 There's a television program called Tiger's Den, where entrepreneurs with a very bright idea are given three minutes to pitch their bright idea to some venture capitalists. And those venture capitalists decide which of the entrepreneurs they will invest in. So we identified questions and then this morning, group support, and each group should have somebody who will pitch the idea of your group. Each group has three minutes to sell their idea to four evident people who will listen to the three-minute pitch. They will then try and choose the best one. We asked them to judge with the four criteria, attractiveness of the pitch to fund us, creativity, mega-program relevance, and potential for outcomes and impact. We look for an idea that would be researched further afterwards using a very large financial sponsorship for our military. In the best traditions of modern television, you each have one beer and you will be able to co-finance their project. Okay? So at the end of it, we'll know which is the most popular pitch. So I think we start with our first pitch, which is climate change. So the key element of this project is creating a learning environment for supporting adaptation and building adaptive capacity, both now in the short term because we know people are coping and adapting with a lot of rapid change and the long term because we also know that in 20 to 30 years from now, climate and other changes are going to be bringing unprecedented stresses to bear on livestock keepers and their families' livelihoods and systems. Now critical to the way we're going to work on this is building networks, bringing together ill-read with the missing links, these partners on the ground. So really capitalizing on opportunities we know are there that we haven't taken advantage of. So key to this is action research into adaptive capacity, both today and tomorrow, integrating these three knowledges, science, NGO, and community to really make a difference. Now some of the tools that we will use is first identifying hot spots of change, multiple types of change, economic land use as well as climate. And using this identification process as a way of engaging and communicating with our partners. Now we also, second part of this is we know that people are already adapting. There's unsupported adaptation going on at the community level. There's documented planned interventions going on with NGOs and donors and research partners. But this knowledge is not being well documented, well followed up, and it's not getting to people who need it everywhere. The final key component is that it's all well and good to document the change that's happening now. But there's a lot of uncertainty about the change that will happen in the future. And our tool for that is building scenarios and doing learning experiments again with these partners on the ground. So I'm a professor. I really didn't understand what hypothesis you were testing. Is it just a demonstration or a collection of data of observations? Or what specifically is your hypothesis in ten words or less? Our hypothesis is that people are adapting to changes and the research community doesn't understand well enough the impacts of these adaptations and people's needs to go forward into a more uncertain future. It seemed to me that the fatal flaw in this was, if I could phrase it, I was hungry and you gave me a network. Solutions actually are about a network of knowledge. I mean, solutions is just networking knowledge and knowledge then translated into actions. That's why we say it's about our programme that's about research interviews and about short-term and long-term gains. I work for the University of Wagga Wagga and we're always talking about learning networks and adaptation learning and at Sheik Tech we're trying to target a mere 38,000 farmers and we're spending $150 million doing it. How much money do you need to execute your project? We have $10 million over five years because we're going to do a lot of leveraging through partners on the ground such as the judgment I met at lunch. Mr. Collins who comes from Save the Children and actually has lots of projects that he's dying for us to work with him on and that value that we can add is helping them to document the scientific rigor behind their practice on the ground. We have $1.2 billion hidden in our gene banks at Illinois. There was a paper a few years ago by Mr. Humway and he suggested that planting plant species in arrangements which reflect more light might have a very positive cooling effect on the earth. He suggested that it has an effect on the albedo which is the reflection of light by the earth's surface snow is having an albedo of 90%, black rocks of 5% and dry grass also like 25% or 30%. Now if we could increase the albedo of all the rinsions around the world by 4% as was suggested by Mr. Humway over 5% or 35% of the land surface that would increase the light which is leaving the earth's system by one watt per square meter. That's about 60% of all the CO2 effects of people since 1700s and that has a value of $1.2 billion US dollars. What would be the benefits of this? It might be cooling the earth, it might reduce poverty because it's bringing in the needed money in drivers and it might have possibility to restore arrangements as well. May I just for one minute? I was last week at the ILLU Experimental Station. You have less than one minute left. I was at the ILLU Experimental Station and I saw the June Bank which we have over there saying it's a unique opportunity, nobody else is doing this. We could reduce poverty and improve the environment. We would have better forest species for livestock because we had the possibility to invest. We might do cross-cutting research in ILLU that would address MP1, MP5 and MP7. 30 seconds. Thank you. $1.2 trillion gene bank value. That's the sort of investment we are looking to match as my bank. Can you just give me proof of what you are saying you own and you hold before I go ahead? Is this yours? I think there's a latent value in the ILLU gene bank because we have a lot of species which have been characterized for the nutritive value and the morphology but we have never characterized it for the environmental benefits and this albedo effect. So I think there's really an opportunity to look into that and to see whether there's a potential to manage lens and increase albedo. Now I'm a farmer actually and I would be more interested in making a selection based on grain yield or on water use efficiency instead of albedo. Why would I possibly want to make a decision for purchasing forage crops based on albedo? I understand but if you bring in money from climate credits you could possibly make more money than from farming and that's something to be found out. There has been suggestions that in agriculture also we should look for crops which reflect more light and I'm a bit ambivalent about it because there might be a trade of vis-de-proactivity of the crops. Well I'm totally confused. I'm not quite sure what you want your money for. Are you suggesting that you're going to characterize your gene bank for albedo and who are you going to tell about this and who are you going to sell it to? I think characterizing the potential of species which are there for influencing the radiation balance of the earth it's something worth while to do because if you believe these figures there's a lot of potential in there and we simply don't know it at the moment. Okay, I think in the last century we all recognized that there's been several major accomplishments, monumental accomplishments. Man has walked on the moon, the CG system was created and in the area of animal health a much unsung yet to be recognized. Accomplishment, the eradication of rinderpester, cattle plague. Now all of these accomplishments cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars but I don't think we have yet fully understood their impact. In the case of walking on the moon eradicating rinderpester it was a very concrete and highly emotive success story but what does it really mean? What does it mean to farmers? What we want to propose is that we do a full assessment of the eradication of rinderpester the impacts of the eradication of rinderpester to better inform policy both on the part of donors, international organizations, governments to lead to better animal health programs improve the return on investment in animal health programs and encourage further investment in animal health because we can actually talk about how these things work how they return. And lastly of course this will lead to better benefits for farmers and all those stakeholders along value chains. So what we're actually proposing to do is to do a full description of the history the timeline of rinderpester eradication by going out and interviewing and collecting data from the first hand participants in the actual documents in place and we want this to be objective carried out by people who weren't directly involved in the rinderpester eradication. And from that what we want to capture is who are the champions and what was the process to driving this through so that it was carried through to success but we also want to understand what were their hopes and fears about impacts how is this going to affect incomes how is this going to affect trade? One minute remaining. Okay and identify indicators as well as possible confounders then with this information we want to look at the before and after situation for the indicators and we want to see how those evolved in relation to the process of the eradication how the strategies changed. Now the outputs from this process well first of all for the $10,000 what you'll get is a fully costed fully described proposal but we want to come out with our homework which is rigorously reviewed scientific peer reviewed papers we also want to come out with more accessible information for the general scientific community yeah books and so forth and lastly media messages very important that these messages get out and we hope to produce actually a docudrama the proceeds from which will repay the $10,000 and fund the future eradication of PBR. The world is facing many other diseases which need to be eradicated you mean you're going to waste these resources looking back over your shoulder at something that was already successful? I think there's some major lessons to be captured here and we're not sure that selection disease by disease is the way forward is it an institutional approach where we actually invest in surveillance or some other option or is it that we do want to target another disease for eradication? We don't know the answer to that question so to really inform the process we need answers. When we put the man on the moon we gained some wonderful inventions like Teflon when we put a man on the moon we gained some wonderful inventions like Teflon which replaced cast iron at five times the cost and 120th of the life cycle thus creating businesses, beer industries with no benefit to mankind and we also invented advanced missile technology which allows us to kill each other much more effectively. How do we know that investment in your project is not going to lead to some major negative impact? Well I don't think it will lead to major negative impact it might help us to understand how to avoid some major negative impact but as with going to the moon there was a lot of spinoffs changes in institutions and so forth lessons learned from render pester eradication and we want to fully capture those how did institutions evolve in relation to the needs for render pester eradication community-based animal health different approaches to surveillance privatization and all those issues what really happened? When you undertook the work on render pester you had the money for the work that was done in research the implementation and there was a component of MNE and impact assessment you want more money now to tell the same story what's going to be different? I think this is one of the lessons that will come out was there was actually very little money invested in MNE very little money and most of it was for grand and delicate information the majority of the investment went into actual eradication some of it or what were a large part of it was probably miss spent and not really didn't reach help us reach the goal we want to learn to learn which parts really which parts of the investment really pay for Okay, good afternoon as we're not allowed power points or flip charts Bruno and Nerean are my props Bruno represents CG knowledge Nerean represents development partner knowledge okay, what's our problem that we're going to answer with this idea grassroots knowledge is only partially understood and utilized in our CG problem identification and defining our research agenda the future success of the CG relies heavily on its role as a knowledge broker but this knowledge flow needs to be multi-directional otherwise we will never achieve impressive impact of scale question how can we improve the relationship between research and development partners in terms of knowledge sharing to achieve high impact of CG research i.e. this and if we can solve this problem what are our potential outcomes and impacts well firstly we're going to achieve a system out of the relevant priority setting of livestock research for development and also we're going to increase targeting and impact of early research to higher numbers of resource poor farmers both of these are exactly what our donors want to see so the objective of our bright idea identify strategic partnerships and networks of research and key grassroots development actors and design a process for sustainable multi-directional knowledge sharing our proposal with only $10,000 is to show proof of concept of this process how we're going to do this in a creative way we're going to identify strategic development partners and key priority countries each member of our team will consider one region we're going to assess and synthesize existing partnerships and networks knowledge and knowledge flows within case study CGR for D projects this includes mapping the networks and impact pathways for knowledge exchange and activity of the urban STEM people we're going to design multi-directional knowledge sharing instruments to be utilized throughout the new MPs for priority setting and one of these instruments will include a pilot, ill-rebase knowledge exchange hub if we can show proof of concept then this process can be extended to other countries and partnership networks and within the CG to the establishment of livestock and other targets and knowledge hubs in terms of generating additional funds for extending the work out from proof of concept we see an opportunity to link this grant to money allocated for partnership management across cutting the MPs thank you at CheapTech we're a highly advanced company and we spend a lot of money developing dubious products that we then spend a lot of money convincing our customers that they absolutely need and hence we make billions of dollars tell me why on earth would I invest in your approach where's the evidence that the knowledge of your partners is actually better than the knowledge you have we will use this network to say that your product is bad I find the word partners is very easy to say but in reality we all cannot touch and feel what partnership is all about can you in just two sentences tell me what will be different in these partnerships the strategic partnerships you are looking for we are looking for two way communications firstly we would like to bring all the information the partners are the ones who are in direct touch with the grass root community participants farmers located in different regions different countries our partnership will bring the one way the problems of the farmers and bring it to the you know exchange here we realize that individual scientists are working with specific problems they will not have direct relevant answer so we have the exchange where there is a facilitator who will synthesize the knowledge required to suit the questions instead of directly approaching the scientist who is working with this so this way we have tailor made answers to the questions raised the advantage is in the process you also get to know the real problems of the farmers at the grass root level which will help ill-read to develop new projects in the future okay now one thing with relying on partners is they can't ask for what they can't imagine you are the scientist so why don't you provide some leadership in terms of inserting where you think things should be going that's what we have been doing for the last 40 years that has not been effective we want to be it you know you are trying to feed the people who are not hungry we would like to look the hungry people and give them the food how many of you do not have life insurance because you have livestock or how many of you do not have a bank account because you have livestock or better still how many of you would use a chicken as an ATM card or use a goat as an ATM card there are people in the world that are doing this in south Africa in western Africa there are people who need to sell a chicken so that they can pay school fees for their children there are people who need to sell a goat so that they can take a sick person to hospital um there's also evidence that there's a lot of financial deepening within these rural areas there are a lot of banks there's mobile banking and all that that is getting into the rural areas and giving financial services to these people uh we are coming up with a hypothesis that having a bank account or having an insurance scheme is actually better than relying on your livestock as a savings plan or as an insurance uh... scheme some of the benefits of having uh an insurance scheme or having a bank instead of relying on your livestock is that the uh... you get to have some productive livestock if you look at evidence it will show you that the livestock that they use as insurance or use as uh... a savings plan are the ones that are not very productive if someone is to sell a chicken to take their children to uh... to school they wouldn't sell the ones that are laying a lot of eggs they would sell the other one so if they had bank insurer uh banks or insurance then they would only remain the productive animals which means that it would also reduce the impact on the environment if we have fewer and productive uh... animals then definitely the environment is sustaining uh... very productive uh... issue and then also it would reduce the level of poverty for these people because they are not very vulnerable relying on very uh... on livestock which is could get sick and they could they could get sick or they could be affected by drought one minute remaining so this process is happening financial depending is happening we want to investigate how we can help uh... the pastoralistic advantage of this how we can help them save or get insurance scheme so that they don't sink further into poverty so you're advocating that pastoralists should rely on the integrity of the central bank uh... instead of their own livestock and by the way the livestock will pay a better insurance rate than interest rate than most banks there are cases where livestock is more productive than putting it in the bank but there are also lots of cases where it's not especially when you consider the full cost of keeping animals including labor and potential risks you know you're unlikely to get to get a disease from your ATM machine but when you look at the full cost there are studies that show that in fact the returns to keeping livestock as a savings or as insurance are not necessarily positive it's just the only alternative people have so it's not that we want to replace all livestock with savings but there are people and there are livestock whose sole purpose or whose major purpose is is a non-productive one in that sense and wouldn't it be better if you could transfer the value of all of that off the hoof and into the bank where it could contribute to economic growth you know that can be relate to other people so you're contributing you're helping the environment you're reducing vulnerability and you're contributing to economic growth in GDP let's get to the fundamentals here people in the village keep their money under the mattress because they do not trust the banking system and maybe they've been vilified there's evidence now that things can go wrong isn't this another gimmick that will still money from the people? Do you keep your money under the mattress? Do we? I mean the banks work for some people but a big part of the research here would be first to understand why people are resistant to first to look at cases where the financial sector actually has expanded and what do we find? Do we actually see that people are reducing livestock keeping for those precautionary savings purposes or don't we? There should be evidence but I think that no one ever links the savings value of animals with the actual financial sector so there may be but then we would then with the results you work with the financial sector to develop products that actually are better targeted to these users that would deal with what are their concerns and we would have the piggy bank things like that to address make products that will serve the needs because the pool of savings might be big enough that it would be worth it for the banks to invest in Seems to me your paid off floor is your proposing to use public money to help commercial banks Surely the world has learned something in the last year We understand quite a bit of public money and besides I don't think we are helping the commercial banks we are helping the pastoralists because when they save the money they are securing themselves they are sort of like protecting themselves from sinking into the property line when they learn livestock Are you tired of funding projects that fail that fail to deliver a future for the developing world's children We have a project that will change all that and put you at the forefront of pro-poor development Come along with us We'll turn better production into better lives We'll do this by improving child nutrition We'll generate and communicate knowledge to mobilize communities and households to change their behavior A thousand years of improved productivity will at last be translated into better child nutrition We all share the costs of productivity enhancing research that has never been turned into better incomes and nutrition This cost includes disease death depression and disability Animal-based foods provide a way out For a malnourished child one egg will provide enough iodine to actually significantly increase their IQ These benefits last a lifetime You come with us Give that child that egg You have one minute remaining Why is it and how is it That increased livestock production can do more harm than good More animals, more medicines and more feed mean more work, particularly for women This affects the amount of time they give to child care and nutrition Here's what we'll do Across livestock systems we'll identify the drivers and modifiers of child nutrition We'll communicate these within and between communities We'll work with partners that know the production and marketing systems and offer the best technical support We'll mobilize the knowledge and use every available medium in training and communication We'll find what works and we'll put it to work We'll help those communities but our research will inform and improve every livestock development project in the whole world Together, we'll do research for development Ilri's been in business for coming up to nearly 30 years from its founder institutions The universities and the research centres around the world that contributed to that founding have been in business for nearly 100 years What is it that we haven't learned? We haven't actually really learned how we can make sure that increased production and livestock production and increased income from livestock will translate into better child nutrition or human nutrition We actually don't know if increased production will actually mean more sale of those livestock products and therefore less milk or meat for home consumption or the money from the income will actually be used on something else We don't know if the labour needed for increased milk production or milk protection will actually mean that women have less time to take care of their children We don't know that There has already been demand that's been set up for your services The current chairman of the AU has said no African child will die of malnutrition in five years' time Is this the sort of answer we can put on his table as a solution? We are learning We are learning, we say no African child will face malnutrition But the truth is we know that when productivity increases people sell the products and when they sell the products the income does not come back to the household to improve the nutrition of the children We also do know that when you actually have increased productivity from these livestock people do not know how to manipulate the quality of the products to actually make a difference to the quality of the livelihoods of the children within the house So we find that though we are seeing an increasing productivity the incomes that are coming from that productivity are being diverted to alternative uses and the women and children that we target to actually change their livelihoods are not being impacted positively There's a lot of private industry that's already working very effectively at trying to make money selling food to boost children's nutrition Well, we just rely on private industry and a profit-based incentive system to take care of this This is about increasing as well people's livelihood through their own production and it's not about buying something from outside So you developed the livestock production and at the same time you improved people's livelihood So I think that's as well as a win-win situation This afternoon we would like to share with you some thoughts about moving from survival to success and why genetics matter 2010 is the year of biodiversity Yet, livestock and forage diversity is being lost at an unprecedented rate 600 million poor farmers depend on livestock and are only surviving under the poverty line Well, the challenge to all this is how can we use genetics to improve productivity to move them to success and ensure that diversity is remaining for the future? I would like to call our prop Our prop is an animal breeder and he's carrying with him a small number of highly productive animals These are very blunt instruments for this animal breeder He's out there using them as appropriate as he can but often inappropriately and he's causing great damage to biodiversity This provides solutions to one system We need solutions for several systems to inform better so that income can increase in many systems among many farmers So what's new? Why do we think we can solve a problem now that we haven't solved in the last 40 years? Well, technologies and tools are new We can now use the new genomic and ICT tools to better understand functional diversity in systems and also it's going to allow us to work outside traditional species boundaries This work is going to focus on selection of the best genotypes available One minute remaining Matching genotypes to system and environmental needs Also improving genotypes using biotechnology tools and ensuring diversity is available for the future Why Ilray? Well, we think that productivity is going to be very important for moving people from survival to success and this fits with the CG consortium goals Diversity is a global public good and Ilray has the track record expertise and facilities to do this and if Ilray doesn't do it, who else will do it? So with this, when we do this, we will move 600 million farmers from survival to successful livestock futures My Canadian friend, Howard Elliott, gave me a great phrase which he said was, Deja Mou If you get the point I'd like to know about this, I've heard it all before We've dreamt about this for 250 years Now we can do it, now we have the tools to do it The cow you're holding there actually looks sort of sick which is what I've seen many improved breeds looking like under poor management in pastoral areas Isn't management the weak link and why are we focusing on genetics? Management is only a part of the solution You need to work on the building blocks Can you get milk, meat out of management? That's an interesting response The fatal flaw is can you get meat or milk out of a gene? Well, you don't have cans without genes One person, please, from each of the groups One of the pictures, please come up here We need the dragons to leave us Whichever direction you would like With the ultimate venture capitalist investor Can you do it in about a minute or so? Please think who you want to vote for and put your beer in one of those baskets You guys have to What do you do with the beer? The question is, did you feel Do we feel they put enough in there It wasn't convinced it was a bankable project So do we want to put some conditions on it or do we just want to kill it or what? Of the bankable projects, number two Two was the bankable project It was a bankable project for CG impact to raise the intangible value to the CG name I agree, that was the only one I saw Okay, I'd go with that Which number two? The render pass You said it was a blast to the past, basically We felt it was a very low impact very intangible So then the question would be Can he, building on those lessons provide a forward looking? Exactly, why wouldn't we? I think it was the question exactly We thought it was a wear investment looking to the future and this was all about the past and the future was just To me the future value would be Ilri's reputation though Now you say Ilri to people and they don't know who they are Everyone knows, World Health Organization Oh yeah, they did smallpox That was a huge success and they ride that Well how about we go and say I'd be happy to rank those to one for different reasons and say that our investment banker is not yet convinced so there's going to be an off session round that they have an opportunity They're going to want to see some money award it People voted for Animal genetic resources which got 25 points and then savings got 24 Challenge nutrition got 22 Partnerships and disease were both on 14 Land degradation got 19 and climate and other drivers of change got 11 Does that kind of match with your decision? Let me say that we thought that all of the proposals had passion and made a good sales pitch but we're not here about the sales pitch we're here about the return on our investment and so in reverse order number seven was partnerships The feedback for partnerships was not that there wasn't a lack of passion not that partnerships are not important but we didn't feel that they'd given the investment reason why we needed more networks more research into partnerships and how that was going to deliver high value for the institution In next ranking number six was climate change Excellent and passionate pitch for excellent advocates for the livestock keepers the pastoralists they wanted to serve but we felt that it was very process oriented there was a passionate description of that process but again it looked like more networks we couldn't see what's new and how our return our investment yielded a tangible return and over what sort of time frame Next in order number five climate biodiversity on the possibly positive side an excellent pitch 1.2 trillion dollars worth of value in the gene bank high return on investment we felt unfortunately it sounded like trading in derivatives there wasn't an obvious link between the investment and the actual return in fact we weren't even told what the return was going to be so it wasn't that we there wasn't something there but we simply couldn't see what we were investing in was anything other than a goal up in the sky which could be highly risky and no link to profit Next in reverse order number four human nutrition a good passionate pitch good sales pitch but again we were looking at the return on investment and what we were unclear about when you're getting down to the details is what is it that we don't know after all this time in working all these telling the world about the value of livestock and the link between livestock and nutrition it sounds very odd to us to tell us that we don't actually know if there is such a link or how that link is made so there's more work to be done there if you want a high investment Next number three insurance excellent delivery excellent pitch very passionate and could well be convincing this is after all our number three getting close to the mark here we had concerns about whether or not public money linking to banking, private sector was the right way to go we weren't clear if that was involved or not and given all the issues around banking and given insurance and all the issues around this trust of money was there a possible risk to our reputation of getting heavily involved in this and again the scale of return on investment we didn't feel was clearly pitched to us so close but no goldfish so we have two pictures left now let's start first of all with disease this one again we felt the team made a cogent argument about lessons that could be learned from past experience there was some connection to the future which is why we liked it potential benefits to us as investors ill-read as investors in terms of intangibles in terms of knowledge of reputation of the institute the link to financial returns long term was not clear and we did feel that this was a project that put too much the pitch put too much emphasis on looking backwards without telling us where the future was going and we are investors we're looking to the future not to the past so we saw some strong positives but some questions in our mind the other pitch animal genetic resources again a passionate pitch and a clear articulation about what was new the question was put we've heard about this before and a clear pitch about new technologies and how they would allow things to be done differently but again we had some difficulty seeing the connection between our investment and what that return would be and how it would be delivered there was an element of deja vu in this proposal and perhaps a little bit of thinking to be done about we were disturbed for example that if you were going to invest in this space that you could expect to get returns by treating genetics in isolation of everything else that was going on so some strong positives but also some questions to be asked so dragons chairman please announce your decision the decision is we couldn't choose between the two because neither proposal crossed the final hurdle and convincing us that a $10,000 investment would lead through a defined pathway to a return on investment so John Richard Branson McDermott our investment banker and the team have decided there should be a runoff what's the question they need to answer specifically how will you use your $10,000 to generate new knowledge or a proposal to deliver a high return to this institute this investment bank who is investing in your innovation we were deeply shocked that you had got the impression that we were thinking of genetics in isolation absolutely everything we were talking about was integrating genetics and environment and farming systems in particular it's all about how poor we are currently at matching genotype with environment so that $10,000 is an initial scoping exercise to allow us to gather together the key players who have got the molecular resources and the phenotypic resources what we need to be able to do is tie those two together to build the project which will allow us to improve the way genotypes match their environment and improve productivity for farmers while archiving the absolutely critical of native diversity the $10,000 would be used to fully frame the proposal and understand all the nuances and make sure that we have a good design that's essentially what we'll get for $10,000 but what I want to point out is that this is a relatively low cost proposal overall probably a half million to a million dollars to do a very full and complete job and in terms of the impact it can have is in tens and hundreds of millions of dollars and it's not misspent and I noticed that you thought it was looking backward but actually the need for this proposal comes out in what's going on today as we look at how AI is handled we're seeing that the lessons of Vinderpester being lost we're repeating the same mistakes over and over again so in a sense it's very forward looking and how to inform future policy and it will be very interactive in its end and how to carry that message forward to decision makers, to the public and create new knowledge see that it's used we've had a tough decision from the dragons but at the end of the day in terms of the specificity of how you would use the $10,000 that is what the decision came down to and so... disease wins over disease disease wins over disease