 Hello. I'd like to thank all of our partners and viewers for joining us for the inaugural Global Technology Governance Summit that we're conducting with our co-host Japan. It's been an exciting 12 hours since we opened the summit with the opening remarks from the Japanese Prime Minister, and since then we've gone in depth on a number of technologies, everything from AI to synthetic technology to blockchain and health and mobility. Quite a wide range of topics that we're covering there, and throughout all these discussions we've been balancing both the opportunities that are in front of us as well as many of the challenges that require cooperation and new forms of governance. The pandemic has highlighted just how urgent these needs are. It's shown how quickly we can move, how rapidly the technology is evolving, both in our ability to address the crisis and also how quickly many people, but not all people, have moved online digitally. At the same time, it's shown in exacerbated the underlying faults and challenges that are already present in society, but just magnifying them in more depth. So this today's panel we'd like to go into more depth on these topics and look into the broad implications of global technology governance, what it means for society and the economy. And with that we are joined by a number of guests, and I'd like to open up our session today and invite each of the guests to tell us what they're optimistic about. We know the challenges that are out there, but I think it's always helpful to open up with what we see as the opportunities. And as our first guest I'd like to invite Elizabeth Rosiello, chief executive officer and founder of AZA. Elizabeth, you've been involved as an entrepreneur at the forefront of digital finance for almost a decade with your company, and you're operating in the frontier markets and in many times showing how small companies can move much faster than larger institutions, and that when properly applied technology can bring a number of benefits in acting as connection. You've served millions of transactions, you've also operated in more than 85 countries. I'd love to hear from you on what you're optimistic about before we go in more depth on the perspectives later in this session. Well thank you so much for having me on this panel and it's a pleasure to talk about this topic. For our company and for the markets where we operate, we've seen this new error, and I'll call it that from going forward, as a great equalizer. Previously we would have to obtain a visa, wait in line, try to get the budget, spend the time and the money to travel from Nairobi or Lagos to the global centers of financing like Tokyo or London or New York and try to get a seat at the table to access funding, debt financing, licensing from international regulatory authorities, and now I'm sitting literally in my guest bedroom doing the exact same work without the budget, without the waste of time. I would say of course we miss the social interaction and we miss the relationships that we developed over that time, but it's heavy burden. It's not only on a young company in terms of expense of time and money, but also on a company that's based outside of the Northern Hemisphere. When you're living in a country like Kenya or Nigeria, it's difficult to get a visa to travel to some of these places. It's difficult to find a direct flight. It's expensive, it's prohibitively expensive, and a lot of the founders that I was in the same cohorts with of these startups were not able to even get the visas because of their citizenship. So this has been an incredible equalizing opportunity to get a seat at the table without having to pay entry at those marble flay and be part of a private club. And I think globally larger partners, larger corporates, even government entities are treating younger companies and startups and growth stage companies as equals. And now the question is can you solve the problem as opposed to do we know who you are and where you come from? And I think that's just an incredible acceleration of business culture in just a year and a half. Great. Thank you for that, Elizabeth. And I want to come back to this aspect to a seat at the table and who needs to be at the table when we think about technology governance. But before I do that, I'd like to invite Ellis Gast, President at Imperial College. Ellis, you've been leading one of the world's foremost universities, research universities, and you have inside look at kind of the frontier technologies that are emerging in the different spaces. You've also been the chair of our Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution and given us advice on the kinds of topics and issues that we need to think about, what are you optimistic about? Well, thank you very much, Jeremy. And it's a pleasure to join these esteemed colleagues on this panel, because I think this is a time for great optimism as well as great care. And in higher education, I couldn't be more optimistic. Like Elizabeth, I think that this has been an opportunity for us to make a transition we were slowly working toward figuring out how to best use technology to augment our educational experience. And the pandemic really catapulted us ahead in those efforts. We are now able to reach larger, broader, and more diverse audiences than ever, motivated to rethink our modes of education and what we need to do in person and what we can deliver from a distance. And this gives us the chance to really expand our thinking about learning and education. It becomes a lifelong endeavor from ages two to 80. It becomes something that can be disaggregated into its basic parts. People can learn a little bit here and there and pull it together when more depth is needed. I think the movement toward micro-prudentialing as building blocks to degrees is important. And we've really learned how to innovate and the innovation has been fantastic during the pandemic. We can engage our students in their own learning in new and important ways, sending laboratories in a box to their homes so they could do experiments, running experiments remotely, as one would do with major corporations, taking field trips remotely, even geologic field trips to the surface of Mars, and team projects that have made use of the technology and our ability to work at a distance. So I think that what this has made me very optimistic for is that we will be able to educate both our own students as well as the public. And I think that public education is going to be very important as we look at the governance challenges ahead. Great. Thank you, Alice. I'd like to make the connection here between the lifelong learning and also the experience of a large portion of the labor force and the workforce. And today we have Sharon Burrow with us, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation. And Sharon, you're at the front lines with workers who've been keeping the economy running, keeping the supply chains running throughout this crisis. And it'd be great to hear from you what you're optimistic about one year into the crisis right now. Well, it's a bit hard to be optimistic. I am optimistic that there's a new social contract which we've demanded around jobs, rights, social protection, equality, both income, gender and race and inclusion is on the agenda. But I'm not optimistic about the fact that we're only getting part of it right. Because if you think about, Jeremy, the all the advances in technology and yeah, we're all able to, those of us with connections, but remember 40% of the world's population still don't have access, we can make advances in a crisis. But if you look at the social impact, the loss of millions of jobs, the lack of governance, including tech governments over what are now increasingly monopolistic powerful companies and the geopolitics of either governments or blocks of governments using tech as indeed not just an advancement, but a competitive advantage often in geopolitical terms as well, then we need tech governance. There's no doubt about that. I'm optimistic if we can get the tech governance right that goes to how to put people in the middle, how to build competitive environments for all companies, how to actually build the moral imperative of ethics and the rules of the game, including of course taxation, competition policy and decent work, then we can move forward. But I would put to you that we need a Paris agreement or a global treaty on technology governance. Thank you Sharon. That's a great segue over to Jim. Jim, you're the chairman at Siemens, nearly 400,000 employees. You're also the author, I believe your last book was Putting Trust Back into Technology and you also speak of the moral compass here, right, in making that bridge. And build on Sharon's comments, I'd just like to hear, what are you optimistic about from where you're sitting right now? Well, I am quite optimistic actually. First of all, of course, optimistic to be on this panel with such great colleagues. I'm sure we can discuss not only the opportunities but the challenges. I often quote Charles Stigens, the tale of two cities, where I argue it was the best of times, it was the worst of times and it does start with the best of times. Why the best of times? Well, I am a technologist at heart. I've seen how technology can change businesses dramatically. And right now we have this infection point where we have the most powerful tools ever which enables us to create not just, you know, consumer toys but solve real problems. We can make energy sustainable, energy system sustainable. We can make manufacturing without really having waste. We can have carbon neutral transportation systems. We just heard about lifelong learning opportunities, preventive healthcare systems. I mean, these are big problems to solve and I believe that we have the technologies already today, not some future overall technology but already today, to solve these problems in a way that's also good business. So it's no longer a philanthropic project. It's actually good business to solve these problems this way. So, you know, the optimistic side, the best of times is wow, what an opportunity. And then when I still reflect on the worst of times, it has been mentioned that it seems like we're using this intelligent technology in ways that are not very intelligent. You know, we're stealing people's privacy to solve insignificant problems like sharing pictures of our cappuccino cups with friends we haven't met. We're amplifying extreme opinions and polarizing societies and we risk actually challenging the fundamentals of democracies. And we're concentrating wealth from what I would call data monopolies on very few hands and thereby increasing inequality, not delivering on the equalizer effect that Elizabeth talked about and we all intended. So in other words, you know, to sum it up, it seems like we have the most powerful technology ever. But we may be solving the wrong problems in the wrong way. And maybe my last point is the COVID experience. I mean, there's so much devastating that to talk about when it comes to COVID. But there was, there's two things that makes me optimistic. Number one, I believe COVID can be an accelerator for a more digitized sustainable future. And what really makes me optimistic is that the human resilience and our ability to implement at high speed was really tested during COVID-19. I mean, we did things in weeks and I'm sure we'll have everyone on the panel talking about how things could be done in weeks instead of months or years. And what if we could take that capacity and then begin to use technology to solve the real problems and not do what take can do, but what we human beings want it to do. Great. Thank you, Jim. I'd actually like to come back to Elizabeth on this question of, you know, solving real world challenges or real world problems with the technology at hand. And I remember at Elizabeth, the first time I heard you speak, you know, we were with a group of, you know, large banks, central bankers, and you were demonstrating how a very small company could out compete on speed, a quality of service, and opening up new markets. And I'd be curious just, you know, how that work has advanced during the last year, and whether you've been able to, you know, maintain the high speed momentum you've had, or whether you find yourself challenged with COVID and as governments shift their focus away from governance for technology and solving the immediate challenges around, you know, health care, employment, and so on. What's your experience and what are you seeing today where you're at? Well, you know, I work in financial technology and across the African continent, we're in over 15 countries, and it's all about unique market needs, right? There's 55 countries in Africa, and every single one of them, just like any other country around the world, has its specific market needs. In frontier markets, even more so, because there's particulars of infrastructure, of legacy systems, et cetera. So when we're on the ground thinking about how to reduce the error rate of an API between a bank and a mobile money system, you know, no large company can compete. And I don't say that arrogantly. I say it for exactly the same reasons that Jim just mentioned, you know, when a large company comes in, they're looking at a, not even six months, they're looking at a 12 to 18 month time scale for some of the smaller projects. It's almost impossible for large companies to get their heads around small, nimble problem solving. They're just not built for that. And when you're in a frontier market, every day is COVID. That's the phrase we've been using with our board, you know, we've had election violence, we've had flooding, we've had power outages, we've had fires, you know, everything that can go wrong has gone wrong in some of these frontier markets. And we're just used to finding a solution quickly and finding a solution that's robust, because we can't necessarily trust that our partners who are who are new on the scene, who are all new to this technology in this business, can produce the error rates that we need, the low error rates, the dependency, the scalability. So I think, you know, the resilience of a lot of young frontier market companies just was perfectly poised for COVID. And at this point, you know, there's no catching up. A lot of the larger institutions went completely offline for over a quarter, sometimes two quarters before they figured out how are they going to motivate, connect to and manage their staff remotely? I mean, in Lagos, Nigeria, our staff had an over two hour average commute each way to the office. And that's low. So, you know, we already had people working from home and working remotely within the city itself. The amount of time we went back was immense. You know, other companies didn't have the ability to capture those extra hours per day. I mean, literally we got 20% more working time from our employees and we're immediately able to optimize that. That alone is very unique. And, you know, I've mentioned before at the forum, the bifurcation of technology in terms of how it's being utilized by large and small companies. And there's nowhere where that's more apparent and more to the front and center of the essence of the development of the business culture than frontier markets. Thank you, Lisbeth. I can imagine it's also quite challenging for workers to adapt that speed. Not everyone's connected. Not everyone's been able to work from home. And, you know, I'd be curious to hear from you, Sharon. How are the workers that you're working with? How are they dealing with this high speed, the demands to, you know, needing to continue to adapt, not always being connected? Often in many cases, you know, you're working directly with frontline workers. What's that experience like? And how can the larger institutions, such as large businesses and also governments, what role can they play there constructively to help support these workers? So, Lisbeth and Alice, you know, paint a picture of the possible, but it's in an elite labor market because when you have a broken labor market where 60% of the world's workers are working informally, that is, no minimum wage, no rights, no rule of law, no social protection, unless you're in a platform business and I'll come back to that, then you're absolutely not in that labor market. In the 40% of a formal environment, then again, at the maximum, we would get to about 30% of the world's workers able to do what Lisbeth is talking about, so 30% of the jobs. But then, of course, there are costs, there is, and we're all facing it, most of us have staff. There is the double burden of care for women. There is in fact the isolation and the mental health fallout. And while I do think the future is a hybrid one, I think to have, you know, remote working environments without a set of almost people connectivity arrangements is not something I don't think any of us would support. And I go back to what Jim said, you know, like, let's solve all those problems and let's harness technology where we can, but let's not do it from a point of view of not understanding the bifurcation of a world, whether it's access, whether it's the nature of work, whether it is indeed, as Lisbeth said, be companies not transforming, whether it's people not having a job. But ultimately, it's also about a surveillance economy, a model of economy based on data theft. And then there's the platform business or the bridge between informal and formal work, because they're actually informal companies. And you've seen the fights going on as companies simply refuse employment responsibilities. Uber, Deliveroo, the technology, you know, challenge the, sorry, the legal challenges about employment responsibility. But also think of the professions that your children and grandchildren might have expected to go into. They're great jobs. You know, the profession of journalism or content writing, if you like, four year university degrees. Now even in Europe, you can be paid as a less $15 a 15 euro a day, because that's the price of a piece of content. And if you're really good and thorough at your job, and at the high end, it's 60 euro. You can't live on that a day. So we need decent work governance. We need privacy governance. We need to rebuild trust with consumers who are looking at the big tech companies and going, well, they're making all this profit. But the works are pretty shitty environment when you get outside of the world, Elizabeth. And even in Alice's world, you know, I was talking to a university professor from my own country last week, and she was saying now that it's totally flipped that if you can say about a third of the jobs are insecure, generally in the formal labor market, in universities, two thirds of them are because of the changing nature of finance arrangements, and the increasing privatisation. So we've got to come together and talk about these things, because no one, well, I will never entertain an argument that technology does not have to be integrated into work. We've done it for decades, and sometimes used it to great advantage for upskilling, for upskilling, for raising wages, but we can't ignore the downsides of it. And I think Jim got that right. Thanks. Yeah, I'd like to come back to Jim on that. Jim, I mentioned roughly 400,000 employees. I don't know if I have the number right, but if you look at the supplier network that Siemens touches and the livelihoods throughout that entire network, you're also quite dependent on that cohort in the last year. And so how has Siemens responded to this changing environment and the needs of those workers not only directly in Siemens, but throughout your entire supply chain and your entire ecosystem? Yeah, thank you. I think it's a super important problem to tackle, and we need to tackle it upfront, not after the fact, because then we have too many people who lost their jobs, and we have a lack of trust in the future. And then we flow down technology development, which is not the intent. It seems to me like we've gone through what I would call the naive phase of technology where it was kind of rushed into it. And then now we begin to see how it influences democracies, how it takes some jobs away. It might be opening new ones, and there's lots of entrepreneurship, but what about the people? So I don't think we should mentally try and protect the jobs, but we need to protect the people. And what does that mean? It means a commitment to reskill people. And I think the mindset change needs to be one that we're not applying technology to get rid of people in the workplace. We're trying to use technology to take away the jobs that are not good for health, that are repetitive, that are really not using our human capacity. And then reskill people so that we can use the true nature of human beings, that is a creative one is being together. And so that's kind of the robot through the jobs that we shouldn't have done in the first place. And with that comes a big obligation to reskill. Now the issue is that the education system is geared towards educating people for the first up to 25 years of their lives. And then that system kind of stops. At Siemens, we have taken on this challenge. And we think companies need to take a very responsible role. So we actually have a very strong and proactive reskilling effort. Even people that are being laid off in factories that are no longer needed, we train them before they leave Siemens. So they become relevant to the jobs that are out there where you need a digital dimension to what you were able to do. And so far, our experience is that that's a good thing to do. It's good for the people because they get employment again, they get employability. And it's also good business. I mean, the restructuring cost that we did in the past was laying off people and paying them to be laid off. Spending that money in giving them the skills for the future seems to be a much better way to handle this transition. Now hopefully, events like this can create a collaboration between public and private. So it's not just a burden of a private. But I think it's something we need to take very serious because if we don't, too many people will vote against the development and the technology advancements that we have. And that would be a shame because then we can't create that better future we have in mind. Great. Thank you, Jim. You know, Alice, I saw you nodding as Jim was speaking there. And, you know, this, you know, having confidence in the leadership, having confidence in the technologies and the people that build those technologies. I just be curious to hear your perspectives on the conversation so far and how you're approaching this at a time when there's increasing levels of distrust in expertise, increasing levels of distrust in authority. And how does the Academy respond to this? And, you know, what is the public-private cooperation, you know, that you would see needed in that domain? Yes. Well, thank you. I very much applaud what Zemans is doing. And did you ask me, right? Yes. And I do think that we're starting to look much more broadly at education, as I said, from young people to much older people and thinking through reskilling as well as pre-skilling, getting those kids to get interested in the tech jobs and the things that they're going to have as opportunities ahead and not losing them early on. And we do that by engaging them where they are, engaging them in their communities, engaging them with maker challenges. When we go online, we can engage a broader community and do it ever more effectively. So I'm still optimistic. I take Sharon's points very seriously. And we see that in our workforce, there are people who have to be present, have to be on the ground physically there, and there are others who can work from home. And we've been grappling with this for a long time in an analogous situation we call the flipped classroom, where you think our precious time together, face-to-face, is limited. What do we need to do in person and what can we do from a distance? And I think that businesses can take a few lessons from those experiments of the flipped workplace instead of the flipped classroom. The opportunity to think through how to avoid those long commutes on certain days, but how to bring the community back together, the workforce back together, and make sure you have that interaction. In London, I've seen a number of businesses using their properties around the UK. So just like Coursera has the opportunity for local meetups of people taking the same course you're taking at a distance, but to physically meet people, businesses can gather some of their workforce in different locales on the outskirts of London so they don't have to commute in. And I think that that kind of creativity comes from sharing ideas, from higher education, from business, from the FinTech community, as Elizabeth was pointing out, and from the broader workforce and listening to those workers that Sharon's worried about, making sure we're thinking about those who have to physically be present, in addition to those who can do things remotely. So it's an exciting and challenging time. And I think education is so important for good governance. We need to make sure that the public is understanding the technology and not just having to deal with it in the abstract. And now that we've all had some experience, a lot more people have had more experiences with technology, I think that we can bring that to the public and make better progress on understanding which will build trust. Yes, thank you, Alice. You know, I'd like to maybe shift the topic and I'll open this one up to the group. And it's this tension that we have between say, trust and privacy and self-regulation and, you know, external regulation. And where do we find that balance? You know, I think every day we're faced with a new story that either someone had misused our data, they hadn't secured it properly. You know, you mentioned the cappuccino photos you wouldn't expect to be there. And at the same time, the technologies are moving so rapidly that it's often extremely challenging for governments to keep pace. And at some point, we're asking for leaders to have their own moral compass, you know, to get ahead of that relation environment, but we're continually disappointed. So I just welcome, you know, perspectives from the group here and open it up if anybody has thoughts on balancing these tensions. Elizabeth? Yeah, I think it's actually very connected to the prior topic. And we have to make sure that incentives are aligned. We're asking our workforce to radically change the way they think about training and education and how they build their career. But are we rewarding these new employees at the top? Who are the executives at the top companies? Who do they look like? Where have they gone to school? What clubs are they part of? What's their background? And so it's hard to incentivize employees to have a different educational system when they don't see that reflected at the top. And you know, at our company, we've tried to radically hire where we don't hire from the typical schools. We don't hire from the same route. We tell our employees not to get a full degree and to do microcredits and to go things that are more relevant. And then we hope that when they become part of the decision making management level, they make decisions in a radically different way than what we've seen in the past. And that's to think about their clients as they would think about themselves and the customers and do you want your data shared and not just in the pursuit of profit at no at all costs, but into more holistic society. And, you know, it starts with modeling that. So if the decision makers, and I speak from, you know, myself being a privileged person, having gone to an Ivy League school and, you know, I come from humble beginnings, but that's not lost on me that I'm allowed to even opine on this because that's where that's the gate that I entered through. And so we have to really, who are we hiring? Who are we allowing into the decision making room to sit at that table again at the board room, all the way down to the mid level management? How are they treating their teams? Who are they? Are they letting them take a vacation? Are they letting them deal with childcare? Are they letting them go on a go on a mental health break or even go see a doctor or appointment? Or we instilling them with a fear of performance and they're not giving the space to then make those healthier decisions that goes all the way down to the client and the customer and how we respect data and how we use data and how we can scale and grow in a more holistic way. So I think it's we're still at the place right now and where we're thinking about these things, but we're not thoroughly organically living that truth, if I may. Thank you. Jim, you're a leader at the top of one of these large organizations that Elizabeth's referring to, and you have to balance these tensions on a regular basis. How do you approach the topic? Well, I think it's a super important question, particular for this kind of event where we talk about global governance. And there's no doubt that there needs to be some governance. Now, if you regulate too much, you kill innovation. So that's the issue. And one would argue that the internet, because of it, let's say open architecture and very little regulation created enormous wealth of innovation and anyone could be connected and build stuff. And now we begin to see that maybe we're a little bit too far. And so I think that we need to find the balance between the two. I believe we have three questions to ask and answer from a governance point of view, which is number one, how do we use data without losing privacy? How do we use platforms without creating monopolies? And how do we use AI without losing control and our democracy? And I think we need some regulation there, but not too much. And then I think we need a bottom up revolution, which is about inspiring people who deal with technology to actually be responsible and do what you would do in normal life. I mean, in normal life, we don't steal. If you send a letter with a mailman, physically, you expect the mailman not to open the letter. And so there's just some fundamental human moral compasses that need to be taken into the digital world. The issue is that digital allows you to do things which you would never do in the physical world. But why would we then do it? And we should ask and actually learn just from the way we deal with these things and that privately in the normal life and the physical life, if you apply those rules to how you use technology. And once in a while ask yourself, is this a fair way of doing it? Then I think we get a revolution from two sides. We get governance rules that actually apply this so that we get more data, more AI, but used in a responsible way. And then we have developers and leaders who ask themselves the question, is this morally correct? Is this a good way of using technology? Or do we actually destroy our human future if we do it that way? Thank you, Jim. Sharon, I'd like to come to you on this. Can we trust the leaders to make those choices? And how do we avoid stifling the innovation that you can actually address many of the challenges that we are seeing here? What's your perspective? Well, I think you have to trust leadership. And it means that all of the people have to be at the table, but we have to get beyond self-interest. Or I think Jim and Alice said it that we will not see the potential used of the technology if people are basically not trusting it. If the workers not actually about decent work, if the wages are so low, you can't live on them. Sadly, the case in most of our global supply chains. And yet when we look at the profits and the capacity to share prosperity, then technology can advance that. It can find those solutions. But if people are not at the table with everybody's interest taken into account, then we all lose and our democracies lose. And so we see the potential for technology. But we also see that if you are building profits based on people's data that you have no consensus to use, if you are in fact avoiding tax because you claim to be operating globally, if you are not actually thinking about what are the rules of the game for workers, freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, to be free of forced and child labour and discrimination, all of those things come into play. So I think it's time we all found a way to actually bring all those interests into the mix and do exactly what the panel has described in different ways. But find a future where technology is harnessed for good and nobody misses out. But things will have to change. Business models have to change. People's mindsets have to change. And a real commitment to shared prosperity and a rights-based future has to emerge. That's why we support treaty or a Paris agreement equivalent for technology governance. Okay. Thank you, Sharon. You mentioned this role of diversity, gender, women carrying much of the burden recently. And I want to come back. The recent Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to Emmanuel Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna. And even Walter Isaacson's latest biography is going in depth on Jennifer Doudna's career and the discovery that went on there. And, Ellis, you're working with a lot of these young researchers and many of the challenges that we're discovering so far in the physical world here. And many of your researchers are looking at, say, frontier technologies that go beyond the digital world, right? They're in the physical world, synthetic biology, quantum computing, space technologies, you know, kind of new building blocks. How do we, A, make sure that we're preparing those leaders to understand some of these challenges at these very early stages? What steps are we taking there? And what are we doing to make sure that it's inclusive, right? That we're including people from different backgrounds, both, say, you know, economic diversity, gender diversity, geographic diversity. So what steps are you taking there as we, you know, prepare people who are building this next generation of technologies? Well, thank you, Jeremy, because I think the pandemic has absolutely made it clear to us that A, viruses are a big risk, and they don't know boundaries. And so the importance of this inclusion and international collaboration is really stark. They also show you the really fantastic advances of science and basic science going on for a decade that led to a very rapid ability to create new vaccines with unprecedented speed. And synthetic biology is a really interesting topic because it is a means of creating new molecules and new life. And unlike chemistry, it's built through biological processes rather than chemical reactions. And perhaps there's no better example of synthetic biology than the RNA vaccines that we're benefiting from today. So there you have the great benefits and the great risks of biology working for you or going wrong. And I think that it's, there was an earlier session today or last night at this summit on the next frontier of synthetic biology, and I recommend it to people because they were grappling with this very thing. And in my mind, I think that it's a case where we have the benefits, a concrete example of benefits and perils that can help us frame the governance. And Professor Schwab has said we need agile and collaborative approaches to governance. And I think the best governance starts with the community most involved in the technology. And I base this feeling looking back at Asilomar. Many, some of you may know the Asilomar conference in the 70s. As recombinant DNA technology was emerging, the National Academies in the US called for an international conference to openly discuss how to use technology safely. And I think that gathering in 1975 in California was notable for its openness and its focus on scientists voluntarily crafting a framework and self governing with a clear eyed look at the hazards. And an outcome is that of the Asilomar conference is it gives us an important example of a way that new scientific knowledge can be responded to by broadly engaging the public and the community and having the scientists who best know about it lead to something like that. And so it impinges on the last topic on self governance versus regulation. And I think there's a combination of having a community coming together and the US National Academies along with the Royal Society of Royal Academies in the UK and the Chinese academies came together in 2011 to 2012 for a series of symposiums. And I recommend their report as well because they recognize that synthetic biology was a rapidly changing landscape. And it would they would need regulation that would be flexible and adaptable based on the scientific input and collaboration from the community. So your question is a good one because we need to involve the scientific experts but we also need to find ways to bring the public and the communities in to the dialogue because the respect for and reliance on the technology on the one hand is countered by the fear and concern about the technology on the other. And it's only that cross that discussion across sectors and across communities that will make a difference I think in navigating this. I will point out that WEF has a World Global Futures Council on this. It was pointed out at the session co-chair by Claudia Vickers and Megan Palmer. And I think that may be a good place to convene a network across stakeholders from all sectors but I think we need to think beyond WEF to get to that broader community and that broader public. Great. Thank you, Alice. I believe we're coming up at the time here on the session and I'd like to thank everyone for joining in here with us today. I mean my key takeaway is that we haven't yet, we're still balanced between both the challenges and the opportunities here. This is glass half full, half empty. And ultimately it's going to be the responsibility of the leaders to help navigate that. And that in doing so we have to make sure that all of our work and all of our efforts is human centered. Ultimately it's not technology for technology sake but it is for people, it is for the individuals and so by keeping people in the dialogues when we do that, by keeping employees involved, customers involved, citizens involved throughout those discussions and always keeping the people first and foremost in mind as we navigate this new era, I think that's going to be of utmost importance. For all of our viewers out there the sessions will be continuing over the next day and you can also find online all the sessions that were referred to in this discussion and you can come back and read a few of those on the webcast. So I'd like to thank everyone for your time today and I look forward to meeting up with you again in the ongoing sessions here. Thank you.