 In 1964, the American government funded two-thirds of all R&D in America, two-thirds. If you were a Midwest company wanting to do research, you wrote a grant to the Commerce Department, absolutely insane. And since 1964, this has now gone down, and today the American government like OECD governments everywhere, the American government funds only 20% of American R&D, and half of that is defense, only 10% of American civil R&D is funded by the state. In that time, there therefore has been across the OECD a fall in the public funding of R&D. I could give you the data, but let me just say that. But the consequence has been a growth in the private funding threefold. For every dollar, the public sector has withdrawn from the funding of research, the private sector has put in three extra dollars. More than compensate. Now, Archie Bujji and Filippetti say, admit that this is crowding out. They don't pretend it's not crowding out. They claim it's a bad thing. We could go into that, that they are, of course, wrong. But the reason is, why? No, it is a good thing because it's where that, it's the industries where technology comes on. What is the mechanism of crowding out? The mechanism is scientific quality. If the government creates universities that all the best scientists go to, and the best scientists go to universities, I mean, we're all used to now Silicon Valley and that sort of thing. We all understand that good scientists can create companies and do, none the less the majority of scientists are like Jane Austen, they're looking for fame. They go to universities. If you take the best scientists out of the market and put them into universities, you leave industry with the not so good scientists. And therefore, industry doesn't get a return on its investment. And therefore, it looks for other ways of making money, marketing or something. And so the government funding of research, which others, not me, I mean, I have also shown it, but the point is, others have shown, create crowding out, three to one, it's a very serious crowding out, takes the best scientists out of industry and therefore damages rates of economic growth. Now we are told that governments have to fund science because the market disincentivizes companies from doing science. So the myth that we are told by the economists is if I do science, I would be disincentivized because my discovery, which costs me a lot of money to make, Tony will take for nothing in his company. And therefore, for him, the discovery is free for me, it costs a lot of money. Therefore, he will outperform me, I will go bust and he'll make all the profit. That is the story the economists tell. And it is a story based on an utter myth. That assumes that knowledge is what's called explicit, but actually knowledge is tacit. There's no way that I say making iPhones and going to be competed with except by other companies making mobile phones. And they are capable of copying my research. Only by the research they themselves have done over the previous 20, 30 years, which has given the expertise to copy my research and vice versa. So the costs of copying you can show are actually 100% on average. The marginal costs are less than 100% but the average or the total cost is 100%. It costs as much to copy on average as it does to innovate. So it's just a myth that the market doesn't reward science. Actually, the company that says that it's not gonna do fun science, because it's worried about its discoveries being copied by other people, should be told fine, don't do science, and see how long it takes you before you go bankrupt, not very long. So to summarize, the American government didn't fund science. Here, Tony and I agreed on the facts until the Second World War, and particularly Sputnik, when the Americans suddenly thought, my heavens, we're going to be overtaken by the Russians. That really was the belief. And what is interesting is what the American government funded in 1957, because it's exactly as Tony says, NASA and ARPA, now known as DARPA. The American government recognized that the linear model, the National Science Foundation model, had failed. The Russians were in space. And so they went back to the traditional model of mission science. When you have a particular mission, governments can actually deliver on that mission. Governments can actually deliver on atom bombs. They can deliver on operation warp speed. Give a government a mission, and it can succeed. The myth, the dangerous myth, is that the government funding of pure science through the linear model is itself a stimulus to economic growth. Someone whom Tony and I both know wrote in the magazine that Tony once edited New Atlantis that the linear model is a lie, and it is. It's a lie. It's been promoted heavily by governments. It's promoted by, because they want the glory. When the human genome was sequenced in the year 2000, who announced it to the world? Bill Clinton, the great patron of science. So governments want to fund science. Industry wants to fund science, because it thinks, wrongly, it's getting money back for its taxes. It thinks it's getting a subsidy. Scientists want government to fund science, because they don't want to work for industry. They want to work in a peer reviewed system, so they basically fund themselves according to the science they want to do. And the general public believes somehow that governments should fund science, because we all want to see programs on Netflix about penguins and things. What has actually happened is that that model has failed. The government knows it's failed. There's been this fantastic collapse in the government funding of research and development, and the consequence has only been an accelerated rate of economic growth. Thank you very much.