 So I'm Philip Campbell. I'm the editor-in-chief of Nature, The Science Journal. And it's my pleasure to host this little discussion about the outlook for science. And we have very distinguished people here to help us think about it. So we have Franz Cordova, who's the director of the National Science Foundation. We have Fabiolo Gionotti, who's the director general of CERN, the High Energy Particle Physics Laboratory. We have Mark Kasper, who's the president and CEO of Fisher Thermoelectric, which is a supplier to the science community of biological equipment, primarily, I believe. And Steve Kang, who's the president of the Gapkeist, the Korean Institute for Advanced Institute for Science and Technology. So thank you all very much. So the formal topic of this session is what are the top issues on the global science agenda, and how will they be addressed in the year ahead? And obviously, there is the science itself that we can anticipate, although the glory of science is that it's unanticipatable to some extent. But there are things we can anticipate are going to be very important. So we'll hear a little about the science. And also, there are some issues within science and around science that we may get to talk about. And you will have your opportunity to ask questions or to make points. And for those people behind me, I'm sorry, I can't see you very easily. But people will, I hope, point me at you as though we get to your questions. So I'm going to start with France. In your role as the director of the National Science Foundation, you have a huge purview. Why don't you give us a few minutes of outlook? All right, great. Thank you very much, Phil. And first, I just want to say it's really a pleasure to be here with my distinguished colleagues, a few of whom I've worked with quite a bit in the past. And welcome to our entire audience here. So I know we'll get into issues and processes in our conversation. So I thought I'd just start with a few themes that the National Science Foundation is thinking about for future investments. Some of what we call our big ideas. And they are really global ideas. And so we invite global participation. And I'll start with the theme of this conference, which they call the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We take the view of the frontier of humans and technology. And what is that frontier of how humans shape technology and technology will in turn shapes humans and their behavior, at least. What that will mean for the future. And we're starting out with the future of work. So we're going to invest in studies of how artificial intelligence and robotics and will affect the future of work in learning and education. And it's particularly important that our social and behavioral investment really comes to play in this, because we won't understand those shaping forces and their impact without it. A second big theme is we call it Navigating the New Arctic. And it's recognizing that in the Arctic change in the atmosphere, the climate, the land, the sea ice, the permafrost, et cetera, is happening at twice the rate of the rest of the planet. And there's this giant feedback cycle. And so what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic. It really influences the entire planet. And there are also a lot of people in the Arctic. And their lives are being changed as I'm talking. And so we want to apply our basic research strengths, that is building up networks of sensors, using the newest technology like 3D printing and autonomous sensors, both in the water and above ground, in order to gather a lot more data on what's going on in the Arctic so that policymakers can then shape their policies accordingly. But we can't operate in the policy realm without having a lot more information. Another of the big themes has to do with our challenges in cybersecurity and communications and computing. And so we are putting a big emphasis on the next quantum leap, because quantum physics has gotten us all of the sensors that we now take for granted, our electronics, and so on. But as we know from many recent investigations, including those of Duncan Haldane, who will be speaking later this morning, that there are many more exotic quantum properties that are being discovered. And like quantum tunneling and squeezing and some exotic properties that we're just beginning to understand, but we don't know where they will take us and how they can help improve sensors and communications and computation. Also in this area, big data and understanding big data and deriving science from it and basing our policy on evidence and not only our policy, but our machines and sensors of the future is going to be exceptionally important. So we're going to have a big investment. We call it future investment in big data science in order to reap the benefits of all the big data that we have. And then finally, our last two big research ideas, we have six of them, have to do with increasing our knowledge of the natural world. And one of those is we call it rules of life. And it addresses one of the biggest mysteries we have in the biological sciences, which is how do you get from the genome and its environment that influences it to the phenome? How do we get from genotype to phenotype? And we don't really understand all the processes going on there. We don't understand what makes you and me and why we come out differently than plants and animals and so forth from the genome. And this, we think, will have a big impact on agriculture, understanding, for example, how to increase photosynthesis, which is only, as you know, a 2% efficient process. In contrast to something like solar cells, which is over 20% efficient. And we figure that by understanding what we call the rules of life, we can make an impact in many spheres, including understanding better the origin of life itself. And then finally, in my own field, I'm an astrophysicist. This is the first time on the planet that we've had the tools from the ground to much better understand the mysteries of our universe, including the mass energy content of 95% of the universe that we don't understand. Only 5% comprises visible matter, matter that we can touch, see, feel. And the other 95% is in the form of dark matter or dark energy. So for the first time, we have not only electromagnetic telescopes in all wave lengths on the ground and in space, but we have particle detectors. And Fabiola here can tell you much more about CERN. We also have a big neutrino detector called IceCube at the South Pole that is particle detector. And much more recently, as of this past year, we have gravitational detectors that are picking up gravity waves. So we have three different media in which to explore the universe. And so our big idea is to use these all together to explore those mysteries we don't yet understand. So that's a menu for the future. Thanks for that nice little picture of a little arena that you're responsible for. In several of those cases, and I think you mentioned this, behavior, society, they're all very much a part of the picture and the framing of the science, actually, in some cases. So to what extent do you see the social sciences and the humanities getting the backing they need within your budget and as a part of the balance? And to what extent do you see them able to work with the natural sciences? Because people have been complaining about for ages about multidisciplinary and the difficulties of doing that. But from your perspective, do you see it getting much better that way of ability to work together? I see, well, at our agency, we fund social and behavioral studies and we infuse those studies into everything else we do, whether it's geoscience or computer science or biological sciences. And we recognize that we can only address the grand challenges that we face by having social and behavioral economic scientists along with us. I think when it comes to the humanities, which are so important and actually are probably more responsible in some ways for taking basic discovery into the marketplace, take the iPhone, for example. It's full of inventions that federal government paid scientists to invent. But it took the genius of the humanities to put them all together into a package that we all know and love and utilize. There we have some structural difficulties because we're funded separately. So in our country, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts are two separate agencies. And then there's the National Science Foundation that has all the physical sciences plus the social and behavioral sciences. And so that kind of sets up a little wall that is not too easy to break down. So we think one of the best ways of doing it is 85% of our funding goes to universities and colleges is to fund institutes and centers where that happens. So when I go out to universities and I see what's happening, I see immense creativity. And there they are putting together humanities and sciences. But that is a good way of bringing them together as our clients, as it were, to do that. Thank you very much. Fabiola, please tell us about the view from your position at CERN. OK, thank you, Phil. So I'm also very pleased to be here with this very prestigious co-panelist and this very pleasant audience. So to answer your question about the points on the agenda 2017, Phil, I'm going to make a step backward in time and go to 1954, 63 years ago when CERN was funded. It was funded with two overarching goals, establishing Europe a center of excellence in research after World War II and also establish a center which would foster peaceful collaboration among the European countries after the disaster of the war. And if you look and if you read the founding convention of CERN, it's a succinct document, few pages written by really visionary scientists and politicians, you find fundamental principles that are extremely modern. So the importance of fundamental research with no military purposes, the importance of making the results available to everybody in modern language, open science. And the importance of science and the goal of getting people work together. So science as a tool for peace, for developing and for propagating peace. So I will comment a bit on each one of these topics that are extremely modern. So the importance of fundamental research, I will never be tired of stressing this. History shows us that breakthroughs in our knowledge usually not always, but usually come from fundamental research. And the reason is that fundamental research has no constraints to deliver a given product in the short term. And so it's the one that leaves our creativity and our ingenuity, the ingenuity of our brain, which is our best asset, go and find new ideas. And these breakthroughs have a disruptive impact on society. Think about quantum mechanics. There is nothing perhaps more far away from reality because it has to do with the microscopic world. And we live in a macroscopic world. But yet, modern electronics will not be there without quantum mechanics. And clearly, the private sector invest mainly on applied science because they are interested in delivering a product. And so it's clearly that fundamental research, which has longer term goals and sometimes can take decades from the original idea to the implementation, must be funded by public institution, by public government. The second point is open science. And I married this with education. So it's very important in order to reduce inequality across the world. We talk a lot in the SDGs and in the agendas of 2017 and beyond that about reducing inequalities. But one of the tools to reduce inequalities is really to make everything, education, accessible to everybody. So open science in a broad sense, open data, open access publishing, open source hardware and software, and education, reaching out to people, engage in public and educate and train people at all levels and at all ages. I would like to stress also something that France already alluded to, that fundamental research today has an impact on society, not only on the long term, as I mentioned, quantum mechanics, but also in the short term in the sense that fundamental research today in all fields, from small experiment to big project in particle physics and astrophysics, et cetera, requires cutting edge technologies in many fields. In our fields is from cryogenic, superconducting, magnets, big data. The World Wide Web was invented at CERN as a spin-off of CERN. So because our goals are so ambitious that we need to develop technology that do not exist at a given moment in time, so fundamental research as a technology driver, that is very important to remember. And finally, science and research as a tool for peace. And we, of course, we talk about peace at all levels. When you have to do with values like knowledge that transcend the interests of regions, governments, individuals, of course, those values are a strong glue to bring people together. And so at CERN, we have people from all over the world, 16,000 people working together, more than 110 different nationalities working together peacefully and across the borders and across the divide that can come from the political arena. I did want to just pick up on this point about open science. I once spoke to the head of a funding agency who told me that to make the data open that's coming out of his projects, that he's funding, he'd need to double his budget. I know that CERN keeps all its data, keeps all your software code at every stage of development in order so that people can retrace why this was done. And that's exemplary, but you have a huge budget. So I do want to, so what I think what's, and it may not always be huge to you, but in terms of the scale of what you're trying to do, to do that, you have the money to do it, it seems to me. And I think it's worth perhaps giving a, if you can communicate somehow the scale of that, so that when we talk about the desire for openness in terms of data, and I'm just talking about data at this point, we're realistic about it, so that funders like France can ask for the budget that's realistic in order to step up to the plate. Yeah, we're not talking about a huge amount of money. I think it's more the will of developing the system right from the beginning with the idea of making this available to everybody. So developing the software in such a way that the software can be propagated in the coming decades, in making sure, for instance, that the data can be then reconstructed at the level of providing, I level information that is consumable by the public because if you give our raw data to the public, the public cannot do anything with them because they're too complicated. So it's more having the long-term vision of reaching also that goal, the problem of data preservation. We want to read this data and to analyze them in decades from now because it's an important investment of humanity. So I think it's important, first of all, to also think about it. And I'm not so sure that this has been up in the agenda of also big project and also being a bit inventive and creating what we do, for instance, for our project of open access published in scope three is not new money, it's just the money of the system which is redirected in a different way. So it's not a huge amount of data. It's more really the mentality, the mindset and having this goal as an important point in our agenda. Fine, thank you very much. Mark, as a supplier to the life sciences community which is you can hardly have a more dynamic community to be supplying. Tell us what it looks like 2017. Sure, Phil, thanks for having me. It's an honor to be on the panel. So the lens from the private sector, in our case, the largest company in the world serving science, Thermal Fisher, to give you a sense of it, we have about 60,000 people working around the world, about 10,000 in research and about 15,000 visiting laboratories across 140 countries every day. So it's our job to enable science to make a difference in the world. So what do we see from our vantage point, areas of excitement and maybe some of the challenges from the excitement, most recently around precision medicine, some of the topics that have been here at Davos this year, seeing how sequencing, how proteomic information is actually changing the way that science is applied in the medical fields and ultimately making a huge difference in patients' lives and also the economics that come out of it from a healthcare system, the affordability of actually using the money that's gonna make a difference for in someone's life. So it's an incredibly exciting field and it's still quite nascent in terms of where it is. At the same point, one of the roles of the private sector is actually to help translate the incredible work that goes on in the government institutions into the applications and also advocate for the basic research funding. If I think about our role in the US, we play as an industry a huge role in articulating to the funding bodies the importance of the National Science Foundation, the importance of the National Institutes of Health because the system is such that those incredible organizations can't advocate for themselves. So actually the private sector does and it's an interesting dynamic in terms of how the system works and we've been in a period where funding has been more muted and we look forward to a period where funding will once again strengthen because that basic research funding ultimately has a massively positive impact on society whether it was really all of the great progress in the pharmaceutical industry, the diagnostic industry, they come out of the basic research funded by governments around the world. And if you don't do that, it's very hard for companies to really do the basic fundamental research, even at our scale, we spend just under a billion dollars a year on research and development. The amount of true basic research is still pretty modest relative to that funding. So from our vantage point on a science journal, we sometimes see massive increases of activity because suddenly somebody can do something they couldn't do before and then suddenly it grows very, very fast. You obviously must see that as well. And a topic that's been discussed here this year and in previous years recently has been genome editing which really experienced one of those bursts. I'm assuming that must be one of the biggest surges of activity you've seen. So I'm interested to hear about it from your perspective, how do you respond? But also what you anticipate in the year ahead. Sure. Yes, so we follow the journals and look where the interest is, right? And that's an incredible indicator. In the area of genome editing, there's obviously a tremendous amount of debate in the topic, but I always take it down to the practical and I always see the good in the world. And if I think about some emails that I got some time ago from a doctor in the UK that basically used our gene editing tools as a tool of last resort to save a two-year-old's life after all the other therapies didn't work in terms of the field of cancer, the potential is so amazing, right? But that doesn't mean there aren't responsibilities in terms of how the tools are used. So it's an area that we're very excited about and play a big role in. Okay. Steve, coming to you finally. So you're president of one of the leading institutions, educational institutions. South Korea is a dynamic country and so you find yourself at the number of different dynamic activities, I'm sure, in academia. Tell us the perspective for 2017 from your point of view. First of all, it's my high honor to be on this panel along with the distinguished panelists and also esteemed audience this morning. I think today is the interesting day besides this particular session because in the US, President-elect Trump is inaugurated today and I saw early in the morning the North Korea is threatening about with the intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM. Here at the World Economic Forum, we are focusing on fourth industrial revolution and the main theme associated with that is ICBM also, meaning I, meaning IoT, Internet of Things. C meaning cloud computing related to big data. And B can be brain or cognitive computing related to artificial intelligence. And M meaning mobile technology, giving great mobility for unmanned vehicle and drone, et cetera. Here in this conference, we also talked about future of production. It's not just hardware production, it can be service production, so inclusive. And the biggest concern was broadening gap between those who utilize advanced technology or science, those who cannot. And how do we help prevent this broadening gap? And again, we discussed about importance of education. What if a robot is displacing some labor force? The responsible management should re-educate them to bring them up so that we can maintain good harmony. Among many exciting science, as mentioned in this panel, to me, one of the most exciting science can be brain science. I think engineers learn a lot from living system. This is so-called biomimetics. Even from a lighting bug, one can come up with a better LED structure to increase efficiency of lighting. And when it comes to brain, it's really very puzzling, very challenging. With functional MRI, we learn how we remember things. It has been always puzzled, but according to recent publication, they can identify where a particular word can be stored in the brain. And in nanoelectronics, we try to mimic to come up with a brain function. Wouldn't it be desirable to have a brain chip which can be inserted into dementia patients, for instance? So that can be a great challenge. We can discuss that later on. The other thing is relating science to general public. What would they benefit? We'll talk about the funding of science, but people need to see how they can benefit. And one recent example in Korea is the avian influenza flu, AI flu. Korea is affected by it every day. Tens of thousands of chickens are disposed and buried. And there is a great shortage of eggs in the people. Now it's a lunar calendar, you know, New Year season. They cannot find eggs, so they are importing like 60 million eggs from the US to fill the gap, for instance. So earlier, we talked about sensors, you know, microsensors or nanosensors. Can you spread such a thing in the field where birds are and detect whether they are, you know, having such a flu and communicate centrally so that the people can be alerted? That sort of thing. So I think there are many, many exciting science which can benefit the society. Right. Can I just ask you, in relation to the flu and the way in which your scientists had to engage, not only with the policymakers maybe and the health sector, but the public more generally, because you specifically talked about the public. Is that something where you found yourself having to learn new techniques as a university to relate to the public? The university higher education especially have many requests from the society. I think one is with the advancement in science and technology, people are left behind. So how can you bring them back? So we try to do our best in education of students as well as general public through MOOC, massive online education tool. But we also needed to translate this good science outcome into new service or new product. So we have a professor in physics, Professor Park. He is working on optical medicine technology. And what he does, which influenced the society a lot is, suppose you have millions of packaged goods such as chicken, for instance. And suddenly one still find that chicken was contaminated. And if we are producer of such a product, you may dispose all of them. Is it really necessary? You don't know whether that's contaminated or not. He came up with the technology, you can scan this each package and it can tell exactly whether this is contaminated or not. I think that's a great contribution using good science and good technology. So I do want to just quickly ask people on the panel about this relationship to the public because I think it operates on one level in terms of education, in terms of how the public relates from its past experience in schools. But also it can be very operational if you like where there's a real challenge that's suddenly hitting everybody and suddenly even their beliefs may have to adjust given new facts or as we heard earlier on in this meeting some people will not shift their beliefs regardless of the facts. So that gives rise to real challenges for those people who think they are dealing with facts and they just need to tell everyone and everyone will then learn how to behave. So I just wanted each of you perhaps to just reflect on how that need to engage the public in some way, doesn't matter which way you can choose your own is gonna be an issue in 2017. So where shall I start? I'm gonna start with you again, France. Well, it's clearly a huge issue. You would think with the progress of science that the progress of understanding the importance of science would come along with that in a more linear way, but it hasn't, it's really diverged at some point and I think the insularity of science, just basically a scientist wants to go into their environment and really deeply understand something and seek truth. And so what happens after that when you have a discovery is just so critical and we haven't paid enough attention. There's quite a bit more attention being paid and there are some groups and as you know there are public communication centers which are helping scientists learn how to explain better and so on, but it's not nearly enough because the public is vast and there are so many different ways of needing to approach them. I think that, so this is about the last day of this forum and so I have learned over the course of the forum, been really trying to understand what is the role of the scientist because we know what the role of the journalist is and the public communicators and all but should a scientist just do the research and then say here it is, this is what I've discovered and let me explain it and you take it and do something or is there a further role? And I've vacillated with listening to different people but I think I've come to the point that there really is a role to go a step beyond that because first of all you need to explain how you came about this evidence and I think that the process of science we sometimes painted as too simple that this is the answer we found but not the process we went through to find that answer and that it's messy and convoluted and it often leads to dead ends and so if the public can better understand that that it is a process and this is the methodology and that we have good ways of looking and criticizing each other and being responsible about the truth of that science then that would help and then I think that those who do have a bent for communicating and everybody can learn to communicate somewhat better should show how that science can be used in a policy world for making decisions that you can make decisions based on evidence and not be pointing to which result they want people to take but only that it can have different implications depending on how you accept this science. So this is that phrase honest broker, right? Yes. You're trying to be the person who is putting it out there and just hoping it's gonna be picked up in the way that you want, is that what you're saying? Well, I think it has to be a little bit more active than that, that there are too many, the science that is being discovered there are too many important consequences of it just to leave it on the table for people and so you need to jump into that but you also people need to make their decisions and they need to be well informed. So I'm so glad there are people like Mark, there are companies like Mark's that are deeply interested for all sorts of reasons for moral reasons but also for company reasons to better understand the science so they can utilize it and then prevent further. They are as Mark said that can be fantastic translators, communicators to say legislators who actually fund us. It's this big feedback cycle and I don't think people really understand when you wake up in the morning, you hear on the radio that somebody at your local university has won the Nobel Prize in science. You don't ask yourself, well, it's actually how did they do that? Who funded them? What was the long process of doing that? Where's it gonna go? All those kinds of questions and so scientists can really help with it. Right, right, right. So Mark, maybe you wanna talk about how you see relationships between scientists and the public and any role you as a supplier need to pay attention to that or actually participate. Yeah, from our perspective, I think it starts for us understanding where a field is evolving. And if I take a long perspective, our company was the first company to invent the sequencer and sequence the first human genome. And if I think about what that project is versus where it's evolved today, where the $1,000 or the $100 genome, it's just a totally different world over the last 20 years. All of that's been because of the translation from the public sector to the private sector as well as the debate that you play a role in getting the interest in the field, right? And so we try to play a role of in a way being agnostic, right? But always having all the facts out there, right? Because there's a good side and a bad side to everything and we just try to make sure that that debate is understood and try to play a role in advocating where it makes sense, where the private sector sometimes can play a role and sometimes it's inappropriate for us to do so or the industry to do so. And in those places, we take up more of a backseat. Okay, thank you. Fabiola. Yeah, so I must say that scientists have made great progress over the past years to engage the public more and more and educating at all levels, schools, but also more general outreaching, but we have to do more. We have to do more and we have to continue to reach out to people at all levels with all tools we have. Today we have social media and many nice things to reach people in real time. For various reasons and many of them have already been mentioned, but I would like to stress, first of all, knowledge. We are trying to advance, push back the frontiers of knowledge and knowledge belongs to mankind, does not belongs to the scientists, belongs to everybody. So we have to share it. In particular, public research infrastructure like mine are funded by public money. So we have to give a return also in terms of explaining to people what we are doing, but also we need to continuously build trust and confidence in science. And sometimes people, the public see science like something far away, very complicated and so they are skeptical of what are those people doing, perhaps they get scared, perhaps it can be bad. So I think it's very important to explain to people what we do, what the results are and as Fran said correctly, also to explain the method. The scientific method is extremely solid, it's reproducible, science is robust. So, and of course, as also Fran's mention it's very important that the political world takes decision also, as mankind, as humanity, we take decision based not only on political and political inputs and ingredients which of course are important, but also based on science. And so for the SDGs, this is extremely important and I hope science will continue to be a strong partner in the implementation phase of the SDGs. So just thinking about the SDGs, and actually I guess I'm thinking as much France about your area and also Steve yours. I mean, they stand there as these sort of great glowing goals for 2030. They're quite hard to pin down in terms of particular, particular things. We've been thinking at nature about how we relate our content to some of those SDGs. I'm just interested to know how they set an agenda for a funding agency like the NSF. I mean an agenda that is opening up new directions for you, or are they just a continuation of the problems we always knew were there and just the more you can do, the more it'll speed them up. Well, first of all, just for the audience that, so that means sustainable development goals. Probably everybody knows that. But so I think it's always good to have a framework that is current and modern and points to the future. And that actually, I've been surprised that when we stood up, and really for the first time and forever as an agency, and we said we had 10 big ideas for future investment. So those are similar to having the sustainable development goals. And this is where we think the world is headed and where we should, and everything that we're already doing kind of fits in in some form. And that's how I look at the SDGs too, as that the work that is already ongoing at our universities and in our funding agencies is really touches the sustainable development goals. Just a couple of days ago, I was on a health panel about health outcomes, and it was by the Chemical and Advanced Materials Society. And there they're obviously talking about sustainable goals in the materials world. But it really captures the imagination of the public, and we were just talking about the public, to put things in a framework that is vision-oriented for the future. And so that's why I think it is good periodically to gather together groups of people and to say what are the goals. The word goal is really important. We spend a lot of time, because as Fabio and others were saying, basic research takes such a long time when you often, when you do the discovery to when it's translated to the marketplace. So we do the retrospective metric, and we think that that's enough to excite people, that yes, we are responsible for Wi-Fi and cell phones and Doppler radar and MRI machines and et cetera. But what really captures the public's imagination is knowing where you think we're all going and how we're going to get there. So I think in that context, we want to orient our work. So the inspirational aspect of it is, I think, indeed, very important. Actually, one of the rather practical areas where fundamental science is really important in the SDG space is the development of indicators of progress. And in the oceans, SDG in particular, there's a working group looking at how do you indicate the sustainability of the ocean or the sustainability of those people dependent on the ocean? What are the indicators? And you need a very fundamental understanding of many aspects of the ocean to develop that. And we need to continue to fund the earth sciences. You need to watch the earth science being funded, and you need to make sure that the satellites are still up there taking the data, absolutely. That's a very pointed remark by the head of our funding agency in the States. So Steve, in terms of your institution and the way in which the SDGs has set any new agendas for you? Well, the sustainability has been always an important issue, not only for environmentally, but also in terms of what we do in science and engineering. Depending on the funding direction, people shift from one area to the other. Then that results in the shallow outcome. So at Kaiser, we try to provide the 30-year funding. Actually, I, as a president, started a program called the Grand Challenge 30, meaning that if you really have a great idea, we are willing to support you for 30 years. You don't have to go outside to find the funding to encourage good science, actually, good surprises. So I think goal orientation is good. We put the focus. But sometimes we may miss some greater things. I'll give you one example. Every one of us carry memory stick. That's a RAM memory, flash memory. The invention of that at the AT&T Bell Labs many years back was based on cheesecake on the table. Two scientists said, and they had a dessert of cheesecake. They noticed the cheesecake has layers. So they said, what if we build a transistor with multiple layers? So MOS transistor had one single layer of silicon dioxide. They put one more. And the Duankang came up with a great invention of this RAM. Things like that can change the whole world. So we needed to maintain that spirit and encourage such things. Right. OK. So I'm going to throw it open to the audience. It's still early in the morning, but I welcome your questions. So somebody right there. Andrea Bandelli from Science Gallery International. It was really very positive to hear the importance of public engagement in science. And I've heard personally countless examples of researchers from the early stages to the highest awards saying that through public engagement, they reached those breakthroughs in the creativity that allowed them to do better research. And yet public engagement is not embedded in their work, is not prioritized. Careers are decided by publications and impact factor and not in the public engagement. So my question is, how can you embed public engagement and prioritize in a way that is really an integral component of doing research and not left to when they have time or to somebody else that is not in the science system? OK. Good questions. Yes. Well, I can say a few examples. So for instance, by investing part of our budget and our funding on outreach and educational activities, as we do at CERN, for instance, we have part of our budget really devoted to not only educations at all levels and training and education of people, from the young kids to the teachers, because teachers are extremely important. You form and educate one teacher. You give one teacher a compliment in their education. And then this, of course, reach out to hundreds of students or even more than that. And of course, education for higher level researchers. But also, I see more and more, you were mentioning the CV and the publication and the fact that for your career, what counts are publication. Yes, it's still true. But it's also very important that now I see that in the CV of people, people now put also what kind of outreach and educational activity they are doing. It has become an important, I will say, fundamental component of the CV. And so we have to make sure also that when you hire people and you also take into account their willingness and their capability of also of reaching out to the public and devoting a fraction of their time to educational activities. I'm just going to mention an anecdote that relates to this question of incentives and pathological incentives in particular. And it's not self-serving for nature, so you can believe it. So we published an extract from a blog by Ewan Burney, who's a leading genomics expert, where he had sent out to the world, what do I do? I advertised a post-doc position. I have something like 400 applicants. And I want to get to a short list. And I don't want to just remove anyone who hasn't got a paper in nature or science or cell, OK? What do I do? And people came back saying, you just have to read the papers. You just have to read the abstracts, which is ridiculous. So a number of people, including us, actually, have opposed that particular sort of incentive, that sort of incentive. You don't have a paper in one of the top journals, not least because those top journals are important for some fields, but not for all fields at all. And so an idea that many people are talking about is very simplistic, which is you tell people what you did. You actually write on your application, even if they didn't ask for it, two or three paragraphs, four paragraphs, just a little narrative about yourself. OK, you mentioned paid publications that give your narrative, as opposed to did nature publish it. And then you get away from, in principle, if it takes hold, you get away from this obsession with, it's a sort of shorthand. It's using an inappropriate surrogate in judging individual people. But the reason I'm also interested in that question is that it's not just public communication that needs to be incentivized. It is good behavior, more generally, lab leadership, other things, which actually really help science, which just are not noticed at all at the moment. So if no one else asks any questions, I'm going to ask a question about lab leadership, because I think there is a real problem there. But I'm hoping someone else is going to ask a question. Sorry, I knew that was going to happen. Please, go ahead. My name is Peter Davis. I'm a social scientist at the University of Auckland. We have a small research group, and I'm very interested in the question of big data and data being open to others. And I want to take you up on your concern that it might actually be you might have to double your budget in order to make your data accessible. What I've found is that accessible data is arrived at if you conduct good research practice. For example, we are dealing with large quantums of data. But what happens if our data manager suddenly leaves or go knocked over by a bus? It would take a year for us to reconstruct it. If it wasn't properly documented, so the same procedures that we require for internal verification and working on our own data are very much the same that will be required for outsiders. So I don't think there's an issue here of resources. Actually, it's good research practice is also means you're on the same agenda as open data. Does anyone have any different views on that? Yeah, I can just comment a little. I think it's very, right now it's very field dependent. And some fields, for example, we're putting a big investment into the astrophysics database that our big telescopes collect. So we're building a telescope in Chile called the Large Spectroscopic Survey Telescope, cost a half a billion dollars. DOE, Department of Energy, is putting in a $200 million instrument into it, a sensor. And it's going to generate just terabytes of data because it is constantly surveying the sky and it's looking for transient phenomena. So it's doing that repeatedly for its lifetime. So we have built into the budget the taking of data worldwide. In fact, a concern of ours is that other countries will be more, who are not spending the money, building the telescope will have access to all the data. I mean, we're not concerned about it, but only for our own people that we make sure they have the money to access the data as well. But then in social sciences, your field, I would say that that is more at a much earlier stage than in astrophysics. And so we're looking at our agency, we have a working group across the entire agency in all these different disciplines, looking at where, how ready is the, what does data mean, first of all? What level of data is the right stuff to keep? And can the field come together and decide what is a standardized format for data look like so it can be shared globally? So I think we have ways to go in some areas. Please. So it's a very important question. It's also same in engineering. Lots of gathering over that, they don't know what to do with it. But there's a hope. I read a couple of days ago, we had a breakfast meeting between DeepMind and IBM and then quantum black leaders. And even in human genome sequencing, people used to say, oh, this is a junk gene, you don't pay attention to it. Later they found it's very, very important. So even they say data is huge, so we have to filter it, leave a certain data out. That may be important data. So IBM, a company like IBM, they're trying to decode this older data in whatever data format is. Ideally, it will be good to have a discipline in data formatting. But if it is existing data, they still try to find, with AI and all these new scientific algorithms, they should be able to do that and still be able to capture that and then use it. In this context, Mark, I wanted to ask you maybe a slightly provocative question. I mean, in companies, there is a lot of central support for the hosting of data, the hosting of notes and making sure you can go back over what happened. You and your colleagues are working all the time in academia, in labs. You see what it's like there. What's your message to those people who fund those labs about just what needs to be done to make it more robust? You know, I'll give you a couple examples. One is sometimes how governments will want to keep data proprietary, but when you step back, it really makes little sense. So we're spending time in Korea late last year working at an academic medical center that's really trying to deal with a very rare form of brain cancer. And basically, you know, the head of the hospital, the head of the oncology department says, you know, the only way to actually make progress is to actually get the data from every country around the world because the form is so rare that if you don't get it, this is gonna be decades, right? And because of that, the hospital had an angle on how to get that limited information. But when you think about programs like that, there are tremendous resistance to sharing information even at the public level where it's pretty clear that if you take a patient's name off and things of that sort for privacy reasons, it's gonna have a huge benefit for society in terms of making a difference. So I think the politics of that is an area that needs to change. If you take the more specific question, you know, the labs are underfunded, right? There's very few countries around the world that have had robust growth in funding, right? And that has been a major challenge around the world. If I think about, you know, academic budgets globally in the sciences has probably been up one and a half to 2% globally over the last four or five years or post-recession. And, you know, if you just think about staff and salary increases, those things are basically says that very, very muted environment that we're living in. Is it arguable, another provocative question, that scientists have been too keen to get more people like them in the labs and too unenthusiastic about getting funds that are just to do what they might consider dog's body essential infrastructure. And therefore everyone has been piling on the competition because more and more people are trying to get less and less funds in effect. And there's just insufficient ability within the labs to keep the quality up. And I'm gonna look to France as well for a response on that. You know, I'm a believer that if you're not bringing on the next generation and the new people that you're never gonna make progress and part of it is actually just, you know, continuing to create excitement. I worry a lot about the environment where it's very hard to get grants and funding early in one's career and does it drive all of the best minds to the private sector? Because if that happens, then over time the basic research elements will decline. So it needs to be a balance to be candid. You really want the best folks starting out in the public sector and then over time choosing whether that's the field they wanna go and I think that creates the ecosystem for success. Let me phrase the question slightly differently, France, for you. Is the imperative as seen within academia too much to keep people within academia and not enough to get people really great PhDs, really good experience about what it means to be a researcher and then put them out into the world to help the rest of the world? Well, I'm not sure that I understand. I think that we've become much more tuned to the possibilities of the broader world for all our students and we're really trying to set up and work with universities about opening up career space and pathways so that the students realize and for example, I spent my first 10 years at a government lab, a DOE lab and so I talk about that as absolutely essential in my career, that's a great alternative. Going into industry is great but I wanna take just a slightly different perspective on this, what we're missing is a lot of the best people, a lot of the best talent and so one of our big initiatives which we've already started and just funded 40 pilots around the US to do is we call it includes and that's to expand the young people, the demographic of the young people that actually enter our laboratories and then they can make a choice about whether they wanna go to Mark's company or stay in academia because if we create those pathways and engage them in how to pursue them but we think there are just a lot of women, a lot of underrepresented minorities, a lot in lower socioeconomic areas where students just simply don't have, young people don't have access to science and we need to change that and we've been doing some older methodologies, mostly within universities, very local kinds of efforts, good efforts but they don't go anywhere outside the university so what we're funding is much broader community partnerships to bring in groups that are very engaged in that, usually led by university that has the resources to do so but we think there's just a lot of talent for the sciences, for our companies and for our universities, that we need to show them, expose them to the wonderful field of science. After all, all of us have a personal story where we weren't born as scientists, something inspired us to become that and we don't wanna open up the channels for inspiration. So that's a very good lead in, we've got about two minutes left so I'm gonna ask the final question of Fabiola because I know to talk about education a little bit and that is a natural follow on from what we've been hearing but thinking about 2017 in particular, is there something you would like to, as it were, urge about education? Yeah, so I think that we have to, in particular related to my organization, to turn what we want to do is to clearly to continue to strengthen our education activities, try to reach out more and more countries that are not really in the center, in the core of science or more in the boundary, try to more and more fight inequalities and make sure that our, the students that come to CERN, the visitors that come to CERN, represent the full breadth and the full, the full world from people from all possible countries. We have also a project in mind of building a scientific center for outreach, for public lectures, for getting more and more visitors at CERN every year. We welcome 120,000 people, visitor and 60, more than 60% of them are students, actually from schools and we have twice as much request or three times more and we are not able to satisfy all of them. And so this indicates that the public really wants to know more about science. So we have really to match their aspiration and their request. And of course, the public is very much inspired by fundamental science, by knowledge. And so we have to try to make sure that we invest resources, human resources sometimes more than even money to really satisfy the public wish of getting closer and closer to science. Okay, thank you. So I think the mobile phone is something that we should finish on. And the reason I say that is, it's highly educational. You can get into Wikipedia, you can get it to anything you want and find out instantly what it is you wanna know. That's a sort of education. It's gonna be a key source of interesting new types of data because of the way people especially in health but in many other areas also are thinking about it. And also, of course it embodies the technologies, Steve, that you were talking about in New France, you're funding them all the time. And also, people may or may not know that it embodies both the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity if you're trying to take account of errors produced by timing. And that's just to me an extraordinary device actually. It embodies everything we've been talking about just about in one thing. So we just need to detach ourselves from it occasionally. That's the other lesson, right? How do we do that? We haven't asked that fundamental question but I think actually there is a real question there especially for those of us with teenage kids who can see the totally different dynamic between young people, kids of any age now actually and the technology. And that has got some real issues in it. So that's for another time. Thank you to the panel. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.