 Welcome to the next Industrial Revolution. Throughout history, human ingenuity has changed. The way we live and work, from the first spinning machine to Ford's assembly line, all the way to Wozniak's personal computer. Today we are again on the cusp of an Industrial Revolution and some would argue, certainly some on this panel will argue that it will exceed everything that we have seen before in terms of speed, in terms of scale, and also in terms of velocity. When Professor Schwab asked me to introduce briefly the session, I got immediately excited for three different reasons. First of all, this session is very much related to the theme of this meeting, charting a new course for growth. Charting a new course, of course, always means navigating unknown territory and the purpose of this session is to set foot in this territory and really explore what potential futures are awaiting us there. Secondly, and most importantly, the conversation starts here, but it will certainly not end here. This session is part of a wider community effort of the World Economic Forum to make sense of the next Industrial Revolution. You see a link up there. You would like to invite you all to contribute your thoughts on our digital platform top link. And last but not least, I think we can all look forward to an outstanding panel of distinguished individuals from business, from government, and from civil society who will help us unpack what is in, what is in, awaiting us in this future. And with this, Professor Schwab, distinguished panelists, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. First, I have to confess I usually do not moderate sessions which are related to a specific theme, but I consider this issue to be the most important and maybe not yet really understood challenge for humankind with so many opportunities but also risks to be managed. We have an outstanding panel and I want to make sure that we deal with all the impact, the implications, and we call it here the next technological revolution. I would say it's not the next, it's already here. You are not futurologists sitting here. You are all engaged into very practical work to make this revolution happening. So what I would suggest is that we first hear from each of the panelists, his ideas and what the implications may be. And suddenly we'll take up some of the issues which come out in the individual statements. And I would maybe start with Catherine She is, I start with her because she's at one of the World's Economic Forum's 2015 tech pioneers. She is also the inventor, you have the patent, for what consider some of the most, I would say, centennial innovations or discoveries is here because you have discovered how to create precision editing of the human genome and to make it very easy and cheap. Someone explained to me in the genome field, thanks of you, we have now a kind of Moore's Law where we can make in every interval, double process, exponential progress. So how do you see implications of some new technological evolution? Well, thank you for that very kind introduction. I must give credit where credit is due. I did not invent this spectacular technology. There's any number of scientists who have had the insights and the innovations to understand how to harness what we know about DNA, about the human genome, and to be able to edit that. So this concept of genome editing is, it's captured not only the imagination of the scientific community, but many of you have probably read about it in the lay press because the idea of being able to fix broken genes is a very powerful idea. And one that has long been imagined in science fiction. Today we now have tools to be able to do that. There are a lot of genetically driven diseases where you can imagine that would be a wonderful approach to help treat those patients. There are over 5,000 genetically defined diseases. There may be other ways to use genome editing to address disease beyond specific mutations, but clearly it also brings up big questions in the world of ethics and broader applications. Part of the reason that we are able to even have these questions today, it's a confluence, I think, not just of the specific technology, which the name of it, CRISPR-Cas9, which derives from its scientific foundations, is one technology. But because of the investment we've made as a society in the human genome project, you mentioned Moore's Law. And it's a fantasm if you've ever seen a graph where they graph the projected cost of sequencing DNA versus what Moore's Law would be. It far outpaces what something like Moore's Law would have predicted. But more importantly, beyond the cost of sequencing dropping in this time period, the accuracy has gone up exponentially and the speed. Because of that, we can ask and answer different questions than we ever could before, as well because of innovation such as Dr. Moore will talk about in bioinformatics, we can assess massive amounts of data. Because of that, we can actually contemplate really doing genome editing. So we have unprecedented, unprecedented potential for therapeutic and research breakthroughs, but I think you are concerned about, also about the ethical issues. We will come back to it. Now, going from gene research, which is certainly one of the big areas, to you, Andrew Moore, who are the Dean of the School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. And you have had a very interesting career, first with MITs and moving over to Google. And some people say you are in some way one of the farthest of artificial intelligence. So that's another area. So can you explain us what it means for humankind? Yes, thank you very much for the opportunity to talk here. I am very excited about this industrial revolution. I see it as a huge wave which is breaking at the moment. And I don't think any of us realize just how large it is. So Kristen's point about how data has been explosively growing, has meant that now many, many, many computational systems and information technology systems have got big models of the world. There's, it is actually possible for computers to go in and find out pieces of information about how the world works. So there's been this big growth of an area known as big data or data science. And Kristen and some of our other panelists are perfect examples of how to exploit that for the good of the world. What's interesting is that among us information technologists, now we've got this data, we're really pushing on how to use it. And the way we're using it is on top of the data, putting big automatic decision systems, most commonly known as artificial intelligences on top of the large data. These artificial intelligences are every day making the world a more informed place and changing the way we live. I'm gonna give a really quick example. Google, Apple, Siri, Microsoft, Cortana have got question answering systems now where in 2011 you could ask a question like where is my nearest Walmart? In 2013 you can ask questions like which hotel am I in, can you call the front desk? We're coming up to the point where you can ask questions like is my treatment working for my current disease? And based on the fitness information that we have, we can start asking that. And artificial intelligence folks all around the world are working on this. Just two or three more years from that we will ask questions like when I was talking to Kristen today, was she really interested in what I was saying or was she just faking it? We really are having AIs able to see these things and each one of the examples I've given is practical. These are things which everyday researchers and people in these companies are working on. This is very exciting, we're all gonna get smarter but here's the question for this new world. The people running these large AIs, be they Google, be they your local friendly national governments, they're gonna have a lot of power in which data the AI can access in order to answer your question or give you recommendations. I think it's all to play with, who is actually running these AIs? Thank you. Let me move to Nina. Nina Tandon, also a tech pioneer of the World Economic Forum 2015, by the way is a tech pioneer program here. You may have seen it, is as we nominate at the forum every year outstanding people who will change business models and the scientific world because we feel they have to be highlighted and we at the forum can learn from them. Now, you have done also something very innovative. You replace bones by synthetic implants and reconstructive surgery. So also, you recreate human beings in some way. Yeah, well, this is an interesting idea. I mean, you know, let's just think about the human body for a minute. If everyone would just indulge me for a moment. Imagine a world where broken bridges repair themselves, where energy is converted at a rate 10,000 times more efficiently than the sun and where batteries are alive, right? And it sounds like maybe an alien planet or something like this, but these are our bodies every day. Every single day, our bones break down and repair themselves every day. Every single cell in our body has a voltage that's maintained across it and mitochondria, for gram, convert energy at a rate 10,000 times more efficiently than the sun. Nature is still a black box. We don't exactly know why we can hypothesize that certain signs of the future might help us explain some of these mechanisms, but in the meantime, we do live in quite miraculous homes. And so what we propose to do at EpiBone many people don't realize that after blood, bone is the second most transplanted human tissue. This is millions of procedures worldwide costing billions of dollars. And quite literally the only way to get human bone, even now, is to cut it out of a human. And what we propose is a different model. Why not take those cells that grow our bones every day in our body and in the laboratory use those cells to make not synthetic implants, but real true living replacements for these tissues. And this is a beautiful idea for me. It's actually a re-envisioning of the human body instead of if we're talking about industrial revolutions. In the past, we viewed the body very much like the mechanistic view of the past industrial revolution. We've kind of viewed the body as a summation of parts. If the heart was broken, you might get a new heart from a donor or engineer an artificial heart on the bench, but the idea was still the same. We're a summation of parts. And what we propose is a different idea is to view our bodies instead of this mechanistic view as an ecosystem comprised of living cells, ecosystems that we can collaborate with to generate new regenerative therapies that don't replace but rather integrate with the human body. Thank you. I should add we have one tech pioneer who is actually in drying or proceeding with three-dimensional printing of human organs. Yeah. That's also already in the making. Right. I mean, we're really, I think, at this moment not to hog the stage, but I mean, just the confluence of technologies that are coming together to make our technology possible is really marrying digital fabrication. It's at the center of where digital fabrication, which is the confluence of bits in the internet world and atoms of the physical world where that meets biological design. And so we really are, if you think about CRISPR technology at a point in time where we can design living systems from every relevant scale, whether it's at the genetic scale, the millimeter scale, or the centimeter scale in our case. Let's turn to business. And Faike Sibesma, you're also chief executive on chairman of the managing board of Rural DSM. And your company, which is a partner of the forum, sticks out because it has transformed itself completely for this new world. So what you heard from the three tech pioneers is it reality or isn't it already very much engaged in? No, true. It's a great panel on forum because I think the stories which you hear, I think are real life. And I appreciate, by the way, that you are chairing this session and calling it compliments for the audience, the most important session even, because I think we're talking about reality. I think it's unprecedented what we can achieve and will achieve here. And science has been for many years, for maybe decades, changing the world. But I think we are point in history where science will drastically change the world. And look to what is possible indeed in biotechnology. We understand increasingly our own body. We can do with that information a lot of things. Not only treating diseases, but also taking care of our food consumption. And very important, moving away from the fossil age we live in to the bio-renewable age. It is unbelievable how much materials, how much food, how much components we daily use are coming from three raw materials, coal, oil, and gas. And in the future that can be changed into biomaterials using already the waste of agriculture. In IT, staying all connected in nano, making things at a different scale in 3D, making things really personalized. And if you combine all those things, I think the combination of those things can really address the most important sub-topics we are struggling with, like health and food for everybody, like climate change, like new energies, like addressing poverty. We can, in my opinion, move to a different society from a linear economy to a circular economy. There are no materials disappearing from this planet overnight. Everything remains on this planet. The only thing is we don't know yet, due to technology, how to use it. Today it is possible. My big question, Klaus, for the future is, can we cope with all those developments fast enough as society? Do we want that? What Uber presented into taxis, many governments, including my own, is struggling with this opportunity. Do we want that? Do we regulate that, et cetera? What is possible, what we introduced a couple of years ago, is personalized food. We can really look to your DNA and your profile, and then we can provide you the food which is the best fit for you. We abandoned and put it temporarily in the fridge that development, because we saw that society is not interested in that. Society does not want to know all the details about their own body, and then provides it to the right food component. So maybe the technology sometimes is there already too early, and society does not want. Do you want to provide all that information to insurance company? They might be interested, by the way, in it, and all those kinds of things. So I think big broader is watching you. It's already happening. Banks, retailers know already what you are doing. So I think it's unprecedented what kind of technology can provide solutions for problems in the world. I think, true, it is already business today, like our company transformed, to join this societal challenges. I think, can we cope up with that speed fast enough? I think it's the right moment to turn to Sir Mark. You are the chief sans advisor of the United Kingdom government, and you have issued last year a report which got worldwide attention, particularly about how to manage the risks of what we just have heard. Yes, so I live at the interface between science and values, particularly political values, and I think we can all agree that we are in the middle of another industrial revolution, and people talk about disruptive innovation, or creative destruction. But, of course, disruption disrupts someone, it disrupts something. And just because you put creative next to destruction doesn't mean that something isn't being destroyed. And so these are wonderful euphemisms that cover the fact that revolutions are actually quite difficult things. And so when you have disruptive innovation, it affects incumbents, and, of course, that is the challenge of Uber. It affects incumbent systems of how people are moved around. So companies are affected, and they will resist change. Social systems are affected. Knowledge is power. I think we all recognize the power of knowledge. But, of course, knowledge is now being distributed in extraordinary new ways, empowering new groups of people. And that then challenges governments. So I think that the issue is that whilst the science finding things out is neutral, how we apply science, how we apply technology is not neutral. And that's something that's not just for the scientists, the technologists, and the engineers. It's for all of us. And it's for us to debate how we use technology, how we prevent its abuse, how we police its abuse. And I think one of the challenges is that I think that the scientific engineering technology community finds itself talking at cross-purposes with groups of people who are actually talking about values-based issues. And so, for example, the use of fracking, hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas, methane, is a contentious issue in many places. And we tend to talk at cross-purposes. So the science and the engineering questions about whether the drilling will cause seismicity, whether it will cause small earthquakes, whether there'll be contamination of water tables, whether there'll be release of methane gas. And there are any number of very good science and engineering reports, for example, from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK, that say that if it's done properly and regulated well, it's something that can be done safely. People around the world are protesting about it. They're not really protesting about the science. They're protesting about different things. Some don't like fossil fuel at all. Some don't like big companies. And then there's another group that don't like the disruption that goes with a big engineering facility in their environment. And what we do is we pretend that there's a science discussion and values discussion, and they're the same thing. They're not. And I think you can find really four situations in which science conflicts potentially with values. So with innovation, there's the question of fairness. Who's going to pay? Why didn't we have an Ebola vaccine on time? Technologically possible, one actually looks as though it's well along the way to development. The issue is who would pay for it? And so with new technologies, who's going to pay? Is there going to be equitable distribution? How are people going to access it? The second category I'd say is sort of my pain, your gain. In other words, a big bit of infrastructure spent is built in my back garden. I don't get the benefit from it. You do. And I think we find that with big infrastructure projects. And then that third area is around where science meets religious values, ethical values, political values. And so the use of stem cells is one example. Editing genomes is another example. We happily eat corn, which has its genome duplicated millions of genetic changes compared to tear-sint, which is the plant it came from in Central America. And yet that editing of one single nucleotide, hit and run, no change other than the single nucleotide, that to some people is fiddling with nature. It's unacceptable. And that's the value issue. And then I think the final area is the sort of unanticipated consequences of a new technology. And in some ways that's what we're seeing with the IT revolution, which is no one really thought when new protocols were developed to transfer information that we would now be in a world where all the questions about social networking, all the power of the things. And so I think that what we have to do if we're going to navigate this revolution in the best possible way is have much better articulated discussions where we don't pretend on the one hand it's all about the science. The science is okay. And then a separate value discussion. We've got to recognize that we have to actually debate both of these things. And my job of course is to advise on the science. It's the politicians, the policymakers who have to actually decide about the values issues. And I think that the issue is that we don't, that Prime Minister earlier said we are all in the same boat. And of course we are all in the same planetary boat. But actually there are different value systems around the world. There are different value systems within countries. And I think the question of how we negotiate whose values trump whose when we can actually live with a plurality of different situations which I think should frequently be the case. These are the challenges as we navigate this revolution. Thank you so much. Let me come back to the issue of how to react. And I remember in Davos early this year I organized for one of the European government leaders a meeting with the heads of the leading ICT companies to understand better, Google for example. And the person came out or the country leader came out and said now I understand what's the difference between Silicon Valley and Europe in Silicon Valley everything which is not explicit they forbidden is allowed. And in Europe everything which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden. And this shows let's say the dilemma of governments. I would add the second point out of our we are now deeply involved in creating dialogues on those issues. The second point is that as we see here it's for many people what we discussed here is new but the knowledge level in governments is relatively I'm sorry to say so low. So how to create a discussion in time to understand the issue, recognize the issue and then to formulate the necessary policy not as it is now in the case of Uber and so on to react afterwards nearly in a panicked way. But values, let me ask a fundamental question. When I listen to you since three tech pioneers and I listen what's happening with big data and I listen to what's happening with genes it seems to me you could formulate it in one way everything in the world in the future will be predictable. Human beings, traffic, whatever you name it. Now what does it mean to live in a world where everything is predictable? Who wants to respond to it? If I might take the counterpoint actually. I say this because I live in the world of biology and for all the spectacular advancements in bioinformatics and artificial intelligence, et cetera biology remains deeply mysterious and I think anybody who works in the world of trying to develop new medicines or understanding why do we still have to do human clinical trials to test our drugs? It's because you just can't model that. I mean these informatics systems will certainly powerfully help us interpret our data, interpret larger sets of data but I cannot yet imagine a world where the biology is predictable. I think it's far, far, far too complex for us to do that. Yeah. I would just say take the example of the weather, right? We can know everything we need to know about brownie in motion and still have no ability to predict the weather past a couple of days, right? Thinking about the human genome, I think we have an almost narcissistic obsession with our own genome to think that that is what's affecting our health when we have 100 times more bacterial cells living in our body than human cells of which much of their genome is still considered biological dark matter and 100 times more virus, virus genetic material in our bodies than human, right? So we're just beginning to scratch the surface. I think there's, you know, speaking of Moore's law, there's a joke in our field that actually the productivity of the biotech industry it follows E-Rooms law which is what happens when you reverse the letters of Moore's law because to the collective consternation of many people we have yet to see anything but declining output from the industry, why? Because as we learn more and more of the complexity of biology, we create new fields of study that then become siloed because we as human beings still are limited in our ability to synthesize information. As artificial intelligence gives us more and more analytical capabilities I think it will behoove us to use more and more resident human capabilities to try and derive meaning from that and I think that this is still going to remain an edge for us as technology continues to improve. So that's good news. So we will still have a world of surprises. We're still relevant as humans. I come back to you where... No, I think that's right. I don't think we should worry about a sort of predetermined deterministic world. The idea is it were that everything that's happening in this panel is entirely determined and people sort of tend to think about genes and environment, but there's a third thing we need to think about as well, which is chance. We are just all so complicated, even if we had a complete understanding of the natural sciences, we still wouldn't be able to predict what each of us was going to exactly say and how we were going to stumble as it were. And were you all agree? Yes, so I wanted to very respectfully push back against the implicit assumption. I think worrying about a possibly boring, unpredictable, sorry, overly predictable future is completely dwarfed by the fact that there are hundreds of millions of lives to be saved right now by very directed, focused use of technology. So if we can use computers to notice that there's a normal pattern of activity indicating that an outbreak is slowly happening right now, I'm really excited about that. When I'm trying to get my students and faculty passionate and excited about what they're doing, I really push on the fact that we can save lives right now and I actually do relegate it to a lesser importance. This question of maybe the year 2015 will be all, 2050 will be all boring like Southern California. No, we still will have surprises at FICA in one second, never so less, never so less. I mean, I'm happy what you're saying, but never so less I was on Monday in one of the research laboratories of one of the top companies in the field looking at wearables. Now, I mean, just imagine, everybody of you here in, maybe in five years we would equip everybody with you with something to be put around your head connected to big data. And I could see here on the screen, are we performing well at any moment? And if I see we are not performing well, I would adopt my questions to please you, the audience. That may happen. I mean, we should not exclude this, let's say, just think about voting and such procedures. But FICA, you had a point. Yeah. I mean, if there is a scientific breakthrough, by the way, I totally agree with you that a lot of the science at this moment can save lives, can create a better world which is desperately needed. We already know that we are moving towards four to eight degrees Celsius by 2060. The technologies are there to change our world. The political or humankind wellness is not yet there, that's strange. We can save lives in terms of poverty, et cetera. That should be the argument. But with every new invention, there comes uncertainty. I mean, the train between Rotterdam and Amsterdam was deliberately for decades driving less fast than it could do because the farmers were really concerned about the milk of their cows. And after decades, that debate was solved and the train could run at this normal speed. Imagine that in a couple of years, or decades, we can freeze people when they're ill and keep them cold for 100 years and open that up after 100 years. We are already doing that with embryos today. So why not with human bodies at a certain moment? But it creates all kinds of new questions. Are you still married with the same wife? Do you still need to go to school after 100 years or whatever? And it triggers so many uncertainties and questions. And I think this is basic limitation of mankind that we are afraid of change. And there's a Darwinistic reason to be afraid of change. And I think there is a role here for society, for NGOs and for governments to guide people from one anchor to another anchor, like we do with our organizations. I found it always unfair to say to people, ah, be open up for change, be a little bit flexible. I lift all your anchors of certainty and at a certain moment you will get new anchors. And in the meantime, I just feel free a little bit. People are not like that. If you lift anchors of certainty, you need to provide also new anchors of certainty. And if we are not able to do that, then I think we will limit the possibilities which we have shown here. I will come back at the end to the issue of values because it seems to me fundamental. But before doing so, I would like to pinpoint one other issue which is of enormous social consequences. And I think, Sir Mark, you refer to it indirectly. It is, let's say, what is the impact on jobs? Will we have in the future only, or how many jobs are available for, let's say, robot polishes or drone dispatchers and so on? I mean, there will be new jobs created. But I think the change is so fast that probably we have a moment in the transformation where the destruction to take your words is more prevalent than the recreation of jobs. What's your opinion, Sir Mark? Well, it's a really interesting question. And I suspect it's more a point for this audience maybe than for some others because actually jobs have always been changing. If you look now, people's jobs in the manufacturing world change beyond all recognition. It's just a sort of professional people have sailed blithely through it all assuming their life will always be unchanged. And so my profession, medicine, for example, has the potential to be very dramatically changed. So I think that the job, there will always have been job changes. There will be job changes. And I think it's our professions as it were that will change as well. So the profession- Only faster, only faster. Faster, so medicine is going to change. The law is going to change. All those things where people thought, aha, my professional judgment will mean I'm always needed. I'm going to be, you know, better at assessing the pathology than any machine. I don't think that's going to be true in the future. And so I think that there will be a new job disruption but it just makes the point about the importance of education because actually if we're to make sure we have jobs in the future, that the underpinnings thing that we need is education. Agreed. Andrew, I hear that one of your artificial intelligent robots could replace 300 traditional clerks. So that was a figure I heard. Well, what is your feeling about jobs? I think this is going to be different. If you look at checking of patent applications in the United States four years ago, I believe it was only about 10% of them which were checked automatically. Now it's up to about 50%. You're seeing a massive amount of white collar work getting automated. In the medical world, I am confident that doctors, the profession of doctor will disappear before the profession of nurse. I predict, I'm very confident too that you are safer at the moment being a plumber than a management consultant in terms of how likely you are to go. Goodbye. That's right. So here's one thing that I think is going to be very different as we just discussed. This time it is going to be some of the wealthy, powerful, influential people whose jobs are threatened. That may actually plow very differently from the original industrial revolution. If I can, do you agree you are in the midst of it? Yeah, I think this revolution, industrial revolution will have a major impact on jobs and work. And let me throw into the forum maybe two ideas for further discussion in the forum. Because it looks like that our society does not like jobs. It looks like that governments do not like jobs. And why do I say that? I throw two ideas. Almost every country in the world has an obliged teaching period till you are 21 or 22. There's hardly any country, civilized big country, who does not have laws in that one. There's not any country in the world who have a law if you're 50, you need to go to school for two years back again because we're all going to work till 70 or whatever and it is impossible to do that with an education you got 50 years ago. But there's not any country which has an obliged learning later on in your life. That's one idea maybe to discuss further in the forum. The second idea is the biggest income of all governments in the world is labor related. So the biggest taxation we give are labor related. So we make it almost impossible to hire people because it's very expensive. Why do we not shift a part of our income to taxation of scarce raw materials which we should not consume too much instead of taxation of labor? Two ideas I just throw in for discussion to think further because it's undoubtedly that this will impact jobs quite a bit. We are actually quite involved with a global initiative on this issue. Related to education what we have to do is to create a new metaphor which is not built on education but on re-skilling and up-skilling. Lifelong re-skilling and up-skilling. I think that should be the terminology for tomorrow. Now, Catherine, any from your point of view? Well, it's interesting because I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts which is very much an epicenter for biotech and so this concept of retraining, re-skilling, et cetera, it's you go to the local coffee shop and you talk about biotech but it is also an industry where you have to be learning every single day. We mean what I do now did not exist when I went to school. When I went to school, the concept of genome editing I don't think existed. I can't even begin to describe how much the world has changed. So if you're going to be in these kinds of industries it just goes along with the territory and I think in the United States where labor is perhaps more fluid, the marketplace forces it to a very great degree. If you are going to be competitive you have to engage in that in some way. Before I turn to Nina, but I come back to your point. I know about the study which foresees that 47% of present American jobs will be replaced by robotization. Can we create, I don't know, the job market in the United States must be about 120 million, half is 60 million. Can we recreate in sufficient time 60 million new jobs? So the figure you're quoted has been quoted frequently. There's a recent Forrester report which talks about a loss of 16 million jobs to advanced information technology in the next decade but is also looking at approximately 8 million coming back. If you look now, there is actually a really good living to be had as a web designer or a graphic artist for a video game company, jobs which just seemed crazy to imagine in 2003. So there will be some return. However, I do not think if we just go on autopilot there will be full return. I do believe that we have to invest in education systems which actually prepare people for these jobs. Frank, your order, how are you doing in the United States? A part of the jobs will, I think, be transferred from manufacturing towards surfaces, undoubtedly because manufacturing will be easier via robotization and will still require people also but of course we will lose some jobs there but many people would like to have people coming at home to repair things, to surface things, et cetera. But many cases televisions are being thrown away or things are being thrown away instead of being repaired because sending people at home is extremely expensive, I make my point again, partly during taxation of labor. So we can, with a different system, also provide services that a lot of people would aspire to have. Yeah. So Mark, I would like to come back to the point at the very beginning which you raised values. I mean, if we have one stream which is relatively homogeneous, which is technological development, so you have to match this development against the values. It does indeed lead to un-solvable, unsurmountable conflicts. How can we get out of this dilemma? Well, that is surely what government is about at the end of the day. Because values, of course, I talked about them differing between countries, but values vary within countries. I mean, let's take embryonic therapies. So we've just, in the UK, had a debate about potential for preventing mitochondrial disease, those enormously effective energy converters. Now, one can potentially prevent very, very severe mitochondrial disease by taking the nucleus from a fertilized egg and putting it into the cytoplasm which has the mitochondria from an egg donor and in doing so prevent the disease. Now, for people that have fundamental, predominantly religious beliefs about the sanctity of life and the fact one shouldn't fiddle with embryos, that is completely unacceptable, but there are different views in society. And the great thing about sort of plural democracies is that one resolves those things through the democratic process. And so what happened in that situation is that we had a thoughtful regulator that engaged with the science, reviewed the science, but also conducted the public debate about the ethics. There was then a debate in both the Houses of Parliament as a result of which it was decided to go ahead subject to scientific scrutiny. And quite an interesting thing was that just before the vote, the Church of England came out and someone made an announcement. They said, we don't think that the science is clear enough. And that was a very odd thing to say. It would be a bit like me as the Chief Scientist saying, I don't think the theology is clear enough. And it was an example of conflating a scientific issue with a values issue. Now, I don't have any problem with the fact that there are some people that think we shouldn't fiddle with nature. I mean, that is a value proposition. I think that we have to resolve these through the political process, through discussion in society. And it's why I think we need really, really clear discussion that separates the values issues on the one hand and debate them and doesn't pretend that it's because there's something wrong with the science. Let me be personal and go, let's say, take a very practical example. And since we have three tech pioneers, I come back to you if I can in a moment. Since we have three tech pioneers sitting here, big data. Who should own in your personal opinion, your health data? I mean, we all will have wearables in this laboratory. I just mentioned I was sitting on a chair and everything popped up on the screen. It will be interconnected. Who should own your health data? Kastrin, what is your, not your advice, what is your personal opinion? My personal opinion is that the individual should own it. And yet I think I also recognize that in most of our societies, health care is paid for predominantly by the government. It is a shared resource, a shared expense. And therefore we all bear the cost of each other's illnesses and or bad behaviors to differing degrees. So to what degree are there other legitimate interests in that health care data? How much of it, things that you can't control, none of us controls our genetics. We do somewhat control our behavior, perhaps some better than others. But behavior is a huge factor in your state of health as well. And so my gut says that it belongs to the individual, but there are other legitimate interests around the table. Andrew and Nina, do you have the same opinion or? Yeah, I think, I would second what you say. I think that our bodies in some way belong to us ourselves and in some ways we can't ignore that we live in a society in which we share resources. And also that sometimes there's a role for privacy and a role for sharing and some different types of information only have value when aggregated with the information of other people. If we're trying to study certain diseases, for example, my own genome, if I protect it and no one else has access to it, no one else will be able to benefit from the information there. It's a mirror of any sort of conundrum that comes from the commons. If everyone, whether it's sheep in a field or in this case genetic material, I think we just have to be very thoughtful about who stands to gain and who stands to potentially suffer from sharing versus not sharing. And my view is that different types of information should be categorized in different ways. Andrew, I will come back to you. Okay, so it is a very important question. If you look at the big geo wall on the other side of this, well, there's displaying maps of the earth with some amazing people showing how to understand what that means to the climate and environment from it. We all think that's a good thing and the data we're getting at that resolution helps us make the world better. If we got higher and higher resolution so we could all see ourselves walking around, having affairs, doing all the other bad things that people do, we'd be horrified by it. There is a question of resolution. I firmly believe in an open commons not sitting in corporations of the aggregate information, the statistics about averages and various other kinds of statistics which allow you to do the machine learning on big data. I actually, except in the case of certain classes of very rare disease, I'm not seeing the situation where us scientists need personally identifiable information. I look now at the market, the public, and if I get some business implications, but I would like to challenge you. Yes, personally, I agree with you as far as biological data are concerned, but we go in a situation where you have some mind data and that's a different issue. So Mark, how are we... I'm not sure that ownership is the right way to think about this. Let me just give you an example from health. Do you own the fact that you're an alcoholic if you're a bus driver? So there are issues of health or you're epileptic and have uncontrolled fits and you fly a plane. So there are circumstances in which actually it is necessary to share data. And I think that it's more about the custodianship of personal data. Do we own our date of birth? Of course not. Do we own our name? Of course not because actually society only works by the sharing of personal information. You know, taxes, why we may not like them, they're important for running a government in society. And so I don't think a language of ownership because actually that ownership can't be exclusive. There are, I think there should be very clear rules about the handling of data such as health data where the normal rule, and I was a medic by background, is that there is absolute confidentiality, but there were always circumstances I knew as a doctor when actually I would have been wrong not to breach that confidentiality. And the example of that is the alcoholic who comes into my clinic who I know is a bus driver. And what I would say is you should tell the authorities but I'm terribly sorry if you don't, I will. If someone comes into an accident emergency apartment waving a knife and dripping with blood and someone's been stabbed down the road, then actually the duty of confidentiality can be overridden in circumstances. And it's why I don't think simply saying I own the data, you don't. I don't think it's the right way to think about personal data actually. Yeah, I'll fight you. Yeah, I think you raise a very important question about whether you believe, you even asked the different panelists, what do you believe? And obviously triggered by your question, the statement was I believe and then this on ownership, et cetera. If you talk about values and there are of course absolute values, but most values can be seen from different perspectives. Give a small example, you drive with your friend in a car, you drive too fast, the police officer is stopping you, good. And I recently had the discussion with somebody from Northern Europe and somebody from Latin America. The Northern European guy said, of course you speak the truth to the police officer that you were speeding, of course. I mean, have you no values or what? And the person of Latin America said, well, apparently you have no values because otherwise you would defend your friend. So I mean, values are coming from different perspectives. The funny point is when people speak about values, they speak normally about values in a very fixed format, of course. And if you're honest, you tell it to the police agent or if you're honest, you defend your friend. Where normal life is more complicated. And here it would help if we, of course, at the end of today, we need to determine rules. We need to determine what is possible and what is not possible. And at the end of today, we are anchoring our values in rules. But the process towards that need to give respect to the different opinions. And when we do not elucidate enough those opinions, then you get the debates as we have at this moment with the NSA. Can you collect the data for our collective protection? Or do we want to defend our privacy? I mean, looking from different angles. And I think the art will be, are we skilled enough to show that debate from different angles? Otherwise, we get a yes-no debate. We are coming to an end of our most interesting session. Now, if you look at this generation, I mean, not generation, it's this technological revolution. So still must be, there are many opportunities. I think we clearly have a consensus here. The opportunities outweigh by far the risks. But if you would describe with one night you would wake up and sweat and what was your worst dream, what could happen with those new technologies. If we take the most negative scenario, what is the biggest danger? We have only optimists here. Here's the thing which actually keeps me up at night. It is the idea that the fear of change means that suddenly a bunch of governments, including the US government or the European government, actually puts us back 10 years in some of these great, exciting technological developments and it costs hundreds of millions of lives as a result. I know I'm cheating answering the question that way, but that's what I actually fear right now. You know, I spend a lot of my time advocating for us to connect better with the living cells inside our bodies and I think that the reason why I do that is because they're beyond the scale at which we can see with our naked eye. And what I think that means for me that my biggest fear is that there are so many problems in our world that are beyond not just the size scale but the time scale that we as human beings perceive. The rate of climate change is a little bit slower than our heartbeats and so therefore we have a trouble paying attention to it. And what I'm afraid of is that we as humans will run with unbridled optimism and forget in the meantime that we are creatures of the earth and that we should be not just environmental, not just stewards of our own lives and stewards of our own families but stewards of the planet as well. Thank you. It's 2060. We wake up. Not me by the way, I'm dad, I guess, yeah. No, with the help of those ladies, you... Right, I mean of course the ladies will wake up at that moment in time. I hope my children wake up at a morning in 2060 and my worst dream is they wake up in 2060 seeing the devastating impact of climate change for their generation and having a discussion amongst each other, you know what, the generation of my parents who were sitting in the room, they had the technological solutions in their hands but they were not able to convey that into a healthier world. That would be for me a devastating situation. Andrew? I think that... I think that you made the point earlier the difference between technology and values and I think you think of genome editing or more broadly a number of different types of biotechnologies and there's a long list of horribles of ways they could be misused but that's not only true of CRISPR-Cas9, I think that's been true of recombinant DNA and many, many, many biotechnologies that came before and so I think for me it's less about could I imagine ways that the technology could be used badly and poorly and negatively? Yes, I can imagine that. I think it is up to us to have the right dialogues and create the right structures of what is and is not an appropriate use. The technology challenges us to have those conversations now. You know, they were theoretical before, they're not theoretical anymore, so it does call the question to try to figure out where those boundaries are and where there is the spectrum of points of view on those boundaries as well but it is time to engage in those debates. Well, I want to pick up Faker's point because and your point about Europe, that in Europe innovation is generally associated with something that increases risk whereas actually we are going to really need to innovate if we're going to reduce the risk that's come from burning all that fossil fuel so I think we badly need innovation. We're going to need innovation to feed people. The planet is changing, we are going to need to be able to adapt plant species so we need to use the innovation. On the worry side, it is that ability to harness fossil fuel by burning it that has generated the power that lights this room that enables more than 7 billion people to live on this planet but what we've now done is so that's an important infrastructure we now have this new infrastructure on which we've become critically independent which is our IT infrastructure so 30 years ago if the IT failed it wouldn't have mattered at all. So if the IT fails in this building it's pretty much as bad as the power failing and so we've created a new infrastructure on which we are critically dependent and it's actually not one that is governed in a typical way by sovereign nations and so I think my anxiety is that we have created this new infrastructure we don't completely understand it we know that bad things can be done with it as well as the power of many good things and I suppose I worry about a web with freely available encryption where people can do bad things and you have a wild west where the villain as it were can out with the person who's trying to keep the law so I think there are some dangers of the internet revolution I hope that they will be completely outweighed by the benefits but if we're not alert to the dangers then we might be in trouble. I think this was an excellent conclusion of our session showing let's say the balance of on the one hand tremendous opportunities we have solutions in our hands for environmental change for many problems, health problems on the other hand we have to be very alert not to forget about unintended side effects of what we are doing and I think one issue which we still couldn't sufficiently discuss is who is ultimately in control particularly if the time span is so short if you have the process which you described it's alright but if the process takes place in an uncontrolled let's say way then I would rather see risks and not an opportunity for humankind but ladies and gentlemen let's express our appreciation to this great panel.