 Thank you for agreeing to do this at the last moment. Thank you for agreeing to do this at the last moment. Good afternoon. My name is Jason Ponton. I'm the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Technology Review, which is the world's oldest technology publication published by MIT in the United States. Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. We are here today to talk about growth through science or, to put it another way, smart growth. It can seem sometimes as if we are nowhere. One of my strong impressions from the last two days in Dalian is that we are presented with a series of civilizational challenges that can daunt the most brave hearted of women and men. But the people on the panel here with me today, and I myself, believe that no matter what problem we have talked about at Dalian, no matter what problem we face in the world today, whether it is economic growth or resource allocation or longevity, at least some part of the solution involves science and technology. So today we're going to ask a fairly simple question. How can we best affect economic growth, longevity, health, and resource allocation in the 21st century through science and technology? Now I'm not going to introduce each one of my panelists. You have their names in your books. But what I thought I might ask them to do is to spend a few minutes, just two or three, say who they are and give a brief sketch of their biography so you know where they're coming from and tell you how they think about how science and technology contributes to growth. So if I can begin on my immediate left place. Good afternoon. My name is Sang-Yap Lee. I'm a professor and dean at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, or known as KAIST. My own major is on biotechnology and biochemical engineering. And I focus on engineering of microorganisms for the production of something useful or degradation of something bad. So that's in short. But I also would like to address some issues regarding green growth through biotechnology. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Mark Bertolini. I'm the chairman and chief executive officer of Aetna. We're the third largest health insurer in the world. And people would say, well, why is a health insurer sitting up on a technology panel? Well, health care is consuming more and more of our GDP in not only the United States, but around the world. And the use of technology to impact the cost of health care and make room for innovation around the world is very important to us as a company. Literally, a third of our revenue comes from services. And we have invested over $3 billion in the last four years in health information technology to create the potential to drive down health care costs. I am Anu Acharya, founder and CEO of Global Genomics, a sourcing company called Osmo Biosolutions. Our ideology was basically focused around putting both the bio part, which is the actual genomics research and the data management and the analytics together into what we call as a research and service to make sure that we use the cloud as a model to be able to do research over the web. Besides that, I think also play a small insignificant role in some of the government understanding of how funding works within the Indian government and have a keen interest in this area. So hoping to go further on that. Good afternoon. My name is John Kim. I'm from telecommunications industry, currently head of the Bell Labs, which is an innovation engine for Arcade Lucent. Our industry has gone through a tremendous transformation and is still going through transformations. First start out with a hardware intensive, basically providing value of access and connecting to people over some distance to what it is today. So went from hardware-based to software-based to application based to the future, which is service-based. In terms of science, we were emphasizing physical science at first based on the needs of the industry at the time to more of computer science and then moving towards social science. So really a focus has been how do you use science in terms of a creation part, but not just that, but making an impact, so a total of innovation that is an enabler for every aspect of our lives. Great. My name is Nubar Afeyan. I'm at a firm called Flagship Ventures. And I also have a background in biochemical engineering. And I spent the last 25 years going from being an amateur entrepreneur when I first started a company in 1987 to what I would consider today a professional entrepreneur, because in the ensuing 25 years I've been involved in starting over 20 companies that all are based on some scientific or technological breakthrough. And the mechanism of how one does that, how one takes potential and converts it into a valuable product, has become more interesting and something we should talk about here. Innovation, which will be partly covered here. We've heard, we were talking earlier, is a big theme within this conference. And it's like every problem is relying on innovation for a solution. And I would just point out to you that that's natural. Think of innovation as wanting to have a social network with the future. That is what doesn't exist. We all have now search engines that tell us about what exists. And now we want to have a search engine that tells us what doesn't exist. And all of us here, and everybody in the audience I'm sure, is engaged with how to get better at doing that, because the world certainly needs it. Thank you, Neba. Thank you all. They're mainly biotechnologists, but I'm going to begin with a question about advanced manufacturing and jobs. I think probably John Kim is the one who's going to have to answer this. So particularly in the states at the moment, amongst the things that folks are looking to science and technology to drive is a revolution in advanced manufacturing. And is it likely that science is going to be producing a great many jobs in the immediate future, or is that not the way it works? From my perspective, it is a transformation, a natural transformation. A machine is becoming more intelligent. As it becomes more intelligent, it improves the efficiency of the manufacturing process. And it just makes sense to leverage that efficiency to be more competitive. But to use a machine, no matter how intelligent it is, requires a human judgment at all level, and therefore requires a different type of skill set. So I would say it is a transformation that is accelerating at a pace that may not feel very comfortable for us, but those who embrace it will find great opportunities. So not all growth is desirable. All throughout the Western world, the costs of health care have been increasing at a frightening pace. And at the same time, we have struggled in the developing world to offer the same standards of self health care that the West has grown accustomed to. So science and technology has created with problems and opportunities in health care. But can it also now bend the cost curve? This is really a question for Mark, so that we can constrain costs in the West and at the same time begin to offer health care to people who have a legitimate desire to have the same urban standards we've had in America. I think the challenge we have is that in the clinical arena, in the basic medical science, we've had a lot of advances and continue. And that has actually contributed to the increase in health care costs. Because as new technologies develop, we offer them to everyone. I think the objective should be, how do we get the right technology to the right individuals at the right time when they need it, should they need it? And I think that has been the challenge that in health care on the effectiveness side, we've not had good technology, good artificial intelligence that has focused on what is the right care for the right individual at the right time. And that's our problem in the West. I think if we solve that problem in the West and in Europe, I think it presents more capacity in the East as we build out our systems of care here in China or in India and allows us to use our capacity more effectively. Anu, will we need different approaches to health care for India? Absolutely. I think India has a way of being able to use the smaller number of resources that we have in a completely different way. For instance, I think some examples of change out of the boss approaches were probably brought in by some of the government agencies in India where they basically got us in a room and said, we will accept in taking what you have for doing the specific diagnostic as long as you can bring down the cost by 10 times. And while at the first time, when you first hear it, it sounded very difficult to do. I think the fact that you can be put in a box helps you think out of the box. So in many ways, I think for India, one example was that. The other is I think using something that's outside of health care, for instance, mobile technology or telecommunication is probably what is going to help us deliver those systems much more effectively than it has in the West. So I think this whole thinking outside of the box, thinking about how we can use the resources that we have, whether it's human brains, whether it's the low cost that we have, and the fact that we have a larger volume can enable us to think very differently. I'm going to ask a question about energy in a second, but it has an application for all the panelists. But so that it makes sense. Nuba, could you explain to the audience what JUUL does? JUUL is one of the companies that we've been developing. It's about a four-year-old company. And it started out, and I think this is somewhat an approach to think about and innovating, which is to start with a problem as opposed to start with a technology and look for an application. The problem we set out to deal with was the one created by biofuels, which is that people clearly are interested in renewable fuels, but then if you use agricultural products to, as your raw material, you create a lot of issues. And if the product you make is not compatible with the current fuel chain, then it creates different problems. So corn to ethanol is what led us down this path. It was clear that the end product, it would be ideal if it's exactly a current fuel that cars can use. And then it was clear that it would be interesting to move away from dependence on agricultural products. And so what we did then is to really look from first principles at what approaches one could use to convert a different source of carbon, because you do need carbon in a hydrocarbon, which is what we wanted to make. And of course, all of the carbon's coming from CO2 one way or the other. It's either millions of years old carbon that we dig out of the ground, or it's just in time carbon. So what we set out to do is to develop a technology to be able to take carbon dioxide as its only input, solar energy as its energy source, and convert the carbon dioxide into a long chain hydrocarbon as a diesel fuel. That required innovations, technology development at the level of organism engineering. It required developments of a whole new type of machine, if you will, device that is the solar panel equivalent of making a liquid fuel. We call that a solar converter. And then a lot of process optimization and integration, and we're by no means done, but certainly at the pilot level, we've demonstrated that one can today produce a renewable carbon dioxide consuming diesel fuel. So stay with me here. So that is what Bill Gates calls a breakthrough energy technology. And he defines that as a energy technology that creates its own economic imperative. If it works, it's competitive in a way with hydrocarbons and it creates its own momentum. That's a very different approach from investing in small incremental improvements. So beginning with Nuba, what is the right way to go and create smart growth in terms of investing in these technologies? Do you look for breakthroughs like that, or is it more effective and less risky to invest in incremental improvements? Well, we don't have enough time for a good answer to that, but let me just at least give you some thoughts. I've been doing this type of thing for 25 years, and during this time, economics in the macroeconomics in our world, even in the small scale world, affects what doesn't, doesn't work. I would argue that one of the problems we all have, we're in the business of innovation commercialization. So innovations will stay in university labs or central labs of big companies unless there's a mechanism to afford a commercial value creation out of it. And a problem I would observe, and I'll give you a direct answer is, that if the economy is too good, people are too busy making money to care about adopting innovation. And if the economy is too bad, people are too busy trying to stay alive to think about the incremental cost of innovation that will, by definition, require some losses. And we have gone back and forth between good times and bad times, and only during that narrow phase transition has there been a few fleeting moments of good innovation adoption timeframes. That's been my experience, and I worry, therefore, that unless somehow there is a timeframe during which these things can be done, it will be very discouraging. Now, in our case, we, alongside a lot of incremental things that we're involved with by this definition, we ended up going after this approach, and we have a similar approach to nutrition and a similar approach to water. Because we just gave up trying to convince people that we made good technologies, we decided to compete with them with the end product. As crazy as it may seem, the economy forced us, our inability to monetize innovation, forced us to say, you know what, let's come up with something where we don't have to get an oil company to believe in this, we don't have to get something to, we'll just make the end product at some scale. And if that shows to the world, so in a way, I'd say it's out of desperation that our sites have been set much higher, not out of ego or out of some other, you know, change the world thing, it's just very hard to make money with incremental innovation, given this back and forth between good and bad times. Marcus, I have something to say. Virtualizing innovation is probably the biggest problem we have in every industry. And I would argue that unless you have an unmet need from the customer's perspective in mind, when you innovate, it's hard to get it to commercial value. Because taking basic science and saying, okay, now let the flowers bloom, people are too busy making money. They're in their advanced, they're advanced mature businesses, and to take resources away from that mature business and put it into something that might or might not grow and takes more management talent and time, usually stifles it. And so the resource game, so you have to actually create separate organizations that are focused on unmet needs and then send that group after the innovation and the commercialization of the final product. So I think it's brilliant. It's a great way to go at it. Yeah, but the real challenge is not just to take innovation and commercializing it, but can you come through breakthrough innovations, constructive innovations that's gonna change the world, that can actually allow us to grow smartly. And area of energy is not just energy generation, but it's energy consumption and distribution. If you look at my industry, we have been focused on improving the performance in terms of throughput and improving cost. And it turns out that the limitation today is not just performance and cost, but also energy efficiency. If you look at the data centers around the world, they don't describe data centers in terms of a square footage or computing power, but kind of a heat capacity, it can dissipate. So when we realized this was an issue, we at the Bell Labs conducted this study and realized that a potential for innovation was something like a 100,000-fold improvement over what is available today. So we set the goal of creating a reference architecture that will improve the energy efficiency of a network by a factor of 1,000 in five years. I'm not saying that we're gonna actually implement it, but can't we say reference architecture and demonstrate the technology. And that's very bold and that's very disruptive. But once you can demonstrate it, people can see that it's possible, then I think we can accomplish the solutions that will commercialize it. So I have a bunch of questions, but I urge the audience to consider this an interactive session. If your question says hold up your hand and I'll call upon you right now. But while you collect your thoughts, I have a question about governments and how governments can direct research and innovation. So there are a variety of different models where in China where the research agenda is part of the five-year plan. In America there is a more hands-off process largely by which governments fund research to fund granting bodies into universities. What should the research funding priorities of governments be? How do they go about that? What are the most effective models you've seen? I think the most efficient model for government funding on R&D will be actually a combination of the two you mentioned. There's one is top-down and the other is bottom-up. So top-down will be based on the prediction of the future and then we think that this technology arena is required then government will pump in money onto that sector and policy-wise while scientists has a tendency to pursue something they are interested in and often innovations can come from those interests and motivation. So I think both top-down and bottom-up should be matched and then innovations will continue. Yeah, I think there's a difference between funding science versus funding technology. When it comes to funding science I think it's fairly simple. I think at least in the current scenario where we are there are just two major areas that sort of break it down to the lowest levels which is whether you want to do research in materials or electronics because then that adds up to a lot of the different technologies that exist for the future and coming forward. I think for governments I think what makes sense is that there are certain things like science which needs independent research. It's basically a disruption of the DNA of the country that you're building and therefore it's important that government actually fund science which is going to be innovative requires a lot of capital and they do that. Technology I think there are enough entrepreneurs to be able to take that science and the developments to think translationally and create that technology. So I think the investments have to be majority in areas which are very deep, heavy capital and where very free thinking is required and those are the two areas that I can think of. I get, go ahead. Yeah, I think the ability for anyone including government to pick the winners in particular technology is impossible. So we're going to talk about this in a second. Yeah, plenty of, there are plenty of proofs that they picked something and didn't turn down. It's no different than venture capital. You can pick 10 companies to bet on and you all think they want to make money otherwise you don't bet on it but only two or three will work out. So it's like that. So but the government has a role to play. Private sectors are much more short term focused mainly because they have to uphold the show the value but many of the science tends to be longer term and government can invest, create an environment where industry and academia can work together and invest in the longer term which will allow you to do applied research that can be commercialized later on. Yeah, I was just going to add what usually comes up in these things that I do think governments have a huge role in funding the education of the scientists and technologists and I would say in the US that's increasingly a problem. The US puts a lot of money into basic research funding that now because of the economy situation is under tremendous stress and the problem is that that's just at a time when the world wants more innovation. I think you kind of have to speak the language to be able to compose or you have to know the instrument to compose and so I do think government has a huge role there. The other one is I think the government has a huge role and it'll be interesting in China and in other places to really see the government step up and kind of allow for a culture where these entrepreneurs can both take the kind of risks, fail, get up again and try to succeed and also keep the results of their winnings, if you will. All of that is quite country dependent and I think governments can do a lot too a lot because I really do think that ultimately what's changed in the last 50 years is that is the degree to which startup companies are increasingly the genesis of the commercialization journey and that's an important part to focus on. So let's talk a bit about that one second. So that's the one from the America still on incontrovertibly good at, isn't it? The business of commercializing technologies and science that has come out of the academy. Are there lessons which we can look to for America for how you create that infrastructure? So what things work? Yeah, I mean I would just say two quick things and I would say even the US has a long way to go there as well. I do think that the way we've been doing it is a result of the fact that we started much earlier than other people, not by design and therefore it's not really optimized. I would observe that people talk about ecosystems. It is clear that this is quite a natural process. That is, there's a lot of Darwinian evolution, there's a lot of selection, there's a lot of competition and effectively these resources are competed for and you need the players in the ecosystem in order for the ecosystem to work. That's clear. But it's not like you can import the ecosystem. Three professors, two venture capitalists and a partner general secretary. That's not, and yet a lot of places in the world are trying to do that. I would just say if I can just kind of inject one new thought into this part of this course, I would say that I'm increasingly off the view that technology entrepreneurship in the US and around the world will in the next 10, 20 years become a profession, become akin to medicine and law. That's my prediction. And therefore- So I could go to MIT and take it. Well, so let me tell you what I mean by that. As opposed to having business plan competitions and courses here and there, I think that young people today by any measure face a future of entrepreneurship coming out of these major universities. And yet they're not at all prepared for what that means. What it means to start new things, to start all over again. And so I'm not saying that some won't go into academia and some won't go into large companies. But I would predict that the US has to get on with the job of figuring out how to codify this in a way that instead of people mimicking what the US did 35 years ago, they should try to figure out what the US is gonna do next and just leapfrog. And that's what's interesting about this period. We had a question here, please. If you say who you are, please, for the record. Thank you. Tabara, Deputy Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. Smart growth through science and technology will happen much faster if governments collaborate it. Unfortunately, the science and technology for growth is the same as the science and technology for weapons. For weapons, for armies and so on. So the natural tendency of governments is to compete and not share science and technology. What can we do to encourage the US government, the Russian government, the Chinese government to work together on science and technology so that we can enhance smart growth? We were talking about this in the green room and Mark was saying that these are civilizational problems and yet we don't have a global framework. I think we have a governance disconnect. Our economies and our technologies have outgrown our governments. Because our governments end at the boundaries of our countries, as do our laws, but yet our companies, our economies, and our science go over country boundaries. And we've not yet been able to wrestle with how we govern that effectively. I think that's a major problem with technology sharing between the United States and China. And there's not a level of trust between the two countries that those technologies will be used to good ends. And so until we have that dialogue, good honest dialogue about why we should share this technology, I think we'll run into these problems. And they're ideological problems that go a long, long way back, thousands of years in a lot of ways that we've not yet wrestled with. There is no real right answer. But if you project the Moore's law for a 50 years, by year 2060, $1,000 by a computing power equivalent of entire human race, that is so what I'm saying is that the technology empowers individuals. Only way to fight that, that much power in the hands of an individual is to actually collect the power of technology. So there is no right answer to it. There's no way to hide it. You have to fight technology is technology. And any technology that is commercial can also be used against a user's weapons. So this is all very well for us as science and technology enthusiasts. But if I am a Texan legislator, how am I going to go to my constituency and say the taxes I raise from you, we're going to spend funding research in Korea. And then we're going to share with technologists in Zimbabwe. It's a very difficult case, I think, to make. All right, let me try to answer that. Research by nature has to be collaborative. And in today's interconnected, integrated world, you collaborate worldwide. So the way to sell it is that what you're funding in terms of research is to leverage a funding. You leverage other parts of the brain around the world to advance a research. Now, however, development can be local. You transfer that research into something practical in the world and therefore foster job growth and everything else. So you sell it in that way. Coupled research and development mean research can be global, but development can be local. And coupled your local resources into the particular area that you are interested in. How many people have heard of a company called Cylindra? Right, so a few of us. So Cylindra is a US silicon company. It makes photovoltaic cells to produce solar energy and it's going bankrupt and was the recipient of a very large sum of funding from the US government from the Obama administration. So I want to take up something which Nubar said and perhaps any of you could respond. Can governments effectively pick winners and losers in science? It's all very well to go and say, well, fund generally research directions, but can they reach down into companies and into particular universities and say we're going to fund that project but not that project? Should they? I think if it's a large enough project which has national significance, then yes. But for instance, I think we have a lot of projects are evaluated if they're of a certain size, if they affect the security, if they affect just the regular health and fitness. So I think then I think government has a role to play, but otherwise I think it depends on companies to figure out and find the role. So government necessarily has to, when it comes to just the well-being of their citizens to find and fund certain projects that are going to have a fairly lasting impact as well as creating just the infrastructure and innovation for that. I think it depends on the nature of the problem. So if we had waited for private industry to figure out how to put a man on the moon, we'd still be waiting because there's no commercial value in doing it. But yet the US government felt it was important enough to go ahead. However, on the other side, if the federal government in the United States had been prescriptive about the type of operating system we use in our personal computers, we wouldn't have iPhones and iPads and iPods and all the technology that we have today and how that's opened up our society. So I think, again, it's the nature of the problem, whether or not there's commercial value as to where the line stops between the government and private sector. Yeah, I completely agree. And I would say that there probably is a way government could engage, but they're not going to because it's not politically leveraging. And that is you basically reward the outcome. So if you want a non-commercial viable thing done, look, if you think about it, most venture capital effectively is based on a lottery mentality, which says that if I can do this, I'm going to be able to be bought by Alcatel Lucent for a billion dollars. And even though the chance of doing it are pretty low and you can actually rationalize that it may not be you, it might be your competition, you still enter the game because there's a possibility of a known outcome upon success. So I think that DARPA, which has done these grand challenges, I favor strongly and I've told DOE to do it this way, but it doesn't, you know, it's very hard to get a congressman happy that you funded one of the companies in their jurisdiction by doing it this way. If that's directed funding, whereas what I'm saying is put a prize on the head of whoever can come up with X, right? I mean DARPA did this with the unmanned vehicle program, the military has done this and Google now has an unmanned vehicle running around taking pictures. Because they said whoever can do this, it's worth $10 million, it's worth 100 and we'll give it to whoever does it first. So I think it's not a solution, but it's a way to stay neutral as to who wins. And a lot of people will enter, just like a lottery, you'll have a lot more people spending their money trying to win that than they would if you just tried to pick winners. So this model's been very effective, it funded a competitor of yours, Amaris. So the Gates Foundation set out a grand challenge. They said, we're not going to choose the company that's going to cure malaria, but we know that there's not really a marketplace at the moment to create a drug for malaria. So a company called Amaris came up with a synthetic version of Artemisinin and the Gates Foundation essentially then made the market by paying for the drug. And now there's a cheap cure for malaria, which is an interesting model for that. We have about 20 minutes, I'd love to go and take some questions from the floor. I could talk for I'm sort of show to the panelists. Here at the back, please. This is Xingxing Liu from China, Chinese Academy of Science. So I'm going to tell you this as a young scientist. So we'll talk about the growth by science through science. So this morning the Minister of Science and Technology talked about the Chinese government to invest a lot in SME and universities and institutes on developing technologies and science. So, but I still see the more money goes to the university and the institutes and there are a lot of great technologies or science progress has been made, but I still see a disconnection between the science technology developed by the universities in China and the research institutes and the real products. So, you know, because I think there is, you know, different manner of the professor's promotion or the so-called KPI. So is there any suggestions from you, you know, how to make this connected? Well, I can give a startup answer and maybe you can give a large company, others can give. So I mean, I would say very briefly that the startup, so a lot of times I give talks about innovation and I try to get people to guess what the biggest economic impact is for a single innovation. So is it the PC, is it the internet, is it whatever? And when they're done raising hands, I basically suggest that I would consider the biggest single innovation in the last 50 years in terms of how it's being done is a startup because the startup engine incorporates Microsoft and Apple and Genentech and every other company that were startups fairly recently. And so getting that right, I would contend, is the way to get this translation to happen. And increasingly large companies are figuring out how to be leveraging the startups and all the failures they do to try to kind of buy things and partner with things as they get out. So I think you need a healthy startup culture. From the discussions I've had in the last few days, it's clear to me that my startup in China is meant a late-stage asset-based deal that people take very little risk in. That's gonna have to shift. And from an academic standpoint, the only other thing I would suggest to you is culturally, and I don't know what the culture in academia is, but I can tell you in the US, 25 years ago, very little startups happened out of universities, one or two a year. MIT, which is Stanford, known for startups, very little was happening 25, 30 years ago. I did my PhD back then. What has changed is a few good examples. And the mindset of a professor that says, you know what, I can drive just to be a little crude about it. I can drive a Ferrari and get a Nobel Prize. And I don't have to make a choice. Once there were a few professors who had both, all the other professors realized that the notion that there's somehow something wrong with commercializing what they had invented, even though the rest of the science world looked up to. So you need some role model examples. You need the students to learn that it's okay to be wrong, even though they're trained to be right in school, but to be an entrepreneur, you have to be wrong most of the time. So these things will take time. But the good news is it's happening elsewhere and you can very rapidly partner and start getting, I believe. So those are the suggestions I would have. Anu? I think at least in, I can talk about India, I think we probably have a very similar problem where you have scientists develop certain things and that doesn't go to commercialization. I think there are two reasons, at least the way I look at it. I think one is that there are no incentives for scientists and there are no policies that allow them to get outside. So the cost of spinning out, I think those policies are slowly getting liberalized. And once that happens and you get a few examples, like you said, I think that there will be that transformation. And also I think it is about question is, there is a lack of, when there's a lack of technology transfer in terms of just showcasing or marketing these technologies, it becomes difficult to reach out to the public. So it is a question of combining the right policies, getting the right incentives in place for these scientists if they can start their own ventures, as well as getting a few good examples on the street. I think incentives, the exact word and the central word. And it's not a Chinese problem, it's actually a worldwide problem. Because I'm involved with a number of universities that have locked up in them technologies that the commercial sector hasn't used yet in the United States that get locked away. Or for example, Bill Gates had to leave his university in order to unlock his technology in the computer world. And a further example, even in industry, the healthcare industry in the United States has not used available technology to run the healthcare system since its inception. When my doctor knows less about the whereabouts of my tests than my dry cleaner does of my shirts, we have a problem. And so it's about incentive and having the right alignment. And in the healthcare system, there hasn't been that alignment because whatever the healthcare costs were, people paid them in the United States. There was no sensitivity, no incentive. So I think incentive's the proper word for this. So my university, KAIST, has addressed your question number of years ago, and basically I can answer your question by asking you a question. Is your university encouraging startups by faculty members? By any means. If the answer is no, the atmosphere is not right yet. So you need to change that somehow. It's integrated approach through the government support as far as policy is concerned, and also university support. You need a team at university who will help out faculty members or even students to start up based on your innovation. And that's very important to a starting point, I think. Jason, can I add something here? Yes, please. I was a former entrepreneur and I was a former professor, so I agree with everything that has been said, but there is a role for industrial research. If you look at the startups, there are brilliant people tackling some problem sets, but the problem sets to be somewhat limited. I don't want to call that niche necessarily because some of the problems are big enough, but if you're to tackle something like trying to improve the energy efficiency of an entire network, it's not something that small startups will take on. Whereas in a big industrial research lab like Bell Labs has enough expertise with the critical mass in different disciplines and say, yeah, let's take a look at this. So there is a role for industrial research, and also I'll point out there's a difference between academic research and industrial research that has to do with a customer interface. It's not enough to understand science or technology to make a business successful. Many of the problems that are driven by the market from the customers having a daily interface, understand the pain point, is crucial to actually commercializing some of the technologies. Other questions, please, please, over here. Yes, hello, I refer to the Ferrari and the Nobel Prize. For instance, if something is funded by taxpayers' money and an academic institution, who reaps the benefits? That is a good question, isn't it? So for instance, I think the cure for the vaccine for polio was given away for free. It was funded by the taxpayer, so that is my question. How do we tackle that problem? Funding, you know, taxpayers' funding research, and then somebody is commercializing the product and reaping the benefit. So I mean, I think, you know, I'm not a government person or an economist or a policymaker, which makes me quite qualified to answer the question. I would say in the U.S., this was a debate that was had 30 years ago, and they legislated, legislated that universities have to commercialize these technologies, and keep the returns that the university generates. The universities then basically had to, they couldn't keep it all for themselves, and so they basically had to figure out how to get the academics to be able to participate. The academics don't keep it on their own, they split the royalties or the ownership with the university, so there's a sharing there. I would say it's a question of incentives, as was mentioned. If you want, look, I'll start with this. Doing a startup is a completely irrational act. You usually have no product, usually no market, no price point at which you know you could sell, no customer that you could really talk to. These are the majority of startups, no team, no competitive advantage, and yet people do it. Now, if you don't give them the ability to actually keep the results of what they're doing, then they won't do it, and then society can go to other panels where they want to talk about how to fix world problems without innovation. Innovation is a very high risk thing, and what I think, at least in the US, what people have learned is you have to be able to give people an incentive. By the way, they make none of it if it doesn't get commercialized, right? So I think this whole thing has roots back in the patent system as well, where you need to encourage people to share their innovations so other people make innovations. That same sharing mechanism has to do with the results that are created. So I think that that's at least the way I understood it, where I entered this field, and I'm happy to learn of another model that can cause people to do the irrational thing of starting companies. You know, another way to look at it is when somebody makes lots of money by Ferrari, he also pays tax, so a government gets the money back by a tax collection that can be redistributed. So is it totally fair, maybe not? But that's how the system works. I think it's important to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that I have never met a science or technology entrepreneur who's primarily motivated by money. So, I mean, they're modern people, they want their stuff, they want the Ferrari, but the thing they most want to do is transform the world to create a way to make a biofuel that doesn't involve biomass. And the way to do that effectively at scale tends to be commercialization in the marketplace, but money's never the principle motivator of an entrepreneur. Yeah, just to clarify, my point, and in fact, it's partly I've spent some time in Russia the last few years, because Russia's been trying to develop relationships with MIT where I teach the stuff, and so I've gotten pulled into their culture. Their culture of academia is even more rigid and conservative, and what I'm saying is that there is a sense in pure scientific academia that not only you don't want to do it for money, but that money is a bad thing, and that if you have it, you're not a good scientist. I think that's not true. That's the example you want to break. Whether you drive a Ferrari or you, you know, that doesn't really matter. The point is that you can have both. You don't have to make this choice. Yeah, I think that's the great experiment we have going on around the world today. What is the right form of public-private partnership to get people working together that love to create new breakthrough things and people that can commercialize them? And I'm not quite sure who's gonna win, regardless of government structure, but whoever can figure out the public-private partnership first will be the winner and be able to sustain it over time, and I think that's what we're seeing play out on the world stage today. I think that's a good point. So public-private relationship actually can be very well explained by one example I'm gonna give you. This is a green-gross policy by Korean government, big time. So Korean government, the President Lee Myung-bak announced at the anniversary three years ago on the low-carbon green-gross, and he also announced that we're gonna invest 2% of GDP, 2% of GDP on green technology. So that is the message from the public sector, out of taxpayers' money. But now who's gonna participate? All academic institutions, government research institutions, even private companies, they will come up with all these innovative ideas to address electric vehicle, even Kais' recent invention on online electric vehicle, because you don't get a huge battery, it's just cars moving around and it's automatically charged from the ground. It requires innovation to do that. So these kind of things are all collectively falling into the green-gross policy government just announced. So I think it's a very good collaboration between the government who's giving vision, policy, and then umbrella, and then private sectors, academia, research institute, work hard to get things done, whether with profit or without profit. I'm gonna take a few more questions from the floor, but there was an important question I wanted to ask about research priorities. So we've identified all these great challenges that where innovation is the answer, yet do we spend enough money on research, either the national or international level, because in fact we spend a pittance, whether it's a share of the revenues of a large company like Alcatel Lucent, whether it's energy companies investing in new energy technologies, we hardly spend anything. Bill Gates has said if we spend $16 billion a year on straight breakthrough energy technologies like Jool, there would be all sorts of rewards, and we're spending nowhere near that amount. So more money, and if so, how do you make that argument to the electorates or to the central authorities? Well, I would say, I don't have a good answer, but I would point out to you that the beneficiaries of that investment today are not voting today. They're gonna be born 10 years from now, and it is the perennial problem. It's the same reason that we have hard time agreeing on environmental issues, because the people who are gonna bear the price of that are people who aren't born yet. And so if you can figure out how to do kind of policy time travel, so that you can get people from 30 years ago to fund it today, then I think you can begin to fund it, but the people today wanna think about getting their jobs, et cetera, and as you mentioned, there aren't that many jobs in science, especially if you don't have that many educated people. I think it goes back to the structure of the public-private partnership. I think the commercial sector in the United States around drug manufacture has got the incentives wrong, because we have me too drugs, because we know people want those drugs, so we have five versions of the truth. And I think to the degree we could help orient the commercial sector to what matters to society over the long haul, I think we would get a better result. Other questions from the floor, please? No? Well, I have one final question then before we leave. So I want to ask this tactfully, but we have presented science and technology as a kind of absolute good that raises standard of living, expands human possibilities, and yet that feeling is not always universally shared. Governments try and restrict access to science and technology all the time. And I want to know if the panel thinks that's possible, effective? Well, I think in some cases it should be done, actually. It should be done. It should be done in some cases, and probably very rare cases. So nuclear proliferation? Probably one example I'm going to give you is synthetic biology. So synthetic biology will revolutionize everything from energy, resources, health care, et cetera. However, I already mentioned in the morning session about the creation of something we shouldn't. That is, what if we created a virus that's influenza, you keep to it Ebola virus resality? It's binary inocular, the cold. Yeah, so there's gonna be no human left, right? In a couple of days. So that's the possible outcome of misuse of synthetic biology. And obviously, synthetic biology by definition, it can be done in garage. Because of the availability of DNA synthesizing machines and others. So we need a good way of preventing such mishap. And their governments or international collaboration should be done. In addition to ethical education, of course. I mean, personally, I don't think it should be restricted at all. Because the moment anything is restricted, there's always someone who figures out how to use it. Anyway, although there are certain sensitive things, whether it's defense or other things where certain technology in terms of how it's used potentially can be curbed. But if I had the right of way to figure out how everybody in the world should be done, I think everybody would be easily trackable because our version or privacy is completely changing generation by generation. I think what the generation before me thought of privacy in terms of what we share with other people has changed. So I think whether it is privacy in one way or whether it is a government fear of being able to expose something to another country, I think those are all things that as global citizens, I think that technology is going to move. And any curbing can only be done for a very short period of time. And if you think privacy is a problem, just spend an hour on Facebook or Twitter. But I would, let's split science and technology. I think basic science, there need to be some controls around safety. But I think if we let science proliferate, it'll be managed appropriately. I mean, we can clone creatures today, but you don't see people getting cloned all over the place. So I think that's an appropriate way to think about science from a technology standpoint. I think technology is inexorable. I don't think you could name one technology that's been developed during our time that we've been able to stop. I mean, just look at the Arab Spring and the impact of social media. I mean, it's just you can't keep it back long enough to stop it. So I think technology is inexorable. What we have to do is make sure everybody understands how powerful it can be and manage it well. And on that note, I will leave you with the optimistic hope that the inexorable power of technology will solve some of the challenges we've been discussing at Dali. Please, a hand for my panelists. Thank you all very much. And thank you for your attention.