whole budget, whole science and technology budget formation process. And secondly, I came up with two new programs in order to promote close ministerial corporations as well as to promote high risk, high return research. I also want to mention about the Olympic Games. In the year 2020, we will host Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games. And I think we should utilize, we should maximize to accelerate, how do you say, measures to address our new challenges, as well as showcase innovation from Japan, attracting wisdom globally. When I say showcase innovation from Japan, I mean the sharing Japanese experiences to address various challenges. For instance, I believe that Japan can greatly contribute to the areas of first robotics and second, maybe regenerative medicine. And third, I want to say prevention and mitigation of natural disasters. As a minister, I traveled the world and met in and out of Japan, my colleagues including ministers and also government chief scientific advisors and excellent scientists and also CEOs of private companies and so forth. And also I had a chance to visit city convales, also the Bay Area, three times as minister. And during my stay in the ministry, I can say that now because I'm not a minister, during my stay in my office, I sometimes think that well, competition is quite important, but is there any way to come up with some kind of mechanism of international collaboration? Well, after coming back from city convales, I found out I felt that it's impossible to build another city convales. So many countries are trying to establish, to create innovation hubs to win the global competition in their own manners. For instance, in Japan, I was struggling to create a new mechanism of national R&D corporations to connect basic research to commercialization and industrialization. I think the UK has established catapults and also Germany has franc-forfa research institutes. And I learned the word in city convales, competition. As many of you know, competition goes beyond competition and cooperation, combining the advantage of two. I think this concept of competition, how do you say that? Develops, oh my English, develop is English. Develops win-win scenarios in which business strives to gain more, not necessarily by taking market share or profit from a contender, but by creating a bigger market in the, you know, complementary areas. So my question here is whether or not this concept of competition is applicable to the field of science and technology and innovation policy. You may think that I'm too naive, but I'm not very much naive, because I was also in charge of intellectual property strategy as a minister. So I know, you know, IP issues will be very difficult when we try to come up with that kind of mechanism. But I'm always, you know, asking if there is any example for competition. Is there any case where not competition, but competition led to the world-changing innovation? And if we can, if it's possible for us to come up with some kind of international mechanism, what are the roles of NPO's like Gates Melinda Foundation? So I'd like to know what other panelists think of this concept of competition, and how about, you know, coping with natural disasters? I don't know. So that's the thing which I'd like to tell you here. And I'm very much looking forward to sharing views from other panelists. Thank you. So I think what I've, I think so far we've heard a number of interesting viewpoints. We've heard from smaller to larger research pools. We've heard about a variety of funding mechanisms. Not all perfectly maybe supported, it sounds like, from the folks in the room. We've heard about how funding is growing in certain areas, how it is challenged in other areas, and how there's been some progress in translational research, and that it strikes me that science is such a global endeavor, and there's a lot of cooperation, but the funding is coming very regionally. So the minister here just suggested a couple of interesting things in international collaboration and co-opetition. One thing which I would like to tell you, competition is so important. It's important not to lose competition. That's the one thing we check for. Merit is always going to be important in science. I quite agree with you. And the rise of philanthropy also very valuable. So interestingly, we already have a question on Twitter that is a follow on to these points right here. And if I do this right, it will show up on the screen. There is an increasing dollars being thrown at science, but what evidence is there of translation into increased societal benefits? Would anyone like to take a stab at that one? I'll take a stab. We have this huge project that's done every other decade on the burden of disease. So this is a good example where you can ask what's the impact of investments. So looking at the global burden of disease, it looks not only at mortality, but morbidity. And obviously the chronic non-communicable diseases have emerged as major issues there. It's 291 diseases and also injuries are thrown in as a source of morbidity and mortality. The data came out about a year ago from 2010 and the same study had been done in 1990. And we've been curious about that because people often ask us whether our funding matches that burden of disease. In fact, it doesn't. We fund by scientific opportunity as well as by what the public health needs are. Those two factors together are better predictors of where we'll invest. But there's a very interesting piece of our funding which is way out of line with everything else. If you do the regression on burden of disease versus funding, the piece that's out of line is AIDS. So about 10% of our budget, about $3 billion a year goes to HIV research. And when you look at the, so it's much more than one would predict just based on everything else that we support. But when you look over time, between 1990 and 2010, what's the disorder which dropped the furthest in terms of burden of disease? It's AIDS. It's actually quite remarkable. It went from I think number five down to number 31 in terms of morbidity, mortality, and I cut the mortality rate by 50% in that time. So it's a good example to me of not that we're spending too much on HIV research, but that we're not spending enough on everything else. If indeed we could get that kind of return on our investment from other areas, imagine what the impact would be in public health. So I think we know this works. It worked for HIV. Now the question is how do we raise the bar elsewhere so that we are able to get the same kind of impact in cancer, heart disease, schizophrenia, autism, Alzheimer's? Anyone else like to add to this? So a follow-on question that I have for all of you is now looking ahead a bit. You've described the situations as they currently exist. What are some of the things we can anticipate in the next, say, six months or so? What can we look forward to learning more about? Are we seeing the same trends? Are we seeing, is there anything coming up that will change the science picture in your region or in your country? Jump in quickly, Mariette. There's a piece that just came out in Ernst and Young's study which I found really surprising because we've been mostly talking about the doom and gloom of science funding. But that shows that there has been, in 2013, so this is the most recent data, there's actually a major upswing in private investment, 20% in the U.S., 7% of which is from Pharma alone in R&D investment. So there's something really interesting going on at the same time that we are having all this heartburn about the drop in government support for science. It really is this resurgence. Like we haven't seen in many, many years in private investment 41 IPOs last year alone. This is extraordinary. It tells you that there's a lot of opportunity here. It's just not coming from government. I just mentioned that we have about 200 billion U.S. dollars investment in R&D. And surprisingly, as you just mentioned, the first time we saw that over 71% of the money, actually not from government, it's private sector. And this is, you know, the socialist country, you don't see so many private companies put the money in. Always the government gets a tax or whatever. But it's almost the first time we see over 70% of R&D budget in China. I just mentioned we have 2% of GDP. But that actually over 70%, 72.1% money came from private sector in China. So it's really amazing to see a data change. And I can see in the next few years, it will be continually increased. Like today's Alibaba doing IPOs so successful in USA, they are going to put a good amount of money in those healthcare areas, in agriculture areas. I'm very sure that that will be the future. Can I ask you a question? Please. You said that 70% of funds are coming from private sector for R&D. I just want to know if those private companies are investing in, how do you say that, high impact, high risk kind of projects? Because in Japan, we, Japanese companies also putting aside so much money for R&D, maybe third largest in the world. But the problem is in case of Japan, the private companies tend not to invest in the high risk, you know, kind of projects. How about that? Yeah, it's a normal situation in China. You don't expect like a private company to put the money in the basic research, they don't do so. And they don't do a risk business. But in China, you know, you have such a big export volume. And you know that what kind of products, high tech products like those, those, those iPad production, you know that you put the money in just to do R&D, you will get, you will get payback. So I agree with you, we don't really pay a lot of money into very risk project, not like in America. When an American doing an IPO, they have some money, like venture capital put into a little bit risk technology, like development for new jobs. Sometimes you have no idea you will make money or not. But the good things in America, because I was in China, America, I know that you have mechanism to put the money into those for clinical trial, phase one, phase two. And normally we don't get money from the private company to put into a new job development for clinical phase one and phase two. Maybe phase three, they will put the money in. But very difficult to get money for phase one and phase two. You know, the reason why I asked him about this question is that as a policymaker, I'm always, you know, struggling. I mean, facing a kind of challenge, which, you know, how we should choose innovation to fund, because nobody can predict the future. I think this is a challenge which any policymaker is facing. When I met with Dr. Holdren, he's a science advisor to President Obama, just told me that he shared, you know, same common view. So, you know, it's a good thing for China maybe to invest so much money in R&D. But the most important thing is if you can choose a right project, you know, to fund. So I'm sorry to. I'm sorry to. No, no, please. I'm sorry. I'm like it's meant to be a conversation and please do. But I'm kind of struck by, I'm just kind of struck by as we watch funding mechanisms shift, their priorities will shift as well. And of course, one of the great roles the federal or different governments have played is that long-term investment in basic research, which whether people realize it or not because of the time spans involved, does pay back on average between 30% and 100% on that investment. Please go ahead. I think a lot of the basic research, of course, is funded by public money and it's spread over many disciplines because you can't really tell which disciplines are going to yield kind of discoveries that are going to be important for the future. But I think as you develop into translation, developing the ecosystem is very important and not just trying to, in my view, pick winners. The ecosystem of strong researchers, entrepreneurial scientists, as well as companies. So when companies invest in R&D dollars, they don't just bring R&D dollars, they bring expertise, strong important questions for companies that they want to solve. And they also help to create the sort of flows of ideas and people between the public and private sector that creates an environment where you can actually do a lot of innovative things. So in a way you're creating an environment that is self-assembling and helping to address the most important questions. And finally, just the activity itself, even if you don't have a high rate of success in very successful companies, yet that activity itself is valuable because it attracts people, employs people, it creates actually a churn of startups in other companies that are valuable for economic development as well. Can I ask again? Please go ahead. Well, in Japan, the biggest challenge is how we, as I said in my speech, connect basic research to value, I mean commercialization and also industrialization. Well, it's quite unfortunate, but in Japan we don't have a mature venture environment. So we don't have IT venture companies in the US, those in the Silicon Valley. So that's the reason why I was struggling to create a new mechanism of R&D, national R&D corporations to, how do you say that, to work as a bridge between academia and business? How about Singapore? Singapore has venture companies? We do have some, but I think beyond that, there are three factors I think which are important. One is people, encouraging the flow of people between academia, business, policymakers, back to academia, because a lot of things are based on personal relationships. So creating that flow of people, students, is actually very vital for the whole process. The second is co-location. We find that physical co-location is very important because it stimulates a lot of spillover of ideas, it helps with the movement of people. So when we co-locate industry with research institutions with the university in order to promote that flow. And the third is we also have active steps to try and organize partnerships that bring together different types of research within Singapore in partnership with industry, with industry defining many of the problems they really want to try and tackle. I think we'd also like to turn to some of the audience questions. And before we do that, I have another one from Twitter that I'd like to toss out. So we're going to change gears a little bit, I think, from some of the funding frameworks to some other science-related questions when we think about the global science outlook. And I have one here from my colleague at Gerstner at Nature on Twitter saying, could data be the currency of a new era of global scientific cooperation? Is there something there to work on? Well, maybe I can take this on. I think, of course, big data is becoming really a very sensitive issue and which really will mobilize a lot of attention, probably a lot of investment. But I think one has to be very careful that big data covers many different situations and many different potential uses and many also, I mean, the process by which this can be dealt with can be very different from one field to the other. And the reason for this is that there are already some areas where sharing data is actually just a solved problem. I mean, typically, certain people actually created the worldwide web exactly to share data. And actually, they have been, I mean, using data intensively and even selection of data remarkably. And so we know that. In some other areas, of course, I mean, I'm not a biologist, so we should be biologists who talk about this. But clearly, I mean, the question of sharing data in biologies is much more sensitive because the more we go and the better we have processes to analyze data, something which at some stage is clearly comfortable with sharing data because it's not giving any privacy issue. And then maybe five years down the line, you realize that actually with the data collected, you can really actually retrieve private information. So then how can you deal with such an evolution in the knowledge which really enables you to really the same data at some point are safe from the point of view of privacy and then become unsafe later on. So this is a very major issue which is extremely difficult to address. And then also the other part which has to do with the organization of research and its financing. For the moment, there are a number of areas in which the, of course, people deal with data, but the whole point of making them available, which suppose some kind of a common framework, common really standards is something which is not dealt with. And even the professions of people dealing with this and making this available don't exist and the support for them and the money to support them doesn't exist. So I think, of course, this is going to be an issue, but I would be very worried if again, this has happened already with open access in some way, the position taken at the political level are so uniform that they don't realize that you are dealing with so different questions with so different problems behind them. And even if the idea and the dynamics and the incentive of having shared data is, I think, something which is worth being discussed, it should not be actually fooled by the belief that this is just one problem. It's a many different problem with many different dimensions and many different issues behind it. So I think it's something which will be in the agenda of many people, but I think it's very critical that actually as in many areas of science, the diversity of the practices of science is recognized, identified, and properly dealt with. So we've taken, if I can just add, this has become a huge issue for us. We've just created a whole new initiative around big data and brought in some additional talent for this. And I completely agree that there's a level of building capacity, building expertise, and there's a whole series of issues that need to be scientifically wrestled with here. Just wanted to share an experience I've had in the last year, a couple of years, that's really surprised me, and that is in going out, working increasingly with the private sector, I've actually found much to my amazement that often there's more data sharing in the private sector than there is in the academic sector. That for many academics, data is their only source of equity. That's where they have an opportunity for promotion and for something that they can actually use for their own individual career. And so getting the academic sector to share data turns out to be, and sometimes a greater challenge. At least in the private sector, they can identify areas that they call pre-competitive, where everybody benefits. And we have a whole program in sharing data for biomarker development, because every company needs that to help with new diagnostics. But getting the academics on board will do it. We've just put out a new genomic data sharing policy. So I think the genomic data are easier to share and some of the issues you bring up are a little bit simpler for genomic data. It's more linear, not so many quality control issues. But for other kinds of data, it's going to be, I think there's a lot to work out here. It's going to be a challenge and not only issues around privacy, but issues around quality and how it gets used and issues around access. But we're absolutely committed. And to go back to the original question, in the information age data, data are equity. That is the source of what people can begin to work with. And also a great opportunity for sharing and for progress. Thank you. I'd like to invite the audience to also share their questions with us. Please identify yourself if you're asking a question and remind you that if you'd like, you can also send in a question by Twitter using the hashtag GlobalScience. And if you prefer, you can send an email, globalscienceatwef.ch. Does anybody have a question? There's one right here. Please wait for the microphone. Thank you. My name is Felix Manadega. I'm with the community of Young Global Leaders. And I wanted to hear the perspective of some of the members of the panel on an issue that it's key for capacity building for developing countries, which is the brain drain of young scientists. What ideas can you share in the paradox of funding and helping emerging young scientists to go to world-class universities but at the same time tackling the issue of brain drain? Because it's a big issue at least in Latin America and Africa. Thank you. Thank you. Another kind of equity. Yeah, I guess I can answer that question. I myself, I graduated in Chinese University and then went to America for PhD and then returned back to China. So brain drain situation and that like about 20 years ago in China, it was very severe. So you see many of students return just to America, to America, just to get a PhD and stay there. And our great Deng Xiaoping mentioned in his private talk or whatever, where he said that I decided to send a student, young people, to America or to other countries to study. Or let's say maybe 80% or over 80%, they will stay in America. But if we can get 20% back to China, that would be great for China. That the year I left the country to America, well, I returned. So it's about over 20% return back to China, make a significant difference, significant difference to Chinese education, science and technology, even the business. You can see today, all the people like those CEO, like entrepreneur, many come from return back from USA or from other countries, very significant. So brain drain indeed, it is a problem for developing country, for those poor countries because all those very talented people, left country to America or to other countries, it is a situation. But the good thing is, every country had to think about the way to build a mechanism to bring talents back to your own country. So that's a government job. You need to have a funding. You need to have enough funding to bring them back to your own country to do research or create more opportunity for them to have a job, good job in a country. And that will make a country significant difference. I can feel it. I very much agree with you. Prime Minister told me when I became Minister for Science and Technology, try to create a kind of hub in Japan for attracting a lot of talents from international community and also try not let the good scientists go outside Japan. But I'm always wondering, if you want to have an excellent, how do you say that, brain, we have to send so many people to the best place where they can get knowledge. For instance, if the number of young scientists go to Singapore or go to Silicon Valley, when they come back to Japan, we can have, how do you say that, in a sense, a bonus. So most important thing is not to allow them, try to prevent them, those young scientists from going abroad, but try to kind of, how do you say that, have infrastructure so that they can come back after getting knowledge in the place where they can be successful. That's my opinion as a policymaker. I want to add two quick points to the very good question. One is, quite often, we only look at the outflows, how many people left, but actually the balance that's important. For example, people might leave a country, but because of the opportunities that the people left behind see, more of them young people go into education and the net effect could be a much larger pool of talented educated people than if the opportunities did not exist to go overseas in the first place. So I actually was quite struck when I looked at some of the data that example, Germany actually loses quite a lot of scientists to other countries, but it also attracts a lot of scientists in. So the net effect is that it's still positive. But if you just look at the German outflow, in fact, there are quite a lot of Germans working outside of Germany. Apart from the point of brain recirculation, there's also the network effect. So when you have all these scientists, researchers overseas, they actually create a very strong network which actually enables capacity building in the originating country in addition to remittances and other types of economic benefits. So I think the situation could be more positive depending on the balance of outflows and inflows. We always say that science is global and CERN is maybe the best example. I can't remember how many countries, I think it's 100 countries are represented within CERN. Thousands of scientists. 3,000, 4,000 scientists. But we don't say as often as that the economic return belongs to the place where the innovation takes place. So location does matter and it does make a difference for countries to make the investment at home to ensure that there'll be innovation there. So your question's a really important one for countries that haven't yet made that investment. Ironically, in the States, which has been the place where people have been coming for so long, we are the maybe the source of some of the brain drain, we're actually arguing that we're losing people now because we're not making the investment we need to. This argument about invested home for economic gain is what we're making to our own government to try to get them to continue the investment that they had made historically and it's not there currently. So it's we're somewhat in the same boat at this point. Thank you. I think we had a question over here. It's been waiting patiently. And we're back here. Baskar Chakravorty Senior Associate Dean at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts. I have a hypothesis which is the 20th century we had plenty of conflict, you know, two wars and a Cold War, which was not a good thing. But from the perspective of science, actually pretty good because it gave an impetus and created political will certainly in the United States and similarly in the Soviet Union and in other parts of the world to fund science and largely for military reasons, but then there was a spillover effect and funding of fundamental research in a variety of fields, whether it was in government labs or in industrial labs. 21st century, we don't have the same kinds of conflict. So we have the situation where Congress does not does not unite behind, you know, some kind of a sputnik moment or some kind of a war moment. And there are different kinds of wars being fought now. And I'm wondering whether we, you know, whether that's a real problem and whether I'm not suggesting that we need another big a third world war. But is that an issue? And do we need some kind of a rallying moment for this century? So I'll speak as the U.S. Representative. You know, I think that for this Congress and the ones that have preceded it, there's a very urgent focus on the deficit. So all decisions are made with respect to how to balance the budget. And we're about to go into this whole period of what's called sequestration, which was a kind of mindless cutting of the budget by 5% every year until things are balanced. We had a two year basically relief from that process, but that's two years is going to be up in 2016, unless somebody does something about it. So we'll have another 5% cut in the NIH budget. I don't think that there's, I'm not sure that a war would do it, but I don't think there's anything that has convinced the Congress in the U.S. that there's anything more important than balancing the budget irrespective of what cost that makes. And it gets to the point that I think we just don't make well enough anywhere. And that is that science is an investment. It's not a cost that you invest in science to avoid future costs, whether those are costs in healthcare or whether those are costs in other parts of society where you have needs. And we did understand that in the past, and we made those decisions, as you said, in the 20th century to great benefit, even in investments in basic science where there wasn't a clear application in mind, and those are often the ones that had the greatest impact. It's been difficult to keep that in the debate currently when everything is about simply how do you balance the numbers and ensure that government is smaller, we're spending less, and that we're killing the deficit. I actually, I can't believe that we're very nearly out of time, so I'm going to ask for one more quick question. I think someone was waiting patiently back here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Katharina Fotopoulou, UCL and Young Scientist here, and also ERC Grantee. So I wanted to ask you as largely policy makers or responsible for policy and funding in your respective locations, what innovation can we have in policy so that we mediate funding, not just across countries, but across industry and academia? So of course you talked about, for example, differences between first phase, second phase, and third phase, and we all know basic research needs help from policy makers. But what I mean is within the same project. So for example, sometimes the problem is that industry has certain costs, is willing to fund and not others, and vice versa. So what kind of innovation can we come up to facilitate the relationship between academia and industry on the same projects? We have data, I just mentioned to you that private investment increased dramatically in China. That's because the policy changed. Chinese government decided to change the policy by changing original rule that any private company, if you want to put money into academic research and development, especially if you want to put money into clinical phase one, phase two, and then the tax, the year tax, will be cut. So if you pay like a 10 million, let's say 10 million RMB into the policy, then the years, the 10 million RMB tax will be cut. You don't need to pay. Let's say you pay that, but it will get reimbursed. And that makes a significant change because many companies feel like this is good. Anyhow, I do not lose money. I just, or otherwise, money will go to government. But the government say, if your money can go to private, well, forget it, no tax or cut the tax. So this is like we call innovation or the policy. I guess that learn from America. America being down a long time ago, they're doing very well in encouraging a private sector to put money in and then connect it. I actually think we're just about out of time here, but this is actually a nice point to end on. Dr. So you just called science and investment, China clearly investing heavily. It seems to me, let's say I hope this, that China's investment will be inspiring to people other countries as they consider what kind of policy frameworks they might need or which ways they might want to decide to invest in science. So I think this has been a lovely discussion in the latter half of it. We talked a lot about equity, but different kinds of equity. We talked about investment matching benefits in many ways. So we're seeing investment, we're seeing different kinds of benefits come out of that. We talked about equity of data and some of the challenges around this. And we talked about equity of brains. And I love this term brain recirculation rather than brain drain. And I think one of the things that's lovely is we've got a lot of terrific brains in this room. And it seems to me that if anybody could solve some of the challenges of moving science and innovation productively forward, we've got the right people in the room right now. So thank you very much for a lovely conversation.