 So good morning, everyone. Last day of Davos. I'm sure you're all deeply committed to this session. Thank you. I want to introduce my panelists. I'm thanking you for all joining. Magdalena Skipper is Editor-in-Chief of Nature magazine. So she's our journalist. We have Immanuel Blade Ndumadi, Minister of Higher Education, Science and Innovation in South Africa. Thank you for joining. We also have Bettina Stark-Watzinger, who's the Federal Minister of Education Research for Germany. And, last but not least, we have Vas Narasimhan, who's CEO of Novartis. OK, so let's get to the topic. What's the role of science in society today? You know Edelman Studies Trust, and we've done so for 24 years. And we've just released a report on Monday, which has a few important facts. One, by two to one around the world, people believe innovation is being badly managed. It is now the fourth rail in the populist fire. So the mass class divide, the infodemic, and the business government instability, meaning that business is so much more trusted than government. The fourth log on this fire is the perception that innovation is more or less, and this is across every country, every age group, every income level, every education level. It's the one thing people are on the world agree on. Innovation is being poorly managed. Now, it is across AI, mRNA, GMOs, green energy. Green energy, the best of that. The worst of that is GMOs, which was introduced 50 years. And the two that are really on the cusp, nearly more 50-50 is mRNA and AI. So the big problem that we have to discuss today is the perception that science has lost its independence. Literally in the US, two-thirds say science has become politicized. In China, where the respondents almost are always positive, three-quarters say government and organizations that fund research have way too much influence on science. So it's the Chinese saying, I had a bad experience in the pandemic, dot, dot. Dispersion of authority. Note that a person like me, like my friend, not you, you're a scientist, but like a normal person, is considered as trusted as a scientist to tell the truth about innovations. And among those who are skeptical about the pace of the innovation, it's higher. It's more. I go to a person like me more than a scientist. This is a change, again, since 2020. Scientists are still expected to lead on implementation of innovation, but we're expecting also that government's going to have a better role as regulator. And we think that government ability to regulate lags the science progress. In other words, that regulators are under-informed and under-qualified. In terms of source of information, it's important to know that the number one source is search, the second is social. It's not mainstream media. It's, you know, so-called voice of the people. And so we have to do a better job of making sure that that which gets to people has enough facts to make quality decisions. So look, I don't want to spend too much time on this research other than to point out the problem, which is innovation is at risk. And if people don't accept that innovation is a good thing, we'll never get back to growth. And growth is what drives trust. And that's why, more or less, this is the urgent panel of the week. So I want to start out by talking to Minister Bettina. If you don't mind, I'm going to call you first name. Good. OK. Where have you seen good examples of scientists working with the public or your government working with the public? You, I think, have a factory WISCOM initiative as an instance. So. Absolutely. Thank you. Maybe let me first say that science is an asset we have. Everything around here, to the people, I'm preaching to the convinced already, but I'm praying to the convinced. But what is really important to understand that we need science. Science has such an important role. Because it distinguishes between believing and knowing. And that has made us strong over the last centuries. So we have to keep it up, especially with the challenges that lie ahead of us. We've been talking a lot about climate change here and fighting climate change. We've talked a lot about the current issues that we have to solve. So we need science. And that's why, really, we need trust in science. Use the knowledge that is there. And as you already pointed out, that trust is decreasing tremendously. And that should worry us. Why is it like that? You said people, you talked about quite a number of reasons for that. Formerly, when I was born, if somebody talked to his bird in the cage in the kitchen, nobody heard it. Now you have the echo chambers in social media. And let me say two or three things. I'll give you an example of what we do. What we see is, from the numbers we also take in Germany, is that if education goes down, lack of trust goes up. So really, the education, the basic education, is so important to build trust in science and probably in institutions overall. Because you have people who understand the world around them, who are self-confident, if you have the basic knowledge and you need it for the rest of your lifetime. So we see that, and that's a huge task for all countries, also in Germany, because we see the knowledge base go down. Second is, we need to understand why it is important for us what science is doing. If we talk about the long-term, base-funded, curiosity- driven research, people might not really understand why they are doing this research. But we need that in order to look at the vaccine that was developed. That was based on long-term, free-funded, independent research. So understanding that we have to do that. But the relevance of why it is important for us. So we need good communicators in science. This is why we have, you talked about the viscum factory, if you are a scientist, probably maybe people around here are scientists, I don't want to talk in your name, but you learn how to do your research. You learn how to teach young people. But you're not necessarily in Germany trained for communicating well. So that is an additional skill you have to have. Not every researcher needs to have that, but we have to support you. And this is why we have this viscum factory, where researchers, journalists, communication, politics come together and we try to find the right way. And also to protect scientists when they raise their voice, that we all protect them and not let them stand alone in the fire. Yeah, good point. I mean, the remark by Dr. Fauci last week about the six-foot distancing was very damaging in the general populace because he basically said, well, it was an assumption we made. It seemed like a good idea, but we didn't really have science behind it, but yet it still became public policy. Minister, can we talk a little bit about the unique challenges of trust in science in South Africa, what you're doing to try and build trust at various levels of society, income levels? Well, thank you very much, and thanks for the privilege of being part of this distinguished panel. Just a few things that I need to... The first thing that sometimes we take for granted, which we need to work at consciously, is to forge partnerships and are compact with key stakeholders and with the people. Sometimes we tend to take it for granted that science often comes with good things that are good in society, therefore people will automatically... No more? Not anymore. So you need firstly to work at building partnership. It's very important. That's what we've been trying to do in South Africa. The second thing also is that science must also be explained and be understood to be contributing to tackling real developmental problems that we actually face. It's a very important thing that... So it addresses our priorities in South Africa of addressing poverty, inequality, and unemployment. Also, we need to have what we call science literacy, consciously, you know, that people are educated about the role and the value of science and what we need to do. We also come from a background, by the way, and I parted where science was used to justify horrible things in the past. So that education to say, actually science can be different is something that is also very important. We also have, of course, as a developing country, low levels of literacy, generally, but even lower levels of science literacy, even amongst those who may have a bit more education and so on. I think maybe just to touch on a few other things very quickly, we believe that in tackling this issue of trust in science, it's also important that we emphasize the value of open science. Because open science is not just it should be a practice only among scientists, yes, but also part of the dimension of open is that we open to society, you know, we are explicit about what we are doing and how we actually arrive at that. In South Africa, though, we built, which is of help, a dedicated agency to focus on science education. It goes to school, they go to schools, you know, and educate children, excite them about games that are of science. We call it the South African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement. Something we'd like to share experiences, for instance, with other countries or institutions if they've got something like that. The other issue also, COVID-19 taught us lots of lessons. We also did some things that sometimes we surprised ourselves. We mobilized social science and humanities almost on a daily basis. Because one of the things like in many other countries we're faced with vaccine resistance, resistance to vaccination. So we mobilized science to undertake social scientists to undertake quick surveys, you know, what are the sources of some of these problems and so on as we moved, even the duty of the World Health Organization said South Africa was like really far ahead in using daily harnessing social science in order to be able to deal with that. That enables us to understand things better rather than sometimes the arrogance we have. We know what the people want, you know. So that is actually passed. Minister, do you find that politicians run against science? We had that big problem in South Africa on COVID-19. It was one of my biggest frustrations, but maybe also I was frustrating the scientists because for instance, at the time when South Africa came up with the first variant of COVID-19, the scientists were so excited. They weren't full blown through the media to announce this without engaging government. We say we don't want to arrest you and not to communicate, but what you communicate may have political implications that you as scientists on your own, you are not going to be able to deal with. It will actually require us. So we then forced, not forced, had to have a dialogue with the scientists to say when there are new things that you are coming up with, let's have a discussion first amongst us and then have a division of labor. You will announce, we'll accredit that to you, but then we also will have together with that, announce what does this mean for the people? So that tension is always there and I think we'll always be there. We just need a way of handling it better. We'll come back to that. Yeah. Magdalena. What makes you trust or distrust a scientist when you're interviewing him or her? And how does a journalist, you're quite high qualified, but there are maybe more broad sets of journalists who don't necessarily have as much classical training in science who are asking the questions. So thank you for the question. A bit of a clarification. I am actually not a journalist. I'm a trained scientist. So of course, Nature publishes original research as well as science related news. So on my team, I have reporters who do exactly what you just described. But the perspective that I can bring to the table is in a way of both. How do you interview and talk to a scientist? But how also do you work with a scientist so that they can showcase the research and the robustness with which that research was done? And I emphasize that for a reason. I'll come back to this in a second. If I may, I'd like to pick up on a couple of points that both ministers made. That's a privilege of coming third in line. And I just want to amplify a couple of points because I completely agree with essentially all the statements that you made. The first thing I would just remind everyone that of course science is not just about innovation. Innovation is an important part of science. But I think we all have to understand and communicate that there is fundamental science which at some level can almost be thought about as similar to art. Which other species wonders about the beauty of the world around us? What's out there? I mean, look how human imagination has been captured by the images that come from the James Webb Space Telescope. There's no real, at least for now, there's no real application or innovation that comes out of it. In fact, of course, as a result of building the telescope, there is innovation that may be applied to another context. But that wonder about the world around us, the appreciation of the world on this planet and actually what role we play in it drives us to realise that we are damaging the environment that we're part of and we're damaging ourselves as a result of it. So that's actually something I think that's important to remember. And I wonder if when we ask these questions, when we do these polls, we should perhaps not drive a bit more deeply into that. Now to come back to your specific question, trust in scientists, in science in general, is associated with a few other things that ministers said. For example, you minister said about partnerships. That collaboration within the research community but outside of the research community is absolutely fundamental. Again, we sometimes forget that scientists are part of the widest possible community. Each scientist is also a member of the public. And in an unhelpful way, we sometimes pit one against the other. So we talk about scientists as if they were somehow separate from governments, advice, ordinary citizens. Of course, they are human, they are part and parcel of that wider equation. Equally what's really important is transparency. You talked about open science. I think where researchers haven't helped themselves in the past, and that is changing in the framework of open science, but in general more broadly, is to understand rather to communicate the process of science. We're so fixed on the outcome that we forget to explain the journey that takes us towards that finding and the outcome. And of course, it's important for a number of reasons, including because that journey is actually really beautiful and really interesting. It's not a smooth journey. It requires many changes of many modes of transport going back and forth and getting the wrong ticket for the wrong bus or the wrong train. I mean, that's how science unfolds. And we don't sufficiently communicate, and by we, I mean scientists and science communicators, that science progresses through self-correction. Too often we talk about truths in science as opposed to focusing on facts. Facts remain immutable. As you accumulate more and more facts and you understand a wider picture in a set of conditions, your conclusions may change. May I push you on this? Yes. Do you think the public can handle it? Oh, absolutely. No, but just I want to push you on this because when there was conflicting advice during COVID-19, you saw diminished use of vaccines. People back off when they get uncertain. I'm going to call on you in a minute, Stefan. You know a lot about this. No, absolutely. So you absolutely right that at times such as a pandemic, for a number of reasons, at least two. The first one is, of course, people's lives, real lives, our own lives can be at stake, and the timescale is extremely short, so decisions have to be made very quickly. But if you think about, you asking me whether I think general public can handle it, I absolutely believe each one of us can. Think about how your own decision-making and what you believe in life has evolved over your timescales. I mean, when I was 18, lots of things were black and white. And as I went through life and acquired new experiences, I absolutely revised my position. So I think that transparency of how that decision-making and arriving at conclusions changes, and also the honesty to say that at times we get things wrong. Now, one other comment, if I may, the UNI introduction said that part of the reason why there is concern about trust in science is because there is a perception that science is becoming increasingly politicized. Yep. Now, I'll just mention one name, Galileo. Politicization of science is not a new thing. But if the problem is that science is being politicized, that why are we not punishing the politicians but we are targeting scientists for that? I'll just ask that question. I won't answer, we're going to get to Vaz. Vaz, in particular, how do you persuade communities who are distrustful of health innovations? Again, you have some experience. Yeah, thanks, Richard. And a great honor to be on the panel. You know, when I reflected on the question, you know, I was thinking about the historical context that we have, you know, modern medicine, it was really only in the early 1900s. We started to believe you could give chemicals and biologics to people and actually have a different outcome in medicine. And for most of the 1900s, this was primarily a one-way conversation. Physicians would tell patients what to do and patients would listen. Modern drug regulation really took off in the middle of the century. And for most of that, almost the entire remainder of the 19th century, we simply said, or 20th century, trust the regulator, they've done the work, the medicine is good. Now, what changed in the last decade or so or accelerated, at least, I think a few things. One, we have a lot more knowledge in the hands of patients and society where you can actually see in real time all of the different changes. Sometimes aspirin is good from you, sometimes aspirin is not good for you, sometimes wine is good for you, sometimes wine is not good for you. And off we go. And so that's all now coming in real time. Google searches become more important than the physician to actually hear medical information. Second, we have politicians, I think, getting a lot more involved in science. I don't know for sure, but I believe in the 1980s and 90s, you did not have the CDC or many major health agencies on the front line, on the firing line, the way they are today. And I think third, the pace of medical innovation is now exposing society to whole new technologies. So people hear now suddenly about mRNA or SIRNA or about gene editing and gene therapies. And the number of questions you get about, is this permanent or is this gonna fundamentally change something in my body? Has really now put the onus, I think, on us as a medical community, or I guess all of us as humans, to explain all of this a lot better. And I think one of the challenges we have is we tend to use one language that creates a divide, that creates a sense that these are elites telling us what to do, as opposed to making it very, very simple. I love the work of Neil deGrasse Tyson. I mean, he makes astrophysics so simple and fun that everybody wants to listen to it. And we need to do that, I think, in medicine. I think we need to be a lot more transparent about the methods of what we don't do or don't know, how we do clinical trials. I think when you looked at how the world got suddenly exposed as to how do you do large-scale clinical trials and vaccines, a space I was also involved in for many years, and suddenly now people are learning for the first time, how does this even work? And we've never really been transparent about the ups and downs, the benefits and the risks of any therapeutic or any vaccine, which is always the case. So I think we need to be much, much more transparent. And we talked about this in the room before. We need to actually get much more diversity in science. I mean, people want to hear from voices that look like them, that have their experience. That encourages participation in clinical trials. But I think that big shift is that we're gonna tell you and you're gonna trust us. And now we need to explain it in a human way so that people can actually come with you on this journey of science. How comfortable are you speaking to pastors or other local community leaders and letting them be disseminators of health information? Am I comfortable? So my team has given me a challenge a few times. I've tried to do it on social media to explain these topics in a minute. And it is hard, it's really hard. You wanna explain an mRNA vaccine or a cell and gene therapy in a minute in plain language? It actually takes work. We actually think it's just something you do, but I think great communicators take the time to say, how are you gonna meet the person listening to that message? You know this better than anyone. Meet them where they are. I think we need to get better at that. Minister, to put it finally, do you feel that government has a responsibility in some way to protect the public interest by looking as if it's at odds with business? That it's holding prices down? That it's being aggressive in getting supplies? You know, that there's a little bit of play acting. First of all, I want to catch up with what you said, your last statement. If I have to prepare a speech, a short speech takes so much more work than a longer speech. Yes, it is quite difficult to do that. So am I comfortable with in a way to close a link between the sphere of politics, governments and then business, but also science? I think you have to be pretty clear that we are all part of a society and have our responsibilities, but you have to keep the independence up in a way. And maybe if I can first tackle on science, the important thing is that we have this free, scientific freedom. The scientific freedom, first of all, it's a huge powerhouse, universities and research institutions, because the work they do, even if public is not maybe always familiar with the way science, new knowledge is created, is you challenge everything. A new, you have a new finding, you publish a paper, it is challenged. If we make a political statement, we do not really want to, well, we want to be challenged, but to commit in a year's time, we made a mistake is wrong. And this is why we need the certain Mosaic puzzles, they're collaborating, but keeping up their own independence and also the partnerships have to be created in a very trustful way and transparent way. And building on what I said is that, the trust in science is, when I want to serve it done because I have a certain interest of knowledge because I have to take new legislation, you have to be sure that the process you get to create this study or whatever is so transparent that people would not say there was political influence in there, that research is not, is not used in the interest of my own views. Can I just push you on this? Yes. So would you be comfortable, for example, sitting with Vaz on a stage, discussing diabetes challenge in Germany because people are getting too, you would? Yes. Not that I have the knowledge, but I know what we need in the, because we know what we have to do in terms of, what do I have to fund? Where do I have to put money in? Where do we need the basic knowledge? But where do we need applied signs? You know, how can we work together when it comes to translation? We have to work together, otherwise it's not working. We won't solve the challenge. At least my perception, you guys correct me. It seems to me government is over here, industry is over here. We'll speak to the people. You guys do the, you know, make the drugs. I think that has to change. Just one man. Absolutely. Because you have two separate voices, people like, which, which, which, I don't know. Absolutely. And we need these public-private partnerships in a way to really bring together the strength we have. And can I just, just to extend what you were saying just now, I would say there need to be more people on this stage and more practitioners and experts in different disciplines. And patients. You know, what you, absolutely, absolutely patients, this speaks to what you were saying earlier about diversifying scientists, but also any experts that they need to be represented. And of course, patients interested parties have relevant expertise. And to extend this, we need social scientists at this table as well. Because you may be in divine, designing, identifying drugs that are difficult for the communities who you're trying to target to accept. So we need to understand, you know, we need help of social scientists, behavioral scientists and so on. So, so we're coming back to the partnerships that you mentioned earlier. I think that's very important. But there's a four-letter word, NGOs. How much do you use them? What's their role? Are they useful in this? That's a very good question. So, I would say that they, I would say that would be useful in many settings. They obviously have a, can have a really important role in getting to certain communities, certain in certain settings, but also supporting particular type of research in a context. Nobody should be excluded from that conversation. Minister, how have NGOs worked with your department in South Africa in a constructive way? Well, look, we come from a history, by the way, that we're in the trenches together with many NGOs in the struggle against apartheid. But unfortunately, after we have a democracy, you know, the tensions began to develop. You know, as government, we get treated with suspicion, you know, and NGOs are very critical. I live in sometimes you feel way it's not necessary, but as I was saying, our attitude as government is that we must work with the NGO sector, generally. I agree. How do you work constructively with them? Are they in an adversarial relation, like criticizing you, or are they drug delivery, or are they, you know, partnering? They're in all sorts of spaces. You know, some are just permanent critics, you know? They monitor what government is doing. Others will work with them in terms of even delivering vaccines to the most remote of areas. Sometimes we found NGOs that they even have a better reach in some instances than government. So we make use of them and we actually want to work with them in that way. The other thing, by the way, that we've done now, we've established what we call a presidential plenary on science, technology and innovation, which we convened for the first time this last year. We want to convene it annually where the president calls all the stakeholders, the universities, your scientists, your business, NGOs in particular, so that you create a platform for a dialogue. Of course, that's much more formalized, but you also have got to make what we also did during COVID in particular. We made use of the crisis to address certain problems and to forge a partnership, to say, we all have a crisis, we are all in it, so why don't we actually work together in order to do that? But NGOs are of a variety, you know what I mean? So, but our stance is that we are willing to work with all the NGOs. Some NGOs don't touch government, you know? They think that government is something evil. That we mustn't. But as government, we mustn't respond like that. We must respond by saying, everyone who actually wants to play a role is welcome to play a role, including the non-governmental organizations. How badly do you think the CDC has been damaged in the post-COVID? So, I think it's been damaged, undoubtedly. First, I would say, I think the CDC is one of the most outstanding epidemiological and public health organizations in the world. I mean, when you meet the scientists there who I've had the privilege of knowing for a few decades now, I mean, these are outstanding, outstanding scientists. I think they got caught in what exactly we are talking about here, which is a moment when we had relatively little knowledge in not being transparent about what we knew and didn't know. We made what was perceived as declarative statements and then had to keep revising those statements and how fast then the trust was lost. So I believe the trust can be built back steadily over time. But it's a very cautionary tale that if you're not upfront today about what is really the facts you mentioned, the distancing, we can talk about masks. I mean, I've sat with governors in the United States and the level of distrust right now of the public health establishment in the U.S. on vaccine mandates, on mask wearing is incredible, right? I mean, but I think it's gonna take time to rebuild that. Another just reflection in a slightly different direction, just picking up on something you said earlier, is how do we build up in our educational system the critical thinking that enables the next generation of society to have the ability to ask questions, both of scientists, but also of all of the other things you're reading on the internet? Because when I watched my own children, as they are now better than probably anyone at this conference at using five different AI engines, and how are they gonna learn to decide which of these things is telling them something that's correct or not correct? How are they gonna learn to ask the right questions? I'm not sure if AI is gonna make what we're talking about here better or worse, given that when I put medical questions into AI, I can spot where the inaccuracies are, because this is my life. But I don't know if anyone else is gonna spot in the broader society outside of medicine about some of these changes. So we need to be able to ask our inaccuracies, ask these questions, and I think the educational system is now gonna have to move about critical thinking and less about facts and memorization. Fully agree, but I have to say something on NGOs. Please. We need NGOs. We do really need them. It's the voice of civil society. It's bringing those who maybe could not raise their voice on themselves together. So it is so important. But fighting, first of all, being transparent, also when it comes to your funding, secondly, fight for a cause and not only for one way to achieve it. I find it really hard. You mentioned that innovation being badly managed, you know, skepticism against innovation. I am having this fight for new breeding technologies because it can bring so much better, environmentally friendly ways to grow our harvest or any other kind of plant we need. And if then it is just fighting for a technology where it is proven scientifically, or at least at the state of knowledge we have, but for 20 years, when there's no difference in the way, in the result, but just in the way we got there. And when you fight that as an activist, then I have a real problem. So let's fight for a cause, be transparent, but be open to discuss which is the best way to get there. And this is why sometimes it's pretty difficult to work together, not because we don't need NGOs, we need them in a way that's for sure. But that was so important to me because I find sometimes we hinder innovation because we still stick to our old knowledge or to what we are used to. And yes, we need the future skills. Technology changes so fast. Every 10 years we have to reinvent ourselves in our working life. We have to understand what is going on. So we have to learn to adapt to change. We have to learn how to have that openness, how to use all the new technologies, not only learning knowledge we have now by heart, but how to use knowledge and how to be open to. I want to ask you about academia. What is the proper interaction between a university, a company, government, civil society? Should there be a clear delineation? Is it overlap? How do you see it? So just one clarification. Of course, science and research doesn't just unfold in academia. We have excellent examples on this panel in the room. So there already is part of my answer. So if what underpins your answer is, how should these different stakeholders play on the kind of research and invention arena, then very clearly there must be porosity between these, let's just say groupings that you've identified. Because research unfolds in all these different contexts. Increasingly, and you alluded to this, increasingly what I like to refer to as non-scientifically trained individuals, so in other words, members of the general public, bring really important contributions to co-creating research in the first place. And the poster child of this is clinical trial. So many patients and patient families are now involved, not just involved in the clinical trials, obviously, but involved in designing them. There are plenty of other examples. Farmers are involved in designing interventions that are then hopefully going to help them change practice. And all of this unfolds in the context of research. So it's helpful when we communicate, labels are helpful, but we cannot become prisoners to these labels. We have to understand that there is overlap. There's also increasing movement of researchers from academic setting to private sector setting and vice versa. And as I said earlier, researchers are members of the general public. So everyone has to be engaged in this process. And by being engaged, you come to understand the process of discovery and research better, which helps with trust. Just one quick point there. Small things we can do to build trust in science. Millions of patients or participants participate in clinical trials. The vast majority never learn what was the result of the clinical trial they participate in. They never get to know whether they were on the placebo or the active group. This is a big failure of our industry we need to get much better at. But also all of academia, if you're going to involve human subjects in clinical research, people should get to know what was the result of the research and how did things unfold for them? So I want to go to the room. Do we have questions? Sir. Hi, I'm Abdul Rashid from ETH Zurich. My question is, I think one or two years ago, you published a paper, Magdalena in Nature, you edited, I should say, which shows that academic research, the number of pathbreaking research has fallen. In other words, the quality of science has declined. Do you think that is related to trust in science? And what do you think the role AI could play because now we have lots of people publishing that just is not good research, but... Great question. Okay, you're on. So first of all, I think we should be careful not to conflate quality of research with the impact of research. Because, of course, what impact of research is relative. It depends how you define your impact. Quality of research is a measure of its robustness, how convincing the results are, et cetera. And this is a paper that is indeed was very intriguing. It was covered much in the general press. I would say it really depends on how you measure, what you define as a degree of impact on your expectations. And I would also say it comes a little bit back to this funding issue. Are we funding science to be more and more done with a specific purpose and aim in mind? Are we leaving enough space for true exploration of the knowledge space and discovery and creation? Because we know, and so many of us use this example over and over again, that the mRNA vaccine today, the way the tools we use to genome engineer, all of these discoveries have their roots in very fundamental research that took a long time to find its application. So I would sort of qualify this, and most definitely I'd caution against that conflation between quality of science and the immediate impact that results from it. Other questions behind this? Hi. Hi. Hi, my name is Jörg Schweitzer, and we just learned about that scientists are humans, as well, obviously. And I wonder, where are the scientists and what is the role of the scientists in building trust? You're a scientist. I mean, I think, as we've discussed, I think science has to be... Continuous scientists have to continue to improve on being transparent about what we know and don't know. You know, when I think about your question I was reflecting on academia, I don't know what the latest stat is, but I think 40 or 50% of journal articles broadly are not replicated eventually. And so you think about the fact that AI bots are gonna start summing this up on a good way. I hope AI can actually then check which of the science is replicated. But if you start taking on science that's not replicated as you know well, this will lead to spurious results. I think scientists have to learn... We have to learn how to, I mean, society broadly communicate about these topics in a simple human way. I think we have to move away from jargon and really understand how we can explain things in simple ways that people find accessible. The age of hiding behind the language we learned as scientists is gone. I mean, we have to now be able to communicate because it's all exposed. And I think we have to push for more diversity in science. One thing perhaps that I just need to say quickly is that a key mediator in all this is promotion of science journalism. In South Africa we are finding that the biggest weakness we have is political journalism and business journalism, but no science journalism. This is a problem globally because economics for the newspapers are dim. That's right. They're reducing their science staffs and so therefore it's turned over to the political correspondent, et cetera. By the way, please, we are hosting the World Conference on Science Generism 2025 as South Africa 2025. We're all invited. We're all invited. Just a five-second edition. First of all, you said AI may or may not replicate those unreplicated research studies. AI itself is not replicable. So let's be careful what measure we use to measure that. And secondly, we don't value sufficiently replicating science to incentivise it. I totally agree. OK, very quick. Thirty years ago there were only a few number of high-replicable journals, very well-reviewed. I love the trust in them. Now we have an exponential growth in money-making journals, very poorly reviewed. For us, as the old ones have been in science 30 years, we know where to publish. For the youngsters it's very hard and this has put in a lot of useless data out. So this needs some sort of policing or advice for the youngsters. OK, I'm going to make a final comment. Science and society have to come back together. There is no guarantee of innovation being accepted without people understanding. And that is the challenge. Thank you all very much. Thank you.