 Thank you so much for being part of today, which was the inauguration of the centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution here in just a fantastic presidiote buildings. My name is Dominic Warray. I am the head of public private partnerships for the World Economic Forum, and I have a kind of line of sight with five pillars in this way. dal of Foddca hew r'thing. I'll try to look at you on a little bit of eye contact, JC. That's the reason you're here. You have heard the wonderful beginning, where at the center of the discussion for today is this instinct, desire, and intent ...a unig i ddeu cumrau, sy'n dechrau... ...yna wybodaeth i gyfnod... ...a wneud hwnnw i fynd i ddefnyddio... ...di gweddillais y rysg oldydd y R�s. Mae yna yng ngomod hwnnw i ddechrau ar y pysidiog... ...yna cymryd â'r ysglwlad ar gyfer wych... ...mysydu bod ychydig ar ei ddechrau. Mae yni'r swydd yw'r amser... ...i'r cyfnod rwywer o leion... ...o'r arni Abertaith... ...i ddechrau ar AI... Autonomous vehicles or precision medicine, things that we're going to do with your help and as part of this network and build, and how do we place the human at the centre of those discussions. The second half of the day, and you heard that pretty interesting overview from those involved in these large government processes, the G20. There are major economies out there, major governments who are looking for advice and looking for guidance as to how we harness these major transformations to do good, to do good for the citizen, to do good for the economy, but they need support and advice from a pretty interesting kind of agile networked group who can provide protocols or policy frameworks or guidance as to what needs to be done. And so you experienced in the second half of the day a little bit more of a scoping exercise, I would say. There are some interesting issues out there like blockchain or like the issue of AI and ethics or indeed the cities as a potential innovation hub or the sustainable development and challenges that developing economies face. And you engage in discussions about, well what could be done? How might we place the human, the citizen at the heart of those discussions to harness this revolution? And that's really the spirit of our founder and executive chairman, Clash Robb's book, which there are copies of. But the heart of this is not a technological narrative, it's a narrative about society. It's kind of up to us to make the most of this major transformation. It's up to us as a network of very influential people here in the room and many more besides. It has to be an inclusive network. So how do we do that? How do we kind of utilize what we have amongst our collective influence here? How do we utilize assets like the center and our broader initiatives and networks that we're in to really put the human at the heart of the fourth industrial revolution as we move forward? That's why this closing cleaner is quite deliberately called how might policy making be more human centered and more human can context it to address these wider global challenges. Delighted to introduce you to just a fabulous panel for this discussion. You know when they say they need no introduction? Well I have to give them introduction but they really do have a fantastic array of experience between them. So to my left and co-going leftwards, first of all is Reshma Sajani, who's the founder and CEO of Girls Who Code, which is a national non-profit organization working to close the gender gap in technology. And Reshma has been named one of fortunes 40 under 40 and one of business insiders 50 most powerful women who are changing the world. So what a great place to start this discussion. Next to Reshma is Janine Sargent, who's the president of innovation and new ventures at Flex. Welcome Janine. Flex is over 200,000 professionals across 30 countries who are doing innovative design, engineering, manufacturing, real time supply chain insight. And Janine has successfully built and scaled many venture backed and public high tech companies and launched multiple in his important word disruptive hardware and software products. So we're going to go from working at the grassroots through to the innovation and technology agenda and on to Alice, Alice Gast, who's the president of Imperial College in London. Alice is a renowned international scholar, researcher and academic leader, was named one of the top 100 modern era leaders in engineering by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Imperial College is consistently ranked as one of the top three universities, particularly in Europe. And as you well know, has a very innovative research, engineering, technology, science agenda to it. And then finally, but by no means least, we have Ambassador Eileen Donohue, who's the director of global affairs at Human Rights Watch. Welcome Eileen. Eileen's has a special emphasis on digital rights, cyber security and internet governance and was the first US ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Co-chair of Net Mundial initiative on global multi stakeholder internet governance, which I'm sure we'll hear a bit more about, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, among many other accolades and awards. So we have a really first class panel here to kind of get into this discussion a little bit on what does it mean to take a human centered approach to the fourth industrial revolution. And what does it mean for the work that we want to progress, the agendas that we want to see advanced, and also for how we might use the asset, the special asset that this place offers to advance that agenda. So if that is the name of the game, let's start, Reshma, with you. I mean, from your perspective and the work that you do and what you've seen here today, how would you suggest to, as assembled here, we take this kind of human centered approach to making the most of this transformation that's on offer with the fourth industrial revolution? Yeah, I mean, I think it starts by making sure that policymakers reflect the citizenry, right, and those are going to make up the fourth industrial revolution. I think there is no better example of how that would arise than today when we saw the photo of a bunch of old white men deciding what to do about women's health care, right? That is a reflection of policymakers not reflecting the citizenry and the people that they represent, and I think we have to be very careful that we don't do the same as we create what this will look like. I mean, I do that, you know, in my work, I spend time teaching girls how to computer program, and I think it's a direct reflection of the fact that, you know, today in our first panel, we spent a lot of time talking about what the future of work looks like and what are those jobs. And, you know, one, two, three, four, and five were essentially a software programmer or an engineer. And, you know, in this country, you know, we have had this enormous decline of women that are going into the technical fields at a time, you know, 37% of computer science graduates were women in the 80s. Today that number is less than 18%. At a time where women make up the majority of those in college and 45% of all American breadwinners. You know, you can make $120,000 as a software programmer, but only one out of ten American high schools offers computer science. And every study shows that if you don't give young women access to computer science education by the time they're in high school, we're done. It's over, right? And so as we think about how to prepare the workforce, I think it's important to, you know, think about how are we drafting policy. So what we think a lot about Girls Who Code is, you know, there's a lot of excitement around computer science education, right? And all of you think about it, talk about it at your dinner parties around your tables for those of you who have children like me. You know, I'm planning how to make sure my child at age two knows how to code, right? And unfortunately, you know, as we're thinking about what policy looks like and thinking about how to inject it in every classroom, you know, we're thinking about making it elective and not mandatory. And we know when that happens, invariably we're going to make the gender problem worse. Because after the social network, every boy wants to be Mark Zuckerberg and dreams of billion-dollar exits right at age 16. But young girls want to change the world. And so if we haven't changed culture, if we haven't, as policy makers, thought carefully about how we are communicating to young women why they need to learn how to code, we're simply going to make the gender problem worse. And we're certainly going to make the inequity in our country much worse. I am the daughter of refugees. I've had a job since I was 12 years old. Like I do this work because I believe in the American dream. And I believe in teaching 40,000 students over the past 50 years, of which half are under the poverty line, that we have a shot through teaching coding to make sure that we create ladders where young people can march back up into the middle class. But I think, again, we have to be very careful as we're drafting policy to think about who's in the classroom. We had a great conversation about how far too often we talk about how truck drivers can become data scientists. And nobody in this room is a truck driver, right? And so we need to make sure that as we're thinking about how we can create future opportunities for folks in the States and globally that those people are represented in the classroom. And that's not me, the picture that we saw today on the internet of old white men making decisions about the maternal health of women. Rashfa, thank you so much for that. And there's so many things you kind of put out there. But this idea of actually the inequality issue, often we kind of think of, I guess, basically kind of men who drive trucks losing their job because of technology. And we've pinpointed a really, really kind of structural issue about potential rising inequality if we can't get that in at the earliest age in terms of coding and more inclusivity into this transformation that we're facing. Absolutely. Wonderful. Janine, the same sort of question. I mean you come from a slightly different perspective and the range of innovations and start-ups and technologies and ventures that you've seen. But how do you think we can really place the sort of human set of values and the humanity at the centre of trying to harness this fourth industrial revolution? Well first, let me say I very much resonate with all the comments that you just made, Resma. But also if we think about technology and the way I think about technology is it's truly at a point where it's an incredible opportunity for us to think about democratizing and connecting communities and people and people of different capabilities with different languages. To really bring them together and I think no more so now than what we're seeing in maybe the last 50 to 100 years of transformation in technology. Do we really have an ability to take what is not only located here in Silicon Valley but in many technology centers around the world and bring it to emerging markets and have a significant impact and in particular interest for me is thinking about what we can do in the areas of digital health. And I think we're at really interesting points not only which we talk a lot about here and maybe in some of the developed worlds about curing cancer or curing some really horrible diseases but we're also at a point where we have the ability with readily available and accessible technology if we think about how to deliver it to enable people to have clean water or know where their water is fresh in a very safe and economical manner in a way that can be distributed significantly. We can think about how to have blood testing capabilities in a distributed way so that people that are not well have an ability and then can be connected through digital health applications and online applications through their cell phones which we now have on smartphones that are available to many people even in emerging markets we can change how they're able to be empowered to take care of their health. So when I think about technology now I think one of the most compelling things for us to do is to in addition to thinking about the new tech barriers that we're going to break down here in the valley is really think about how we can leverage that communication and this center here has a unique position with the forum to be able to connect some of the greatest and the brightest innovations with the needs that you understand with the global footprint. And I think connecting those dots is very important and it's I think maybe the first time that we've seen that kind of ability for us to think about technology for social good at scale that the forum can help us do from a globalized perspective. So interesting. This idea of the democratization of technology as you know that's the way that you can kind of put the human at the center with all of the opportunities and I guess some of the risks that that creates and that suggests one's changing power balances as well in terms of democratizing access. Well I think that it allows us to rethink into the point that Resma made as we think about policy and opportunities. I think it's time for us to step outside the box and think differently and really allow ourselves not to be constrained by historic structural and policy levels and to actually have the opportunity to have a clean white board. There are a number of them around the room here and just think about the fact of what do we really have in front of us. We have incredible capabilities to communicate. We have cost effective means to create solutions in terms of what we can get to very different populations who otherwise had not had access to technology. How do we think differently about rewiring the system as opposed to evolving or sort of bandating what we have. I would challenge us and challenge the center to think fundamentally differently about taking these incredible building blocks that we have with technology and innovation and really rearchitecting the highway with which we can sort of accelerate the ability for us to take these innovations to different parts of the world and different populations and societies that really can benefit from them in very different ways. This kind of seems to resonate. I'm sure you're in some of the discussions about the idea of agile governance and maybe in terms of developing those new forms of informal protocol. You need these new ways of doing it which does break the old system of policy making. If it's inclusive enough it does put the human and different parts of society at the center of that decision making. Alice, you're running one of the world's premier academic research scientific technology applied educational institutions with such a great reputation. In terms of what we see with this transformation and this concept of putting the human at the center, I'm imagining that you would agree with that, but from a research perspective and where you sit in the value chain. I wonder if you have some reflections on what that means. Sure, I do. Thank you, Dominic. And I think I'll probably echo some of what Jeanine has been talking about. Today I went to the precision medicine session. Certainly incredible revolutions in medical technology are upon us. And what I came away with was the really important aspect of trust. And perhaps there's no more trusting relationship than a patient and their doctor. And yet we're in an era with a backlash against experts and a concern about what the truth is and what can be believed. And I think that it's really important that we keep very factual and get facts to the public and not too much hype. And so some of our very technologies, our great breakthroughs that we're very proud of, tend to get picked up by the media and spun. And expectations get elevated and that can be damaging. So looking at patient-centered healthcare, one thing I've heard very eloquently said is we go from the bench to the bedside with new technologies, but we learn a tremendous amount by going from the bedside back to the bench. And it's that listening to the patients and understanding their needs and working within the clinic, employing that back into the laboratory that can be so powerful and I think is so important and something we do at Imperial. And I think that you're absolutely right, Jeanine. The technology is there, so now we can empower patients and their families in new ways. And one of the applications we worked on worked with patients, families and physicians to develop new means for data sharing and data and information in the clinic. It was an app called Hark that got moved into DeepMind and we're moving on with that. The other lesson I heard today was from Wendell Wallach talking about being a future of trade-offs. And I do think that it really is a time when we need trust, we need data sharing, we need new technologies, we need them without the hype, we need to bring our analysis and our insights together and yet on the other hand we talk about governance. And it's not always the new technology that is the breakthrough. If you look at the need for societal acceptance of a technology, look at what happened with Google Glass, perhaps there was a societal side that was missing from that equation. So another area that I think is really important, which was touched upon earlier, is the work that IDEO does on human-centered design. And again bringing design and creative designers in to work with medics as well as patients to really find how the patient experience is affected by new technologies and how these things can move forward. I'm also thinking element is the democratization of research. We're trying on a new campus in White City to open up what we call hackspaces and makerspaces for the community to come in and makerspaces for kids in schools. Because what more empowering thing is there than to have your own project and make something and gain the confidence that comes with that making to help you from a deprived neighborhood and that you too could be a scientist and engineer or a medic, a doctor. And finally I just want to connect. I think Girls Who Code is such a wonderful thing and we've found also that the need to make opportunities available and we have a program for female entrepreneurs and we had our pitch contest just the other night. And I couldn't help but notice that of all the web sessions I've been to, this one on human-centered happens to have all women on the panel. But what I noted about the pitches and the great things and these women are going on to win the co-ed entrepreneurial things and they're going on to start their companies and have new ideas and start new things. But the finalists, they always focus on problems that are expressed by people and they're very open. One was a blood test for pregnant mothers in Africa and a quick distributed blood test. One was on food allergens and the grand prize winner was a new menstrual pad that will not leak. And so you get to new kinds of technologies when you actually go out and pretty much think about what people need. Alice, thank you. The human-centered design angle that you kind of placed into the mix builds on the equality and democratization flavors that we've had so far. Has that got implications for a major research institution like yours or others? Because presumably academic institutions are quite vertically aligned and perhaps this is taking a more holistic approach to looking at some of these problems. Is that a challenge? We are and we work very well across disciplinary boundaries. I think another thing in our favor is being a very global institution. Having colleagues working on problems together from different backgrounds, from different nations. You learn science and you think about problems in different ways and those collaborations are extremely fruitful. Another aspect is thinking about how to socialize new technologies. An example, Chris Tumizu, an inventor and serial entrepreneur at Imperial has DNA electronics, which is a rapid test. You can use cheek swabs and they're working on antimicrobial resistance and diseases you'd want to test before you get on an airplane as well as diabetes and other things. Getting the public used to these before the clinical trials and everything are done, they started a beauty product company. It's on Bond Street and you can go in and swab your cheek and you get tested for collagen and oxidation or something and you get a serum that's your specific for your needs. It was partly a way to start getting a general public sense of yes, these kinds of things are coming and they're available to us. I think it's that thinking outside of your laboratory and into the community which is making a big difference. Fascinating and by default there's probably some lessons for how we might approach some of these things in the center. You're looking at this from a deep human rights perspective but probably also from a higher level in the international architecture from some of your experiences but still fairly and squarely in that human centered space. You might have a different perspective but complementary I imagine on how one can put the human and the citizen at the center of this fourth industrial revolution transformation. Yeah, complementary in two senses. One is complementing these other speakers but complementing of WEF itself and you started with the comment that was very intentional to put human beings at the center. I think you said heart and spirit or heart and soul of this particular entity and as somebody who's been in human rights advocacy and international diplomacy that is not something we take for granted. It has been really surprising to me and very heartening and to see that this community is embracing that kind of larger frame of concern. I think to the point about trust. If trust is the coin of the realm in the digital ecosystem I think it's essential that we look at the human effects of the technology. So it's a business imperative, it's a governance imperative but I'm very appreciative that WEF has latched on to that and is leading on that foot. On the subject of what is human centered decision making, policy making, I would highlight two small points and one larger big picture point. The two small points somewhat obvious but also sometimes get lost. The idea of human centered policy making is simply that human beings are the focal point of policy making. What that translates into is that you have to look at the effects on people of governance and policy making and that governing entities actually can be judged with reference to the effects on people. The reason this is difficult in a global transborder digital ecosystem is that people in different contexts will be affected differentially by the same technology. And also governing entities, whether private sector or public sector, actually have extraterritorial reach, that's the norm, it's the default, that's no longer the exception. And so this is why the emphasis on inclusivity and getting input globally is so important. It also highlights why multi-stakeholder engagement is so important as we've all experienced today. That getting a take from people who work in a different silo and forcing each other to listen to each other and understand each other's lexicon and frameworks is really valuable. Second obvious point to me of a human centered approach to governing and policy making is that human beings have to be accountable for decision making. And that is even, I believe, should be the case when we are deploying algorithmic governance. And I recognize that's very difficult. I just came from the human rights segment and there's a lot of work that needs to be done on the scrutability and auditability of algorithms, especially when they're proprietary. But I think that is a really important piece. And currently we observe that in some cases governing entities deploy algorithms without understanding the basis of the decisions and not being able to see because of the inherent opacity of the algorithm. And even the scale of the data, they can't see when bias is baked into the data and skewed even if unintentionally. So I think that human accountability is part of the human centered approach. The last point I would make is sort of a bigger picture approach and it has to do with the human rights framework itself existing as a human centered approach to internationally. International governance. And I'm tempted to read you a quote from this book, the Klaus Schwab book, which apparently everybody can get somewhere around the back of the room. Because it goes to the emphasis on ethical frameworks, but I want to make a little bit of a challenge. So he says, we need to develop positive, common, comprehensive narratives about how we can shape the fourth industrial revolution. Although we may not know the precise content of these narratives, we do know critical features they must contain. For example, they must make explicit the values and ethical principles that our future systems must embody. Markets are effective drivers of wealth creation, but we must ensure that values and ethics are at the heart of our individual and collective behaviors and systems they nourish. And so my challenge would be this, is that not only should wef embrace ethics and human centered approach to governance, but embrace and reinforce the existing international law human rights framework. And I say that not because it is perfect, but I say that because I believe that if we undermine it, it is at our own peril. It's a framework that has served us well for the last 70 years. And I think in the current geopolitical context, the idea that we have to start completely from scratch is not realistic or practical. And I think we would throw the baby out with the bathwater. That said, I think this is where the West concept and Fadi brought it up, this digital protocol idea. The work that needs to be done with respect to the existing human rights framework is not coming up with a new treaty or a new framework. It's focusing on the question not of the what, but the how. How do we apply the existing human rights framework in the digital context? How do we realize and implement freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief when their intention, right to privacy, right to work, all those things? I will be the first to say it's a gargantuan project, but it has to be done and I really think that's what this center should be focused on. It's the how to apply. What are the protocols, not starting from scratch with a whole new framework? Fabulous. Thank you so much for that. Trust and accountability that goes with the trust is a really, really fabulous. We didn't plan this conversation in advance, but the quality, democratization, human-centered design, trust and accountability coming out of what should be the human at the human-centered part of the fourth industrial revolution is pretty powerful. You've probably got some questions brewing yourselves. We can have a second round here, so I'm warning you in advance that some of this might have provoked an agreement or a response or a challenge. So have a little bit of a think about what that might be, but I just want to follow up with a quick second round of questions because so much has been put on the table so to speak. You know from the discussions that you've had that to take this approach of a human-centered design to harness the upside and minimize the downside of the fourth industrial revolution, we can have dialogues. There are some things where you actually need to start the conversation and maintain an inclusive conversation. As you were rightly saying, this idea of also trying to create networks to develop protocols to specifically deal with some of those governance challenges which need to be dealt with in an agile manner rather than perhaps the way that we did it in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. That's a huge challenge to have that inclusive discussion and maybe something that we can do. You also mentioned across the panel the idea of well there's also an element of partnership and alliance building to do something to show proof of concept, to show how it works and to learn iteratively on that basis. So those are kind of broadly the three areas of play if you like, methodologically speaking that the centre might take with that human-centered design, but I guess the question is to bring it down from that 50,000 foot to maybe a little bit closer to the ground. In each of your opinions, what's the way in here? Is there a suggestion that you might have particularly from the workshops you're in this afternoon where you sensed a scoping discussion? I know you're in the blockchain workshop for example. Any thoughts of where to start? How would you execute that intention in terms of really making an impact? I think in the blockchain discussion we had a conversation that blockchain essentially is about administering trust cheaply. It's an opportunity to create new products and new opportunities. I think one of the most important things that came out of that conversation was what's the role of government. I think what's the role of government in potentially protecting our most vulnerable. Because when you create complexity, I think we saw this in financial services through mortgage-backed securities where you create opportunity, oftentimes I can have serious detrimental effects on families and on inequality. And I think when you think about the role of government too, I think that that plays a real role too in the future of work. Because as the skill sets that we need from employers are changing, I know in our work we really rely on the private sector in terms of having so many people in this room, Mark Benioff, Salesforce, Microsoft, BSA right here, really standing up and saying, we recognize that in many ways the education system is broken in terms of teaching our kids a skill set that they simply need to survive in the 21st century. And we are going to take it upon ourselves as corporate America to make sure that we're investing in creating the future of talent. And the question is at a time where automation to me is increasing even more rapidly and executives are even more desperate to hire people and engineers and software programmers. Are they going to care as much whether that talent pool is diverse and inclusive? And is government, are we going to again need to rely on government to really kind of stand up and make sure that we're still not increasing I think as the governor of Washington talks about today more inequality as the future of work is really changing. And I think again where that conversation really popped up is as we're building platforms. And as more people are leaving traditional workplaces and becoming freelancers and we're building platforms, are we making sure that they're equal? Like some people may not have learned how to sell themselves as well as other people have learned. We talked about in terms of the jobs that you talked about that are open. Are you comfortable if you've been driving a truck for the past 20 years and you have an opportunity to become a web programmer and we're going to retrain you. But you may just not sign up for that opportunity because you may not feel like you have the courage and the confidence to take that role. Like what are we doing to facilitate that? That really gives us a good kind of line of sight on that future of work angle but the equality piece. It's almost like this transition. I've heard a phrase elsewhere, I'd have a just transition. Many people apply that to the sustainable development agenda but it seems in terms of putting the human at the centre, there's a justice and an equality in that transition. Absolutely. Girls Who Code has so many clubs in the Rust Belt and we have a club that's right next to a Chrysler plant where the entire town has lost their jobs. But so many of these parents are looking at their children and saying I know that my job is replaced by computers. I don't want that to happen for you. I've been driving an oil rig for seven days a week, 15 hours a day. My marriage is broken because my wife has become a heroin addict. The only opportunity that I now have in this family is to make sure that that still doesn't happen to you. I think that that's an enormous responsibility on our hands and I think it's a role that the centre can play in making sure that we create those ladders of opportunity for so many families that are facing that scenario. So interesting. It's almost like the latent desire to improve for the next generation that can be looked at in terms of some of those stories that you say. It's such a different way of looking at how one might explore the potential of the fourth industrial revolution. Many people might come at this very technologically concentric. I think that's what you're seeing happening in the past election in Brexit is that people are desperate and they're not necessarily even desperate about themselves. They feel like their children are not going to see opportunities that they had. I come from a family where parents came here with $10 in their pockets and 30 years later their daughter ran for congress didn't win. That's the American dream. I don't think that a lot of families feel like they have a shot at that today. Janine, where would you, from what you've seen today, I think you're in the sustainable development workshop. Whether there are any things that struck you from that discussion or indeed other observations from today about the way in to this discussion. Entry points which seem to resonate from your perspective. I think two comments from this afternoon's panel, which I thought was very interesting on how to reach beyond Silicon Valley and technology and sustainability, is thinking about connecting the dots in a different way. I think one of the things that we continue to work on here in the valley and many of us are connected in global ways is to think about the fact that while there's a problem and a need, and in this case we'll use Juan Carlos' example in the Amazon, and to think about creating in terms of how to preserve that is creating an IP system around all of the things that are happening in the Amazon, which I think is phenomenal and likely we could use a blockchain approach actually to take care of that. But I also think there's a disconnect where the center can help connect that desperate need with some of the innovation and we spoke about having some of the ideas, and really the nucleation since we have a lot of technology accelerators and capabilities with the corporates, which we also have represented here at the center. But what my experience is is there's usually a gap in the translation and the communication between that. In our world we call that sketch to scale and you have to think differently and it does require us to translate and to share experiences much the way we were talking about the conversation. I think that you were talking about Eileen in terms of how human rights, that it's bridging those gaps. There's a similar one for us to do in terms of that technology and again if we use the example of the innovating ideas to solve the issue of the Amazon and to take those capabilities, I think this center can help us build those sketch to scale bridges between the different constituents and stakeholders at the table to be able to do that. And there are many different examples of that and I think that so many great ideas and concepts that can actually solve meaningful problems get lost in that translation. And so I think for me that was a real takeaway and that would be an ask that I have for the center in terms of how we try to find things and then also one other point which is also at one point in my life I was in venture capital and at the end of the day there's a purpose and we need to deliver a result for our shareholders in that regard. So I wouldn't necessarily always stay so expansive. There are a lot of problems and it can be overwhelming. So let's start with one and let's start with baby steps and let's get some wins under our belts and learn and kind of go through that process and then we can iterate. The other comment I want to make is I was in the morning session on industrial IoT and I do think this commentary about digital protocols and how does that interact with policies. Obviously and not surprisingly the key topic for us was security as you think about trillions soon devices to be connected into the network and the systems and we talked about how to have essentially a health check on that system that you're connecting to so you can make a conscious decision whether you're a consumer or whether you're an enterprise as to whether or not to connect to or to take or receive from. And I think that's a really interesting and important topic but I would actually say that we need to look at it from a different lens and the center can help us do that as well. Security is something that actually needs to be inclusive of transparency and we're at a time now not only in terms of what I'd say lockdown mentality not only in technology but also in political framework and I think that the challenge here and the requirement to solve the problem of security the path to do that is actually through transparency and openness and sharing. That'll not only get us to the better result it'll get us there a lot faster so I think those were the two observations. Very sage council for the strategy of the form this idea of building this these these sketch to scale bridges is is is fascinating and you gave a really great metaphor of we don't want to be the United Nations. But one thing the United if I get this right one thing United Nations does very well is brings together people from all over the world and all of them have a translating device to listen to each other. And the same thing in a way needs to happen here with the different kinds of societal creatures that we're bringing together from tech community or from international institutions or from different sectors. The center could probably provide that kind of bridge of translation and action. One. Alice from your journey through today any. Brief because I agree wholeheartedly. I think it's the convening power that we have that's the real advantage and we need to take advantage of that because we bring together such different people for so many good ideas. But Tim Brown said it this morning that he hopes this is a prototype. And I think in the spirit of being here in this region of the of the world looking at how we're going to have new ways of working. We need new ways of learning education and access to education is important. But ways of learning and whether education is right for the next generation for this generation that's coming into the fourth industrial revolution is critically important. And I fear that sometimes we tend to get back into kind of group think of our own what what we're used to. And I think we need to try a few things. So I would say we need to focus and and be able to produce outcomes. But we also have to not be afraid to fail. We need to be trying some ideas that might not work. And my biggest fear for the fourth industrial revolution I think that it could be overtaken has been kind of hinted at overtaken by a populist revolt that we're now it's easy to blame foreigners for all the problems. In a few years time people will figure out that it's technology that is their big enemy. And if you're in a global university and you have both international community and technology you realize that this is a really serious rift in the world that is you know that is what we teach that is what we do that is our value to society. And if our very value to society is ripping it apart we have some real very difficult issues to address. But I think that I think coming together and being able to share ideas and insights and develop approaches that we can try across sectors is really important. Fantastic. But that prototype idea and not being afraid to fail is pretty good advice. Eileen. Last two points I'll reemphasize some of what's been said but of the domains that wef is looking at the two that I would really suggest be prioritized are this issue of AI and ethically aligned design and looking at all the human rights implications because there was a session this morning on the where the public consciousness is on AI and is currently it is all about the existential threats. And if we don't if we don't counter that with a positive narrative and talk about the upside benefits, there will be a lot of resistance. And so in addition to existential threats on the human rights front, I would absolutely put out there that the issue of the labor displacement and the right to work. And you know along the lines you just said Alice, we just saw a big populist backlash against trade in our election. And as soon as the public realizes that 80% of the labor displacement to date has been from automation and not from trade, there will be a backlash on Silicon Valley and technology. But you know there's many other dimensions, you know it's the equal protection, non discrimination, remedy, accountability. And then the also the algorithmic effect on the health of the digital ecosystem. I think that's really, really important. But and then the second one I'd mentioned is security and I hear I would underscore that we really need a paradigm shift, especially for people who do national security. Because I think there's been so much emphasis on collection of information as the heart and soul of our national security and no attention to protection of information. And so if you know if the most powerful government in the government in the world has its top secret security clearance records hacked, what does that say about the attention given to digital security? And I also think not only focusing on big critical infrastructure, which obviously is important, but recognizing it's a systemic vulnerability and interdependence. And small targets like Gmail accounts or baby monitors can have big societal consequences. So we have to run it throughout society. And I think we need almost a public campaign on digital security. If John Podesta, somebody that's sophisticated and elite did not know to use two factor authentication on his Gmail account, I don't know what we can expect from the rest of the public. The rest of the public. Lovely, fantastic. That was such an absorbing conversation. I've done a bad job, so I was going to give you some time, but we have got a few minutes. So there might be, I don't know if you've got any sort of, you can have traditions or questions to our wonderful panel, but you might have a couple of things observations to throw in. So if you want to take two or three, we've got some time, but put up your hand and don't forget to tell us who you are and who you represent before you make your statements. If anybody has got a thought or reflection or a question from the discussion, please put up your hand. Well, thank you for a fantastic panel. On just a quick reflection on the question. I'm Ricardo Melendez Ortiz from ICTSD. We work on international trade and investment frameworks and sustainable development. So a quick reflection on the governance, particularly economic governance question and technology. And I think that, as you just pointed out, trust has been one of the elements that has cut across all the discussions in the past two days. To deal with trust, we probably need to flip the way we think about the design of governance systems so that they address that question by putting at the centre the reassurance of citizens. And if you like of consumers and governments. So governments react with say barriers to cross border flaws because they don't trust the technology on questions related to cybersecurity to privacy to similarly with consumers. They're all fascinated by the technology. They all want the technology. They all want to embrace it, but at the same time they need the reassurance. And the design of particularly global economic governance systems does not necessarily think about that reassurance as their reference going forward. Trust element in the agile policy governments. Other reflections or thoughts? Thank you, wonderful panel. If I may, Douglas McCall, I'm the director of the Benioff Ocean Initiative. I may a question for President Gast. You raised a really interesting observation, this possibility of kind of populist revolt or a lot of angst between academia and the populist sector. In your university, a lot of amazing progressive researchers and scientists that have a view of what the agenda should be for technology and science going forward. Perhaps a different view in the sort of general populist of where science technology should also go. How do you mesh those different views or how do you end up with universities potentially being more responsive to this agenda that isn't the agenda of a university? Well, I think this has evolved over a period of time and we're way behind, but it comes back to education. And I think that helping the world, helping citizens and people everywhere be more comfortable with science and technology. We have a science phobia that develops somewhere between second grade and fifth grade or something. And so we've taken some efforts to even work in primary school levels with materials for science teachers. Because if your science teacher when you're in primary school is not really comfortable with science, you're going to inherit that discomfort. So that's just one little way to try to help. But I do think science literacy and that comfort and understanding of the technological and scientific world is critically important. I also think that it's opening our campuses up. We think they're all open and they're wonderful, but they're somehow foreboding and we need to draw the public in. And the more we can have public engagement through our science, our festival we have, but also public lectures and opportunities for community members to come in and make things and try things to be really involving the community, we can change things little by little. I think that there's, you know, the easiest place to look is then with the younger with kids and getting kids able to code or into other kinds of techie and interesting things. Not necessarily that they'll all be scientists and engineers, but they'll be comfortable with technology. Thank you. I can't think of a better place to kind of close a discussion than, you know, with that aim, both on kind of the science technology research agenda and the investment in the next generation to bring that through to make sure that we harness the fourth industrial revolution with the humans not only of today but of tomorrow at the centre of this transformation. If you'd like just to join me to thank, what a wonderful panel that was for a discussion. Thank you so much. And to thank you for being a great group all the way through the day. And I'd just like now to hand over to the head of the centre for the fourth industrial revolution here in the Presidio in San Francisco, our managing board member, Murat Sanmez Murat. Thank you, Dominic. I'm not going to be long, but I wanted to thank you. Aileen, Alice, Janine and Regima for wonderful close and giving us the mission as we move forward. Aileen, I'd like to start by handing you this hardcover edition with a forward from Mark Benioff. And it's been a real book published by Penguin Random House, so you can show that next time. A few buzzwords I picked up from the panel. Keep the hype to reality ratio as close to one as possible. Positive over one, but close to one. Make analogue work as well as focusing on the digital. And create an ecosystem from eco chambers. I think that's the forum's role is to bring the community of communities. And this rapid prototyping, we had been talking about it throughout the day. And it's Tim here, Tim Brown. And we said, well, we need to try a few approaches and fail fast, which is very fitting for the valley in San Francisco. And when I moved here in May 1989, I met this guy at a coffee shop in Palo Alto. And he gave me his card and it said, I've shared the story with some of you. And his title was serial entrepreneur. And I said, what does that mean? He said, that means I failed more often than anybody else. So we'll take that approach here. Before I invite Tim Brown and Mark Benioff to join us here for closing remarks, I wanted to thank all of you for being here, giving us a full day, actually for some of you, two or three days out of your busy lives. Many of you have traveled from South Bay, which is as or Berkeley, or the other side of the bay, which is as it takes as long as flying from Japan or other parts of the world. So a big thank you. And it's quite humbling and motivating to see the show of support. And it shows to us that what we're planning to do here is important. And we cannot do it alone. We need the support of the global community, the local community. And we appreciate that. And hopefully we will stand up to the expectations and your desires. I'd also like to thank all of my colleagues who put this together. This was an idea in July, eight months later here we are launching it. And there are quite a few people who were involved in making it happen. So I'm sure I'll miss quite a number of them, but I want to highlight a few. Catherine Randell, who's here, she joined us on February 1st of 2017. And this was a shell. And we had the activities going, but through her efforts, everything, everything was orchestrated. And she kept her charm. She kept pushing us and really made it all happen. Arno Jaqer is Arno here. He's part of the event logistics team. And the forum is not a very big organization, but we're about 615 people. But we're truly multi-stakeholder. We have 620 communities and everybody's opinion matters. So Arno made sure that everything worked well. Elise Lippmann, where is, where are you Elise? Here. She worked with all of us in the forum to make sure that the programming, the content piece really fit together and flew well. And I think we did it. My colleague Sandra Wilder was in the back who worked in Geneva, Switzerland, to make sure that everything was coordinated. And I have a lot of other colleagues here. I cannot thank all of them here. But on behalf of everybody here, my colleagues, I thank you. So I'd like to invite Tim and Mark Benioff here on stage for some closing remarks. And I have, why don't you stay, please? We'll take a selfie with you. So in appreciation of your partnership, Mark and Tim, can you join us here? You saw our cowbell tradition. So this is the cowbells we're handing out to our partners. Mark, you're getting the number one cowbell as sales horse. And Tim, for idea, this is your cowbell. So I'll hand the mic over to you, Tim, on how can we stay human-centric and fail fast and get going rapidly. And then, Mark, I'll ask you as the inaugural chair of the Centre Advisory Board. I'll go like this so you can take the pictures of the ladies as well for your closing remarks. OK. OK, thanks, Marat. Well, I don't know. This has been a great day. And something that I think we've all appreciated. There's been wonderful conversation. I find it, as a designer, extremely gratifying to have all of this community come together and talk about human-centeredness for a whole day. I don't get to hang out with people who do that very often, other than my own folks. It's actually been a tremendously exciting day for me. And the thing that we seem to have been talking about in a somewhat unique way is that we're beginning to talk about not only how these technologies and these systems work, we're starting to talk about how they feel. And I think it's that dissonance between how they work and how they feel that's causing some of this issue with populism and rejection of technology. They may work well, but they feel bad. That's not a great way to build society, right? So we're beginning to talk about how to bring those two things into alignment, how these systems and technologies work and how they feel. And I actually think that Mayor Libby Schaft this morning in the session we had here on mobility, you got it right when she talked about how can we chart roads to heaven rather than roads to hell. And so I feel that that's the role of this centre is helping us all begin to chart roads to heaven and avoid the roads to hell. So, well done for a great start. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Tim. So we're coming to the end. Mark, you've been here all day with us as we sail into the weekend and we have cocktails and wine outside at the tent. What, as the inaugural chair of our advisory board here, Centre's board, what are a few points, key things, messages that you would like to convey to all of us? Preston. Okay, here we go. Three points I want to make. One is gratitude to you, Marat, for your leadership and for your team and to Clow Schwab. Back in Geneva and to the World Economic Forum for coming here and creating the centre because this is really an incredible opportunity. Secondly, I want to express gratitude as well to the Presidio for giving us this incredible facility here and you can see this campus with all these empty buildings that I hope will become a fourth industrial revolution campus filled with all of your organizations and other partners of the World Economic Forum. When I first had told my wife about this idea that we're going to bring the World Economic Forum to San Francisco, she had the idea to bring it here to the Presidio because she's on the board of the Presidio. I would like to thank her very much for this idea because it seems like it's working out as most of her ideas do. Point number three is I want to thank all of you for coming here today and spending your time and being part of this program because this is really what it's all about. It's through this multi-stakeholder dialogue and this concept of talking about these critical issues and these kinds of working groups, which has been pioneered by Claw Schwab and the World Economic Forum, that makes it so special. The last thing I want to say is this center really does not belong to the World Economic Forum. It belongs to all of you and we want to create a schedule of events and programs and research capabilities that very much reflect our membership. We're a membership-based organization so this center belongs to you, our members, so please bring your off-sites here and your research teams and your think tanks and your ideas and come and join our center and find a space here where maybe you want to keep some of your executives or employees or research teams but use this facility and use this opportunity with all this incredible capability to facilitate these multi-stakeholder dialogues to create better organizations and dialogue within your very own company. Thank you very much. Thanks very much, everybody. I think now we're going out to reception. Is that right? Yes, that's right. Thank you again. Very good. Great.