Although it's last or near last it's one of the best things to focus on science in the future and it's fantastic to see you here My name is Mariette de Cristina. I'm the editor-in-chief of Scientific American I also serve as vice chair on the Global Agenda Council on emerging technologies every year and Want to tell you to keep an eye out for our top 10 list coming up Joining me today to talk about the global science outlook are just gonna go Left to right from your view Suzanne Fortier principle of McGill University in Canada welcome Subra Suresh president of Carnegie Mellon University in the United States welcome Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn who's president of the Salk Institute for biological sciences in the United States and also Nobel laureate for her work in telomeres and telomerase and Carlos Muelas Commissioner research science and innovation of the European Commission in Brussels welcome all So I I thought a good way to start talking off would be to ask each of you to outline some of your current obsessions What's on your mind when you think about science in the next year, okay? Well First I'd like to say this is the first time that I come to Davos and it's an extraordinary experience. I'm impressed by The extent to which science is part of the agenda and maybe that's why my obsession is about demography Not demography generally but demography of a particular group of people of certain Population and that is the scientists. I think we all know that there's talents all over the world But now we know that when it comes to opportunities for these talent to participate to science It is not even redistributed and I'll mention three areas that are a real problem. I think of course geographically There are so many talented people who are in countries where it is not possible to get the proper education and training in science We also know that it's not distributed all that well across disciplines Some people say we have over supply and some under supply I don't know if we have over under but what I do know is that there are a lot of people who cannot put their talents to use Because they can't land a job they go for one postdoc to the other and can't land a job That's a problem and then we have generations issue So you have people certain decade they say oh, I had it easy Could get a job easily an appointment in a university or in a company others are called the last generation That's a real problem because you know, we're here at the forum. We talk about the fort Industrial revolution. We know it's happening in our laboratories. We know it's real We know we need all the scientific talent that we can find and we're wasting it So that's my obsession. We cannot waste talent Of course, I've thought of some solutions that we might get into a conversation about later But I'll stop here. My obsession is demography and I hope we'll take it very very seriously I've won really super quick follow-up, which is you mentioned one postdoc after another These are not very long on average. Are they no just for the benefit of people who don't know how that works So they get extended to get stuck in a postdoc position forever and then in other fields. You can't find people So you have this very strange Situation right now. Thank you super please let me Pick up from where Suzanne left off talking with starting with demography if you take the US 40% of the PhDs in Scientific fields including social sciences or women Only 26% of the PhD level jobs are held by women So we are losing a lot of highly trained highly talented people from the workforce This is one of the you know, one of the things that can Even more easily fixed than some of the issues that that you talked about Because this talent is already available and we are losing them some of the other things that Keep me awake thinking about science What one of them pertains to the theme of this this conference about the new industrial revolution Whether you call it forth or whatever number you assign it assign to this This industrial revolution is unique in that the pace of scientific discoveries has never been faster The pace of adoption of science has never been faster The access to that information by the average citizen of the world whether he or she is a scientist or not Has never been faster and is across borders in new and unique ways so one of the problems we have is science always works by careful checking of facts peer review a time lag and Assumptions that are claimed Proven disproven and it takes time whereas the information gets out much faster and once it's out there It's very difficult to undo. So one of the things I think we are faced with is The trust for the respect for and the support for science Given this serious disconnect in the pace with which knowledge is created and the knowledge is disseminated that coupled with Misunderstanding and misperceptions of science So next week at the end of next week the Annenberg trust in California Is hosting something called CEOs for science and I'm co-chairing it with the CEO of Amgen Brad Bob Bradway one of the topics we are also looking at is the Entities that benefit enormously from science. What are their perspectives about basic research? I mean they all support this but there are so many issues that need to be addressed So those are few of the topics that are on my mind right many of the technologies We enjoy today like your your smartphone have many many long-term basic research Fundamental principles under them. That's great. Thank you. Let's go Lee your comment leads directly into what I've been obsessing about and growing from the demography issues When people are in science, how do we optimize their? talents passion commitment in a situation which very often will reward short-term kinds of activities and Often don't unleash the potential that scientists have to really get into exciting very significant problems, so there's a lot of Way that science starts to get monitored in very short-term ways Which is not conducive to really doing what scientists to basic scientists. I'm talking about specifically And that importance can't be overestimated the basic science as an investment into the technologies that will come out in the future And so I think this is something that funding agencies Governments do need to think very much about that it's a short-sighted to Try to give you know short-term sorts of supports and ask for very immediate sort of milestones in the kind of basic research Which is going to make a huge difference in the future So I'll just put a number out, you know a five-year period for someone to really run with a problem. That's the kind of thing that I think is needed and It happens in certain settings certain countries are good at it certain agencies are good at it But the temptation is always to make it shorter and shorter and that really limits Scientists and what you see is frustration among scientists because they know they have to produce something smaller and The milestones and sometimes include publications which have been hastily produced because of the short time frames So I'm saying let scientists have long leashes believe me They won't go to the beach and waste the money scientists are passionate. They really will run with big problems if they're given the Means of doing it so that means governments do need to think about how to think about this in a much more Investment frame of mind where you're not only thinking of you know, this is all the year after's You know election or short-term issues So that's what's obsessing me. Thank you Carlos. Thank you very much I mean, it's a pleasure to to be here with scientists because I think that my main obsession as a politician that started as a Young engineer and had a career as someone that loves science and then became a politician is how can I help you? translating your concerns into political language and I think that's one of the major gaps today is that most of the politicians They don't understand that there's no growth. There's no jobs if there's no science But the gap in between saying these two things It's enormous and I sometimes feel that a lot of the scientists and I want to be provocative They talk for their own people They talk for the converted and they have a huge trouble in getting that Message in a more political way and I think that scientists. They are also Political players they have to be a little bit more political and I don't see that So I'm really obsessed in trying to do more of that trying to do my share of it And then just to quick other obsessions is like the main one the second that I've been Since I've started really trying to help Europe is in terms of what's the change that we're seeing in terms of the world of innovation and science on Digital and the transformation of digital in the way we do science and that we do innovation in Europe And I think that Europe somehow is not yet there. And so the main challenge Is for me as a politician to have in the programs for the future in the programs of science That direction of the digital Transforming the way we do science and innovation and I still see That a lot of the scientists and a lot of the people in your field They are still quite verticalized and they're quite conservative in the way they look at science So I'm trying to push for that and then that's becoming a kind of an obsession of mine But I'm here also to listen to you and then I can actually try to Put the message out there, but without you I can't make it. That's for sure So I I love especially Well, all these comments were great and I'm summarized in a minute But just to follow on that point in science right now one of the things everybody is talking about is how can we be more? Multidisciplinary so that we can share learnings and advance forward So I think it's great that we have somebody with your perspective on this panel and would really Welcome and encourage those interactions with policy leaders with business leaders and with others because I think it is very much a Continuum of basic research through to applied and so I think so far We've heard about the challenges of the distribution of science and scientists They're their demography whether they're coming from maybe areas where science Training is less easy to come by or they're not distributed. Well Perhaps through some certain disciplines in one place or another Generationally by gender so there are some challenges there that certainly a multidisciplinary approach would help for now We think about the fourth industrial revolution very much on everybody's minds at the Davos meeting today That means things are moving faster and we have twin problems there on the one hand Can we keep up? Can we really use those technological innovations in the best way that we can to share that information? Which is counter to super's point to the way science classically works It takes a long time in Dr. Blackburn here has has a Nobel Prize how many decades where he working on that those research areas before That was recognized for having all those fundamental principles in place And it's that kind of investment which we really need to be doing now in order to get toward a better future What what are we doing now about tomorrow's science and so let me pose one of the we'd gotten a few suggestions of topics that people at the Forum thought were were interesting and one of them was incentivizing science Toward doing public good problems, but it sounds like it sounds like that's less the problem the incentivizing and more Systemic would someone like to Elizabeth. Would you like to address that? Yes? I think the passion that I always You know amazed and thrilled at with the young scientists who I've trained You know in recent years and going back is not only that they're very interested in science But they really care about the world. There's an idealism there and and that really I think is there How do we tap into it in a way that is rewarded in our academic systems? So traditionally academic systems have had this sort of lone scientist a lab bench code sort of you know The lone scientist leading sort of thing and recognition in the academic ladders You know typically would be you're the leader or the first of the last author and papers and so on Science as you're saying is not happening like that now now really exciting how science happens with interdisciplinary teams People coming in from deeper Expertises and just doing very exciting synergistic things. Who's the lead scientist there? So we have to think very much about how to change those incentives in the academic system and if the funny thing is everybody knows it But it's slow to happen But I think it is happening and the more exciting science which is exactly as you say, you know Interdisciplinary is being recognized as exciting science the more the you know the academic institutions and perhaps you can speak to this Will will address that so I'm hoping that this is a rapidly changing Situation are there does anybody have good good examples or case studies of things? Which we might use as a model to help advance that No, I just stop I've just had a great visit to Israel a couple of days ago and One of the really fantastic visits I did was to the Weisman Institute and I asked them I mean Jean-Pierre Bourguignon is here and I asked Jean-Pierre, but how many ERC grants do they have at the Weisman and he told me it's more than 100 and so I said no That's not possible one institution more than 100 ERC grants. I mean, that's just amazing And so I went there and I picked their brain and one of the most in things things I thought that they do is really being very Interdisciplinary basically someone that does a PhD there Chooses to be in different labs in different times of the PhD in different fields And so you see the the biologist that is actually looking at big data or looking at medicine and Looking at those borders in between the the disciplines which in Europe sometimes is very difficult Because people are so afraid of failing that if you go to the border of what you know You don't know and so you don't want to be there You want to be one really you feel comfortable and so how do you change those incentives? Creating those environments where you can push them to to go to another film, but it's easier said than done because But I've lived it, you know coming from very basic lab science having the Opportunity and more recently is to interact with clinical and human studies people and what you do is you encourage conversations You encourage, you know Seed projects where you reward the actual Interdisciplinaryness of it and then it can start taking off an actual face-to-face conversations. I found her absolutely essential So that's easy, you know, it's inexpensive. It's just rewarding that kind of behavior that is key You know when you think about rewarding science or galvanizing young people to go into science One of the examples that's often given is the example of putting man on the moon President Kennedy's famous statement and that galvanized a generation of Americans and perhaps others as well to go into science and The rewards of that both for the individual and for the society were enormous beyond space exploration and the cold war etc But what our reward system also? Oftentimes favors something really big Where the outcome is Sensational and spectacular and oftentimes we tend to ignore the smaller things which are sometimes equally important Somebody gave an example somewhat jokingly that we put man on the moon Before we put wheels on the suitcase And wheels on the suitcase is an enormously useful innovation and wheels have been around for a long period of time so I think One of the reward the reward system should recognize not only spectacular results Which are absolutely necessary to both for funding and to galvanize society, but also Individual sparks of brilliance that are useful on a day-to-day for a day-to-day life Then think of the spinning wheels on the suitcase But people are talking a lot in research circles now everybody's got a moonshot project Yeah, and I guess that can be very inspiring So is how do we how do we reward also this the smaller and the large so you know in In my previous job as director of the National Science Foundation One of the questions I was always asked by Congress and and by people who received NSF funding Was so why are you putting? So much money into telescopes in Chile out of taxpayer money when that should go to research in other areas basic biology Computer science, etc. But I think there is room for all of this in science. Let me give you one concrete example The Nobel Prize three years ago in economics that was given was funded to an individual Who received continuous funding for 23 years from the National National Science Foundation? to do mathematical work in optimization By the economics directorate and the computer science directorate But the Nobel Prize committee cited the work in For public good in the field of medicine matchmaking kidney Transplant recipients were waiting for kidneys with donors. That's in these could be matchmaking for any field But the biggest optimization result was in in in medical practice and health care So we don't know where the outcomes are going to be and we cannot presuppose the outcome another famous example is Funding for 30 some years of GPS global positioning system Initially it started with the Department of Defense and intelligence gathering during the Soviet era But the basic research was funded for a long period of time before anybody realized That we will all have GPS on our mobile devices and use them every day Had the funding agencies asked the question. What is the return on investment in three years? Nobody would have thought of GPS being in a mobile device 20 years ago when significant funding was given so those are two examples Thank you. I'd like to follow up on that because we started with science for social impact And I have to say I've rarely met a person who has seen their work have real social impact Not be absolutely proud of this. It's a real motivator at the same time though I think we know that the level of complexity of the areas we're trying to Push the knowledge into is very very high and as Subaru says we don't really necessarily know where it's gonna lead We know that it's very very complex chances are that it will lead to something that is Constructive positive we cannot always know and also because it's so complex Often we need to involve people from other discipline which gets the multidisciplinary So social impact is not in my mind certainly absent of the mind of scientists That's a dream for scientists is to see a I did this absolute discovery and look at the impact And I must say being surrounded by young people day in and day out. This is what they want Make that great discovery that will have social impact and you know, I learned something from our students Which is I think it's fantastic people will sometimes call this generation the why generation and they say no We're the why not generation And so they're really want to be at the leading edge They want to be in that space but for social impact. Absolutely. That's their dream I love the idea that people have this perception that maybe scientists are toiling away for many years But actually we do share that common goal We're just going about it in different ways perhaps and appreciating how those ways differ is a key to helping us all move forward together So I promise to the audience and I'm gonna start to take questions very shortly But just so far just to summarize what we were just talking about We talked a bit about the reward system in science and how scientists are really very idealistic in many ways And how we maybe need to tune the incentives to balance bigger projects like moonshot projects Against long and and mainly I think what I'm hearing and I think I'd like everybody to take away from it They don't take anything away is that we should be taking the long view on science if we want to Improve the science outlook over not just the next year, but going forward from there So let's let's poke at that just a little bit more before we take audience questions Another area of course, there are a lot of business leaders here at Davos and policy leaders What can we say the role of business is in science? So, you know one of the Fastest growing trends that the where where science is catching up with society Before policy and business practices are catching up with society examples Range from Uber to Airbnb. It's not the technology. That's rate limiting or driverless cars It's not the technology that's rate limiting It's our ability to create policies and practices government and business as a huge role to play in that that's an example where science is way ahead of Practical implementation and there is a significant opportunity to use science in the right way But there is also a significant potential to abuse science the totally wrong way if we don't get the policies and practices, right? And this is nothing new In in the history of science, but I think the pace at which these changes are taking place It really calls for business and government to to keep up with the evolution of technology and those are two few examples where That that's critical I think that That gap is in between it lies a kind of science We haven't really been talking about explicitly which is understanding humans what human behavior is what motivates people and you know There's a certain kind of science and areas of science around that, but I think that could be greatly Perhaps improved a lot. There hasn't been so much investment in it and yet really understanding what we as humankind Are about and approaching that with all the best kind of science that you can You know, that's to me is part of this is what we need to know in order to make policies that make sense or make business models That make sense so I would advocate for that kind of science Which is you know It's given names like social science or behavioral science and things like that But I think that would be very important to make sure that we're not Missing out on that really important aspect of what should be partly underlying policies and and you know business models I heard earlier And on a panel somebody saying of course the the decision is ultimately ours how we choose to use science but science is a great tool toward finding the facts and It's a great idea to use those facts in order to make policy and I think with the help of social sciences We could really do that better and not only fact story. I'll just but but insights. I mean we really you know The human is an amazingly interesting Thing we shouldn't underestimate how interesting we are we we emphasize, you know the physical health part But actually, you know, I think we should think about so much more about us We're intensely social creatures, you know We function as much more than individuals and again really understanding that which of course economists do In certain ways is is part of that. Thank you. I think Carlos no just two quick points one base is basically on the rule of science and Politics and policies We've set up this year in the European Commission What I call the scientific advice mechanism and the idea behind that is basically to have Scientific evidence to how politicians take the right decisions knowing that politicians most of the time will not follow that Kind of evidence, but they will have the evidence and I think it's important for European politicians to get used that Any decision they take any proposal they have to to put forward they have scientific evidence And that's really science working for politics and politicians So we've just gonna have our first meeting with our seven high-level Scientists that will start helping the European Commission on that the other point that I just wanted to make in terms of the businesses and science We have to give much more incentives to businesses to invest in fundamental science and When you talk to businesses they actually Understand the need to actually invest in fundamental science But then they don't do that step and they don't do that step most of the time because they feel they have much Too many barriers around them. They have difficulties they have a Very rigid labor market. They have a very rigid product market and so I think the bargain that we have to do as Politicians is to say look we will lower your barriers to do your businesses because we want to get out of the way of you Making your life and your companies grow But think about investing in fundamental science And I think the most striking example of that is really when the transistor was invented at the Bell Labs That the Bell Labs was a private company investing in fundamental science and that Unfortunately that trend has gone away in the world that a lot of private companies are not investing in fundamental science But I think they're not doing it because they're actually focusing in actually getting their businesses going and We can actually as politicians start to trade Really the difficulties for investment in fundamental science I am a believer that companies towards the future We want to do the good and the right thing and fundamental science is the right thing for the future And so I'm I'm quite keen on on that message for for the business people So hi just to follow on with the European Commission. How will that work? Is that a meeting discussion? Is it a series of briefing papers at the scientific advice mechanism? So the way it works is basically they are seven chief scientific advisors to all the commissioners And so each time we have a work program where we put forward proposals of legislation And so each time they will go through our work program and they'll say oh look you're going to put this proposal Disney scientific advice and then my colleagues through me they tell me look I'm just about to look at let's give an example at cyber security Do you have any scientific advice on that? And so I'll contact them and they'll try to find the best sources of other scientific advisors in in the world because it's we don't want to Really even anything new we can go and call the chief scientific advisor of the us or Other parts of the world and say what have you done on this field? And then they will have the right of initiative They can say look we think that the european commission should be looking at this subject And so we want to have this initiative on these uh on this matter So on friday in these coming friday, we will have the first meeting and we will put on the table a couple of ideas And so they will start working. There will be a team in my services of 30 people that will do the ground work And that will help them to actually then do the reports There's the all the the academies in europe that are involved that will be a link To scientists and so it's very exciting It's probably the most exciting project that i've really on this first year accomplished and and It's uh, you imagine it's not easy to get it all together and then The devil is on the detail. We have to make it work And that will be these second years of really pushing so you're doing an experiment, which is very much keeping Yeah, and I I heard what you said before and I think it's it's a fair critique sometimes That the scientists need to be more directly involved to help that with policy Just one other quick follow-on that I'd like to come to susan Will this sort of science core of advisors Also maybe reach out to the business community To to encourage them to invest in science and give them some reasons why Is that a I mean, that's a that's a good idea. I didn't think about that one But I think they they they should absolutely they should absolutely Yes, I like to jump in uh that topic because of course It's so obvious that science is in every business whether we're talking about Industrial financial service. It's everywhere And I think we are not at the proper level of optimization when we have scientists in different Sectors that do not work together do not talk to each other You know, we've been talking for many years about the pool and the push and all of that I think to me this is This is 20th century language. Frankly. I think we need to be in zones of dynamic Interactions where we learn to Know each other we get to learn to know each other We learn to trust each other we find out if the chemistry is good or not And rather than push and push we learn to dance together Because we have to do it together in a much more natural harmonious way that is Gonna advance science and advance more importantly because to me what is important also is really that science that has so much to offer Makes its way into society and there's no question that the business sector Has the prime role there So if we can learn to work with them, it's going to get there faster We can't afford to take The long time sometimes that we are taking now we need to accelerate And for acceleration We need to be able to work together better than we do now. So let's learn how to dance So we've heard about some of the challenges With science moving faster than policy can keep up why it'd be a great idea to Gather some more insights about about how we humans work and think We have a great suggestion of how to do that in a team of advisors To help work with policy leaders and maybe business community as well And I love the thought of of dancing together to improve science who says science is no fun So I think I'd love to I mean I can ask them because you can see questions all day But maybe somebody in the audience at this point. I see two in the front. How about you and you? You have a microphone here, please And then I'll try to look back here Thanks very much. It's very fascinating as a labor economist. I'm very Intrigued by how much Discussion about the labor market for scientists is is central to your concerns about the future of science and I wanted to suggest that Something to something that seems very worth exploring is a large scale randomized experiment Where you enlisted major funding agencies and some major universities In experimenting with a range of initiatives Modifying the tenure processing universities providing much more comprehensive family support providing long-term versus short-term funding and If you know if you if there was a significant amount of funding you could probably get universities to actually Really try different policies and do what economists have become very fond of doing in recent years Which is to do randomized experiment apply the scientific method to to the study of the science labor market Second then I just wanted to mention not completely unrelated is Is if you can if anyone is interested in speaking about the role of retirement in science in the United States we've had An interpretation of the age discrimination employment act that essentially keeps the universities from having mandatory retirement agents and When I hear discussions about the difficulty the postdocs have in getting positions I reminded of all the Scientists who are over 70 and not very productive but but Still take a lot of university resources. Do you have any ideas about how to address that? Anyone like to tackle either of those I've just heard this morning my A scientist that if you delay your age of retirement, you delay the probability of getting diseases like Alzheimer And so I think that was a good news that you should not retire and you should keep going. It's a good No, but we're working it. I mean, it's just on the labor market. I mean we we are as you know Horizon 2020 and the European research council one of the big really employers of scientists and what we've been working this year is really how we can actually Lower down the barriers for scientists to go around Europe or outside of Europe and we're setting up Basically a pension fund So people can have a complementary pension When they move from university in one country to another country and people are not doing that because they were not sure that At some point they will have their retirement plan. So we've been working on on that This year and I hope that next year we'll have good news For the european scientists that they can work all over europe and have at least We're not going to change the way that each one of the countries work with their pension plans But they can have a plus and that plus will basically be a good thing for them So could I just remind us when you when you speak to just remember to introduce yourself? There was question. Hi. So i'm Fiona Harrison from Caltech and I wanted to ask a question about what I see is the increased privatization of basic research And in particular i'm talking about things like astronomy Theoretical physics and so i'm the dean of the division of physics mathematics and astronomy at caltech And i'm at right now in the midst of advising my Department chairs how many graduate students they could admit and my decision is largely based on how much private funding i've been able to raise for fellowships in this area also Caltech is involved in The next big optical telescope. So without Any government support The united states is you know collaborating with canada and India and china and japan To build the next big telescope without any help from the government and so I see basic research as you know, it's basically the more foundation building the telescope And maybe that's fine But i'm just wondering if you could comment especially from your position at nsf How you see this because You know in some fundamental areas the acceptance rates of grants are a few percent you know we're at a state where Really to move forward in a lot of areas we have to raise private funds so I'm happy to take that question. I'm very familiar with the 30 meter telescope for that you are referring to nsf in fact my last act as director of nsf was to Authorize a 480 million dollar telescope project out of nsf budget in partnership with the Department of energy the government of chile european Many many countries in europe So that there is significant government funding for astronomy From a number of entities in the u.s from nasa for space telescopes to nsf for land-based telescopes And partnerships with various governments around the world I think One of the reasons you see this Increased privatization for some of these is the pace of scientific progress It is far ahead of the ability of the governments to feed that scientific curiosity And this has been one of the challenges So in fact the the particular telescope project was an outgrowth of the decadal survey by the astronomy community And they had three priorities and this was not the first or the second priority It was a third priority the first priority was funded by the national science foundation. So there is a different And this is from the scientists is the input from the scientists on what are the priority for the community So there is a variety of mechanisms. I think Even in the projects that the u.s government has funded there is some private partnership in the Project that I was referring to lsst project in chile There is private funding to supplement government funding. So that that process is moving forward I thought you were going to go slightly differently with your question and the the second point I want to mention is institutions like caltech where I spent two sabbaticals Arkana gmail and and many of the private universities The model for funding these are private universities. They rely on endowment And they rely on other sources of income And there is no federal funding or state funding for these institutions other than research funding So there has to be a financially sustainable model To move this and that goes back to your question at a time when there is no mandatory retirement age And when you want to renew the faculty and the pace of science is moving forward The equipment need to be continuously refurbished. Where do you find the resources to do this? Private funding is one source, but it cannot be the only other source Going to the other side of it. I was This is where I thought you were leading your question if we look at you Carlos mentioned Bell Labs. We don't have industry supporting basic research to the extent it once used to do So given that at least basic research that's publishable in the open domain We don't see that So given that I think we have another question to ask which is in the societal interest Just like it is important for us to support human curiosity Creativity whether it's in the arts or music or humanities or economics It is equally important for us as a global society To say we want to support any activity that pushes the boundaries of human intellect Whether it has any financial dividend or not and we take the example of solving solving Fermat's last theorem It took several hundred years to do this The national science foundation supported the professor at Princeton For many many years many times unsuccessfully and in the end there was a success successful outcome And I think it's it's important To put emphasis on that as well. I think these are the tensions that we see In this in this process It was a question right there the second row I'm David Kim the chairman of Jason group and I'm I'm investing heavily And started companies with high technology. And so I'm also always hungry for new technology and new business model, but I'm also the co-chairman of world energy council, which is the largest organization within global energy community And the energy community faces the Of course the problem of energy security And also this is complicated by the need for the energy sustainability There are many Magic bullets which promise to solve this dilemma of energy security and sustainability But the problem is that they are very expensive And so I'm looking for some silver bullet which can solve this dilemma of security and sustainability And new source of energy or news New energy which can convert this new source and energy into power So when I look back to history, I'm intrigued by the fact that the first industrial revolution was kicked off by A man James Watt who was nothing but maintainer in the coal mines And also second Revolution was also initiated Unknowingly by himself and by some people around him by very humble man Michael Friday Who was nothing but the janitor in royal institute So I'm now looking for I I'm looking for as such a Person who might not know himself or who might others Not recognize him, but still he has a silver bullet who can Break through this dilemma of energy security and energy sustainability, which we are always talking about So I'd like to have your comment on that You're looking for a suggestion for the silver ball Are you looking to fusion? No, I'm not joking. I I mean Oh, and you're looking to you said he in the general way. It might be a she I'll just point out But uh, I I as I understand there may be very exciting progress in fusion which might be one One way of approaching this who knows where it's going to come from I think there are members in the audience who might be able to speak directly to this Dying to add something And then I'd like to come to the the middle It's right here Thank you. Um, David kingdom. I'm uh a technology pioneer of world economic forum working on a faster way to fusion energy We might have the silver bullet Of course, we don't know Of course, there's lots of scientific and technical uncertainty What we do know is the european commission and others are investing a huge amount of money In basically the sort of area that we're trying to work in Tokamaks for fusion energy And there is a chance of success And I think there's a no significant chance of success It it's partly the underpinning science that's been done For many years and it's partly new materials and engineering But the success will only come if there's You know open science collaboration with engineers investors get interested enough And we maintain this idea that it is Worth trying to tackle moonshots Thank you Is one more and then I I want to Switch gears a little bit Look, everybody. My name is paolo di trapini. I'm also technology pioneer 2015 for the company koelux. We rebuild artificial sky and sun I like to tackle the question of mr. Commissioner. How to reach The society at large so the question comes which is the real value of science Because to my impression we as a scientist or scientific community somehow under estimate What is the potential of science? Because we limit science to the job of explaining How the natural works eventually how controlling the the natural for the technology But there is something much more if I explain you How the wine works one two three times at some point in time you start tasting the wine a different way so the knowledge Brings a different perception. I'm dealing with light and I notice considering art Fine art but also poetry architecture photography cinema and so on That somehow people lost the knowledge of light because of the lamps So we live under artificial light. So the natural light is something that we don't know anymore and because of that The art I mean the connection between art and everyday life Is kind of lost But at the moment when we manage to restore The familiarity I mean the knowledge of light to people even though science or technology suddenly All the art language start speaking again If if I can make a short example, no, for example, I'm italian so Dante Is the italian most famous poet So if a triplet he says he want to tell how looking at the woman that he loves Beatrice He was able to follow her in looking at the sun. It means At the meaning at the god, whatever. No, so the he won't explain the concept of imitation and use the metaphor of reflection If you read all the literature, nobody will explain why to Talk about imitation. He used the reflection He said and like the second rate will issue from the first and reassigned Much like the pilgrim who seeks his home again So on her action by the high faith to my imagination My action drew and on the sun. I set my sight more than we usually do Is it crazy? But if you really look at the woman you love in her eyes when she look at the sun because the eye is Is a kind of like a spherical mirror Not the mirror on you see the sun reflected in the eye because the The spherical mirror like the mirror in the street reflect the source of light. So he was really Seeing in her the sun reflected you. I can't look at the sun is too bright. Do you have a question for the panel? I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Is there a question that they can address for you Okay, I finish I finish here. I want to tell that that There is the capacity of science to Introduce people to a new perception of reality and this is not exploited So I want to have your your comment because we are all scientists here And I think this is missed in the scientific community. Sorry if I was too long Took a little bit. Thank you. It's very exciting. Yeah, please I think what you're saying is the wonder of what we discover through science Enormously enriches our view and perception of the world. Um, I was at some The loft know there's something about brain and I was seeing brain waves Visualized because and to me it was just the most extraordinarily wondrous thing and it didn't diminish The you know immense complexity of human thought and culture and so on it just added to to the wonder of it to see this You know extraordinary visualization of the electrical activity that goes on in the brain And so knowing knowing how something works I'm I'm I'm agreeing with you. I knowing something how how it works In a lot of people think well, it's very dry and you're just reducing it to facts But actually I think it does the opposite. I think it enormously gives us, you know So much more richness in in what we understand Around us and and can sort of synthesize I think in a way maybe a scientist natural inclination to Only accept things provisionally and be careful about what they put forward Don't end up sharing the passions that you all have I think we all do it But we have to play the two off all the time One against the other all the time because if we just dream then we won't come up with anything useful, right? So you have to have that very hard nose to um, you've got to check the fact You've got to be your own worst critic and at the same time be very passionate about it So I'd like to switch. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, I was just saying that I mean This is a very I mean this link in between science and arts is such a an unique and interesting link because When you look back in history, I mean you see this link in between great scientists and art and and I think that's Sars with the story of other lovelace, which was this the first woman that was a programmer I mean the first computer programming the world that was the the daughter of lord Byron and and she was very inspired by the Father and so she had that vision at the time when she looked at Her partner in business called Charles Babbage and she said, you know, Charles, we can do more than just numbers We can actually one day do music and art With these programming and so she had that vision Because she was involved in arts that she was doing something bigger than math She was doing really the digital at the time. She was having a fantastic vision. So that that's I mean, absolutely. Absolutely. Just to So I we've had quite a span just now in the last few minutes from from solving labor challenges in science to privatization to silver bullets for for problems in energy to live in a more sustainable world I'd like I'd like to just At least at least briefly touch on something that has come up a lot in the news recently, which is trust in science Some scientists speak about reproducibility of studies and I understand there are a couple of ways to to think about this Would anybody like to Speak to that Well, I think the incentivization lies at the heart of this because of what one wants to incentivize is behaviors that Do not reward the sorts of things that have undermined trust in science Which is sometimes over hasty Publication and things that then turn out to be wrong but get very publicized. So so again, I think You know, we're all Grappling with with this problem of trying to incentivize science in a way that will have as one of its outputs less of this kind of problem Of of things being wrong because the lack of trust I think is coming because There's this sense that things are not always published right But they're published, you know for reasons of gain or something like that that they're not necessarily Speaking to what the actual truth of what the investigation is about You know, there are Many activities in the last couple of years. I see francis collins director of the national institutes of health here Issues dealing with ethics and science, especially with The our principles and practices of ethics how they keep up with the advances in science and publications on the one hand to reward system incentives and disincent incentives last year the national academies US national academy of sciences convened a group in california to discuss Some recommendations whereby Research integrity topics could be brought to the fore and couple of the recommendations we're picking up from elizabeth's comments What kind of incentives we offer from a tenure system in universities what emphasis is placed? Quality versus quantity numbers numbers of publications or research grants versus quality of research to Disincentives if you take journals um, oftentimes reporting a legitimate legal Affiliation is sometimes labeled as conflict of interest the word conflict as a negative connotation Just changing the wording from conflict of interest to reporting of relevant relationships could go a long way in Encouraging people to come forward more readily Retraction honest errors in science and science as always humans do science the science corrects itself Honest errors when the author author authors themselves catch the errors and report it voluntarily Rather than calling it retraction or some other word that sort of clouds their reputation using an appropriate terminology To for them to come forward and report it so there are many many steps That the scientific community that the publishing community can take there was an article That summarizes the discussion from the national academy's work Which was published in science magazine last august that has a lot more recommendations that have been given mainly at the In fact, this this meeting was precipitated by an article in The Economist About has science stopped policing itself near the end of that article They conclude that these steps were taken in these institutions, which essentially Runs counter to the title of the article itself So there are a lot of different angles to look at this But there is a report that's recently made available on this very topic Yeah, i'm not an expert on this topic But there's a question I have and that is the extent to which We're able to communicate or to discuss with more general public the different reasons why Data may not be reproduced So, you know, we have a still not very well done experiments. That's one thing Honest errors and of course technology that is evolving and so better technology Will sometimes show that what you observe or your results of 10 years 20 years ago With better technology where you can see more accurately might not be quite The same, you know, so there are different reasons. I think I'm not sure the extent to which We take the time to have these discussions with the general public because it is so important lack of trust in science would be a very very Dangerous path. I think for society. So I hope that we're doing that. I'm a bit away from that Since I've moved jobs, but I think it is very important to to have these discussions and and where these Lack of reproducibility comes from So with just a few minutes left I think it would be great if for the audience we could each offer One key thing you'd like people to take away from our conversation today That they could do to help improve the science outlook one one of your obsessions, perhaps One key thing you've got on your mind Carlos, I see you smiling. Would you like to start? No, I think that we have to be optimists, right? I think that when you see that We've been talking for so long about science and technology In different ways and in different shapes and suddenly you have at the world economic forum The subject the principal subject for heads of state and government is to talk about innovation and science I think that we are Up to a fantastic start is that it's becoming mainstream is that the politicians understood that there's no other way around For growth and for jobs and I think that was the missing link. So I'm very positive for the future And I come I will go from here with really a lot of Of a great energy for the future in terms of linking science to politics and to politicians Thank you, Elizabeth Well taking the long view encourage your kids who are grandkids or your nieces nephews to Take an interest in science and who knows they might turn out to love it, but it will surely enrich them Just picking up on that theme in the way technology is we can engage young people As active participants in large experiments that could be not necessarily randomized trials, but as Participants in a large-scale scientific experiment Through like citizen science projects for instance citizen science project and so forth to spur interest at a very young age and science studies show that if by The median age to spark Lifelong passion in science is fourth grade level if by that time you don't have any interest in science It's unlikely that at the later stage you will develop an interest So given that I think this the the more we can do to Increase the interest at an earlier age with all the technology and tools. I think it'll be wonderful for humanity Thank you to say well. I'm very optimistic too and that is because we're surrounded by A very bright young people. They are creative They're not afraid to pursue the big difficult complex Issues or scientific areas They work together in ways they they they bring in the team people from different areas that seem to be Something they can do quite naturally They're very eager to see their results having an impact on society very eager they start to Do it right from the minute they enter our university And I think what we need to do is realize that it is their time And give them their place in Canada We say it's time to give their time on the ice meaning the ice rink because if you just sit on the bench You never score you got to be out there playing the game It's their time and we need to make sure that we're there for them because it's their time So there you have it when we look at the global science outlook. We we've talked about science as people science as a process science as a tool for cracking some of humanity's most pressing challenges trying to live And it's sustainably in a finite world and ultimately how it's such a creative and human endeavor One full of wonder and I hope hope for us all so thank you very much to the speakers here and to the audience