So welcome everyone so I'm just briefly here to warm up the stage basically Most of the talk will be held by Ralph it's a god building a mixed critical Linux system with the jailhouse hypervisor, so I'm here because I Kind of created this hypervisor and so I give you a brief introduction to what is this about and then hold over 12 to show Basically what he was building out of this So the introduction and the current status. That's the part that are going to begin and then we look into the further details So the motivation to start this project is that well first of all we now they have S&P systems all around all around the world in embedded devices specifically as well and That of course opens some chances in our domain where we used to have a lot of separate devices doing single tasks on Unicor processors now they can do these tasks causally dated together on a bigger machine and Many of these devices Have Linux on it But not all of them and not all of our workloads are Linux based So there's a lot of legacy software stacks around which expect well single core which expect bare metal maybe Then there is the the area of safety critical systems. We are about what more about it later on and Yeah, there's also workload which is basically running DSP like so we really want to squeeze out the last cycles of your hardware and These days out of the multicore high-performance processors So this is a setup and in order to Avoid that we are running like on the picture Linux bare metal Blank a site some other workload which is technically possible, but not really clean the isolating We created the hypervisor jailhouse Which is a little different from other hypervisors in the world out there So first of all, it's really only about the target the static partitioning of the system. That's our main purpose Well, we use hardware visualization for this. That's a technology But what we don't do in comparison dollar hypervisors. We don't schedule So there is no CPU course getting it all and there's one-to-one assignment of devices of resources To well one user one guess so to say Another major difference is that we are Splitting up an already running Linux system and it's shown on the graphics basically so we let Linux boot the system completely Then we load the hypervisor underneath and let the hypervisor basically then Split up the hardware into the pieces that we need for running additional work on it So basically shrink Linux and extend it for other use cases and that all in all it's Emphasizing simplicity over the features So just a brief start up it what we are doing what we are right now. So in January we released the version over at six So it's not quite one dot zero. There's still some bit to go But we made major Steps forward already. So we merged on the seven arm v8 support by the time finally officially Contributed by Huawei nicely Along this we reworked on V7 support We now have a nice way to communicate between the guests. Well, obviously need this via shared memory devices And on top of this we have virtual networks available We now also have support well, I showed you the graphics basically we are running something else than Linux besides Linux But of course we can also now run Linux besides Linux So we can partition large Linux systems into smaller, but many Linux systems Why we see later on why this is useful? Yeah, and we have integrated more support for Interesting knowledge like the cash technology cash and a case technology of Intel which allows us to more fine-grained control which kind of Latencies we can get from the hardware and more and more more support also available these days What's coming next so I'm breathing the future. Well, we want to further advance on the shared memory device That's more a detailed technical requirement But it will help at the end one of the final goal for jailhouse certification Furthermore we are participating Google a sum of code most likely while we have two projects running where we are hosted Coal-located one is QEMO and the other one is slipword So there are the links to the ideas proposal up there and we already received some feedback on students interested in this topics And last but not least we are heading for safety certification of Jailhouse well not of jealous alone. We think it's possible. We have to certify a whole system But first of all we have to look into what is jealous able to do this and that looks quite good so far Now the question is what the hardback can deliver to us because well, we are building on hardware So we can't really say the problem is solved just by solving in jailhouse So we have to look at both parts and that's actually interesting part now So stay tuned. Maybe we'll more about this later on So now I'm handing over to Ralph and it's interesting activities on this. So, thank you very much for the introduction And now I'm going to explain to you how on how we can use jailhouse to build mixed criticality systems so mixed criticality systems are usually systems where you run different payloads of different levels of criticality like critical and uncritical payloads a Typical a typical candidate for such mixed criticality systems is a car where for example The engine control has a higher criticality than the instrument control for instance and currently those control units of those devices or of those devices are Currently located on separate physical systems and with the use of jailhouse We could think of consolidating them back together to one single hardware unit So and to demonstrate and to prove the suitability of jailhouse for mixed criticality systems We implemented a demonstration platform. We call it the chapter the jailhouse copter which is Typical mixed criticality environment. So we have so we have a we have real-time requirements there It is a safety critical environment because the flight stack that is controlling this device Is critical for us and we have typical requirements that we have in any industrial product like reliability robustness maintainability of the whole system Yeah, and we want to show that it is feasible with With reasonable effort to port an existing payload application to run as a jailhouse guest So let's have a look at the classical approach on how those technologies are implemented at the moment So you'd usually have a hardware control unit Where you typically run a minimalistic real-time operating system? So in this case this controller unit runs the nut x operate real-time operating system and on top of it there on the autopilot flight stack, that's an open-source flight stack and This device acquires at a high sample rate sense of a sense of values such as sense of values from gyroscopes compasses accelerometers GPS or the remote control or the remote controller and it uses those values to calculate new values for for setting for setting the motors and This is the flight critical part of the system and then you have to mission critical part of the system where you use very typically use a Bigger hardware stronger hardware That is able to run Linux on top of it and then you can benefit from the whole Linux ecosystem so you have those millions of lines of codes are here for for instance you want to run an open CV application where where you want to measure the landscape or where you want to follow some some waypoints and Then you use some Python application to To to process those data and you in the end you presented using some web server application for for example So we have the critical world and we have the uncritical work and there is some kind of communication channel between those two worlds to to to dump logging data for example or to set new controls to to the flight control so now we want to Consolidate those two worlds to isolate that separate domains running on one single hardware unit and We do this with shale house and shale house is going to ensure that those two domains are not going to or will not interfere in In an unacceptable way So in the beginning we had to make some architectural decisions and we chose to use an octa copter an octa frame This is from the microcopter Project it is originally driven by an AV air by an AVR microcontroller, but as you probably know They they an AVR is not a candidate to run Linux on top of it So we dropped away the original hardware and we put our own hardware on top of it that consists of an emulate navio 2 So this is just a sensor board We have a GPS we have accelerometers we have compasses all that we need is on top of that board and then We have this this is the core of the system. There is an Nvidia Jetson tk1 and This one is a quad core RMV7 32-bit CPUs it comes with two gigabytes of main memory It's not the latest model so it was released in the middle of 2014 But it has a feature rich expansion header So exposes everything that we that we need to do to the outer world such as SPI i2c uR and many GPIOs and What is important, especially for us is that it That it has the arm VE virtualization extensions That we need to run shell us on top of it So it's shell us enabled and what is pretty nice about this board that it that you can run it on latest a mainline Linux So we want to split up our system in the following way on the left side You can see the critical world where we run shell house on On so very divide our hardware in the middle So we assign to CPUs and all the critical devices that we need So these are ice we need an i2c device for controlling the motors the barometer and the rc decoder We assign an SPI device to the critical So to control the girls to get values from the gyroscopes the accelerometers GPS and compasses and then we assign the GPIO device for indicating some LEDs that indicate the current flight status and Then on top of it we run a pre-empt or t-patched Linux kernel and On top of that Linux kernel as that's the user space application. We run the autopilot flight stack yeah, and the rest of their system you can run any payload and It is guaranteed that it will not interfere in an unacceptable way with the other with the critical world So our approach was as follows we first wanted to develop the application without shale house On bare metal so we did everything that you would have to do in any case so we We had to patch our kernel So we first applied the the preempt or t-patch stack later We modified take our device drivers to meet to meet our requirements and then reported the autopilot flight stack So we had to implement some motor drivers that were not supported before we had to implement battery sensing because our our hardware was not supported at this point and This is the stuff that that you would have to do in any case and later on we enabled shale house and moved the critical software to the critical cell and We added some uncritical payload running in in the rest in the rest of the system So What was given is that shale house already supports to run unpatched mainline linux on arm we It runs a preempt or t-patch kernel as I already said and we provide tiny tailored device trees to describe the configuration of the hardware So if you think of a typical device tree of a platform, which is pretty huge We really only only pro describe the parts that we are really actually using So we so we describe the CPUs the memory region some devices that are assigned So that's that's actually all that we defined there the user land so the autopilot application is provided as an initial RAM disk so we so we run everything in memory we have no solid state devices there and Intercell network driver implemented by by Mons, I think he's here hello Mons Act as a communication channel between the critical and the uncritical world So we can simply for development. This is very useful because we can simply SSH into our critical cell and Run our and yeah to all our development stuff so This was already given and now we want to assign devices to the critical cell and this is the point at the part where it got interesting so If you look at a device tree of a device, we see that it consists of some memory region Like this one here jailhouse already supports to remap that memory region to the to our critical cell and If this memory region would be aligned to the page size then there would be then there would be no need of trapping trapping the hypervisor or to intercept Otherwise we need to otherwise so in this case we need to intercept because this Size here is not aligned to the to the page size jailhouse then supports to re-inject interrupts so this device uses the shared peripheral interrupt 38 and We can simply be safe in our jailhouse cell configuration. Okay, please remap this interrupt This interrupt shall arrive in in that cell and with a little of overhead Yeah, the interrupt will eventually arrive in that cell But then we have those three guys left so clocks resets and DMAs So let's talk about clocks and resets so clocks peripheral devices are typically driven by clocks so Device drivers typically ungain clocks if the device is not in use This is mainly done because of power-saving reasons, especially this is especially important for battery-driven environments clock drivers also support to select different speeds or board rates of the device and the reset lines Help us to De-assert or assert resets to to the devices to bring them back to their initial state So this is what so this is what the driver code typically looks like so we first enable the clock then assert and De-assert the reset line to all the driving stuff here and later on when we are finished with disabled a clock again So but in so and those clock and reset controllers are typically organized as memory map.io memory memory regions and so this is one memory region and every bit there describes the gate of a different clock and The problem is that this memory region controls the whole platform of Controls our home a whole platform. So this is really hard to partition So in our context we we have real-time requirements and no low-power requirements So we first thought okay, let's statically gate our clock before before we before we start our cell and We do we do not want to dynamically change the speed or board rate of the device So there is actually no need for the for for clocks at all So let's just not define clocks in our in our cell and in our device tree But it turned out that we must not ignore clocks because device drivers make the strong assumptions that clocks are always available And they are aware of the state of the clock The same is for reset lines. So we must not ignore reset lines The driver will complain if we are if you're not providing the reset line So there there is no way out. We have to somehow Paravirtualize our clock and reset controller and we did this by providing a Chailhouse clock and reset controller to to the critical cell and the hypervisor will trap if we access if we access that memory region and decide if this cell is allowed to gate or ungate the clock or not and The same is for the Linux that was existing before so the uncritical cell This one will also trap so that an uncritical cell cannot ungate a clock or gate a clock of of the critical part and vice versa The problem here is that we must define access bitmaps on a bit granular level And this is really tedious and exhaustive. So we are we are still thinking about better ways of of how we could define that Yeah, so now we have the clocks and resets defined in our cell then there's one thing missing the DMA controllers and Again in the context of real-time systems where latency usually matters more than high throughput We just do not need DMA So our idea was okay, so let's let's simply not provide the DMA channels and Try to get rid of them But the point is here again the drivers make the make the assumption that the DMA channel is available Even if they do not use it So we would have to patch the driver and we didn't want to patch the driver So fortunately on this on this platform We were able to exclusively assign the DMA controller to our critical cell Because there was no other device that was using the DMA controller in the uncritical path Yeah, so now we have know we have now we have a real-time operating system running inside shale house. We have MMO based devices assigned to the critical cell We have a virtual clock interface and we have a jail a jailhouse independent executing environment So we can run the same application inside shale house that we were running before without shale house So this makes it easy for us to port existing legacy applications Yeah, yeah and While the grid the uncritical cell is under full load We start our platform and we are ready to fly and I would like to show you a short video Yeah, let me go back to the slide so you're talking about this one So this is part of the critical cell So this is this is this is not really part of the hypervisor that is part of we have to provide it to linux So before putting linux we have linux. Yeah, we have to put it into the memory and yes and You have to define the same memory regions and interrupts in our cell configuration of shale house Yeah, so this is now our platform starting And it might still look a bit clumsy But that's not because of jail house, it's because of my bed flying skills and it's my bed flying skills So now we got it running, but let's talk about the about the performance of Of jail house when running a real-time application inside it so We so as I already said we are re-injecting interrupt So if an interrupt arrives it first arrives in hypervisor context and then we re-injected to our to our cell and we wanted to know what's the latency that is introduced by jail house, so we so we Made a measurement and we externally toggle and GPIO Wait until the interrupt arrived and then just toggle another GPIO and measure the lat and the the latency between Between those two events. So the green line here is Is our stimulus and the blue line is the answer and if we are not running jail house And if you are running a bare metal application, which only which only tasks is to answer to the GPI to toggle the other GPIO then we get a bare metal latency of 420 nanoseconds and this is the bare minimum of the hardware So what happens if we now enable our hypervisor? Of course We get a we get a performance drop and we drop from about 440 nanoseconds to 1.2 microseconds. Yes, please Say it again No, this is really a bare metal application So we toggle the GPIO in a sampler code in in the inside the interrupt service routine So this is this is the bare met a minimum that we can that we can get in on this platform And we'd let the same application run inside jailhouse and then we get 1.2 microseconds So jailhouse introduces an overhead of about 800 nanoseconds on average on this platform and on maximum. This is what counts we get 2.8 microseconds, which is fairly okay for for for our requirements now it gets interesting what happens if we if we stress the other CPUs in the uncritical context because the system bus of the of the system is still shared We get a performance drop and on average we drop to one point to about 1.4 microseconds on average and to 7.5 microseconds in maximum so this measurement was was done at a frequency of 50 Hertz and for four hours This was a stress test where we stressed very stressed memory IO and Yeah, and CPUs. Yeah, just keeping the cup the bus on load and and as well keeping IO on load And then as I already told you The page size is the minimum if we if we want to do paging So we have to dispatch if we if we if we want to assign a memory region That is smaller than the page size And then we have to we have to we have to trap to the hypervisor and decide if If this guest is allowed to access the memory region or not And we made a we made a simple measurement where we used the the ARM performance monitor counter to to see Yeah, what kind of of overhead is introduced when when it when it comes to when we have to dispatch those pages and Without and it doesn't matter if we use cellars or not if we assign a full page So if we don't use subpaging then including the measurement overhead we have eight cycles and now if we And if we put the rest on the load so the system bus is shared then we have about 217 cycle cycles for For for memory access. So now it gets interesting when we when we enable subpaging Then we get a performance drop from to up to about 136 cycles for access for for getting The the response of the hypervisor and a maximum of about 1000 cycles So if we again put load on the rest of the CPUs then we get a and again we get a performance drop to about 3000 cycles Which is still okay in our case, but this is a performance drop that is actually preventable If hardware vendors would place their devices on would place every device on a separate page And this is what brings me to the next point the requirements on hardware for Yeah for hardware partitioning So memory map they oh if we look at At the address space of the of the i o address space of our tk1 then we can see that There are several several different i square c devices located on the same memory page And even worse we have Different functionality different devices of different functionalities on the same page here so subpaging leads to performance impacts and actually this platform has two gigabytes of Of of memory. So we have two other gigabytes left for placing devices on On the on the i o address space. So This would give us enough space for placing 52 000 devices If we make make the make the pessimistic assumption that we need 10 pages per device So please it would be nice if every device would be located at a at a at a separate on a separate page The next point is the clock and reset controllers So if it is possible It would be nice if clock and reset lines of a device would be Located at the device's physical memory space and not at a And not squash together to one single contiguous memory region where we are controlling the whole platform So this would really help us for partitioning the hardware And this makes the the clock and reset controller partition able for us. Otherwise again, we need we need costful para para virtualization And direct memory access as I already said latency matters more than the throughput and We don't want to use dma channels. So if you develop a device drivers Please keep in mind that someone might want to partition their hardware. So please allow the absence of dma channels If they are not really Necessary for the for the driver and again, otherwise we need costful para virtualization And then I stumbled over an interesting over an interesting bug. So hardware misbehaves when implementing When implementing our platform I Realized that if you touch a physical i o memory region with its clock ungated Then the whole architecture the whole platform will immediately immediately freeze and stand still no kernel panic. Nothing and I I sent this This report to the tag around mailing list and they said, yeah, well, we are sorry about this is the way the hardware behaves and another developer of nvidia, um added It does apply to the whole architecture pre something so in in the in the latest version it got fixed but this bug is known and We need to be aware of that because when someone ungates a clock we need to hide The physical memory pages from that from that guest so that we can prevent that the whole architecture will stand still because An uncritical cell Must not influence a critical one And this brings me to the conclusion in future. We have to take more attention on On hardware software code design. So in the end of the day, it's the hardware where our software runs on And it's the software that runs on the hardware And every work and every software software based work around leads to Leads to latency impacts leads to more overhead But still we were able to show a solid testament for implementing Real-time safety critical mix criticality applications with the jail of hypervisor so thank you very much and And if you have any questions do not hesitate to Question me now. Yes, please It supports arbitrary partitioning, but you have to assign at least one cpu to a cell So the minimum configuration of a cell is you have one cpu and the region of memory. That's the bare minimum Yes, sure. So there's no limitation. There is no Under ideal conditions, there is no influence between between those cells So you can actually run any criticality on top of it Yes, there is influence, but Well, you have deadlines and if you know that you can meet And if you know that you can meet those deadlines, that's that's that's okay Yeah So and yes, there is there is some overhead But if you know that if you can keep it as minimal as possible and if you can keep it deterministically minimal Yeah, so the question is where the influences The interference come from. Yeah, so caches is one reason and I mentioned before on intel for example We have now the cache partitioning mechanism in hardware available That probably will spread to other architects as well in the future Um, that's one one reason but there of course, there is a more going on inside the hardware Some of them you see on the on the diagrams as blocks and okay Understandable, but there are also channels that you don't see because they are well hidden behind and maybe not documented I guess this is very important is what I said before if you really want to go for a critical system certified for a certain functionality for certain behavior You have to include this kind of channels in your in your consideration as well Either you have to argue. Okay. There is influence, but there's always influence But it doesn't matter because the deadline is still fulfilled even if that influence is maximum exposed But you have to know this you have to Detect it either if something goes completely wrong or you have to argue Okay, we know because of the architecture this can't happen That's basically the whole story. So you can't really do this in software. You have to do it Co-designed with a hardware for this kind of scenarios. Yeah, okay Okay, yeah, we saw one case today It's about the clocks and the gates of this in the reds at lines where well, basically you have one one Resource controlling the whole platform or at least multiple devices. You mentioned another case Power control so you have this already on the core level on some devices on some architectures That if you go down with the power level of one core The other one may also go down or at least have a higher latency So you have these kind of interference channels and you have to identify them Well, if the hardware is not capable of Allowing some kind of control then you may have lost There's no general answer to this except that you have to look at the individual cases Okay, oh yeah So this is the kind of scenario of a shared bus. So you have multiple devices on the bus And and only one house could control it There there are always cases which where where this static partitioning doesn't work Well, you can always fall back to do something in software Split up this kind of interrelationship in software But this is not our first step. It's the last resort on a platform, which is otherwise nice But maybe has some shortcoming in this regard Then you may consider software solution, but this is always a trait of basically How much effort you spend on the software and how much effort this costs you basically for for certain certification efforts Or simply of maintenance efforts. Yeah, the whole hardware. Yeah, okay So this is not the model we have here Wherever possible we hand out the hardware directly to the guests So the hypervisor is in charge of controlling the cpus with respect to this Privileges that you need to give to the guest or not give to them It's in charge of of certain interrupt aspects because interrupts usually well in some case you can root them directly But in many cases today you basically are in charge of the hypervisor of redirecting them And that's another task for the hardware for the hypervisor and the page tables You have so the memory accesses that the guest issue And also the memory accesses the dma access devices issue These are also controlled by the hypervisors in this particular case tk1 We don't have the smm you implemented yet, but it would be possible. We have an x86 running So this is another task for the hypervisor and then there are some minor details I would say the special teeth of your architect the special teeth of your board where you have to add something But in general we want to keep it very simple. So this is the major The major aspects I mentioned already and these are really even cross architecture. So the concepts apply across architectures It doesn't make the code generic, but at least the concepts Yeah, well, this is not rocket science and so to say well, there are some some minor details which are new but You mentioned one and there are dozens out there Implementing this on on arm implemented on x86. Maybe on both. Maybe on something Yeah, yeah, even on a bed you have dozens of them So I heard the stories from automotive hypervisors. There are many of them and they help all their pros and cons But there are not that many if you talk about the open source market, for example, they're not that many with this small code base So in case of arm, I think we have some Seven or eight thousand lines of code for this architecture to implement this logic Right now it's not complete but pretty close on x86 the same situation basically And as far as I know all of the commercial wants to scheduling And we do no scheduling at all most of them. Yeah So this is really it's really for this specific purpose designed and we don't want to go beyond that So there are other solutions which can do more and which are already existing so That's not our goal Yes, both Yes, of course So because we do not want that the critical cell can Can Can somehow Interfere with the uncritical one and vice versa So we do not want the uncritical one to interfere with with the critical one The question was if you if everyone is it does Decepting every memory access on a on a shared page on both of both cells just to repeat it for the recording Yeah, correct So So the question was what happens if the critical cell accesses somewhat outside its scope or Well, if you We don't assume this we can actually enforce this So we can apply the same Enforcement on the on the containment on the on the memory access on on the cpu x or whatever you Resources you hand out on the critical as well on critical cell. So there's no privilege right now In this regard for the privilege for the critical cells There are other privileges But this is not in the scope because there are also scenarios where you think about you have two critical cells Basically monitoring themselves and if you now start basically Dropping the access control for these cells you can no longer argue that these two Each other monitoring cells are independent of each other They can actually override each other and then you basically lost your argument Not trusted no no at least from the hypervisor point of view Sorry, I didn't get the last one Okay, yeah, so the question is what what mechanisms we do apply on the on the shared memory Communication channel to ensure the isolation. So so right now the the model which is in the release The odor six release is basically a symmetrical read write memory region So both sides see the same memory region physically and can interfere with each other happily on this memory region That's the current model implemented But we also have a staging tree where we implement two independent channels Which is which are unidirectional So one side can read write on the channel the other side can only read from it That makes of course Argumentation of a protocols built on top a bit easier that they are not really interfering, which of course it is an interference channel logically But you have to you have to apply certain additional measures on the software being built on top That they don't Well violate the protocol you want to implement on top. So that's the basic model What but monts was now implementing on top of this device is basically a linux driver Doing a virtual network device on both ends. And that's what we are plotting here That works both for this Unitary over the multirectional channels as well as the unidirectional channel But you have to same you have the same problem if you have an if you have an architecture where you have separate devices So even then there is some communication channel between those two devices and Yeah, you have to be aware of that The question is how to port it on a different architecture. So yeah, well, so if you look at the read me We have some some architectural requirements on the target platform So we we require for example an arm virtualization extensions on the internal vtx and vtt on amd the corresponding features That's basically the fundamental requirement. So currently we are on the x86 and on the arm world With with the supporting so if you go for a different soc or a different board And these days on arm at least it's it's pretty simple that you by basically Um on arm v8 for example You just have to describe the hardware and if you're unlucky, you maybe also have to implement for debugging purposes mostly virtual and a driver for the ua to the console of the hypervisor is dumped On on a physical device and you see basically what's happening if something is not working initially It's a normal case that you bring up is not smooth and you have to tune a little bit But then the dependency is very very minimal. So they are currently well at this stage right now No further hardware dependencies Yeah, we don't have we don't have drivers currently except for the the console drivers at this moment because we didn't solve Probably the the clock topic yet, which may lead to drivers or may lead if you're lucky to more generic pattern Access control pattern, but there might be some need so on x86 for example We have a driver so to say for the interrupt controller that it interprets basically the access and then decides if an access is allowed or not allowed No, we don't expect Too much from the pre-configuration of the hardware. We just expected the current user of the hardware linux Is not further configuring it. So basically we take over control in the hypervisor of the hardware We freeze the state And we only interfere or control the accesses which we really need to have or keep dynamic during runtime So there's no further assumption basically on this But of course if we look for the details later on I suppose there will be further checks required and further Well validation needed of the platform state before really declaring it to be safely partitioned That's that's work in progress and that depends of course also on the information that we Just are starting to collect from the hardware vendors on this card. No further questions Then thank you


Creating a lesson strategy that suits your students. A lesson plan can be a valuable tool for a teacher to provide an element of direction and flow for the lesson. A lesson plan can serve as a useful reference during a class and as a record for later use. The writing of the plan itself could also help the teacher to think logically and methodically about the different stages of the lesson and the goals to be achieved. Key Points Objectives A lesson plan will generally include the lesson theme and learning objectives, personal aims regarding teaching improvement and any anticipated learning problems, with thoughts on how to deal with them. Thorough planning is important, but a lesson plan is not a script to follow strictly. Some room for flexibility should be allowed in the plan so the teacher can adapt to the needs of the students. Class Size When planning a lesson the teacher should consider the class size and the English competency level of the class, making sure the activities are suitable. The activities should be challenging to the students so they do not get bored, but not too difficult such that they become frustrated or are unable to understand the lesson properly. An effective lesson will involve themes that are in line with a student's interests, the teacher should attempt to find out what the student's interests are in advance and take care to include various interests from lesson to lesson to engage all the students. Timing Timing is an important factor to consider in the planning stage. You should estimate how much time each activity will take so you can plan the progression of the lesson. This reduces the possibility that you will run out of time for the lesson or that you will have time left over at the end. It is useful to have some extra activities planned for the class in case the students move through the activities quicker than expected. It is better to have too much content rather than not enough and the extra activities can always be carried over to the next class. Materials The lesson plan should also include any extra resources required for the class. Music, videos or other objects such as flashcards can be used to keep the lesson interesting and varied. The teacher must consider what props are suitable for the lesson and wherein the lesson they are going to be introduced. Teaching Another factor to include in a lesson plan is what type of interaction is taking place – teacher-student, student-student, or students working alone. Some time with the teacher talking to the class is generally required, but this should be limited as much as possible and balanced with time where the students are interacting with each other. This helps to maximize the time students have to practice speaking English. Lesson stages The Engage, Study, Activate, ESA method of teaching is an effective method of creating a lesson that will keep the students involved in participating, maximizing their opportunities to practice and develop their English skills. All three of these ESA phases are important to provide a balance of activities for the students and it is useful to write down the phase of each activity on the lesson plan. These phases are outlined in the paragraph below. Engage and Activate The Engage phase of a class takes place at the beginning of a lesson. This can involve activities like games, pictures, stories or music. The purpose of this phase is to warm up the students, reducing inhibitions and encouraging participation. The teacher should refrain from correcting the students in this phase as it can be discouraging. This phase is also used to increase the interest level of the students towards the subject of the lesson. All students should be encouraged to speak some English. The study phase of the lesson is where the students will learn new content and can practice this content in a controlled environment, often involving drilling exercises or worksheets. In this phase the teacher will correct mistake sources with problems that the students are having, the focus of this phase is on accuracy. The activate phase of the lesson is where the students can take the language they have learned and applied it in a free-flowing way with the English they already know, in activities such as role-playing, creative writing or surveys amongst the students. The focus is on fluency not accuracy, the students should be encouraged to be creative and not overcorrected. Study While the lesson will always start with an engage phase and end with an activate phase, the middle portion of the lesson can be in multiple formats depending on the complexity of the lesson in the level of the class. Three common types of ESA formats include straight arrow, boomerang, and patchwork. These will be discussed below.  This format is useful for simple straightforward concepts and generally suitable for a beginner level class. A boomerang lesson after the first activate phase a second study phase takes place and then a second activate phase at the end, this allows the teacher to assess the needs of the class and applies this in the second study phase. This type of lesson is more suitable with a higher level class. A patchwork lesson can contain multiple ESA phases in the middle of the lesson and whatever order best suits the content and aims of the lesson, with one engage phase at the start and one activate phase at the end. This style has the most flexibility in the lesson and is useful for more complex concepts, it is suitable for a class with a high level of English competency.  A well-written lesson plan can be an important step towards a well-controlled lesson, helping the teacher to remain relaxed, positive and focused. The students will respond to this attitude and be more likely to be engaged in the lesson. Speak with an ITTT advisor today to put together your personal plan for teaching English abroad. Send us an email or call us tollfree at 1-800-490-0531 to speak with an ITTT advisor today.


It's my distinct pleasure and privilege to introduce to you Dr. Erling C.J. Butanorbi, Secretary General of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science in Stockholm. Speaking perhaps as the ultimate insider on a century of Nobel Prizes. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is an institution that annually selects the Nobel Prizes, the awardees for those prizes, both in the traditional fields of physics and chemistry and in the more recently established prize in honor of Alfred Nobel in the area of economics. Prior to leading the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and taking on the responsibility in honor of serving as one of seven directors on the board of the Nobel Foundation, Dr. Norby chaired the Nobel Assembly at the Karlinska Institute, which awards the prize in its own field of research and teaching, namely physiology or medicine. In brief, Dr. Erling Norby has intimate knowledge about the criteria and the process by which all the Nobel Prizes awarded in Sweden are annually selected and has himself played a role in the selection of a number of Nobel Prize awardees. In light of the man in which Alfred Nobel's original vision had been realized over these past 100 years, it is important to stress that Erling Norby has his own very distinguished career in viral medicine. At Stockholm's Karlinska Institute, one of the world's leading medical research and treatment centers. He is a world-renowned virologist who has published in excess of 400 papers. For more than 20 years, he served the Nobel Committee of Karlinska Institute before his 1990 selection as chair of the Nobel Assembly. Hence, as one of Sweden's indeed the world's leading medical researchers, he had direct knowledge of advances in that field and I suspect he has known the individual Nobel Prize awardees personally in physiology or medicine and also has known the significance of their work for the past 30 years at least. He is presently interested in general, helping people to understand science and also to understand the advancement and further advancement of science and understand the significance for the modern world. Again, in addition to his key leadership roles on the Nobel Prize selection committees and for the past four years on the Nobel Foundation Board, Erling Norby is known and respected as a worldwide premier scientist. It is an honor to be able to invite Dr. Erling C.J. Norby to address the 37th Nobel Conference at Gustavus on the topic, A Century of Nobel Prizes. Dr. Norby. Thank you very much, Professor Astroi, for this kind introduction. I'll let me first express to the organizers my thankfulness for being invited to come here and share these joyful events with you all. I must say I'm very impressed by the remarkable arrangements that have been made here and of course it's a special feeling to address such a large audience and with about 17 Swedish and 17 American flags surrounding you. In particular, it's a joy to see all your young people here in the audience. The Nobel Prize is a unique institution. At the time when it was conceived it was the largest prize ever and it was international. And over the years it has acquired the status of being an exceptional measure of scientific quality. And since in this year 2001 it is 100 years since the first Nobel Prize recipients were elected. It may be appropriate to consider what we can learn from examining this election process, the anointing scientist and the discoveries that have been made. First, some words about the man Alfred Nobel. Alfred Nobel was born in 1833 and he was a third of four surviving brothers out of originally six children. All four boys that survived showed considerable talent and it's very easy to get distracted and elaborate that length about the history of the Nobel family. The dynamic father, he was a self-taught engineer and businessman who moved with his family to St. Petersburg when Alfred was nine years old. The older brothers, they were trained as engineers but Alfred got a training in chemistry. He was very quick in learning and managed five languages fluently when he was about 17 years old and if I can start my PowerPoint presentation you see the picture of Alfred Nobel coming up here. And it's about the age of many of you who are here in the auditorium so you may think about where he was in his developments. So when he was 17 years old he was sent abroad for two years to Germany, France, Italy and North America. And in Italy he worked in the famous laboratory of Professor T. J. Peluz where he met a young scientist by name of Arcaneo Sobriero who had developed an explosive oil named Nitroglycerin. And Alfred saw the potential of this design and he developed a new design for practical uses for which he got a patent in 1863. And this product was later named Dynamite. And at his death 33 years later Nobel had 355 patents registered in his name. In the same year of 1863 when he got this first patent the family except the two older brothers were back in Stockholm after that the father had been forced into another bankruptcy of his for a while very successful business in St. Petersburg. The family started a factory for production of explosives but it was again hit with a tragedy. A major explosion occurred in a storehouse killing the youngest Nobel brother and four other people. Alfred Nobel however carried on his work with explosives and initiated a fantastic career as an international industrialist and inventor and it certainly changed our world at that time by improving various means of communication using the dynamite to development of roads, tunnels, channels, railways you name it. So he established factories in many countries but he preferred himself to live in France. He also did have a home in Sweden but his life was one of very restless activities. He was a very lonely person who never married and his views on life were generally said to be quite dark. Now to bestow honors is a tradition in academies and learned society. And thus also the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences almost since its beginning in 1739 instituted prizes and distributed medals. The awards were meant as an encouragement and they did not really serve as a support for science. In fact our academy recognized the contribution by Alfred Nobel and his father by giving them in 1868 the latest prize for their discovery of dynamite. The amount was 400 Swedish crowns which I spilled some at that time but presumably not impressed by Nobel's standard. Some years later Alfred Nobel was again recognized by the academy. He was elected a member in March 1884 and interestingly he was elected a member in the class of economics and furthermore as a foreign member. His election as a foreign member probably reflected the fact that he lived essentially his whole life outside Sweden. Apparently he saw the attention given by the academy as an encouragement and he kept it in mind when he wrote his famous will. So Alfred Nobel wrote his final will in November 1895. It was written in Swedish and deposited in a Swedish bank and he wrote it without any legal assistance. And as a result there were of course a number of formal defects which led to a series of complications before the will eventually could be implemented. So Alfred Nobel had no immediate ears. His closest relatives were two nephews, one living in Sweden and one living in Russia. And when the will was opened five days after Nobel's death 63 years old on December 10, 1896 the relatives learned to their dismay that only a limited portion of the estate was bequeated to them. So why then was it Nobel's wish that his estate should be used for prizes? It is said that his political views had a socialistic color and that he did not sympathize with transfer of wealth between generations. Since he himself as was mentioned was a true inventor he could appreciate the importance of providing creative conditions for young talented inventors. And his concert was simple. The prize to be given should allow the awardee to concentrate on his work without any need for income for some 20 years. So really a long range scholarship. The five equal parts of the financial returns of the endowment should be given to and let's... To the one who in the field of physics has made the most important discovery or invention. Or secondly to the one who in the field of chemistry has made the most important discovery or improvement. Thirdly to the one who makes the most important discovery in the domain of physiology or medicine. And not listed on this picture. Fourthly to the one who in literature has produced the most outstanding contribution with an idealistic orientation. And finally to the one who has worked the most or the best for fraternization between peoples and elimination or reduction of standing armies and formation and dissemination of peace congresses. Now the common denominator for the first three prizes that you see on this picture is the term discovery. Thus prizes are not given for life contributions to science but for making a single discovery with a huge impact. Only in a few cases is it possible to identify prizes in which a particular reference has been given to the word invention or improvement that it says in physics and chemistry. Still in the early years there were prizes in physics that were given to invention like to Lipman in 1908 for the color photography technique, to Marconi and Brown in 1909 for radio transmission and to the Swede Dalén in 1912 for automatic regulators in lighthouses. But later prizes most often have gone to discoveries in basic sciences. Interestingly the year 2000 both the Committees for Physics and Chemistry proposed candidates in fields of more applied science that is the integrated circus and conductive polymers. Now the prize awarding institutions that are named in the will were for physics and chemistry the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, for physiology or medicine the Caroline's Institute in Stockholm which is a school of medicine and for literature the Academy of Letters in Stockholm and for peace a five member committee selected by the Norwegian House of Parliament, the Sturtinget. And in this quantity should be mentioned that Sweden and Norway formed a union until 1905 when it was peacefully resolved. However of course engagement in Nobel prize has remained a continued shred responsibility of the two countries and there is a Norwegian representative in the board of the Nobel Foundation. Nobel's choice of the five fields has been a matter of many discussions. It's said that he originally considered to be quest his estate to the newly established University of Stockholm but there were certain frictions with a very colorful president of this institution the mathematician Mittag Leffler and that may have made him change his mind and perhaps they also made him exclude mathematics. However interestingly Mittag Leffler himself he bequeated his estate to the Academy which now represents the world famous institution for mathematics under Ari Gies. The inclusion of literature may reflect Nobel's own engagement in that field. He made some and we must admit that some rather unsuccessful attempt in his own to write poems and fiction and towards the end of his life he even wrote a drama that then typed nemesis which he had printed on his own cost. But after his death the relatives made sure that all the copies of the book actually were destroyed except one that's still in existence. Perhaps the suffix with idealistic orientation reflects his belief that literature in his opinion is a means of changing our world and the idealistic focus is of course also apparent in the beginning of the will in which he says that the awardees should and I quote have made the greatest contribution to mankind. When it comes to peace prices it's likely that he was inspired by his acquaintance with the Austrian pacifist Bertha von Sutter who he for a while had employed as his private secretary. It doesn't mean that he shared her ideas but he indeed respected her and in 1905 she herself received the peace price. So what about the implementation of the will? There were many roadblocks to be removed before the will of Alfred Nobel could be fully implemented. There were legal formalities such as the jurisdiction over the will and furthermore there existed no legal or organized structure to take responsibility for the fund. Nobel's relatives living in Sweden wanted to take advantage of the situation of uncertainty and they contested the will in 1898. However the nephew Emanuel representing the Russian branch of the family he supported resolution in accordance with his uncle's will. In fact he even had an argument with the Swedish King Oscar II about the interpretation of the will. Because the king in the prevailing mood of the time of national chauvinism did not like the formulation in the will that and I quote no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates but that the most worthy shall receive the prices whether he's Scandinavian or not. End of quote. So eventually a settlement was made with the relatives who got minor compensation and Emanuel in his own right he became a member of our academy in 1911 in what was then a class for economy, statistics and social sciences. But even the price of awarding institutions brought in complicated matters. In fact the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences created for a while like a moment 22 situation by stating that it was willing to accept responsibilities of being an awarding institution provided that there was an institution which allowed the establishment of the fund but such an institution could only be established if the academy accepted its task. The critical resolution of the matter was the establishment of the Nobel Foundation and this was an idea conceived by the young engineer Ragnar Solmar one of the two executives of the world. And this foundation, the Nobel Foundation was instituted on June 29, 1900 and the Nobel Foundation is an underlying coordination organization managing the funds, fulfilling legal functions and arranging the famous price ceremony in Stockholm. However in all justice should be emphasized that it's not the Nobel Foundation that give Nobel prices but it is the awarding institutions that carry the sole responsibility for selecting price recipients and take notes that you prefer to use the word recipients not winners because I don't think you win Nobel prices. And it also the awarding institutions that give the prices and a few words on the price in economy and my headline is in fact that the price in economy is not a Nobel price. So in the end of the 1960s the central Swedish bank had a centennial celebration and it then decided to donate an annual sum of money to the Nobel Foundation in order to allow the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to give a price in economics. Our academy has a class for economics and social sciences. So this proposal was accepted by the academy and by the Nobel Foundation and since 1969 there is a price in economy in memory of Alfred Nobel and thus of course this does not celebrate a hundred years until in many years from now. It is of course difficult for the public to distinguish the price in economy from true Nobel prices since its process at our academy in the same way as Nobel prices and furthermore since it has become affiliated with the Nobel price ceremony in the concert hall in Stockholm on December 10th. So how many price recipients can there be when you select the lords for a certain year? It wasn't really clear from the will if the price awarding institutions should aim at selecting a single recipient or if there could be more than one price recipient. Originally the possibility of allowing a split into three prices per discipline was considered but eventually it was decided that there could be a maximum of two distinct prices. So one can give prices within for example physics to two distinct fields of physics. Well it was firm or not originally regulated whether a single price could be shared by one, two or more recipients and this was not clearly settled until 1968 when a firm rule was introduced that there can be a maximum of three price recipients in one discipline at the same time. So this evidently again gives five different possibilities. A price can be given for a single discovery to one person or shared equally between two or three persons. Alternatively a price can be given for two distinct discoveries. One half the price may go to one recipient and the other to another but one half the price may also be shared between two individuals giving a total of three recipients. Of course a single individual can receive repeated honors such as the price in physics to Bardin in 1956 and 1972 and as already alluded to early today the price in chemistry to Sanger in 1958 and 1980. There's also the possibility of receiving repeated honors in different fields such as Marie Curie's prices in physics in 1903 and in chemistry in 1911 and Pauling's prices in chemistry in 1954 and in peace in 1962. A Nobel Prize need not be given to individuals. It can also be given to institutions. This possibility has only been used for the peace prize which on several occasions have been given to institutions. One example is the Red Cross which in fact has received more than two prizes. In principle it is also possible to give prizes in natural science field to institutions but that has not been used. So what does the record of the preceding century show as concern selection of one, two or three recipients in the fields of physics, chemistry and physiology or medicine. And I'm not sure you can see that in the way in the back of the room but let me summarize what can be seen here. First of all Nobel Prize have not been given all the years. Due to world war perturbances there were six years in which no prizes in physics were given. Eight years were without pricing chemistry and nine years without prices in physiology or medicine. But for the remaining years one can see here that in physics during the first fifty years there was predominantly single prize recipients. But there is also a fair number of shared prizes. And after the Second World War the prices that are shared increased rapidly when they are shared between both two or three recipients. It seems however that now we have reached some form of steady state so the last decades there has been about the same portion between single and double and triple prize winners in physics. This is of interest to consider because it's frequently argued that since modern physics in many areas to an increasing extent is carried out in teams and large teams sometimes with many hundred collaborators it would be harder and harder to single out individuals. This is probably not true. My belief is that there is always in a team a single or a few individuals that really leads the group, that spearheads the group. Also in chemistry you can see that for the first ten years there was only single prize recipients and later on an increasing number of double prize recipients or even triple prize recipients. And again in the last decades it seemed to stabilize with about four single prize recipients, two to three double prize recipients and three to four triple prize recipients. Physiology of medicine is the field in which over time the largest proportional prize has been given to three individuals. In fact in 29% of all the cases. However it seems that the propensity to selecting three prize recipients is not increasing with time during the last decades. Thus even in a field with a multidisciplinary nature like medicine there is frequently the single individual or a few individuals who make the difference in paradigmatic advances. So let me tell you a little about how we select Nobel prize recipients. And I will discuss only the selection of prize recipients in physics, chemistry and physiology or medicine of which I have as was mentioned personal experience. I can just imagine that the prize work in literature and in peace in many regards are different and that includes certainly uniquely inherent problems. However it applies to all prizes that a candidate that can be considered shall be freshly nominated before January 31 for the prize the same year. So in fact the Nobel work goes on through the whole year and we select and send out invitations to nominate during the autumn. And nominations will be before the end of January. There may of course be a situation sometimes when a particular hot candidate does not receive any outside nomination. And it's possible in such a case that the Secretary of the Committee can secure a nomination so that the candidate is included in the discussions. So only designated individuals have the right to nominate and institutions cannot make nominations. Examples of such designated individuals are professors in the particular field in Scandinavia and previous prize recipients. In addition the committee separately invites individuals globally representing academies or university institutions on a rotating basis. The total number of invitations that are being sent out is in the range of two to three thousand. And the number of nominations for the last decades have been ranging between two hundred and four hundred. Roughly ten to twenty percent of the nominations are new to the committee but obviously most names have been encountered in the preceding work. And let me emphasize that this is an ongoing work that you pick up in the particular year from the preceding years and the whole process is one in which the prize in a certain area matures with time. Now the rules specify that there should be a committee composed of five members elected for a time period of three years and that the Caroline's Institute, the members may be re-elected once and at the academy they can be re-elected twice and serve for nine years. Now the working committee can be enlarged by electing adjunct members on a one year basis and at the academy we only use a relatively small number of such adjunct members and the reason for this is that the academy has, at the academy the committee interacts with a class of Swedish member representing the field like the class of physics and such a class has about 35 members out of which 18 are below the age of 65. But also the members of a certain committee need not be recruited from the class they can be taken from other classes where you have a particular competence. Now the goal in the selection process is to accumulate the best in-depth competence representing the range of the field as well as possible. It should be remarked that whereas the academy represents the whole Sweden the Caroline's Institute is only one of six faculties of medicine in Sweden although they manage about one third of all biomedical research in Sweden. At the Caroline's Institute the decision about the prize originally was taken by the College of Teachers with a lifelong tenure. But then there were changes in the rules for obligatory disclosure of official documents and Caroline's Institute is a state-run university. And then one had to form a new legal entity which was done in the 1970s and this is so-called Nobel Assembly legally speaking a private institution. This assembly has 15 members and it continuously renews itself as members retire or leave the Caroline's Institute. The working committee in physiology and medicine includes since many years 10 members are jointed for individual years and this committee or total of 15 people interacts with and reports the Nobel Assembly which takes the final decision usually on the second Monday in October so this coming Monday you will hear who has received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the year 2001. So to return to the academies we have what you may call a three-chair system so there is the committee, there is the class but the decision is taken by all the members of the academy which are on paper about 350 members and we usually assemble between 120 or 130 of our members for this important decision and that we can also pay for the travel of members and it's a day full of excitement and this will come up in the coming weeks so on Tuesday we will present the prize recipient in physics and for the first time we are now moved to the announcement of the prize recipient in chemistry to the following day previously we announced physics and chemistry on the same day so that will be the coming Wednesday and just to highlight that it's a unique situation where first the chairman of the Nobel Committee describes the whole process that had all the deliberations that have been made reviews all the different fields of the particular discipline and tells about where all the hot candidates are and then after that the committee comes with a proposal that has been supported by the class for a particular prize recipient of the year and then there's another member usually of the committee who gives an in-depth description of what the prize the proposed prize recipients have made and this is a unique information both of those who are active in the field but also of course those that are outside the field so we'll go back a little to how the process works of course all nominations are reviewed very carefully but most of them have already been counted in previous work and those that are newly nominated they may be selected in a number of cases for separate reviews either on a preliminary review or an in-depth analysis but they may also be put aside with a note to the protocol it depends on how heavy they will weigh now the reviews can have very different penetration here there are somewhat different systems at the Kerensky Institute and at the academy and the academy very often makes reviews of fields with all the different candidates and even has started during later years to have hearings with people that are well familiar with this particular important field of science the reviewers that have been used of course can be taken from the committee but also taken from reviews from outside both of national and international origin and towards the end of August each year so all these reviews that have been accumulating during the spring time and summer are collected in the book volume which at the Kerensky Institute used for the final discussion between the committee and assembly and at the academy the collection of reviews is supplemented with a written comparative evaluation by the committee of the strength of candidates and actually ends up with a proposal for a single prize now these yearly book volumes represent a fantastic real time analysis of events in advancement of science of potentially historical relevance because the goal of course of the selection process for the Nobel prize recipients is to identify contributions representing milestones in the history of science and the exceptional renouement of the prize is of course based on the fact that the recipients selected during the preceding century has been if not flawless very close to this remarkably few of the selected candidates in natural sciences and their contribution have not stood the test of time and it is this simple fact that gives the prize its extraordinary international prestige the prize simply does reflect the history of modern science now the part of the will which has not been possible to fulfill is that the prizes should be given and I quote to those who during the preceding year have and I end quote so in practice this requirement has been interpreted to mean that the impact of the contribution has been that to be awarded has been fully appreciated during the preceding year and as a consequence discovers to be honored generally have been made some 10 to 20 years before the year of awarding the prize in fact there are examples of even longer time legs even as long as 50 years when Peyton Rouse got his prize in 1966 for his discovery of tumor inducing viruses based on findings that he made in the 1920s the few mistakes that have been made frequently represent a to rush recommendation for a prize by a committee now another part of the will that requires continuous deliberation is that the contribution shall be beneficial to mankind the way the committee historically have interpreted this in that penetrating is that high quality basic research in one way or the other results in discoveries that marked the advance of civilization however the tasks for committees may become more and more challenging the number of scientists engaged in research has increased markedly with time the number of paradigmatic discoveries probably also increased as a consequence and possibly therefore more consideration may have to be given to the timelessness of a particular prize in the future and the selection from this large number of scientists that are out there of course it means more and more comprehensive work one critical aspect of the price selection process is the secrecy so the process for the selection of price recipients is surrounded by highly developed secrecy and this is a prerequisite to endow the process with as high a degree as objectivity as is possible in human endeavors thus lobbying is useless in affairs that concern Nobel prizes if anything I believe such actions may have a negative effect after a time lag of 50 years the archives of the Nobel committees become available for scholarly investigations the richness of the archives show some increase with time and studies of them therefore may become progressively more rewarding however since the protocols of the committee meetings only include the decisions the reasons for certain deliberations may not be apparent from the archives during the more than 20 years from 1974 and onwards when I had the privilege of being engaged in the work of the Nobel prize committee at the Karnisk Institute it was a tradition that the secretary took personal notes inside the protocol and I think these notes may provide very interesting information in the future and I have in fact encouraged our present secretaries of the committees for physics and for chemistry to also take personal notes of course accepting them that they are personal notes what about nationality of Nobel prize recipients the total number of persons that have received Nobel prize in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine during the previous century is 469 and among these scientists doing their work in the United States dominate more than 40% of the total and in physics and in physiology and medicine the figures are close to 50% in chemistry and of course somewhat lower the figure for prizes in different disciplines given to scientists from Great Britain and Germany are similar however with a clear dominance for Great Britain when it comes to physiology or physics and physiology of medicine if instead one divides this nationality counting on 25 year time periods it becomes apparent that the good position for Germany is highly influenced by the awards that were given before the Second World War whereas the United States since the Second World War has taken exception lead during the last 50 years more than 70% of all prizes in national sciences have gone to the United States and it is of course an interesting question if this country or your country can retain this dominance of global science in the future it's quite a challenge of course a prize means that you also get some money and Nobel Prize recipients they do receive a large sum of money however the absolute value of the prizes varied markedly it had its lowest relative value after the First World War where only about 28% or down to 20% of the original value during the last decades the prize has recovered its value and when we had the celebration in 1991 years after the first Nobel Prize it was back to its original monetary value so during the last decade the prize has recovered and started to exceed its original value and the foreboding is that one will be able to increase the relative sum with time during the preceding year the Board of Foundation decides the prize value for a certain year in Swedish crowns and for the year 2001 the value is somewhat less than one million US dollars now in part of the explanation what improved value of the prize is that since the 1950s but not before that the Foundation is allowed to invest money in safe security not only in safe security but also in stocks and the total value of the assets of the Nobel Foundation in real terms is almost three times that of the original value the yearly yield from the capital is used not only for prizes although close to 60% of the returns should be used for the prizes but also to pay for the work performed by the committees and other employees at the prize giving institutions and also for the prize ceremony and for the employees of the Nobel Foundation however as I think I've already emphasized it's not the money that gives the prize its prestige to receive the Nobel Prize is an unmatched honour which brings an unprecedented respect and recognition from colleagues the fact is further accentuated by the fact that as was mentioned on the one hand the number of


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States. Mr. President, distinguished guests, it's a pleasure to join with you here today in the presentation of the world's largest flag to the U.S. government on Flag Day 1983. However, as a committee, our patriotic role sadly comes to an end. It has been a glorious seven years of involvement with the great American flag, a flag that this nation has come to know so well. In 1976, as a bicentennial tribute, about 30 New York iron workers rigged and hoisted a prototype of this great flag on the cables of the Veranzano Narrows Bridge. The complexity of the concept soon became evident when high winds ripped and tore the 71,000 square feet of stars and stripes to shreds. However, that brief display of all glory filled many a heart with pride and inspired the concept that this great country should have somewhere, sometime, a gigantic flag symbolic of our greatness as a nation. So, and now, a new and even larger flag came into being. Three years ago today, the new and larger great American flag, now 86,379 square feet, was unfurled right here where it is today with some of the same iron workers and Washington area billing tradesmen who did so again today. A year later, many of that same crew, along with veterans of American wars, unfurled it at Andrews Air Force Base to greet the American hostages returning from Iran during the early days of your administration. Prior to today, the most recent display of this great flag was in New York where iron workers and other billing tradesmen unfurled the flag in Central Park. All of this was an effort to raise funds to install it permanently on the Veranzano Narrows Bridge. In November of 1981, the Centennial Convention of the AFL-CIO in New York City, the delegates made a strong commitment to the flag project which has helped bring it to where it is today. Over these years, we have come to love this flag, all seven tons of it, all two acres of stars and stripes. Now it belongs to all Americans. Not just the committee, and in a sense not just to those of us who on occasion have had the thrill of unfurling it. We look forward to seeing it displayed hopefully on every flag day at the monument and perhaps whenever a large patriotic display is needed or desired. So in closing, Mr. President, the fundraising efforts, the thousands of small and large contributions that have already served our country well in New York City at Andrews Air Force Base and here twice at the mall, comes to an end. But our great flag now has a home. So this is in fact the beginning. We are most grateful to the volunteer muscles and sweat of our volunteers whose efforts in the past and now today assisted our fundraisers to make these several patriotic tributes to the land of the free and the home of the brave. May the spirit embodied in this, the greatest of all American flags, live on in the hearts and minds of all Americans. And Mr. President, may I now present to you Mr. Peter Grace, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, a W.R. Grace and Company who served so willingly and so well on this committee. Mr. Grace. Thank you. Thank you, John. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Len Silverfein, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, this is truly an auspicious occasion to honor our beloved flag. It is our nation's most important symbol. It spells liberty and independence to hundreds of millions of people around the world who crave our freedoms. This particular flag, the largest American flag, as well as the largest flag of any nation ever, is the flag of flags. As we view all glories, gigantic expanse, and feel the emotions that well up inside us, we realize that the great expanse we see before us is no greater than the depths of patriotism and pride we all now feel. It is flag day. I am grateful and proud to be an American, especially during a moment like this. There are other symbols here today. John Lyons is a distinguished labor leader representing the might and honor of free labor and free people and the 200-plus years of prosperity that freedom has made possible for the working people of the United States. Len Silverfein, the inspired genius who dreamed and then made it into reality. This magnificent flag represents another kind of freedom, special to this country, the freedom of ordinary people to work. Sometimes only with a dream. Len had a dream. He eventually turned it into an accomplishment, a uniquely American accomplishment. Finally, but firstly and most importantly, of course, our esteemed president is here as our leader. No president in my lifetime, at least, could communicate more effectively or with more inspiration the values that this flag represents. This flag, just like our freedom, belongs to all of us and I can think of no one who better appreciates the cherished American reality than our president or anyone who was more representative of America at its very best. We are paying tribute today to everyone who has ever protected, fought or exercised the powerful and too often under-recognized freedom that makes the United States the envy and the fascination of people around the globe. Before I close, I want to mention the selfless and patriotic contributions made by Roger Millican and Millican and Company and by Michael Bergerac and Revlon, people and companies whose time and money help make this amazing flag possible. They can't be here today, but they're present in this production, should not go unrecognized during these ceremonies. That dynamo and Patriot Len Silverfein is now ready to make an important gift to the American people. Len is the man in charge of the Great American Flag Funding, an organization that, in an inimitable American style, continued to hang in there despite any and all adversity, especially when the going got tough. In fact, when the going got downright impossible, Len summoned his greatest energy and I'll let him tell that remarkable story. May I present Len Silverfein, a fine, outstanding American. Thank you, Mr. Grace, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Lyons, Mom, honored guests. Boy, I'm glad to be here today. I know it's a big flag, but seven years is a long time. There are many, many thank yous, and there's not enough time to acknowledge all the wonderful people that have been touched by this flag and what it represents and, in turn, have breathed energy into the flag's progress. Just beyond me, some years ago, Carl Samberg said, be public.