 Session. Good morning to all of you in the room and good afternoon, good evening to those of you who are viewing us online. This is a live stream session and just a reminder, of course, we encourage all of you to tweet, share information on social media. If you're tweeting, please use the hashtag WEF22. So in 1984, William Gibson wrote a novel, which is widely considered to be the first in the cyberpunk genre. Some of you probably know already what I'm talking about, but many of you will be thinking, why am I opening the session about biotech revolution with the mention of Neuromancer, which is in fact the title of the book in question. Well, the book opens with the protagonist having his nervous system function restored with a sort of form of cell therapy, stem cell therapy, and it needed to be restored because it was damaged by his employer following some transgression that he made against his employer. Now the point being that back in 1984 Gibson imagined the state of biotechnology and bioengineering that we're only now beginning to consider as potential in the future. So only now are we entering the age of biological and health technologies revolution. So what are these latest advances and where are we likely to go with them? Equally importantly, what about the governance needs that are associated with these important issues? So with me to discuss this very important topic, I have an esteemed panel here and starting from my left, we've got Werner Bauman, who is chairman of the board of management and chief executive officer of Bayer. Next to him is Gianrico Farugia, who is president and CEO of the Mayo Clinic and also neuro gastroenterologist by training. Next we have Dmitri De Fries, who is co-chief executive officer and member of the managing board at Royal DSM and his own background is in business studies. And then last but definitely not least, we've got Megan Palmer, who is executive director of biopolicy and leadership initiatives and adjunct professor at the Department of Bioengineering at Stanford University. She leads research, teaching and engagement programs to explore how biological science and engineering are shaping our societies and to guide innovation to serve public interests. So let me kick off with a very general question, which I will pose to each of you in turn. And so I'd like to ask you how you see the biotechnology revolution over the past five years. Do you in fact see it as a revolution? Has the pace been such that it warrants that terminology? Or do you see it more as a gradual progression? So thanks, Macdalena, and thanks for having the opportunity to be part of this panel here. I'd say if I look at the last five years, the best way to frame it for me would be that it is a revolution in the making. Because if you look at what happened before, for example, with COVID vaccines, there have been 20 years of research that went into it. And then all of a sudden what started to be very much focused on cancer was applicable to infectious diseases. And that is, of course, a tremendous translational advancement when it comes to application of research science into new solutions that make a huge difference for mankind. We see the same in a number of other fields. We co-founded a company by the name of Blue Rock about six years ago that was focusing on something that ties very nicely back to the novel that you just mentioned. Because it is the potentially first curative treatment with a pluripodent stem cell therapy for Parkinson. And as we speak today, we have the first seven patients in the first clinical trial. And there's, of course, a huge advancement as management if you look at the last almost 50 years of no scientific progress in the field. So definitely there's an enormous amount of movement in the translation of science into new and novel applications that will make a big difference for patients and then also further fields alike. So an answer of a politician, a revolution in the making. Please, what's your perspective? It's hard to be dichotomous about it, right? Because it's every revolution has an evolution in it. And I'd say to me the biggest change which is close to transformation is the fact that there are confluences of technology that have resulted in the market acceleration of biotech. And what I mean by that is that understanding of biology has dramatically moved forward. And with all the technologies we know now with spatial transcriptomics, we're much more able to create these detailed maps. And we're also, I think what has changed dramatically is that biotech is no longer founded on one particular study that was published in one place, even though it was a very prestigious place. Understanding how messy biology is and therefore I think that understanding of the messiness of biology has been very important for biotech. The second is the platformarisation of biotech and both from a technology standpoint I'm particularly interested in the architecture of platforms to be able to apply to biotech. And we've seen our ability and companies we've founded to be able to go from going after cancer drug as you are and then ending up with a drug to treat glaucoma. We're just having a new drug that will come out to treat an inherited disease, propionic acidemia and at the same time was able to find a drug that may target osteoarthritis. And then that requires of course the ethical use of artificial intelligence and I'm sure we'll talk about that later. And then the third part that I think is equally important is the understanding that cells don't exist on their own. They exist as part of a milieu and the understanding of the milieu has made a very big difference in cellular and acellular therapies. And I see a lot of progress there where pluriprotin stem cells that perhaps didn't work for a particular disease when you put them on a scaffold may suddenly work. And we see that and for example in some of the macular degeneration diseases where we've been experimenting with fibrant scaffolds and have very different results with the absence of the scaffold. So my point being that it isn't one thing that has changed. I think it's a confluence. It's the ability of people to understand that other disciplines have something to offer and that they're welcomed into the fold and the result is a much stronger biotech pipeline. It's a wonderful view, a really holistic view, right? The sort of systems thinking and appreciation of all the data across the spectrum understanding of biology and the context that you just talked about that's giving us the momentum. Dimitri, what's your perspective? Yeah, thanks for that question. I'm great to be here. I understood it's the second panel on biotech and I think we need far more of those. To your point, is there a revolution or an evolution? Let me say clearly that it has to be a revolution because if we look at the challenge in the world today creating health for people and health for planet, certainly immunity, health of people is under attack and continue to remain so. And we need to move not only from curing but also prevention. I think biotech has a role to play and I'll come back to that in a minute. Also the health of our planet is under attack. And there's a sense of urgency to act and we need a revolution and we need biotech to help save planet. So from a request, do we need a revolution? Absolutely. Where do you I think we are? Unfortunately, I have to say we're at an evolution pace because I do see techniques like microbiomes being worked on and artificial intelligence. If we look at 3D structures of fantastic molecules and proteins, I think the techniques which are currently developed are highly revolution. It's a revolution in itself but the impact on coming up with solutions to create a healthier planet and healthier people is still lacking behind. So I'm a little bit with Verna and saying maybe with a little bit more optimistic tone that we're on the brink of a revolution. Very good. A call to arms. Excellent. Megan, what's your perspective? Also thank you for being here and for discussing this important topic. Likewise, I think we are in a revolution but the big question is what is our destination? There's a rapid maturation in the tools and technologies to be reading, writing, editing and evolving biological systems. And I think there is growing recognition that this is unlocking a vast potential across a wider way of sectors. So it's not only the confluence of technologies but the confluence of different application areas in health, in manufacturing, in environmental remediation. And what I see is the biggest change is actually a change in the rhetoric about what is at stake. How do we unlock the bioeconomy? How do we unlock the value and how do we lead with values? So we're seeing an important policy window come up where countries and companies alike are articulating their biotechnology strategies in order to really harness this revolution for all people and the planet. And as we think about what's at stake right now, coupled to this revolution, we need to make sure that we have the policy approaches that are able to guide it in directions that actually enable more participation in these technologies, safeguarding the technologies in order to realize their benefits over time. So yes, we're in a revolution but we need to be bold about the destination and we need to use the revolution to do things differently. Absolutely. So the picture that I get from your answers is that we're obviously advancing but some aspects of, let's just say called biotechnology space are advancing more quickly than others. And what's perhaps missing is that sort of a better interconnection. But let's just focus for a second on the bits which are really the leading edge of this. And I want to ask you, what's your view on this breakthrough innovation, role of breakthrough innovation, how we can support it giving the systems that we have and systems both in terms of technology support but also regulatory support. Who would like to comment? I can start. I think the best way to support breakthrough innovation from a regulatory perspective because that is what is holding us back in a number of areas is a pro innovation and more opportunity oriented stance that regulators should take in a number of jurisdictions. From where I sit, I can say that this is being done much better in North America compared to continental Europe. And if I look at the bigger frame of how important innovation is going to be also in terms of, let's say, some geopolitical aspects going forward. We have to make sure that, let's say, supremacy is driven by better and pro-competitively better solutions. Europe in particular but also with the help of other partners needs to step up and go away from a mostly risk avoidance approach towards an opportunity oriented approach when it comes to regulation. In particular in new fields and biotechnology, if I look at new gene editing techniques, much more advanced in the US, much more advanced in Canada, much more advanced actually in other jurisdictions that have opened up, for example, also parts of Africa, and that is what we need more of. Can you build on that a little bit? I'd say we need to be continuing to support with great urgency the foundational science and technology for that tools and knowledge layer that can support all aspects of the biorevolution of the bioeconomy and so continued investment in the types of innovation policy and regulatory strategy that recognizes the large dividends that are paid off through those investments is going to be key and collaboration again across the public and private sector and across countries is going to be key to facilitating that. But as we're starting to see the maturation of the tools and as well as their applications, there's also needing to set those ambitious goals around why do we need biology to achieve more sustainable futures. Why do we need these tools in order to have more secure societies where we can prevent pandemics before they start. And so being able to also articulate within our within our policy approaches those those things that we need these tools and technologies for as well as to support again the guardrails we still need to ensure they're used responsibly. And if I can just pick on one point that you said that the prevention, excuse me, the prevention of pandemics as well as preparedness. There's an awful lot of emphasis on preparedness less so on prevention. That's actually a theme that I've had come up in in other sessions here. I think that's well worth remembering. Genrico, you want to add current funding because funding is very, very important and we have to advocate for we have to advocate for funding. I'm just make the point. So there's the regulatory does the funding. I truly believe for breakthrough innovation to happen. It has to be it's only breakthrough when it actually ends up doing something good for somebody. And when you look at that there, I'm very much into pushing biotech to move away from the pipeline model that we're currently in into a platform thinking because you know data are really important. Algorithms are important, but end to end solutions are what we truly need. And in order to do that, you need many people working on the same data sets and coming up with different applications. So breakthrough innovation no longer lies in the mind of a person, though sometimes still does. And therefore it's more about priming the field rather than priming an individual. Very good point, please. Can I add a little bit on the funding point? I have a problem with trying to innovate because you get the funding. I'm going to zoom out a little bit. So what we see is we have an economic system which fails because some of the products are not priced right. Give me example, CO2, right? Certainly we get now closely a CO2 price. If that CO2 price is a global CO2 price, biotechnology will be favored against some of the traditional processes. For me, that's indirectly funding, but in the right way. So I'm not a big pot of money, but create pricing in the economic system which accelerates the right innovations. And then I think the revolution of biotech is certainly there. And that's within DSM we're working on because I think at the end of the day, if you can create a biotech route, which from an holistic perspective, so not only on a profit perspective, but also on a planet perspective and a people perspective, then I think some of the innovation will be easy to accelerate. So I don't think a pot of money is there. Maybe you need both. I'm with you both, but I think the pricing of innovation is far more important. I just think it's exactly that. It's about being able to articulate what is at stake in being able to have a transition towards more biology-based futures and factoring that into a number of different policy instruments that can support the carrot sticks and sermons that are coupled to governance. And we're really missing in many cases that north star of what does it look like to transition to more sustainable options. And it does need to be priced in a way that factors in the future. Right, exactly. And so a pot of money is always nice, of course. But what I heard you say was actually an analogy to that systems thinking that Jan Rico was talking about in the context of the actual biotech process, but you're talking about in that systems thinking context for a label. The governments have a role to play. Obviously on the regulatory affairs, I mean it needs to be minimum requirements, but when we pre-discussed a little bit also with Werner is that we also need to have an open innovation mindset from the government and to help everybody to bring biotech as a great source to create help for planet and help for people. So you use the word in a slightly different context, but you refer to failure. So when I think about a revolution it's associated with risk-taking and open mindset, what's our attitude to failure? Do we have a right attitude to failure because we can't succeed without failure? Is that a personal question to me? No, not a personal question, but it can be a personal answer. I think at the end of the day you need to have appetite for risk, but nobody wants to fail up front. Let's face it, and certainly if I fail, I'm not the nicest person for the next couple of hours. My wife would say a couple of days. In the company I think it's clear we had huge failures. We have a graveyard of successes which were failures, right? We have made a fantastic product which is an algae-based fish oil, we'll not dive into it, but it's an innovation which takes years and years and years. At the end of the day it has been successful but very late. So I think failure in itself everybody understands but the moment that you have failure is very difficult to say that you appreciate failure to be frank. That's a very frank answer. Megan, do you want to come in? I was going to say, if we think about a revolution that has many turnings of the wheel, I think what we need is just many, many more experiments. What we're seeing with some of our educational approaches, one of them for instance is the international genetically engineered machine competition, which has been going on now for 19 years, involved 70,000 students across four dozen countries that have been working to develop projects using biological engineering over the course of the summer that could become large companies someday. Here we have thousands of experiments happening every year to prototype what are the applications that could be used in this space. To your point about open innovation ecosystems, I think we need to support many places where we can experiment with what is to be gained and also how to couple that with the appropriate types of regulation that can promote and protect the technology. Do you want to add a comment? If I look at the field of medicine, I think failure in pharmaceuticals is kind of the default result of what we're doing. One out of 100 plus phase one product projects makes it finally into an approved product. There's a huge amount of failure up front, which means that there has to be significant risk appetite, tolerance for failure, and at the same time sufficient funding to take that one clinical study that is most promising further into the later stages. Which are going to be very, very expensive, which means in the end from a market perspective that does not necessarily work in all space in particular health, public health is much more difficult than typical fields of market economies. We got to make sure that true innovation and particular breakthrough innovation is appropriately incentivized and ultimately rewarded because otherwise private money companies cannot take that risk anymore. That's a huge issue when it comes to public health systems that are already a stretch to the limits on how we make sure that some of the great work that is being done currently really makes it into the later stages of the clinic and ultimately approved product that can actually help patients. You mentioned the clinical trials and I think for biotech it's important that we also realize where failure occurs and at what stage it occurs. We have to relook at our clinical trial infrastructure. A clinical trial infrastructure for biotech gets to be very expensive in the later stages and be able to have a parallel process for pragmatic clinical trials that can be done now with digital technology closer to either the home or to the primary care office. It's going to be essential if we're going to be able to empower and do what you said, which is do many things at the same time. But this massive need to wait until the last minute for the phase three is a bottleneck and clinical trials have to be really looked at again to be able to accelerate what we're all talking about. So this is great. We're now going into the specifics and I think it was Dimitri when you spoke first, you talked about the thinking about biotech revolution in the context of human health and also planetary health. So let's come, let's park the planetary health for a moment and let's think about human health. Can I ask you and maybe, Jan Rico, I'll direct this question to you first. How is our health care being transformed by biotech revolution today and how do you see that progression over the next years? What's needed? So you mentioned prevention and yes, of course, but I will always remind people that in health care disease will exist and therefore it is very important for us to biotech to change our mindset into cure for manage. And that cure mentality, if ingrained in people earlier on can give you some spectacular results and we're seeing them. Now, to do that, you need to have the infrastructure to be able to support that kind of cure mentality. My view is that cure happens from teams that are working orthogonally on issues and that's how you get to the result that is rarely the result that you set out to get in the first place. And therefore you do need broad based abilities and to pivot and you rarely can pivot if you're built around a single molecule. So again that context, right? Open mindedness context and systems thinking that keeps coming back. That's at least what I'm hearing. And valuing partners. So classically in biotech, not every partner has been valued equally. Some partners are there to do something for you in other times. And so the relationships tend to be a little more one sided and I think the big change is the value of partnerships is growing. And when you have valued partnerships that transcend the particular project you're working on, that's when I think you see the greatest benefit in changing health care and getting to more cures. If I may, isn't it a bit of a pity that all the know how we have on the curing element and certainly in your area that we don't use that know how also to help prevention? Because at the end of the day the health care system today we can hardly find it. So the moment that we don't work more on prevention we will have a problem in the future. So I was just curious to hear how you feel that you also have some opportunity to use the fast know how we have on the curing phase into prevention. So I will say and I'll be brief because there are others who will want to weigh in. I think we have to resist the false dichotomy you just mentioned. That false dichotomy that somehow when you're curing you're either preventing or you're curing. And you're saying how can you use the data to vote and I completely agree. The problem is when we articulated that way we end up putting them in a position to each other and you when you of course you would like a disease not to happen. If you can cure it the disease hasn't it's like you reset the clock and you can do that in many ways. Now in no way am I saying that cure is the answer of course preventing disease is equally important but the realism is that together with prevention you have to do something more. Opening up data sets to allow people that have a mindset of prevention is exactly what you should do. And that is why you have to be able to have open architecture in platforms with rules that allow in our case federated data learning data under a glass so that people can do. But I just resist a little bit the notion of these things being somehow in tension against each other. We make it sound that way because we're all doing something but there truly shouldn't be a tension it's just a continuum of life. Perhaps one way to think about it also is sometimes we think about diseases as being very discreet and of course by treating one curing one disease you're preventing perhaps others. So it really is again a systems so that could be another perspective. Let me switch to this planetary health perspective. So of course I think many of us when we think about biotech revolution we mainly think about the medical clinical health care context. But of course there is so much that's happening also in the food context as well in the context of agriculture. Very clearly transforming the food system is an important priority and right now given the war in Ukraine food supplies and feeding the world is even more of a priority for all of us. Is biotechnology revolution delivering that? Can it deliver more? What's happening? Verna perhaps you want to comment? Let me stop by saying that we are going to feel if we think that we can actually address the challenges that we have today with today's solutions. We need different new better solutions that also reconcile the need for higher productivity with more sustainable solutions. And we will only solve it with new and better innovative solutions. Actually to your point Magdalena biotechnology can play a huge role. Let me give you two examples here. We are just about to introduce a new shorter growing corn and that shorter growing corn has a number of advantages. You can have it much denser when you plant it. You have less nutrient uptake by individual plant because it doesn't grow as high but still yields at least the same if not more. And on top of that is also more water efficient and on the same surface you get about 20% more yields. That is what we need because we cannot extend acreage without jeopardising natural habitats. So it has to go through intensification. Second example if you look at agriculture or the food chain overall accounting for roughly 25% of global carbon emissions is how to take major steps in decarbonising the food chain. If you look at that element of your artificial fertilizer that by on its own stands for about 4% of global energy consumption. What a great opportunity if you would find better actually nature identical solutions to address that and replace that solution by another more modern solution. What is in the making by a number of companies and we also have a number of projects on that one is whether we can teach plants that cannot fix that nitrogen out of the air to do that. You don't have to fertilise soil but because soil can actually fix that nitrogen with its microbiome and then the soil out of the atmosphere. Corn cannot do it, wheat cannot do it, many other crops cannot do that and there are ways biotechnology can help with where we can teach plants to fix that nitrogen and there's an opportunity to reduce maybe 30% or 30% plus of global nitrogen fertilizer production through the means of biotechnology. These are just two examples and there are many, many more when you look at carbon sequestration, your better farming techniques that can be applied broader scale than what we are doing today. And all of that means you've got to focus on better innovative solutions and biotechnology is playing a key role here. Last example when it comes to pest and pest control, great advances we have here. We have a new technology smart stacks technology that fights the corn rootworm and the army rootworm that stand for the fall armyworm that stand for massive damages to harvests. And that again is a biotechnology solution, the first RNAI solution in the field that shows how much progress we have already made but how big the opportunity going forward is beyond. Absolutely. I want us to pivot towards policy and regulation but any other comments on that? Dimitriwn, go ahead. If I may, on biotech playing a key role and become more sustainable for health for planet, I think we have a key role to play. First and foremost, first it was difficult to scale up biotech. I mean fermentation, we are an industrial biotech to have consistent quality on and on. I mean you need to keep these bugs happy, right? I mean we're in the field of happy bugs. That's not easy, it's easier said than done. And if you don't do that right, you don't get the yield, you're going at the scale and I think we make huge progress as an industry and as a world. And I think that's important to create health for planet, that's one. Secondly, what we've seen is in today's world that we need a lot of these innovations. We're going to mention three, I think we need more. I think for an end of the day health for people is important. Fish oil omega three, I hope you all took your vitamins this morning is important. However, if you take your omega three, most of them are fished from the ocean, they're taken from the fish. So it's good for your health but it's bad for the planet and the biodiversity. Biotech has now created a route to have algae-based fish oil. So these bugs, if you make them happy, they produce their own fish oil, their own omega three. I think that creates health for people, health for planet. We need more of those. Secondly, what we do see is that in the current setup with innovation, CO2 is seen as a problem. By the way, it's not the only problem. It's a monodimensional view on the health for planet. However, if you can use CO2 as an input material for these bugs to be happy, then you have a win-win. And we are in that revolution pace. I mean, there are programs today, also within our company, looking at Trisha, our chief science officer here. Well, we use CO2 as an input material. So then you have the win-win. And I think biotech has a key opportunity to play but also capability and therefore also responsibility to fund that type of programs. Excellent examples. One thing useful to remember, happy bugs, happy planet, I think, in all possible dimensions. Megan, did you want to comment on this? Because otherwise I'd come to you. One of the things that's remarkable is we're talking about nitrogen fixation as one example. These are the original dreams, the advent of biotechnology. In the 1970s, if you go back to some of the first meetings around the mothers and fathers of genetic engineering, who spoke about what are the moonshots that we need to get through with this technology. We're at a point now nearly 50 years later where we now appreciate the sophistication of the science and technology required to tackle those challenges. But we're in a transition point where we do need the business models and the policy and the partnerships that can take that foundational science technology and really bring it to scale. And so that's where the transition is often happening. It's not just about the foundational science and technology. It's everything else we need to do that at scale sustainably and really in the interests of all people in the planet. That's right. So let me stay with you because I'd like us to now go in the direction of policy and governance. So of course biotech are not the only new technologies. What do we have in that space of policy and governance that for other emerging technologies that maybe we can borrow in this context we can learn from? I think there's a lot here. There's a growing conversation about critical and emerging technologies of which biotechnology is in the same phrase as revolutions in AI and quantum and other areas we see as critical to these transitions. Something that's important to remember though is that biology isn't a typical technology. It's a technology that we inherit. It's a technology that's already taken over the world. It's the most globally distributed biomanufacturing platform on the planet that's fundamentally sustainable. And so we need to think about how do we have this confluence of different technologies that are coming to bear on being able to harness biotechnology in the most appropriate ways. So I think we're learning a lot from the other models to support some of these other technology areas for instance AI. There's a growing recognition. We need a rhetoric around AI. We also need to have everybody understand what the power of these types of technologies are and how to interface with them. I think we need that same scale of ambition with biology. How do we make sure that everyone is literate in biotechnology? And that's a formidable challenge and it needs to start from the very beginning because we all have a stake here. It's our bodies. It's our lives. It's our environment. And so we need to be bold in this important policy window in charting these biologic trajectories that can actually get us to that future and not be solely stuck in this incremental evolution. Very good point. So that literacy of course now you make me think about the pandemic. We've all become so much more interested and so much knowledgeable, much more knowledgeable in the space of certainly virology and immunology. Let's ride this wave during the pandemic. It was the first time I had a conversation with the taxi driver about PCR and I never expected that to take place. So absolutely and that boldness. I like your challenge to us all. Any other comments on governance and policy from the panel? I mean, what about the global perspective? How much of a problem is fragmentation of policies and policy approaches across the globe? It's easy. Let me be very brief. It's a problem. It's a big problem and it's not an expected problem. So I think railing against the fact that we have fragmentation isn't going to get us anywhere. It's now how to create systems and coalitions that can deal with it. But I don't think reality is we will always have fragmentation across countries. We have to be able to deal with it the same way in healthcare we deal with different privacy rules in different countries. You can now create ways of automatically dealing with that instead of doing it one by one. I'll stop there. I'm sure there are others. One of the ways to think about in terms of not just failures but their experiments. We have many experiments across many different countries with how they've approached the governance of biotechnology. Now is the time to take stock of those lessons learned but also build the alliances. I think those alliances need to be built on these big challenges. Where are we going? We need to transition towards more sustainable, secure and resilient platforms. If we can begin to talk about biology as the opportunity to transition, that's what's going to be needed to again get past a fairly narrow frame. Maybe what we should work towards is rather than having a uniform set of regulations, one size rarely fits all, have a suite of regulations that are compatible, that create bridges rather than more walls and boundaries. I want to make sure that we have time for questions from the audience but there's one topic we haven't touched on which I think is hugely important in this context and that is trust from the society. Trust in biotechnology in the innovation that we talk about. Where are we now? I think we all know where we are but where should we be in the next year, five years? What's the best way towards ensuring that the society, the public trusts these biotechnologies? I could try but it is a combination of all we've said that's very interesting. I think it starts with the literacy on biotech. I think if our kids talk about biotech as they talk about digital revolution, I think that's a huge step and I think what you just explained is key. Secondly, this is not about policy, about regulations, about stories. I mean we have plenty of those. I think it's real evidence, real examples where we save people, where we save the planet. And to your point on regulation, I've given up on a worldwide-aligned regulation. It's not going to happen. I'm with you. Let's put our effort where we really see some benefits. What we do see is that if you come with great solutions, so for instance, Stevia as a sweetener, which is fermented via biotech and it's successful in one country, the other countries wake up and say, well, hold on and say, listen, your regulation needs to change, then it goes quick. So real examples are hugely important to create that trust, but then in full transparency. So no half stories, it needs to be fully transparent and then a digital revolution will help us. We need to get used to get full transparency in a world where it's all about know-how and protection, etc. That doesn't work any longer. I like this combination riding on the wave of digital revolution to help this as well. Very quick comment, Megan. I think it's exactly this. Lead with actual benefits and values and then build the systems that actually can include everyone, right? We have biology all around us. It's an opportunity just like the digital revolution to engage everyone in the process of innovation and that is what engenders trust. I think what you said earlier, Megan, is let's say the ultimate goal to have literacy and biology across, let's say, the entire civilization. I think trust needs to be addressed maybe somewhat differently and it goes a little bit quicker. You do not necessarily have to understand everything in order to trust, but you have to be convinced of, let's say, your counterparts or your stakeholder environment being genuine, which means there has to be openness and transparency with what you said earlier, Dimitri. And from a company perspective, that is something that we have to deliver on. We have to open up. We have to make some processes that we are subjected to, let's say, open for any stakeholder group that is interested because the very moment that there is an impression of, let's say, something happening close door behind walls and curtains, people start to be suspicious. I think the regulatory process is a good example of that. We opened up the re-registration of one of our very important products for all stakeholder groups to say, hey, please come in. There is absolutely nothing that we have to hide and join us on the journey. We have to do more of that. All of the safety studies in our crop business have been made public. You can access public summaries in order to, quite frankly, I'm an economist, I don't understand any of that. So I could read it, but if somebody tells me, if you want to go there, you can look at it and then find somebody who helps you limp along to understand it. You appreciate the importance. There's a lot of appreciation of that opening up and transparency. We as a business community, but also the scientific community, have to do more of that in order to bring civil society along, because otherwise it's not going to happen, because, quite frankly, we don't have our fair share in the public debate. We are not necessarily the most credible constituencies, so we really have to step up in that field. Thank you. I'm going to turn to the audience. One question. Time for one question. A microphone here at the front, please. Thank you. Thank you very much. Lemi Alhaj, an associate professor of synthetic biology, genetic engineering, and listening to this panel was really inspiring, because it reminded me of my PhD days when I was really active in research in this field, and the reason why I felt very strong talking to the panels is that I come from the Middle East, and I saw the shift when I went back. People are not aware of the importance of biotechnology. We have a program of biotechnology graduates in the university, but as soon as they graduate, the market cannot absorb them because they don't know what biotechnology is. So they have job descriptions for biologists, and when they apply, almost 100% of our graduates end up in jobs that has got nothing to do with biotechnology. And I'm afraid with time we're going to start losing that passion for a very important industry. Yesterday I was in the session with Bill Gates, who emphasized the importance of biotechnology and synthetic biology and nanotechnology. What advice can you give me as a professor in the university, Sultan Qaboos University, in order to help our students and our graduates? I'm lucky because I'm an academic, so I still have my job. But what can I do to help our students and our graduates? Become a politician. There you go. Become a politician. We're going to have to take this question as a comment, a really important comment. We have come to the end of our session. Thank you so much to my panellists who have engaged in an active discussion, and thank you to all of you. Thank you.