 Hello there, I'm Mariette DiCristina. I'm the editor-in-chief of Scientific American and also the director of editorial and publishing for magazines for the Nature Research Group. If you don't know them, Scientific American is Magazine started in 1845 and Nature, a journal, started in 1869. I hope you're here for the global science outlook. I feel very, very lucky and very happy about the conversation we were about to have because it is about science, which is so near and dear to all of us in the room for reasons that our panelists here will explain as we talk. Just so you know, this conversation will include the folks in the audience. After about half an hour or so, I may start to turn for questions. So I would welcome you to please think about things you might like to ask the panelists. And when you do so, please just give your name and your affiliation just so we know who you are. And I know there are mics running around the room. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce the panelists, and then we will begin our conversation. I'm going to start with my left. It's hard for me to say if it's your right or not on where you're sitting. But at the far end here is Jeremy Farrar, who is Director of Welcome Trust in the UK. Welcome. And next to him is Sarah Amiri, Minister of State for Advanced Sciences at the United Arab Emirates. Welcome. Nice to have you. Now continuing to my right here, we have V. Ram Gopal Rao, who is Director of the Indian Institute of Technology in India. Welcome, Deli. And then next to him, Sue Desmond Hellman, Chief Executive Officer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And last certainly not least, Lars Heikensen, Executive Director of the Nobel Foundation of Sweden. And Lars, it's rather good that I ended up on you, because I'd actually like to begin on you. We're going to be talking about science outlook for the coming year and even beyond there. And when you and I were talking, you reminded me of science's value in the first place. Why do we care about it so much? And I'd love you to kick us off by starting along those lines. Yes, I think many of us have been surprised during the last years that we have seen the very basic values on which our societies in the Western world have been built, being challenged to an extent that we haven't seen before, at least not in my lifetime. And I think that we, who are in this world, we need to stand up more clearly and remind people about why science is so important. And first of all, none of us would have been sitting here had it not been for scientific achievements. I mean, they made our life the difference between the last 100 and 150 years, 200 years, and the other millions or thousands of years. It's really that we've had science, and that's what has built the wealth and the prosperity that we have. There are small things. Nobel laureates like Fleming and Penicillin or Röntgen and the X-ray that we can remind ourselves of. And there wouldn't be any tweets had it not been for the transistor. So I mean, we have to remember that there are major achievements here. Also, I think we should remind ourselves that it makes our life richer. During the years when I've been in this job, there have been several things coming up. Now in the last year, for example, with the gravitational waves, it's not obvious right now what that knowledge can be used for. But it broadens our minds, and it makes our world more interesting. And finally, I should say that there is also a more sinister aspect to this. And that is that if we don't apply to the rules of science, our world will simply not function. You could see climate change is an obvious issue. If we don't have policies which are in line with the sustain of a long-term development, we will end up in deep crisis. Now I'm an economist myself, and I've seen many examples over my years with practical economic policy, how countries have not followed basic economic principles. And they ended up in chaos, deep crisis, high unemployment. I was in Chile last week and was reminded of the military coup again. I mean, there were many aspects to this. But one aspect was that policies were not possible as they were set up. So we need to remind ourselves about this. And for us, it comes naturally, I should say, because Nobel himself or behind our prices. I mean, this was his driving force, make the world better. This is a great and important point that if you want to make the world better and address global challenges, you need to do that with collaborative efforts. And science efforts are so classically internationally collaborative. And that makes it seems like a great time to turn to Jeremy and Sue to talk a little bit about collaboration, maybe Jeremy first, about collaboration, and the role that you see in the coming year and beyond. Yeah, I think if you look back to any of those things that Lars just mentioned, but any of the things that have happened in the last 10 years and ask how many of them might be an argument we would have later Lars, how many of them have been achieved by a single individual working on their own? And the truth is very few. Most are driven by teams. They're working across boundaries. They're working across sectors. They're working in the public. The private sector and they're bringing people together. I think if you look at all of the great advances, they're true of that. Sitting here three years ago, how many people here in the audience were here three years, in the middle of the Ebola outbreak, we were in an absolutely horrific place. 30,000 people infected, 11,000 deaths, and it seemed no end to it. And the reason why it changed and, in fact, the second half of that epidemic was a hugely positive story, in fact, of international partners coming together, putting aside their differences, working towards social science, engagement with society, and ultimately, of course, a vaccine as well, which means the world should never have to go through something like that again. So that's what we've got to hold on to. But I think unless we realize, and it's perhaps a theme of this year's forum, unless we realize that we've got to inspire and engage with society that we are part of, science will not reach the impact it can be in an era of enlightenment, unless we don't lecture too, but we engage with, unless we bring society with us, and particularly the next generation of society, then we're not going to have the support of societies to push through what is required in order to make their advances. And the last point I think I've made, this isn't about something narrowly defined as science that we might have been brought up with when I was at school. Science of the future is about culture and all of the sciences, social science, humanities coming together, because again, if you look at climate change, drug resistance, any of the great challenges, they require a societal element, they require fundamental science, and they require public health and political support as well. And that is the coalition that we need to build. Thank you. I mean, it seems that this year's theme of finding a shared future in a fractured world is particularly resonant for collaboration and science. Maybe Sue, you'd like to take us from here. Sure, maybe I'll just pick up on what both Lars and Jeremy said. The reason I love science is because it helps people. It's not trite, it's not silly to say that. Most young people who want to go into science, technology, innovation think it helps people have a better life. And so the thought that we value science because it improves life for humanity is a driving force for many of us. But important to remember these days, I really would endorse that. And to Jeremy's point, science is done best as a team sport. It definitely is, it's fun, it's inspiring when one person feels tired and overwhelmed, the other person chips in. But one of the things that I think is really true here in 2018 is it's a moment of truth. The scientific enterprise is under question and threat and our ability to collaborate across the world is under threat. So if you take something that we've been looking at very closely at Bill Mundegase Foundation at Malaria, the world got together. Global Fund made it possible, but many, many people across the world in communities everywhere worked from 2000 to 2015 and brought down malaria cases from 840,000, 440,000. That's great. That's great. And that's innovation, behavioral science, change, communities adapting, what worked for them. Today, in the last two years, we've seen a flattening or even a worsening in the poorest areas of the world. So this implied threat that if we take our foot off the accelerator isn't implied, it's real. And so we need to get together as a global community and it's everything from funding to tools to innovation to listening and listening what in that community isn't working to how we use data and metrics to advance it. We have a capacity to collect data and understand data that's unparalleled. How do we put that to use collaboratively across the world? So I think the moment of truth is because the scientific enterprise is under threat but in part it's under threat because maybe we haven't done the job that Jeremy just talked about of having everyone be part of that enterprise. Yeah, I do agree. I think we do have a serious role in inspiring and engaging. And speaking of things that are inspiring and engaging, Sara, I was reflecting on the Mars idea and the things that you've been working on. Could you give us the picture for you in the UAE? So I can give a picture of the UAE in general and why we're invested in science and technology per se and why we even have Mars mission, a small country that was established 46 years ago. It is imperative for us. So we grew up from investments, very good investments in education that came out of a byproduct of oil and oil money. But when we're looking at the future and with the world going off fossil fuels, we need to diversify the country as a platform, as it exists, diversify the economy. And we have key challenges that we're facing. Those key challenges are in water, are in food security, are in energy diversification and then moving forward into having economic value. And science and technology for us has that. It provides the foundations for the growth of the economy. We heard several examples today where science became a driver when there's a pandemic, when there is a problem. We need to transform as a world, as a nation, as different countries around the world to drive science development, not when we reach an issue, but to drive it from a position of comfort, from a position of exploration and from a position of pre-empting the future. And hence the strong drive that we have as a nation. It's understanding our key challenges, understanding the economic drivers. I know scientists don't like linking their work and their results to those directly. At the end of the day, science is there to explore, to expand horizons, to better understand and to gain knowledge. But at the end of the day, having that long-term vision, having that long-term understanding and link between reality, between society, between our common lives provides, a lot of the discussion we're having here provides a significance of science in society. And we need to all work towards having science laid within the fabric of our society, not something that is forgotten that everything came from science, like Lars said. But it's very evident about the role that science plays and the role that science can play in the future for us to all continue in a comfortable life and to make the lives of everyone in the world more comfortable. I like the idea of science as a spectrum. There are things that we are doing at basic research level that will take a long time to unfold and things that are a little closer. And I don't think anybody with an investment portfolio would not think about the long-term as well as the short-term. So thinking about how things are kind of changing quickly, I'm thinking about India and some of the great challenges there. What's the picture for you in the coming year? Yeah. In fact, scientifically, India always had an edge. I mean, from ancient times, the science were always valued. Scientists were always held in high esteem. So India currently, in terms of scientific output, India ranks sixth in the world. And by 2030, in fact, Prime Minister recently announced that India will be third by 2030. So a lot of investments are going into science now and we have good academic institutions of independence. One of the things that the first Prime Minister set up was all these Indian Institutes of Technology and of course Indian Institute of Science has been there for more than 100 years. And he also called them Temples of Learning and there was a lot of value given to the universities and these scientific institutions. So overall, India, science-wise, things are looking good. In fact, the growth rate also has been phenomenal while the world is growing at 4% in terms of scientific output. India is growing at 13% right now. And all that is because of the newer institutions that have been created focusing on science. We have created a large number of institutions called Indian Institute of Science and Educational Research. We call them ISAs. So lots of those institutions were created. So things are looking good. In fact, this globalization also is something which has been happening. In fact, in nature, there was a paper some time ago and somebody looked at the number of papers published with international collaborations for different countries. In fact, for China, for example, the numbers look like while the domestic publications grew almost like 93 times in the last three decades, the publications with international authors grew at 252 times. So that's a kind of a growth China has seen. Even in US, for example, the nature paper says that while the domestic growth was something like something about a few times, I think it was 1.5 times while the papers with international authors was 12 times during the same period. In India, too, it was four times for domestic while with international authors, it was 18 times. I think science has been global, I think. That fact has found now the acceptance in all the countries. So people are pushing their scientists to collaborate more and more. While technologies can be local, I think the science should always be seen as local. This trend should continue. And even the Nobel Prizes that were given to whether it is the God particle or the gravitational waves also emphasizes that that is a way to go in terms of addressing the science challenges. I think we need more and more such large teams working on building platforms. And the gravitational waves, like what you said, though might not have an immediate application, but it is an additional tool for exploring space. So far, the microscopy, the telescopes were the only ways to explore space. Now you have a new tool for exploring space. I think that is a huge benefit, and you will see a sea change in the way we have been doing space science because of the traditional tool that has come into existence now. I think the science needs to be done the way we are doing. I think this growth is very, very encouraging. I think we should do everything possible to make science more and more global and remove all these barriers for scientists even to travel between the countries and collaborate with each other. There are still lots of restrictions, and that is where we need to start working on. Thank you. So we've heard a bit about the nature of science. You just ended up on how it is a global endeavor and how these large collaborations have gotten us very far with some of our global challenges. And yet there are concerns because if we take our foot off the pedal, we might be not moving forward the way we would like to move forward with, frankly, a world that is sometimes in a fractured state and not necessarily always understanding the value that science offers. And one of the places I've heard many researchers express concern about is funding. You talked about while science is local, funding needs to be steady and increased. And I've noticed a rise in philanthropy in certain circles, a rise in other types of funding, even crowd funding. Could we just spend a minute on what in your mind is a productive way to take that forward? What surely things like philanthropy and crowd funding, as lovely as they are, cannot take the place of strong international programs? Anybody like to? Well, I mean, I could say that I think that as we alluded to here, basic research is really something that pays off in the long term in many different ways. And it pays off for the whole of humanity. And one should not be surprised, and I think if businesses are not prepared to pay for research if they cannot gain most of the value from that research. So I think there is a very strong principle argument why governments need to step in. And governments also need to set up the basic structures, school systems, systems for universities. We cannot expect that basic structure to happen via private money. And I think my own country happens to have been a good combination. We've had quite big public funding for the last 100 years, I would say. But we've also, in parallel, have had companies that are prepared to pay. But if anything, the share of the company's interest in the research is going down. So I think it's absolutely against the facts to believe that private funding should be able to take over the role of public funding. It will not happen. So then you are in reality saying there will be less funding for science. And what are the arguments for that? And then when it comes to private funding, I think that, and in that sense, I think that, as I understand it, what you have been doing is interesting. Because it goes a little bit against my intuition. Because my intuition would have. What is your intuition? Yeah, my intuition would have been that private foundations and even more companies, of course, would be more interested in research that would lead to quick results and visible results. And I know that's not always true, but I think it's likely to be that way often. And there, I mean, I've seen that you have been filling in gaps that the governments have not been dealing with. Well, I think that's. Let me say something about that. And I want Jeremy to talk to you. He's in this philanthropy business as well. But two points on what you just said. First of all, I wrote down some numbers. We are not going to fill in the gap. We are not going to fill in the gap. I want to say that twice. So of $37.6 billion on development assistance for health all over the world, this is global health R&D, $37.6 billion. The United States in 2016 provided $12.8 billion. The UK, $4.1 billion. That's 2016. And we're the world's largest private foundation, less than $3 billion. You're an economist. I don't need to say that twice. That's serious. But I think there's a second point on what you said. I'm really excited that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invests in high-risk science. And we're always going to do that. We can do that because we don't have to have a return on the investment. We don't have to go back to shareholders. So we can use different ways to drive important science that contributes to global health R&D. But let me give one real example. I'm a cancer doctor. And I could not be more excited about what's going on with cancer immunology. Everybody can read it in the paper. We're asking, what do those insights into immunology mean for HIV, for malaria, for tuberculosis, for neglected tropical diseases? That same science, which is now decades old. So somebody who was probably working on a fruit fly or a worm 40 years ago laid the tracks for us to be asking and answering these questions in important infectious diseases that affect the poor today. We have to make that connection for people. Could I just, I'll just say it once, but philanthropy will not fill the gap. Thank you, Jeremy. And nor should it, because this is ultimately a government responsibility. But philanthropy can step up, I think, along with a broader societal push to make that case. And actually, I think philanthropy has got a crucial role to play, particularly in the current potentially fragmented political world, to step up to the plate more and make that case for why government funding is just so critical. I would argue, actually, that the US's premier role in the world at the moment has been driven by investment in science, investment in the GI Bill after the Second World War. They invested heavily, and still do, in basic fundamental science. But philanthropy is also not just there to do the last bit of the mile. The Simons Foundation in the US funds really fundamental mathematics and discovery of science. The Wallenberg family in Sweden is funding huge work at the moment on AI and quantum computing with a view that that may not come out for decades. So philanthropy is very broad. And actually, I think if you look at every country around the world, I would argue, of course, in a biased way, that every country that has a parallel stream to government funding that can take perhaps some bigger risk that is not politically driven, it doesn't have a political cycle to it, and might take some things that government funding would not do, I would argue those countries have been the most successful. US has a fantastic, the world-leading philanthropic sector. UK does OK. Sweden does fantastically. When I lived in Singapore, I tried to persuade the Singapore government to set up equivalent to a welcome trust in Singapore. I left because they wouldn't do it, but I'll keep trying. But I think there is a slight difference. There are two types of research, one research which is very basic in nature, like the gravitational waves, where one might see applications in the next two decades kind of thing. And that kind of a research where there is a lot of risk involved. That funding is going down in all countries. And governments are also running countries like businesses. Everybody is looking at the balance sheets. And everybody is looking at the returns for money and all of that. So in the process, that kind of research is getting affected. And whereas the research that solves problems whereas in a country like India, where there are many problems that you can address through technology, that kind of funding for those research areas is easy to get. But if you want to propose something which is a fundamental science today which will have impact in the next two to three decades, it's very difficult to get funding, get the sustained levels of funding. So I think that is an issue. And because today's science is tomorrow's technology. And if we cut short that sort of research today, it is going to affect us in the next few decades. And we will not have any new science to build on. And we will only be working with all available tools kind of a thing. I think that is my worry. The funding for problem-oriented research is going to grow in all countries. But the funding for basic science, the funding which has a lot of risk involved, that funding is going down. And that is where, I think, philanthropy or corporate social responsibility or whatever we may call, I think governments probably will not have money to fund that kind of research, at least in some parts of the world. I think you spoke about engaging and inspiring. And I think that's on a lot of our minds as we look at the world ahead. Because to take the long view, you have to be very, very persuasive, right? To not to maybe defer another problem, to invest in something that people won't see perhaps for decades. I mean, of course, the Nobel Prize is that that research takes decades to have realized that that was fundamental advance. I guess one thing we can all do is use whatever platforms are available to us to engage and to inspire where we can. Because there is a good picture at the end of a long view. Should we talk a little bit more about the process of science and of grassroots collaboration and other ways that science is advancing in the face of various challenges? Have you seen that picture changing as well in recent years? So we could talk more with regards to collaboration. You've mentioned Professor Rao about the importance of collaboration when it comes to pushing the boundaries of science. What we also need to talk about is the next is continuing on scientific findings and having collaboration of research and basically pushing research done by a certain group forward by another group and benefiting from knowledge that is generated across the world. And to talk about that and that kind of collaboration, we come to the realm or the gray realm of IP and ownership of intellectual property, ownership of data that is valuable in the scientific research process. And not only amongst a group that does research and produces results, but amongst various groups around the world. Because the more diverse, the larger group of people that are working on a scientific subject or a scientific topic or a research question, the better the results that we're going to get and the more perspectives that we can get on board. We hear a lot, especially here in WEF last year and this year, about the democratization of science. And when we're talking about that, we need to transform our understanding of what IP is, our understanding of what data is. Where does the ownership of data exist when it comes to the science sphere? And how can we all, as a group, push for science forward? As a small nation, we can only find solutions to our challenges that we're facing today with collaboration. We're not a large population. And we can't tackle every field of science that we require to tackle. And there's many examples of many countries around the world that are at that point that want to enter into cutting edge scientific research, but need to be housed within the global ecosystem of scientific findings and barriers that currently exists internationally, just with transporting people so that they can be in the same venue to talk to each other. Restrictions that are imposed sometimes hinder scientific development when we're talking about the global arena. Science seems to thrive as open as it can be. And that can be uncomfortable, I think, sometimes for different cultures. Shall we talk, then, just a bit about competition in science with all the collaboration? One of the reasons, even before there were challenges in movement or others, is because scientists need to compete as well and to get their papers out and to get their research out to the world. But before we talk about the problems with international cooperation, I have a list of problems also. I like to align myself toward what Jeremy said there, that there is an enormous need for an enormous potential for international cooperation in science. And I talked to some scientists before I went here, and their impression was that so far, the political discussion we were talking about from the beginning or the political issues, according to them, had not really been reflected much in the cooperation in the science world. It's been moving on. And perhaps not surprising, because as I've alluded to here, that we have more technical possibilities, we have a sort of common language in this area. Not all areas of policy have a common language, but we have that. And more and more problems are also either shared, I mean, like climate change. We're obviously in the same boat. Or our economies have, through globalization, through what have happened during the last decade, they have become more similar. So suddenly, the kind of issues that are coming up in Latin America are quite similar to those in Sweden. I see many reasons behind why this will increase. And by the way, Jeremy, I mean, I don't see a conflict really between the collective efforts and the individuals. Clearly, we have some things that are a result of very lone persons doing job all by themselves. But we also see the great need for cooperation. So just a plea that we have a little bit optimistic note on science as a factor bringing the world together rather than the other way around, because I think it is. Well, obviously, the most optimistic thing is most science is done by people about half the age of the average age of people in this room. And there are generational issues. That generation, I believe, and I'm not part of it, thinks differently. They think differently about how they share their information. They think differently about how they collaborate in science, actually. And I think what we mustn't do from the generation with it is put barriers in their way. And I speak with a British accent, and we've just voted to do Brexit. And that has the potential to really damage the role of UK in global science. We just can't let that happen. And that's what I was talking about earlier, about organizations, philanthropy, but also society stepping up and not being complacent about the role of science in society and what it can do, because I think we've assumed that it was accepted by the world. And I don't think we can assume that anymore. Christina, there's one more partner I just want to build on what has just been said is private industry. And private industry, whether it's pharma, biotech, whether it's the entire IT industry, I know this is an area you know so well, private industry has that pace and that competitive juice. It's diagnostics and devices and therapeutics and vaccines. And so I think whenever we talk about partnership, it is the entire global enterprise, but it's not for profits. It's academia. It's both donor governments and recipient governments and its private industry. And that's the secret sauce of the gains we've made up to now. And I do think it's under threat. Thank you. Just to add to that, I think one of the ways probably to drive that globalization of science is probably through the global challenges. If you can identify these global challenges, which can impact lives in many countries and then create a pool of funds for that, then I'm sure people will come forward and work together for those kind of causes. In fact, the National Academy of Engineering in US has made an attempt to actually create those global challenges. Even in India, we are looking at some of these global challenges now. That will require lots of resources. That will require scientists across different disciplines to come together. I think probably that is a way to do research in those cutting edge kind of areas. Because they will also require sustained levels of funding for the next few decades. I think that cannot be done with just governments funding it as three-year, five-year kind of projects. I'd like to let the audience start to ask questions, but just a quick follow on that, which is, so I love the idea of grant challenges as means for inspiration for people to gather around. Things that we can all agree are large global problems, things that require internationally coordinated solutions, collaborative solutions across disciplines with the social sciences. And also, you mentioned the idea of removing barriers. And I just wonder before I go to the audience, is there any other way we could remove barriers that's top of mind to you as far as supporting that collaboration? So good to have a poll and then push. The last time when I was in the Ministry of External Affairs in India, one of the things I advocated was to remove, once you categorize somebody as a scientist, don't need to have any visa. So scientists should be able to, you define some metrics, who you want to call a scientist, but once you say that somebody is a scientist, then give them very easy access to traveling to different countries. That's one big challenge we are facing right now, I can tell you that. The field of research of scientists grows organically and their community evolves with their research. And we should allow scientists to do that on their own. They evolve, they create the connections. They work very closely with those that have the highest impact. Even when we're talking about global challenges, they do have local implications and they do have that drive that is required in imperative across various countries to push this forward. So allow them to continue to organically grow as has been the case for decades past. We do see certain measures that are being put into place and certain measures that have been put into place that needs maybe the visa option is one way of doing it, but allowing the organic growth of scientific research is very important and not having any political aspects influence that is also important. I agree, I'm a great fan of global and grand challenges but strategic thinking will get you strategic like things. What we cannot do, and you said it earlier, we cannot move away from funding that basic fundamental discovery science. We wouldn't have things like CRISPR-Cas9 through strategic funding. So we do have to have a different way of funding which tries to achieve different things in different parts of it. And whilst I like the idea of scientists being able to travel globally, I'm also a little bit cautious of making scientists into another ivory tower and say you can travel around the world but if you're an artist or you're a crop picker, you can't. I would caution against putting scientists back in an ivory tower by making them somehow special. Thank you. So I see you right there, Seth has a question. Maybe you can kick us off. Hi, Seth Berkeley from the Gavi Alliance. I wanna pick up on something Jeremy said which is about the age of the people in this room and wonder what's happening now with science careers for young people because one of the challenges as we scientists are living longer which is a good thing. We know how to play the game and how to get grants and pay outlines are going up and up in age and there's less financing and so today is the best time for science in the world but is it a good career time for a young person to go in science? How long it would take to make an academic life or be able to get the type of funding to support them in that? In fact, it's very country specific. India will have almost like 6,000 faculty positions in Indian institutes, the centrally funded institutes in the next five to seven years. If you're looking for a faculty position, come to India. So apart from that, so we're talking, so on another topic we're talking about is the traditional K to 12 education as a traditional degrees that we're getting out of universities and the amount of time that people are spending and getting formal educations necessary for the skills of the future, for the development of the future. We need to also have a conversation on is the pipeline to develop a scientist? Absolutely necessary, what parts of it are necessary and how can we transform that? It's a holistic view when we're talking about future skills, future development and that's where youth come in. Back home it's very hard to convince people to go down the research path because it takes years for them to create an impact, to find an outcome and what we're thinking of is there a way for us to shorten the time and allow them to see the impact and see tangible outcome out of the research that they're doing rather than having continuous years of training prior to being able to handle a project, get a grant accepted and so on. I think fill and throw with funding is also filling some gaps for training. A bigger issue in the US is then where's your job? So work to do on that. So one in the middle there, I'm gonna try to move around the quarters here. My name is Salman Asafa and I'm the director of IBM Research in Kenya and South Africa. So my question is, I mean, from my experience, I see quite a lot of very interesting scientific challenges in the developing world, right? For example, if you look at Africa's genetic diversity, it actually lends itself for a lot of drug discovery, utilizing computational biology and in South Africa the Karoo desert lends itself to discovery of the universe, right? But my question is, how do we change the narrative that it's not about others solving developing nations problems, but that it's very much important to go and work on science because it will have a lot of global consequence, which also means that a lot of the scientific funding should be coming to developing nations. Thank you. I see that. So I couldn't agree with you more. In the four years now, I've been at Welcome and in very, very close cooperation with Bill and the Gates Foundation and actually the governments of Kenya and many others, as we've shifted our center of gravity for funding out of London and all of the decisions, all of the agenda, all the peer review for all of our work in Sub-Saharan Africa now, it's run out of the African Academy of Sciences and that's been in collaboration with many, many governments in Africa, also the Gates Foundation and many others and I think that shift is happening, it's happening in India, it's happening in China, the center of gravity for scientific endeavor around the world, 20 years from now will not look like it does today. But unless you shift the agenda and who sets the agenda and who makes the decisions, then you're just playing lip service to that shift in the center of gravity. I would also like to add one more thing to that question. There's a lot of research happening at least in India in terms of, you know, but all of that research goes towards, goes towards publishing papers. I think we have gotten into this rat race of publishing papers and not, in fact, somebody has recently told me that per dollar spent Indians write more papers than anybody else. So I think there are metrics now even for that, but I think converting that science back to anything useful, that we are very bad at. I think that is something we are struggling to now find ways of doing that, that is where collaborations will help. There are countries which have that ecosystem in place. I think that is where for us that sort of a collaboration will also be very helpful. I actually want to add on to that. Having scientists closer to policymakers where the results of scientific findings is directly translated into policies, directly translated into the way that we live needs to be faster. Right now that entire process is way too slow for scientific findings to have a direct impact in people's lives. Thank you. I wanted to come behind me here. That's all. For a great discussion, I'm Linda Freed. I'm the Dean at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and a scientist. And I'm responding in part to Seth's question about what the implications are in terms of young scientists seeing a career pathway. I think aside from generic concerns that they, as we disinvest in science as a public good, we see young people losing some of the altruism of science which is very worrisome. You raised the IP issue and I think where public good exists and where IP exists is a critical issue which I'd be interested in hearing from all of you about what the balance is. I'll also comment that I think that many of the skills of thinking and creative problem solving that we're worrying young people in the next generation have to have to be employable in the fourth industrial revolution are scientific thinking skills. And so we also need to think about this background of education, not just training, but education as opening up minds for many fields through scientific abilities. Let's pull some of those strands together. I think the career structure in many countries at the moment for so-called scientists is lousy and I think we all know that and we have to address that. We have to make it an attractive career option. But coming into science, going through, let's say a master's or a PhD and going even beyond that and then so-called leaving that science to play a greater role in a bigger part of society, that's not failure. In many ways, that's success. I mean, in the British Parliament, the number of scientists versus the number of people coming from the humanities is hugely skewed and that has to be, we should encourage people to go and have a scientific training, be broad-minded to bring in the humanities with it, but they're not necessarily see that a scientific career as previously defined is the only pathway. There are many, many other pathways that people trained in science can contribute broadly to society. I would just reinforce maybe because I'm one of those people. So like many people, Jeremy, like yourself and like many of us, and I wanna just reinforce what Sarah said, not only bring the scientists closer to the policymakers, have more scientists as the policymakers. I think that's when things really change, particularly in all the areas of the world we've been talking about. So you don't have to become a tenured professor to declare that your scientific training is success. I find that deeply reassuring. Two small things. I think that you raised the aspect of altruism. I think that it is important for many people who are in science today that they perceive that you're by something which is good for mankind. And of course it's destructive if we have a political discourse which goes constantly against that. And I think the sort of the status of doing this thing is important for people's career choices and perhaps even more. So if I look at my kids today compared to the generation before, I would think that the international dimension of science is a good thing that can be exploited more when you try to convince people to go into science. And then I should say that I think that the huge differences between the position of women and men in science of course opens up a great potential for getting more women into science. And there you need to do I think some extra thinking on how that is going to be set up in a good way given how when scientists are productive that happens to be more or less the same time as women are getting children. So there is a need to think this through and for men to take a larger share of the work there. Yeah, I think one thing I often think about is when families are having children. So there must be ways to even that out. You've been very patient and then I'd like to come over here and then we'll come back to the back of the room again. If you just wait for the microphone if you would. This is one just here. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Andre Guam I'm a practicing oncologist running a statewide network of oncology in New Jersey. Congratulations and panel for your great feedback and thoughts. I wanted to get your feedback on the healthcare system in the US. Academic centers that have a mission to actually push innovation and discovery function and even more pressure and now with the reimbursement changes the drugs that are causing now we approve the first time ever in a live cell, live therapy that costs a million dollars for a patient. So that putting a lot more pressure on the system and it's hard getting hard to train physician scientists that will have enough time carved out to try to do the academic mission but also on academic centers to give an issue of the funding that we talked about on what are the, where do you see that the field is going in trying to find innovative ways to support this academic mission and continue the innovation. Do you have any state like as a physician scientist? I'm not going to get pessimistic but where we are today is not in a great position. But again if we push so-called physicians and so-called scientists down a different track and they learn different languages and they share different coffee rooms we've got to maintain people that can bridge the fundamental sciences and the clinical and public health interventions and I think some countries are still doing that very well but as the pressures on health systems increase in almost everywhere there's a real danger we'll lose this critical group of people, very biased view of people that have a physician training and understand science. So I really do share your concerns, yeah. I don't think it's unsolvable. I think physicians today are obviously incredibly bright people the next generation and I think they do want to if they were given the opportunities. I think many, many, many of them would like to bridge this gap between, bridge this physician and scientist training. I would just say to the earlier discussion even in the midst of healthcare cost pressures and being from the US there's no disagreement that things need to improve in terms of delivering quality care. It's exciting to me to move from a more US based role in an academic medical center to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to see how much innovation happens in Asia, in Sub-Saharan Africa, in Europe, all over the world. So we have so much to learn and I'm so glad that we have colleagues here who you are just saying that this kind of one thing then another, I'm an intern and then I'm a resident and then I'm a fellow. It's a pipeline for developing humans. It's a bad pipeline for developing humans. That's great, I'm gonna repeat that. And I think that it has to ask, we won't have physician scientists if you're first grants at age 43. Who should put up with that? So I think we're gonna learn a lot as every country in the world grapples with how they're going to provide health care to their population. Over here, I've been very patient with that. Behind you too. I think he has been nice. About there and then there, sorry. Thank you very much. My name is Zeblon Velagazi. I'm the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Research, Vice President for Research at the University of the West, what is around the long name in Johannesburg, South Africa. But thank you for the question I wanna ask is what is it that we can do? And this came from an earlier conversation I had with the CERN, STEM. That FIFA has been good at. That they are able to, as a global enterprise, have such a huge impact and inspire millions across the world that they're able to select the finest of the best from across the world, right? And science is a global enterprise. It's borderless. I'm a particle physicist that worked at CERN. So what can we do as a global scientific community actually make sure that you become more than policy makers but you become transnational? A transnational or trans-boundary force that is able to actually play at that level? Thank you. You say FIFA, right? Yeah. Okay, question. Yeah, football, we're gonna win. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm not sure if it was a statement or a question necessarily. I think a lot of the folks around the group here would agree that science is a global enterprise and maybe there are some other thoughts about how to enhance that. I think it is. I think today it is a global enterprise in a way that perhaps it wasn't 20. I think the danger is not today. The danger is that its political forces move in different directions and as there is a real risk at the moment that countries go down a more nationalistic agenda. That's our responsibility to stand up and argue against that. As I said earlier, I think we've been complacent in that. I think we've assumed that was the way the world would work and it has worked in many ways for that. I don't think we've translated that properly into the political area. I think we as a scientific community have been frightened of talking in that scientific space. I think increasing scientists have to get comfortable talking, yes, not just with the media but actually with a political voice as well. Science is a political game and you have to be willing to stand up and you will be criticized sometimes and I think organizations and individuals need to be willing to be criticized. Then if I may, I mean, I very much agree on that but I think we have to realize that with the enormous internationalization of science that is taking place and which is all for the good, I would say, there are some issues coming up perhaps that have to do with, as I said, there has been a similar language for science globally which has helped this development. But how is it today? I mean, are there societies where science is not open for any question, you know? Does God set a limit for what we are allowed to talk about or not or whoever rules in the various countries? That's one kind of aspect but there are also ethical aspects. We pursue, let's say, you know more, much more than I about this but we pursue medical research according to certain standards. Can we allow to cooperate with countries that are doing things on humans, for example, that we would not accept ourselves that they are being done? I mean, there are some issues behind here that I think the global community will need to deal with over the years that are coming. Just to add to that, one of the good things that is happening also is because of this social media presence now, scientists are communicating more. I see that everybody, you know, anyone who publishes a paper in a good journal immediately post it on the Facebook or LinkedIn and everybody looking at it, I think maybe, you know, that perception that scientists are not communicating to the society or not contributing to the society might also change. I think social media might add its bit to that. I'm avoiding the ivory tower. I think there's an interesting and inherent tension between, you know, where we would like to be ideally and where the world is. And I, for one, I'm just grateful that, you know, we also have social science to help us get, get, you know, make the case in the best way possible if I could say that. You have been so patient. Can we please give the microphone to this gentleman? And then we'll come back behind me again. And then we'll have the five minutes, thank you. I'm Gary Cohen with BD in the private sector. So I think to scientists, the value of science as a discipline is self-evident. But to lay people and possibly policy makers, it may be more of an abstraction because they're not as familiar with it. And I think it's the potential impact of science that's more likely to generate support than this is discipline of science itself. During this panel, two things were mentioned. Sue mentioned immunology. Dr. Raul mentioned gravitational waves, which somehow Einstein theorized 70 years ago, just up here. It is amazing. I'm wondering among the panel, what other potential impacts do they foresee that they think could be most transformational? Because I think that's what gets the general public enthusiastic. And I also have one small technical, not science, suggestion. If the weft can make this stage rotate slowly, maybe with renewable energy, then we could all see everyone. The camera people wouldn't like it, but the rest of us like it. All right. So I think the question was, things you're excited about. I mean, one thing I can point to is in the past half dozen years or so that I've been coming to this meeting, I have seen an increasing presence, including naming the meeting, the fourth industrial revolution recently for the recognition of the impact of science and the things coming out of it, whether it's AI or healthcare innovations. And I think those are some of the things that we are perhaps privileged to see here that maybe we could share a bit better. Does anybody want to address the question? I think one thing I'm really excited about, Gary, is something that Trevor Mondell and colleagues are leading with so many colleagues across the world is healthy birth growth and development. So what drives stunting and wasting? How does the brain develop? How can we think about women being healthy and well when she decides to get pregnant? And then having a healthy child who can thrive with the role of breastfeeding, all these questions, how does the microbiome come in? We now have amazing tools to ask and answer those questions. So every child all around the world can benefit from that. That's a global series of questions that we can do together that will help all children no matter where they live thrive. I'm kind of excited about that. I'd also like to continue on that with regards because you touched up on cognitive science and advances there. I'll be interested to see how that is implemented towards transforming education and better understanding how the human mind develops so that we can move away from that pipeline development across the different years and better understand how our brains function and how our children grow up and how transformative the human brain can be. I would, I would, you know, I mean, I understand your question. I would want to be able to sit there and say that if you spend on sciences, then this will happen the next years. I mean, part of the problem is, of course, that we cannot do that. So we need to spend on science and we need to have historical examples. Time and again, my favorite among all the Nobel Prizes in some sense is penicillin. You know, I would not have been sitting here had it not been for penicillin. And I think if most of us go back and look at ourselves, we would realize we would not have been here had it not been for penicillin. So, but there are many good examples of that. But then let me then add another thing. I think that as an economist, if you would correct for natural resources, which we are seeing that they are transient in many ways, you know, we will see the oil countries having more and more problems in the decades to come with exploiting that. If we correct for that, I'm pretty sure we will see that there's a very, very strong link between scientific and science, scientific spending and the economic well-being of people. So I think there is a strong link. Final thoughts, please. I think your question scientists have become very good at presenting their proposals to the grant agencies. We know how to communicate all of that. But scientists are very poor at communicating with the general public, even the gravitational waves. You know, how many times do you actually see the big picture? Why those gravitational waves and how the discovery will impact the future? You know, you find too many technical details which you actually get lost. But it is, you know, in fact, I am from the electrical engineering. I don't work in that area. I was also curious. You know, something which was postulated 100 years ago, now that it is proven with advanced instruments, I think now it just opens up additional tool for exploring space. So far, we just had microscopes and nothing else. Now you have created additional tool. It will impact space research in a very significant way. We understand the creation of universe and we understand so many things because you now have one more way to verify that. But these stories, we need to tell general public and maybe with the help of social media and all of that, we need to do that. Any quick final thoughts about things you're looking forward to from the panelists because I think we're almost at time? The biggest challenge we've got is time has changed and that's not going to be changed without understanding social science and understanding fundamental science. It seems like a great note, actually, because it sets us forward with both a grand challenge and something inspiring that we need to work toward. So I think this was actually a really wide-ranging and productive, collaborative conversation about some of the benefits of collaboration and what we're seeing as we try to create a shared future in a fractured world. I also just was noting some of the ways we all talked about science, that it was a source for truth, a bit of altruism in a collaboration, and hope creative problem solving, good for mankind, humankind. I felt inspired by that and I wanted to thank everybody and I hope you will join me in thanking our panelists for a very rich discussion. Thank you.