 Thank you, Dan, and I won't belabor too many of the points that have been talked about today. I thought what I would do is sort of take a narrower focus, focusing in on only one of the institutions that make up the broader context of America's knowledge enterprise. The premise of the meeting is how to save America's knowledge enterprise. Those things are eye-catching or thought-provoking concepts in terms of what we're really trying to do. Obviously, with or without us, there's likely to be some form of America's knowledge enterprise. Even cavemen had knowledge enterprises. It just wasn't very sophisticated. Making flint tools and stone tools was the knowledge enterprise. It just was very slow. A little bit about what I've been doing, which would proffer some background to the comments that I'm about to make. I've spent the last 20 years or so designing university knowledge enterprises, both at the sort of scale of all university initiatives inside places like Columbia University and the last 10 years at Arizona State University, trying to build an actual differentiated public university, a differentiated public research university, on the premise that the last thing that we need is just another one of the generic public research universities that's out there operating. We actually need some differentiation, and you'll hear me talk a little bit about that. So today's assignment, so to speak, if the question is how to save America's knowledge enterprise, certainly a piece of the answer or part of the answer is to redesign the Cold War University, and therefore it's an architectural problem or a design problem. For those of you think that somehow universities are immutable to design changes or that they are operated by filiopiatistic priests that somehow are able to conceptually hold back all change. I would say that's mostly true unless the institution actually wants to change. And that is there's a low incentive to change, and a part of the design of the system that we've been talking about today is what prevents that change from occurring. Now to understand any architectural problem, you have to understand the design premises. You have to understand the design history and the logic because everything that we're living in, the physical designs that we live in, are a product of thousands of years of decision making. The knowledge enterprises that we have are also products of thousands of years of decision making. And in the case of the universities, you've got to start at what I call phase zero. Phase zero is this sort of notion for about 2,000 years or so, I roughly put the market 400 BC, run it up to 1650 AD, so for the sake of rounding just call that 2,000 years, 65 generations, 65 generations of academics who were basically the incubators of what we conceptually think of as science today. They incubated the approach to science, they incubated the culture of science, they incubated the mechanisms and the means by which we ultimately have derived our scientific underpinning. They outlined for us the philosophical models, the philosophical assumptions, the fundamental questions, the fundamental pursuits. All of that was done in the conceptual phase, a 2,000 year conceptual phase. And in the context of human history, that's a fantastically limited amount of time. It's amazing that in 65 generations that as much achievement could be achieved as was achieved, you look at Isaac Newton as sort of the product, the end product of that time. Newton and others that were with him being the result of that thinking and you think about the world before Newton and the world after Newton and it's inconceivably different. And so Newton was a product of what? Newton was a product of 65 generations of fantastic conceptualization about what science is. Call that phase zero. Phase one was a truncated phase, highly truncated. It only lasted about 300 years. It went from roughly 1650 until almost exactly 1940, highly truncated. In this phase I call it the start-up phase of science for good and science for enlightenment and science for making the world a better place. If you haven't read William Manchester's book, The World Lit Only by Fire, read it. You'll get some sense of the role of phase zero in helping us to crawl out of, at least in the West, of the Middle Ages and the Dark Ages. And ultimately what we were able to do and the kinds of ideas that were able to evolve driven by science, driven by the philosophical basis of scientists and others that led to the enlightenment that in only 10 generations, between 1650 and 1940, in only 10 generations we saw some of the most fantastic institutions ever conceived of in human history, including our own country, derivative of just 10 generations of this new kind of enlightenment driven phase one, the start-up phase of where science might have gone or could have gone along the way, but it was truncated, truncated. I don't know how much longer it could have gone on in the kind of open-ended, self-directed universities still responsible for themselves, universities still self-directed until 1940. In 1940 the world, that very simple world began to change just to sort of contextualize things. Johns Hopkins University today, today by itself as a single research university, think of it as the original American research university, has 10 times the total investment from the federal government for research alone by itself than the entire federal government investment of 1940 in research. One institution, 10 times the investment of the entire country, and most people say well yeah, yeah there's been a lot of investment, a lot of things are happening, the federal government's really stepped up and things have really moved in the right direction. What depends unless you go back and dissect what's happened not relative to our short-term trajectory but relative to our longer-term trajectory. So we have this calm before the storm, call the calm 1940. The war in Europe is underway, the Americans are not yet in it. The Americans look around driven by the same person that has been mentioned by several people today, Einstein and his comrades convincing President Roosevelt that we really had an opportunity to build a weapon of mass destruction that we could use against the forces of evil. And so we entered into what I call the storm which produced an illusion and the storm was between 1941 when Vannevar Bush first began organizing in the summer of 41 the office for scientific research and development and then ultimately out of that the Manhattan project and then ultimately out of that other things. And so we created this illusion and the illusion was could a group of scientists with unlimited resources produce something that was beyond human comprehension and allow one nation-state to defeat multiple other nation-states with one felled swoop so to speak. Well it turns out it didn't really happen that way and it didn't really advance that way and it really wasn't science by itself but really science with American industry with American know-how with American engineering with unlimited resources and an enemy unwilling to surrender I might add also providing an opportunity for the exercise of a scientific aberration almost something derivative of the moment what I call the storm followed by the lightning bolt. The lightning bolt was the personification of the scientist as God the scientist able to produce a weapon for which three discharges July 16th 1945 August 6th 1945 and August 9th 1945 produced literally figuratively figuratively in every possible way the lightning bolt. That changed the possibility that science would evolve with philosophy and philosophy with science and science with democracy and philosophy with democracy in a way that we could more calmly and orderly advance ourselves. Now make no mistake there's been fantastic and unbelievable scientific progress since the end of World War II but as we can see now 60 years past that only two generations now we can see serious flaws in the design we can see serious weakness in the way that the overall model that's derivative of the storm and the lightning bolt this unbelievable massive federalization of research has resulted in a number of changes that are not actually reflective of the core in which the way in which the the universities evolved over the last 2400 years. I refer to this this lightning bolt basically led to and empowered with that bolt of atomic power basically the federalization of the research universities in the United States. They are and have been objects of the government driven by the government driven by the government's objectives and I'm not suggesting that the government's objectives are not good but it used to be that they're actually driven by themselves. So what was Enrico Fermé's federal research grants or Albert Einstein's federal research grants or I could go on and on and on and list the great scientists that we know contributed to the lightning bolt and to the storm and turns out they didn't have any they put they picked their research agendas they drove themselves forward they were involved in institutions that had the capacity to operate with a small amounts of money from here and there. So what is the federal federalization of research universities do in my in my estimation it narrows the scope of the actual knowledge enterprise itself in spite of this so I call it the illusion this illusion that scientists can do anything it turns out the scientists can do anything with unlimited resources total national commitment total national assets being committed to it and a narrow narrow narrow problem. So what we have now through the federalization of the universities is in a sense the forward targeting of the university's energy as a part of the national enterprise national knowledge enterprise into narrow things like the cold war including space with a narrow set of approaches not that we don't want to win the war the cold war not that we don't want to defeat our enemies don't get me wrong I'm not making that case I'm making the case here we are at the end of the cold war victory for the cold war space technology program that Dan showed earlier with the spike in funding above the 10% flat level over the last several decades that was not about space as much as it was about technological prowess and technological dominance and making certain that October 4th 1957 the launch of a of an enemy satellite over the United States which scared the hell out of most Americans would never happen again in a way where we weren't in a dominant position if you read the journalistic reports and the political reports at the time that's what it was about if you read the heavens and the earth fantastic history of the space program that's what it was about so we basically are living in an area in it at the end of an era where we've run the course of the Faustian bargain that we set the university surrendered their architectural premises their ability to design their own futures to acquire the steady flow of resources through which they promised to solve all problems at least that was van of our bushes design now that's quite a bargain it leads to the present political situation it's unattainable people now begin to realize that the lightning bolt isn't true I can spend 30 billion dollars a year of public money on health related research and still tell you that we're not among anything but the bottom three or four countries among the industrialized nations in terms of health outcomes I can spend seven thousand dollars per person per year for health care and deliver a mediocre outcome across our entire population so we know that the lightning bolt that worked once doesn't always work particularly if that's the way that you think so what we have now is we have a knowledge enterprise in which the universities have relinquished to the government that modicum of individuality and that modicum of creativity and that modicum of separateness not that the government can't fund the universities but who sets the chart that began in the 1950s and so what do we get as a result of that lots of great science don't get me wrong but we get among in between the university's high levels of replication in a model where status is attained by the amount of research funding that you secure now what does that mean it means if the Defense Department or the Energy Department or the National Science Foundation for instance isn't interested in national manufacturing capacity that you will default and see your national manufacturing based industries leave and you'll somehow think that it's all about labor costs and Germany says it's not about labor costs and the German products that are made tell you it's definitively not about labor costs alone it's much more complicated than that German investment in manufacturing research has been significant German investment in training and education of manufacturing lead capable individuals also significant what you see also as a result of this relinquishment to the government of the design of the freedom of the universities is high levels of bureaucratization where we're unable because of the intensity of the bureaucratization around science to easily translate the science into effective outcomes particularly true in biomedical research we also see what I call an inflexible research model with a hierarchy of knowledge so if I rank ordered the social sciences from economics moving down the list of hierarchy to political science moving down from that to sociology how do you think that hierarchy is established that hierarchy is established through funding and funding models which is then actually altered the very nature by which we even conceive of disciplines or conceive of fields and their worth or their value we have members even of the Arizona congressional delegation on the floor of the House of Representatives in the last 10 days calling for the elimination of all science all political science funding at the National Science Foundation because it's apparently according to this particular member of the Arizona congressional delegation worthless he must not have read David Brooks's fantastic column on the role of the social sciences but why does that why do the social sciences have no status or why do they have hierarchical status or why is physics considered to be more valuable than biology or biology to be more valuable than psychology or molecular models are more valuable than behavioral models funding is one of the key explanations and then another outcome of all this or another result of having given this up is that we end up then with rigid university structures so I've been involved in university design projects of some significance in some scale for a very long period of time and all my body parts are artificial because they are all amputated as a part of those of those processes it's a very very dangerous process so here we have a post-World War two model the lightning bolt model for those guys they spent a whole I don't know 12 weeks working on it they really you know they're gonna spend a few trillion dollars guiding the entire social cultural and economic and military future of the United States and they spent 12 work 12 weeks working on the idea and from there 12 weeks of work we had a model that worked for 50 years from roughly 1945 1950 to 1995 2000 stopped working some time ago and so we've had 10 years of results from that model some of which have been fantastic but it has not prepared us for competitiveness it's not prepared us for enhanced health care outcomes it's not prepared us for better energy outcomes it's not prepared us with a strategy of what we might or might not do relative to space technology or any of a number of other things it hasn't prepared us for any that so it is a failed public policy platform that we are now more than 10 years into a period of what I would call confused chaos we have a limited design a limited utility declining national competitiveness flat life outcomes runaway costs decreasing public understanding in what we're doing well this is great I mean it's just everything's just gone the right way van of our bush and his and his crew right at the end of the war using every ounce of energy using the transition between president Roosevelt and president Truman producing a design which ran its course some time ago in the cold war is now over and has been for some time and so it's time for a new design what we need to do is basically recognize that we need a new design for universities that again permit self-determination that permit differentiation between universities and so somebody will say well what do you mean and I don't have time to walk through all the things that we've been trying to do back in Arizona and why are some of us in Arizona because when you're the 48th state of the 48 in the continental United States and you live in a place where they don't believe in the law and the power of the West you can do anything you can even redesign a research university so if you're gonna redesign and differentiate between universities so somebody tell me please tell me and most of you will argue with me even why do we have just generic chemistry departments one after another after another after another after another all funded by the chemistry people at NSF or the people interested in biochemistry at NIH why can't we have some chemistry departments that have just decided that our real emphasis is going to be on nothing but curiosity driven study of molecules period we couldn't care less about who does this or why we're not going to be limited by anyone we probably won't take any money from anyone we'll just take money from people that give us money and say have at it no proposals and those would be fantastic chemistry departments let me tell you and why can't we have some chemistry departments that are problem-driven they're looking at the issues of nuclear medicine or nuclear chemistry or some particular problem that they're working on and they're completely driven by that in some chemistry departments and the next two are going to be a little bit odd that are outcome driven so I know at Yale University they've got this Institute for green chemistry that's an outcome green chemistry designing molecules which actually have a compatibility with life on earth as opposed to many of the molecules that we have designed of the seventy thousand synthetic chemicals that are out there I don't know how many thousands of them are carcinogenic mutagenic compounds that are basically not good for anybody sitting in this room or for plants and animals living on the planet so why can't we have some chemistry departments that are outcome oriented and why couldn't we actually have chemistry embedded in a value driven science something like sustainability science so I've given four different categories of chemistry curiosity driven problem driven outcome driven and value driven value being sustainability that is you're actually working to a social economic political cultural outcome using science as your driver to get there that's what I mean by differentiation and so at the end of the day it is not time to throw rocks at Vannevar Bush or at the Bush model or to say that all is lost and it's all been for not obviously that's not the case it is time to throw away simple ideas and to replace them with more sophisticated ideas the simple model that has served us for part of the last 60 plus years last 65 years is just too simple it's run its course it's time for it to be replaced and it's time for universities to replace this simple model I wrote it down as U equals S plus D equals G that's the simple model university is science plus dollars equals good okay my 12 year old daughter she could probably derive that right now it's just insufficient of a model it's outmoded needs to be replaced and so my simple hope is and I think that we've probably done a lot of work on this today my simple hope is is that we find a way in which we can basically face the fact that how we design our knowledge enterprise actually determines our fate if we leave the design as it is I can tell you we already have early indicators that we're going to have problematic outcomes and they're going to be very expensive because we're not cutting back on the research we're just plowing ahead with insufficient returns and so how do we make things better we've got to look at the design of the very enterprises themselves and I think the single most important thing is how about some differentiation among the universities how about some self-determined universities thank you