Greetings from the National Archives. I'm David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to today's virtual author lecture with Paula Yu, author of From a Whisper to a Rally in Cry. Before we begin, I'd like to tell you about two upcoming programs you can view on our YouTube channel. On Thursday, April 22nd at noon, we'll have a special Earth Day program with Richard J. Lazarus, the author of The Rule of Five, a book that tells the story of the most important environmental law case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. And on Tuesday, April 27th at 1 p.m., Joshua D. Rothman will tell us about his new book, The Ledger and the Chain, a study of America's internal slave trade and its role in the making of America. Today, Paula Yu brings us the story of Vincent Chin, who in 1982 was beaten to death because he was Asian-American. When his two attackers were given lenient sentences, the outcry led to a federal civil rights trial, the first involving a crime against an Asian-American. Today, nearly 40 years later, Asian-Americans are still targets of violence. Records in the National Archives document a long history of injustices and the persistent fight against them. Our author today used records from the National Archives at Chicago. Retrieving the stories contained in these records ensures that we do not forget past inequities and cannot overlook pivotal figures such as Vincent Chin. Paula Yu is an author, screenwriter, and musician. Her young adult novel, Good Enough, is an honor book of the Asian-Pacific American Award for Youth Literature. She's also the author of several picture book biographies, including 16 Years and 16 Seconds, The Anime Wong Story, and 22 Cents. As a television writer and producer, her credits range from NBC's The West Wing to the CW Supergirl, and she is a former journalist with The Seattle Times, The Detroit News, and People Magazine. When she's not writing, Paula is a professional freelance violinist who has played and toured with orchestras and National Recording Acts. Now let's hear from Paula Yu. Thank you for joining us today. My name is Paula Yu. I am the author of this book. From a whisper to a rallying cry, the killing of Vincent Chin and the trial that galvanized the Asian-American movement. This book is being published on April 20th, 2021 by Norton Young Readers, which is an imprint of WW Norton and Company. And it is my honor to talk to you today about this book and about Vincent Chin and about Asian-American history for the National Archive. It's not fair, the Vincent Chin story. But what about Vincent Chin? In the summer of 1993, when I was offered a job to write for The Detroit News, that was the first question all my Asian-American journalist friends asked me. Are you scared of Detroit because of Vincent Chin? At the time, it had been barely a decade since Vincent Chin's death. On June 19th, 1982, Chrysler Foreman Ronald Ebenz, 43, and his stepson, recently laid off auto worker Michael Mintz, 24, got into a fight with Vincent Chin at a club on the night of Vincent's bachelor party. The fight escalated and Ebenz beat Chin to death with a baseball bat. According to witness testimony, Ebenz allegedly shouted, it's because of you little mother expletive that we're out of work. This happened during the height of anti-Japanese sentiment in the American auto industry in the 1980s due to increased competition from Japanese import cars and due to mass layoffs across the country, especially in Michigan, home of the big three, Ford, Chrysler, and GM. Ebenz and Knitz were white. Vincent was Chinese-American. Ebenz and Knitz pled guilty to manslaughter. In 1983, Detroit had one of the highest homicide rates in the country. This led to an overburdened court system where prosecutors were sometimes unable to attend all their hearings, including the March 16th, 1983 hearing for Ronald Ebenz and Michael Knitz as a result. Based on limited information, and because both men had never been in trouble with the law before, Judge Charles Kaufman sentenced Ebenz and Knitz to a $3,000 fine plus court costs and three years probation each. You don't make the punishment fit the crime, Kaufman famously declared. You make the punishment fit the criminal. The shockingly lenient sentence outraged Vincent Chin's mother, Lily Chin, and the Asian-American community in Detroit. Their anger led to activism as they formed a grassroots advocacy organization called American Citizens for Justice. The ACJ held a protest rally which ignited similar protests across the country. These protests led to an investigation by the Department of Justice and the FBI, resulting in the first federal civil rights trial for an Asian-American. In 1984, there was one question at the heart of the United States versus Ronald Ebenz and Michael Knitz. Was this a racially motivated killing? Were they angry at Vincent because they assumed he was Japanese and wanted to blame him for the layoffs and the competition from Japanese import cars?  Did the two white men attack Vincent Chin because of his race? Or was this a case of too much alcohol and toxic masculinity gone awry? The first trial resulted in a guilty conviction for Ebenz, the man who held the bat, on one count of violating Vincent Chin's civil right to be in a place of public accommodation because of his race. Ebenz was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Knitz was cleared of both counts, including conspiracy. Ebenz, however, never spent a day in prison because his conviction was appealed on the grounds of alleged witness coaching. As a result, Ebenz's guilty verdict was reversed in a second trial in 1987. He would never spend a day in prison for Chin's death. To this day, Ebenz expresses remorse but denies ever being racist. In writing Vincent Chin's story, I also refer to other important milestones in Asian-American history. Although this book is for everyone, I wrote it especially for middle school and high school students because I want to make sure they don't grow up like me with this whole in their education. My first book was 16 Years in 16 Seconds, The Sammy Lee Story, published by Leon Lowe Books in 2005. It was about the first Korean-American man to win a gold medal in the Olympics in 1948 and 1952 for diving. I had accidentally stumbled across this story while doing research on the internet for another project. I was intrigued by Dr. Lee's story. He was forbidden as a child in the 1930s to use his town's public swimming pool because of the color of his skin. Later he would become a doctor and qualify and win gold medals at the Olympics for diving. As a Korean-American, I wondered why I'd never heard of him before. I thought his story would be inspirational for children. So I wrote a children's picture book biography about him. It won the Leon Lowe New Voices Award in 2003 and became my first children's picture book. From there, I wrote two more children's picture book biographies for Leon Lowe Books. One is Shining Star, The Anna Mae Wong Story, and it's about the first Chinese-American female movie star in Hollywood who had to fight against racism in an industry where she was often cast in stereotypical roles. For my next book, 22 Cents, Muhammad Yunus and the Village Bank, that one is about Muhammad Yunus who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. His microlending banking concept worked to combat poverty in Bangladesh and around the world. I also wrote my first young adult novel called Good Enough published in 2008 by Harper Collins, which was loosely based on my life as a Korean-American violinist and my youth orchestra adventures. I explore, however, the damaging stereotypes of the Asian overachiever and the model minority myth. Because you see, growing up, I was a straight A student and I went to Yale. I was concertmaster of my youth orchestra and yes, I was really good at math. But these stereotypes of the Asian overachiever and the model minority myth diminished my individual achievements. I became part of a monolith. This devalued me, this dehumanized me and this is why the model minority myth is a racist stereotype. I also grew up in a mostly all-white town in Connecticut where I rarely saw anyone who looked like me. Because Asian-American history was not taught at my high school, I started researching Asian-American history on my own in my early 20s to fill in these gaps. During this time, a feature-length documentary called Who Killed Vincent Chin by Christine Choi and Renee Tajima-Pena came out while I was in college. It would later be nominated for an Academy Award. That was when I first heard about the Vincent Chin story. So let's go back to the night of June 19th, 1982. Vincent Chin had gone out for a night with his three best friends to celebrate his wedding in a bachelor party. While at the Fancy Pants Club, Ronald Evans, 43 and his 24-year-old stepson, Michael Knitz also stopped by the club. They were actually on their way to a baseball game but heard on the car radio that the Milwaukee Brewers were winning 10-3 to the Detroit Tigers. It was a blowout game. They impulsively decided to stop by the club for last call. And this club was the Fancy Pants Club. It was an adult entertainment nightclub. What happens next remains debated. Some witnesses claim they heard racist slurs like chink and jab coming from the direction where Evans and Knitz were sitting. Vincent confronted Evans, which led to a fight in the club. Everyone was kicked out. The fight continued in the parking lot, which led to Evans grabbing a baseball bat from the car trunk. That's when Vincent ran. His friend Jimmy Choi followed him. Evans and Knitz got in the car and took off. Vincent's two other friends, Gary Koyvu and Bob Soroski, got into Gary's car to find Vincent and Jimmy. During the first federal trial of 1984, some witnesses testified that Evans and Knitz were on the hunt for Vincent.  As they drove by a McDonald's, they spotted Vincent and Jimmy sitting on the curb, waiting for Gary and Bob to find them. They were laughing. And something snapped for Evans. He got angry again and pulled over. He then beat Vincent unconscious with the baseball bat. As Vincent's friend Jimmy Choi held him in his arms, Vincent's last words were, it's not fair. Highland Park police officer Morris Cotton was only 24 on the night of Vincent Chin's beating death. He had just joined the police force. He was moonlighting that same night as a security guard at the McDonald's. He pulled out his gun and shouted for Evans to drop the bat. Later at the police station, there were only two races listed on the police report, black and white. Officer Cotton had no choice but to check the box marked white. Vincent Chin was in a coma for four days. He died on June 23rd, 1982. He was buried on June 29th, 1982, one day after his wedding with Vicky Wong was supposed to take place. As I had mentioned earlier, Vincent Chin's killing happened during the height of anti-Japanese and anti-Asian sentiment in the American auto industry due to the increased competition for the Japanese import cars. Unemployed auto workers literally paid money to bash a Japanese import car with sledgehammers for family fundraisers. Both Democrat and Republican politicians used racist Pearl Harbor imagery to warn Americans of the trade war with Japan. One congressman even called Honda quote, the little yellow people. At their hearing in March, 1983, both men planned guilty to manslaughter. Evans expressed remorse for his actions saying he was quote, deeply sorry about what happened. Judge Charles Kaufman believed both men were quote, not the kind of people you send to prison which led to his infamous lenient sentencing in letting both men walk free. Judge Kaufman served as a fire pilot during World War II and was shot down. He was captured and sent to a Japanese prisoner of war camp where he lost more than 60 pounds and nearly died. Given his law school background, he was able to negotiate with guards for more food and shoes for him and his cellmates. Having lived in a POW camp for two years, Judge Kaufman was known as the merciful judge who often gave probation because he knew what it was like to be in prison. He was also very liberal having set up scholarships for law students of color, including Asian-Americans. So he was confused and devastated by the anger over his decision. But Vincent Chin's mother, Lily Chin, was also devastated by this shockingly lenient sentence. She was all alone now. Her husband had died just eight months earlier from kidney disease and now her son had been killed. Growing up in China, Lily Chin was inspired to move to America by her great-grandfather who was one of the 20,000 Chinese laborers who helped build the Continental Railroad. During that time, the railroad companies preferred having the Chinese laborers carry the dynamite because the explosives were very volatile. No one knows exactly how many Chinese laborers were killed by accidental dynamite explosions, but it's estimated to be in the hundreds if not the thousands. Her father warned her that America was not a safe place to be, but Lily was determined to find new life. But when Vincent was killed and his killers set free, Lily's American dream became an American nightmare. Vincent's death made the front page of the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News and other local newspapers. This shocked Asian-Americans in the Detroit area because they were rarely, if ever, covered in the news. Helen Zia, a journalist and activist who worked for three years in the stamping plant of Chrysler, was among the growing number of angry Asian-Americans who were shocked and outraged by the lenient sentence given to Ronald Ebbins and Michael Nitz for the manslaughter death of Vincent Chin. Helen, along with several others, including two young lawyers named James Shamorah and Roland Huang, as well as Kidney and Henry Yee, no relation who were elder statesmen in Detroit's Chinatown, banded together to form the American Citizens for Justice Group to protest Vincent's death. Today, the members of the American Citizens for Justice are baby boomers. They are all in their 60s and 70s. But in 1982, they were the original millennials, the youth generation who fought back against injustice. They handed out flyers instead of posting angry tweets on social media. They sent telegrams instead of texts. They conducted their own investigation and discovered many things had slipped through the cracks, including Racine Colwell. The 25-year-old dancer at the Fancy Pants claimed she heard Ronald Ebbins allegedly shout, it's because of you little mother, expletive, that we're out of work. Because Ebbins and Nitz had pled to and were found guilty of manslaughter, they could not be tried again for the same crime. That would be double jeopardy. But Racine Colwell's witness testimony meant that the ACJ had a new way into this case. As a violation of Vincent Chin's civil rights, this young woman would become a key witness of the federal trial. In the meantime, Lily Chin's grief turned to anger as she began speaking at protest rallies across the country. Her courage inspired Jesse Jackson and others to join her and the ACJ at some of their events. Lily and the American Citizens for Justice soon organized what would become a seminal point in Asian American history, a nationwide Asian American protest for Vincent Chin. In May 1983, almost 1,000 Asian Americans marched in downtown Detroit to protest the killing of Vincent Chin and demand a federal investigation. This protest inspired other Asian American protest rallies across the country with huge demonstrations from New York to Chicago to LA and San Francisco. As a result, the Department of Justice started an investigation which led to a grand jury indictment. Ronald Ebans and Michael Nitz were charged with two counts, one, conspiracy and two, violating Vincent Chin's civil rights by preventing him from using and enjoying a place of public accommodation, the Fancy Pants Club, on account of his race. In June 1984, Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor presided over the first trial, the United States of America versus Ronald Ebans and Michael Nitz. Just 20 years earlier, however, in 1964, this judge was pregnant with her first child and had driven from Michigan to Mississippi to help register African American voters. When she arrived, an angry white mob confronted her and the other young lawyers, threatening them. She was scared for her life. She would later learn that three young activists, two white men and one black man, had just been murdered and buried by members of the Ku Klux Klan. That horror and injustice inspired the young lawyer to become the first black female judge appointed to the federal bench in Michigan by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. And now, she would be the judge in what would become known as the first ever civil rights trial for an Asian American. During the first trial in 1984, both Ronald Ebans and Michael Nitz testified on the stand, denying all the witnesses' claims that they had killed Vincent Chin on account of his race. Ronald Ebans wept for 10 minutes on the stand. But in the end, the jury found Ronald Ebans guilty of one count of violating Vincent Chin's civil rights by preventing him from being in a place of public accommodation because of his race. Michael Nitz, however, was cleared on both counts. Ebans was then sentenced to 25 years in prison. But in 1986, the US Sixth Court of Appeals agreed with the defense attorneys that a new trial must be held because of a technical error in the first trial. What was this error? Well, during the initial investigation, a young lawyer named Lisa Chan had interviewed Vincent Chin's three friends from his bachelor party, Gary Koyvu, Bob Soroski, and Jimmy Choi. She interviewed them together and also tape-recorded their conversation to ensure accurate note-taking. However, Lisa Chan's recording opened the door for the defense to claim that there may have been some alleged witness coaching based on what's said on the tapes. These tapes were not allowed as evidence in the first trial. The US Sixth Court of Appeals agreed with the defense's claim. So in 1987, a second federal trial was held with Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor presiding again. This time, the trial was held in Cincinnati, Ohio because Judge Taylor agreed with the defense's claim that they could no longer have a fair trial in Detroit due to the case's local notoriety. During this trial, the tapes of Lisa Chan interviewing the three witnesses were played to the jury. On May 1st, 1987, the jury found Ronald Ebenz not guilty. His original guilty sentence was overturned. He was a free man. He never spent a day in prison for the death of Vincent Chin. We had a very, very tough decision to make, said jury foreman Jeffrey Heffron, a machinist from Cincinnati. He was the only jury member in the second trial to speak on the record to the press. He said, when the judge said beyond a reasonable doubt, there you have it. I agonized over this for two weeks. Still, I'm still agonizing over it now. So what was the point to all of this? Was this court case a failure? Not really. Despite what happened, a spark had been lit, inspiring the Asian American community to continue speaking out and fighting back against racism and injustice. To this day, the Asian, the American Citizens for Justice Organization in Detroit still exists and monitors hate crimes against Asian Americans as well as for all marginalized communities. In fact, during the 1980s, Vincent Chin's name made national and even international headlines. His death was one of the first times an Asian American was featured on the front page of all the local Detroit and Michigan newspapers. The 1984 and 1987 federal civil rights trials for Vincent Chin were covered across the country from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times. He was the lead story on all the major network news broadcasts. His story remained in the public consciousness for several years, including being the topic of an Academy Award nominated documentary feature who killed Vincent Chin. The federal trial, the United States of Ronald Ebers and Michael Knitz was taught in colleges and law schools across the country. However, by the mid to late 1990s, Vincent Chin's name started to fade. He remained well known in the Asian American Pacific Islander community, but not to the general public. In 2009, writer and filmmaker Curtis Chin produced a new documentary about Vincent Chin called Vincent Who? And it was about how Vincent's story had disappeared from relevance for the current generation of Asian American youth. Vincent Chin had become a footnote in history. But after the 2016 presidential election, there was a notable spike in hate crime and bias incidents against people of color in this country. Hate crimes tripled in Michigan alone.  An NPR reporter wrote that the South Asian American community wondered if this was their quote, Vincent Chin moment. The killer was ultimately found guilty of federal hate crime charges and is now serving three consecutive life in prison sentences. In 2020, Vincent Chin's name and story resurfaced again after former President Donald Trump nicknamed COVID-19 as the China virus and Kung Flu. Trump's refusal to apologize and stop using this racist rhetoric has been directly attributed to an exponential rise in more than 3,800 violent hate crimes against Asian Americans this year, according to statistics from the FBI and the Stop AAPI Hate Crime Tracker provided by the Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council. As of today, one out of four Asian American teenagers have reported being verbally or physically harassed and bullied because of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One out of 10 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have reported experiencing a hate crime or hate incidents since the start of 2021. I myself have experienced coronavirus-related anti-Asian racism myself. A white man refused to get on the elevator with me because I was Asian, even though we were both wearing masks and following COVID-19's socially distanced protocol by standing six feet apart at the specifically marked spots in the elevator. I was racially profiled outside my own house by a white family who were afraid I might infect their children. And members of my own family have reported passengers requesting to be seated away from them on airplane flights. Many Asian American and Pacific Islander politicians including representatives Ted Lu, Judy Chu and Grace Meng criticized Trump for his racist rhetoric. In September, 2020, the US House of Representatives voted to pass a resolution introduced by Representative Grace Meng, condemning anti-Asian sentiment during the COVID-19 pandemic. And then Atlanta happened. On March 16th, 2021, a 21-year-old white man deliberately shot and killed eight people and wounded one other person at three separate spas in Atlanta, Georgia. Six of the eight people killed were of Asian descent, four Korean American women and two Chinese American women. Authorities declared the shooter was having a, quote, bad day and did not think these killings were racially motivated. This outraged the Asian American Pacific Islander communities who held nationwide protests across the country, very similar to the same protests held for Vincent Chin almost 40 years earlier. As I watched the news interviews with grieving family members and friends of the eight people killed in Atlanta, I flashed back to when I interviewed Vincent Chin's family, friends and members of the American Citizens for Justice and those involved in the actual court case. I was moved by how many people cried during our discussion. Even though Vincent had happened almost 40 years ago, they shed fresh tears as if it had just happened. That made me realize how profoundly traumatic and lasting Vincent Chin's death had on everyone. They were not just remembering what happened, they were reliving it. It was an honor and privilege to hear their stories. As I wrote this book, I felt a great responsibility to make sure their voices were heard and not forgotten. Vincent Chin's name reminds us never to be complacent whenever we witness injustice. We must always speak out and fight back in solidarity against all forms of hatred and racism. That is what his legacy has taught us. That's for me. Writing about Asian American history for young readers from children to teenagers is an honor and privilege I do not take lightly. I don't want children and teenagers to grow up like me where much of our history was raced because our voices, our stories, our history, and our contributions to this country matter. I write about our stories so history can stop repeating itself. Thank you very much to the National Archive for allowing me this opportunity to talk to everyone about the Vincent Chin case. It was an honor and privilege to share Vincent's story with you. And you can find out more in my book Coming Out, April 20th, 2021. And I just want to say, although I'm honored to tell Vincent Chin's story, I'm also heartbroken by the recent spike in anti-Asian racism due to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. But I also want to say I'm also hopeful despite all this, because I know that today's youth and today's generation will not forget and will continue to fight on and make sure that Vincent Chin's name is never forgotten again. Thank you.


Today, we're going to be looking at how to retrieve standard output that's piped to your Script so for example if I did if config that gives me information about my network card I can pipe that into grep And I can grep for I'm just gonna be 192 So there there's an example. That's piped to grep. How do you retrieve that information? It's basically taking everything that's the output of this command and putting it into the next program So if that next program is your script, how do you retrieve that information? Let's go ahead I'm gonna use Vim as my text editor I'm gonna call my script main dot sh and I'm gonna put in my shebang line saying this is a bash script And it's very simple. I do cat dash and that's saying If I now make my script executable It's clear the screen and IIF Config and I pipe that into dot slash my script It's going to basically output the the output of IF config because it's taking that putting that in my script in my script saying Display that information. So what we can do now Like we can have a message before that we can say echo Welcome and now we'll say Welcome and Give the IF config output. We can also now take that and pipe it into grep 192 And if we do that now it says welcome and it gives us that line that we grabbed again if we go in here We can also Then add into that awk and I can say Print dollar sign to which is saying print the second column and that should give us our IP address So welcome and your IP address if we want we can put that into a variable now for use in our script So I can say IP equals and then in dollar sign Parentheses I can get that now IP was the output of what was piped into this script grept and printed here and now I can say echo Your IP address is dollar sign IP Now I run that and it will say welcome your IP address is and your IP address obviously This is just an example, you know, not every IP address is gonna start with 192 Much as an example of taking the output because if I run that without Piping I've configured you just get welcome and then it just kind of hangs there because it's waiting for input Which I can give it control see it does it's just you don't actually I'm just curious real quick Control D. Okay. Yeah control D. We'll get you out of that anyway That is how you can retrieve information that is piped From one program into your script, which is useful in many cases. So again To get what is pipe the basic part of this tutorial is this cat dash That will that whatever that is will be what's piped into your script And then you can manipulate that however you want throw it into variables and use those variables later on So that is it. I hope that you do find this useful I hope that you check out my website films by Chris calm That's Chris the K. There is a link in the description of the video And as always I hope that you have a great day support me on patreon. Thank you


And with the same ladies and gentlemen, we are now moving on further towards the first keynote of today. The topic of this keynote is be your own cheerleader, how to overcome barriers for a successful career. And with a huge round of applause, please allow me to welcome Miss Shalini Chakravarti, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer from PhonePay. Can we have a huge round of applause for Miss Shalini Chakravarti to deliver our first keynote for the day. What are the operational goals of what are they doing to increase the women in the leadership roles, launch of a lot of programs, mentoring, sponsorships. We've been hearing all of that, all these, right? So I thought, you know, everyone's been hearing, everyone's been talking about it and we haven't really seen the needle move, right? We've been around working in this space for over a decade, but if you really look at the percentages in terms of the representation or anything else, I think we're still struggling, right? We had the first session and everybody spoke about it. So I thought, let's not talk about this today, you know, because we've been hearing all of us know about it. So it would be, you know, interesting for me to share my anecdotal story, you know, something that how I have been able to, you know, look at some of those challenges in my life and decisions that I took at some point, you know, in terms of moving forward and that helped me where I am today. So the session is all about my anecdotal story, you know, starting from the beginning. While I was thinking about and doing a self reflection, you know, two days back because I had to come and talk about it. And I thought, okay, what was the most important thing, you know, that really stood out in my life that, you know, really helped me grow and achieve, you know, a successful career today. And that was making some big bold moves. From a professional perspective, I am a chartered accountant, and I started my journey. It's a very natural progression, right, for anybody to move into a finance job. I also did that. I joined a corporate life, moved into finance. But as an individual, I'm a very, very different person.  And I found that kind of missing, you know, from that perspective. And then I thought, maybe it's not the right career for me. And that was a big bold move for me, because having qualified in that field. And when I reached out to a couple of people and seek advice, I don't know, it's not moving. Sorry. So everybody advice me, no, no, that's going to be disastrous for you, because you worked so hard to get there. And now you don't want to pursue that as a career. And I think I believe that was the best move that I did. And I moved into consulting. Of course, there's a story that I'll share how I moved there. And then I moved into compliance. So I've, you know, there were certain more other transitions that I made. I recall the interview that I had with the words largest retailer. And this was the head of the Indian operations was interviewing me for a leadership role. And she asked me a question. She said, you have not been compliance in your life before. Do you really think you are fit for this role? And my response was, of course, you know, because it's the retailer. So there were compliances, men food safety, product safety, health and safety. And I only knew about these things as a consumer. I didn't know what, you know, goes into get there, right from a retailer's perspective. And my response was that I read the JD man. And I think you were looking for a leader who could drive a team who could drive the program who could drive to be a differentiator for you in India, rather than somebody with the subject matter knowledge, right, I can hire those people. And I'm a quick learner, I can learn about that. But if you're really looking that somebody can drive it, then it's the right person. But if you're looking for somebody who's a subject matter expert, then definitely I am not interested either. And that was it. I got hired. So it is very, very important for you to understand that what you're looking for and make that, you know, that bold move in your life. That's very important. But this journey is not always easy, right? We spoke about many challenges. And it's, it is something, you know, something which is not very, very easy. And everybody faces a lot of barriers, challenges. This is my favorite. Okay. There are three M's in a woman's life, particularly marriage, maternity and mobility. So if you really look at, you know, in the first session, everybody spoke about these three M's. And nobody is very different. Again, you know, if you really look at it. I got married very early, got a first child very early, very young, and joined back after maternity. Unfortunately, there was only three months leave at that point in time. Work for 15 days, just could not manage it, you know, waking up the whole night, going and working through the day, and then coming back tired and not able to enjoy the motherhood, not able to focus on my work. And I thought, maybe I want to take a sabbatical for a year, you know. Again, consulted some people and everybody said that's it. Most of the women do that.  It's end of your professional journey. But I was very determined. I said, okay, I want to decide what is priority for me at this moment. And I wanted to enjoy the motherhood. I didn't want to struggle between job and my child. I took a sabbatical for a year. And then, of course, it wasn't easy to get back. There were a lot of challenges. Being a very honest person, when I started to interviewing back, people asked me, why did you quit? And I said, I couldn't manage. And they said, okay, why do you think you will be able to manage now? So, of course, not going in there. There were some other people who did trust me and then I got back.  It is you who need to decide what is the priority for you. And if I really look back, does that one year made a huge difference to my life? I took a sabbatical. Did I lose on my career journey? No, I did not. In fact, rather, I'm very happy that I took that break. I was able to enjoy the motherhood. And I was able to continue on my professional journey. I have a lot of mentees who keep coming and even today they asked me the same question. And this is exactly what I advise them. You need to decide what your priority is. Nobody else decides for you. It's your decision. You need to take it. It's your life. In fact, you know, one of the mentees regarding mobility we were talking about, she came to me and she said she was very upset that day. She wanted to discuss that I've got and she was in Gurgaon and she got a very good opportunity in Mumbai. And she said, you know, I've got this offer in hand and this is like a dream job that I have. I want to go there and you know, but I think my family would not agree. My husband would not agree. I'm in laws at home. I'm in a joint family. So I said, okay, let's break the problem. Tell me what is the problem. Your husband is talking about is what is your if that in laws are talking about and let's try to look at it. She said I've not spoken to anyone. It was her own imagination. Because the way women are brought up, they're always seeking permission from somebody or the other for taking a step or a decision in their life. So this is very important. We don't have to seek permission. We have to take our own decision. And I told her I said, go and talk to your husband. Maybe he's very happy. Maybe he has a opportunity and he may want to move with you. And trust me, they moved, you know, after couple of months to Mumbai.  So this is very important. The life carries on right and challenges are always there from different facets of life. And it's a journey. You can't go alone. So you need help. Right. Can you move to the next piece? I don't think it's working. So you need help. And the help is, you know, a lot of time we are very, very shy about, you know, what if I'm going to ask for help, what is it that the people are going to be thinking about me. So this is very, very important. Never feel shy. Ask for help whenever it is needed. And having a mentor.  I remember for my consulting days, I joined this consulting firm as a, you know, head of finance. It was a pretty consulting firm. It had a global presence. The India operations is what I joined as head of finance. I mean, you know, one of the practice heads came to me and he said, I know your background, I know your qualification.  You have a very different personality. And I believe you can be a very, very good consultant. And I was anyways not very happy with the job. I was looking for more challenging assignments. Of course, you have to put in a lot of effort to get some certifications to impress your clients. Right, because the profile goes in there, but I made that decision to move into consulting and he helped me there. He helped me a few years later as well, where he said, you've reached a certain height. Would you like to do something, you know, take a leap forward from here? Maybe you've got an accounting qualification, you want to do something on the leadership side, which would help you take to a leadership role. And I, you know, went up to did my, you know, course from NCR and that really helped me accelerate my journey. So having a mentor in life is very, very important. Can we move to the next slide please. But above the mentor is the sponsor. I met a friend, interestingly, two days or three days back and, you know, it was a Diwali lunch. We always find in a busy schedule, you know, some excuse to meet up and catch the full lunch. And she made a very beautiful statement, which I thought I'll share with all of you. She said, you know, everybody talks about sponsors. That's a old school of thought. What is a new school of thought strategically selecting the sponsor, who would be able to represent you when you're not present and help you grow. Anybody can be sponsored. I mean, in your function, outside, outside of the organization, but you have somebody within the organization who has a reach to the people where he or she can represent you will be the best thing. That's a strategic move. It's not just about having the sponsor. And I really liked it. And when I reflected back, I thought, yes, I mean, I wasn't strategic, be very honest with you guys. But, you know, this was again, the same consulting firm. I was leading one of the practices and the leader for India left the global leadership issued a mandate, and they said, you know, interviewing people and all of that and I was managing the entire operation in the internet. One of my sponsors who was part of the global leadership proposed that she's already doing a fantastic job. She's already managing for the last six months. We haven't really, you know, people management, client management doing the business, everything that we've been looking for is happening. Why not we consider her promoting to that level? Why are we even looking outside? It'll be another year delay because we'll take six months to hire and six months for the person to settle. That sponsor really helped me reach that position. I probably wouldn't have otherwise. Right. And, you know, just to touch on the personal board of directors. Have you ever thought about who is your personal board of directors, people you can fall back on for any kind of advice. Again, these are all very strategic decisions that one needs to take with respect to, okay, this is my person. This is the advice or guidance that I need to I can call this person at any point in time. So do an exercise of mapping your personal board of directors and what kind of advice that can you reach out to. Can we move to the next piece. Link to all of this is again, the networking, right from and everybody talks about networking. Okay, you should meet more people you should have more people in your network, but I would say these are all very, very strategic decisions. One makes in life. I have a theory and I'm sure there are many theories in the world. If you, you know, Google search, there'll be many theories on networking that will be available. But I have my own theory of networking and I categorize my network into four categories, different categories, one that would push me to do a lot more things in my existing role. Second, that would push me to do a lot of out of the box things, you know, something beyond my existing responsibilities. Third, that would care for me or teach me how to care for others. And the fourth is people who would help me any, you know, kind of a teaching guidance, you know, no more knowledge sharing kind of a thing. Most likely, we network with people who we have a same kind of a mindset, right? Maybe if I'm a person who cares more, I'll have a lot more people who care more. I may not have anybody who's going to push me to deliver beyond my responsibilities. So I would request all of you to actually do this exercise.  You can have your own categories based on your job roles and industries. You can define, you know, what you need to define in a different manner altogether or you can choose a network that I just shared with you. And then look at, are you lopsided on one side? I know everybody wants to be remembered as a person who really takes care of the team. But is it all what you want to be remembered as? I think we want to be remembered not just as a person who wants to take care, but also a person who can take on any challenge, right? That is a much better position to be in. So it's a very important aspect. And this is what I do with respect to my network. I make sure there is a good balance between the four of them so that I can have a very holistic and a very balanced as I'm doing. Can we have the next slide? I'm not going to take, I know the time is running very fast, but just a couple of more things. One, I think all of you or most of us would have read the Lean in Book, right by Sheryl Sandberg, which got published in 2030. And the book actually refers to one of the surveys that was conducted internally in Hewlett Packard. And that was about confidence levels in terms of applying for a job. Okay. So the survey results were that a man would apply for a job, even if he meets 60% of the qualifying criteria based on the job description, and a woman would only apply if it is 100%. Okay, so that really talks about that we want to be 100% confident. That doesn't mean that men are not confident. Now, I just wanted to share with respect to that study, you can all see it on the screen, a survey that was conducted by Harvard Business School. And they said, okay, we look at 16 parameters and they are all on the screen. We look at 16 parameters and evaluate men and women and these are all for leadership roles. And out of 16, there were 15 categories where women outperformed men with a very huge difference, you can see that. And there was only one category where women did not outperform men slightly behind because they didn't have the exposure, which was strategy. Because there are not many women in that field and hence they were a little behind men. So if you now look at the survey results and the study by Harvard, this is somewhere around 10 years old study. If you compare the two, what stops us applying for a job even if we meet a 60% criteria. A lot of time we talk about there's not a lot of women, you know, at the top, but is it us who's stopping us to be there? It's a question that I want to leave you with because you need to think about it and start to, you know, start behaving very, very differently the way that you've been doing before. Right. So can we have the next slide. Those were some thoughts I thought I'll share, you know, from my own story, some any thoughts that may help you in terms of rethinking some of the decisions that you need to make in your life. And I think this is a picture I thought everyone can resonate with a super woman, right, always running to do things at home and office and managing so many different responsibilities. But the only thing that I would really say is be bold, be daring and be different. Thank you everyone.


and wanted to get started. I want to first of all say thank you all for joining us this morning. Mr. McCoy is on the way. There's all kinds of traffic problems. We've got a crash on the northern Bellway and a crash in the southern Bellway and a red line, of course, is doing the red line thing. So we're slightly delayed in getting started. And he will be here just shortly. But it's not fair to punish the timely for those that can't get here. So I thought we would get started and we've got a very interesting and ample program that we want to review this morning with you. So I'll just say thank you. Thank you all for coming. Just to tell you about my personal professional interests these days and focus, I've become obsessed with the interface between the public and private sector in accomplishing good things in the world. There was a fascinating study that was done about eight years ago now by the World Bank. And the World Bank study was trying to explain what counts for wealth of nations. Is the wealth of a nation determined by the natural resources, the quality of the fishing stocks, the mineral resources under the ground, the climate and agricultural capacities? Was it natural resources? Was it caused by man-made resources, factories, infrastructure, housing stock? Was it a product of human imagination? Or the third category was called intangible wealth, intangible resources, excuse me. And that was things like the sense of legitimacy of government, the protection of intellectual property, the quality of education, the quality of a legal system and a sense of fairness in society, the sense of common purpose among citizens. So this intangible resource that was drawn and overwhelmingly, part of it was a bit of an artifice of the analytic technique they used, but overwhelmingly, the primary cause or source of wealth in the country were these intangible resources. It wasn't the physical or the man-made, it was these intangible resources. And if you think about it, all of those things, the quality, the stability of a currency, the quality of an education system, the legitimacy of courts, all of these things are the product of good government. And where there's good governance, you tend to find wealth and point to places like Singapore or Finland or Norway, where there's quality governance and you find growing wealth. The long list of places where there's poor government and poverty is a high, high correlation. So I'm very interested in this question of how do we promote better lives for people through promoting better governance, better quality government. Now, we're going to explore something really interesting today. And we've got three colleagues that are going to be sharing us insights into innovation. Innovation as business people, trying to make them money. But in every one of these instances, they're also improving the quality of life, the quality of human condition through this. Exactly the role of government. This is what government wants. Now we've had a project here for the last couple of years on the relationship of the profit-seeking private sector to the development agenda.   So sterile, pointless debate. What we're all after is people having better lives, stronger and healthier communities, healthier societies. That's something both liberals and conservatives want, maybe for different motivations, but they both want that. It's something that the business community wants. It's something that government wants. We all want to see this grow. So the government has a very keen and I think real interest in helping the private sector make money. Now you wouldn't find that in our narrative in Washington. That is not part of the narrative of Washington. And it's kind of a we-them adversarial sort of relationship, but we need to change the terms of this debate. If we really want to have healthier communities because for security reasons, safety reasons, or humanitarian reasons, it's going to be a better world. It's in our interest to help the private sector champion the improvement of the human condition. And you're going to hear three examples today. Three really interesting examples today of how this is happening. So I think this is a part of an important effort. This is not just about looking at what one or two or three companies is doing for their own bottom line. It's what we're doing to try to create stronger, healthier communities on a global basis. It's good for America and it's good for the world. And we're going to have a chance to explore some of that today. My thanks to Gilead for making possible this event today, but also for the work that they're doing in championing some of these very innovative ideas. Scott, why don't I ask you to come on up and let's get this started for real. My role here is ornamental. And this is Scott Miller and he's going to get us kicked off. Scott, take it over. Thanks everybody for coming. Well, good morning. Let me add my welcome to CSIS. And I would like to welcome all those who are viewing this online on our webcast. We usually have about as many people online as we do in the audience. So that's a good thing. My name's Scott Miller. I'm the William Scholl Chair in the International Business here at CSIS. And it's my pleasure to welcome you to CSIS's facility and to the Commercial Innovation Conference. In Washington, many people, when you use the term innovation, think about product invention, the latest gadget, the latest product. And certainly that's a very important part of innovation with something we're all familiar with and use all the time. However, innovation is much deeper and broader and all kinds of things happen in the production and distribution process that are true innovation and yet often missed by the policy community and often missed by those of us who are consumers or beneficiaries of the technologies. Many of us probably could theorize that there's a lot of innovation in the production process. And it's often unseen. Production innovation is very deep and broad. The most innovative companies do things that make products less expensive, more reliable, better functioning. There's tremendous amount of work that goes on after the product is invented. And think about your own mobile phones. You probably got a mobile phone if you're a Washington type, sometime in the last 20 years, maybe you were an early adopter and you had one of the Gordon Gekko shoe size, Maxwell Smart cellular phones from the great company Motorola. And you look at the level of commercial innovation that's happened in that industry since then and the amount of improvement that's taken place. You can see that. The innovation that's unseen often is innovation in distribution channels. What companies have to do to reach consumers and get adoption of these amazing products. That's really today's conference. Today's conference is about innovative products and they had an important distinction. They're innovative products that required additional further commercial innovation in order to succeed with the consumers they were intended for all along. I'll keep my remarks to sort of what to watch for. And three things that ask you to observe as the presentations go on today. First is that know how matters. That what you'll find in each of the three case studies is that the organizations are quite sophisticated and disciplined and that they experience and represent deep knowledge of both the subject matter and their consumers or patients. There's tremendous amount of energy and devoted way beyond the invention of the chemical or the invention of the device that makes these innovation stories a success. The second theme that's true of all three case studies is that the existing business model for distributing or getting market acceptance of the products was unacceptable. It was inadequate in some way. And that for me is an interesting component. If you look at innovators will tell you that failure is a very important part of success. And one of the ways that things fail is when you have a product that is actually successful meets consumers needs is appealing in many ways. And yet the pieces in place required to get it to the consumer are not, either don't exist or don't allow for full penetration to the market. So this notion of dealing with an, having an innovative successful product and then dealing with an inadequate business model required the invention of the business model which I think you'll find interesting. The third thing is the public policy matters. Public policy in all three of these cases can be either a barrier or a catalyst to commercial innovation. With that as sort of preview of the conference I would like to welcome our first speaker who is gonna establish the policy context. Stan McCoy is assistant US Trade Representative for International Intellectual Property and Innovation from the office of US Trade Representative. Stan has just joined us. We had a, this is not an infrastructure conference but the infrastructure mattered in this case. I will tell you just as an aside I was driving into the building and on the 645 AM traffic report there was an accident on the Beltway in Maryland, an accident on the Beltway in Virginia and there was single tracking on the red line. So in other words, Wednesday. So, in any case, we're delighted Stan could join us. Stan is the chief policy advisor to the United States Trade Representative and the administration agencies on intellectual property and trade issues that is responsible for developing and implementing the US trade policy on intellectual property. The USCR office that Stan manages also coordinates innovation policy trade issues such as those related to pharmaceuticals and medical technology and the intersection between IP trade rules and competition policy. Stan's a long practitioner in this field is viewed as a real expert by those of us who get into the weeds of intellectual property and innovation and we're delighted to welcome him here today. Stan McCoy. Thanks a lot for welcoming me Scott and I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak with all of you and delighted to be able to make a dramatic entrance thanks to the Metro system. It's always keeps us honest on our toes here in Washington. The topic today of commercial innovation is near and dear to the heart of policymakers in Washington. Innovation is that stuff internationally that every economy wants to say that they've got and that they're good at promoting and we're in the fortunate position in the United States of being able to speak truthfully when we say that. But we don't take it for granted. The administration has said many times that America's future economic growth and international competitiveness depends on our continued capacity to innovate. We create jobs and industries for the future by doing what we do best in the United States investing in the creativity and innovation of our people. The president has said that to win the future we must out innovate, out educate and out build the rest of the world. And we must also take responsibility for some of the circumstances that we create for our economy here at home including our deficit, the need to invest in making America stronger, the need to invest in infrastructure. For example, Scott to pick up on your theme and reforming how our government operates so that we can focus on promoting economic growth and preparing for the challenges of the 21st century. So the part of that strategy that I work on trade policy lives in a broader context that I wanna talk about for a couple of minutes because I think if you look at the presentations that we're looking forward to this morning they speak to not only the sort of trade and regulatory context but the broader context in which we can try to catalyze commercial innovation. The administration's innovation strategy is really a pyramid structure and the bottom of that pyramid are the building blocks of American innovation which consists of educating Americans with 21st century skills and creating a world-class workforce, strengthening and broadening American leadership in fundamental research, building a leading physical infrastructure and developing an advanced information technology ecosystem. On top of that base layer of the pyramid you have a number of steps that the administration is taking broadly to try to promote market-based innovation. They include accelerating business innovation with the R&E tax credit, promoting investments in ingenuity through effective intellectual property policy and patent reforms, encouraging high growth and innovation-based entrepreneurship and promoting innovative open and competitive markets at home and around the world in the global economy that we do business in. We're fond of saying at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that 95% of the world's consumers live outside the borders of the United States. So that last point about competitive markets in the global marketplace is particularly important. On top of that layer of the pyramid is an additional set of priorities for catalyzing breakthroughs on particular national priorities. Those include unleashing clean energy revolution, accelerating biotechnology, nanotechnology and advanced manufacturing, developing breakthroughs in space applications, breakthroughs in educational and healthcare technologies and so on. So it's on top of those foundations of a strong market that you can then move on to try to catalyze particular priority areas. And of course, it's on top of all of that underlying government policy that we then see the opportunities for the private sector to engage in the kind of innovation that we're gonna talk about here today. The administration is determined to ensure that U.S. trade policy plays its part in helping American companies and workers compete in global markets and create the underlying conditions for innovation and competition to the benefit of businesses and consumers worldwide. That's why we're trying to tackle some of the problems that increasingly affect trade in the 21st century. For example, we're seeking new disciplines in our ongoing trade negotiations to address trade distortions and unfair competition associated with the increasing engagement of large state-owned enterprises in international trade. We're also actively combating localization barriers to trade. Those are measures that are designed to protect, favor or stimulate domestic industries, service providers or intellectual property at the expense of goods, services and IP from other countries. The use of those kinds of measures has dramatically increased in the last few years, especially in some of the world's largest and fastest growing markets. Localization barriers to trade present significant market access obstacles and can block or inhibit U.S. exports in many key markets. They include things like requiring goods to be produced locally, providing preferences for the purchase of domestically manufactured or produced goods and services and requiring firms to transfer technology in order to trade in a foreign market. Those kinds of measures are, in our view, trade-distortive. They create an uneven playing field and they make it harder to engage in commercial innovation. We also want to create some of the conditions in terms of the intellectual property system that will support innovation for both producers and consumers alike. IP is a key source of American jobs and competitiveness and prosperity. According to the Department of Commerce, IP-intensive industries in 2010 directly accounted for 27.1 million American jobs and approximately 34.8% of U.S. GDP. To sustain those vast and vital economic benefits, the United States in 2013 is continuing to seek greater market access for IP-intensive U.S. products and to protect job-supporting innovation as part of a balanced policy that benefits both producers and users of innovative products and services worldwide. We're leaders in the United States in innovative industries ranging from development of high technology to entertainment and the fine arts and we support market-based competition and respect for the work of intellectual property rights holders in every country and you see that reflected both in the trade agreements that have come into force in recent years with Korea, Colombia and Panama and also in our very active ongoing trade agenda in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Negotiations where we're working with that set of partners to advance state-of-the-art high standard provisions and you see opportunities in that regard in our early days, Trans-Pacific Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations, excuse me, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations with Europe. I think both of these opportunities are critical to us and we're spending a lot of time on TPP right now trying to bring home that agreement by the end of the year as our leaders and trade ministers have asked us to do so our major process innovation at USTR right now is learning how to burn the candle at both ends and in the middle at the same time but hopefully with continued very intensive work on that agreement we'll be able to bring home a good result for US innovators and creators and expand jobs and opportunities in the critical Asia Pacific region. That's by no means all we're doing. I wanna come back to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in a moment but I do wanna mention some of the other work that we do outside of these major trade negotiations to try to aggressively defend the millions of American jobs that are threatened by theft of US intellectual property around the world. We use our special 301 process for example, we collaborate with trading partners to develop and implement solutions on issues of concern. We develop action plans like the one we're pursuing with Russia following their accession to the WTO. So we've got a very active agenda of trying to set market conditions that allow people to capture value added in their goods and services through intellectual property protections like patents, trademarks and copyrights. Interestingly Scott, when I turn to the examples that we're going to talk about this morning these aren't necessarily your conventional cases of IP or IP related barriers and that I think presents an intriguing possibility because one of the negotiations that we have on the horizon at USTR is in fact an unconventional one from the standpoint of IP. That's our Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe and in that area I think we have a tremendous opportunity right now to look to open up new markets and approach the challenges of IP protection in new ways because we start with that partner in a place where we haven't started in any of our previous trade agreements where we've really got a strong standard of IP protection and enforcement in place already and we're looking to build on that with new disciplines. So one of the things I'd ask you to think about today as we hear about the examples of commercial innovation that we're going to talk about is what opportunities would be presented in a new kind of trade agreement as we're pursuing with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to set background conditions that can promote the kind of commercial innovation that we're talking about today. I'm also very interested in the fact that some of the examples we're talking about today involve what I would call secondary value propositions around a product or service that was first developed or brought to market with a different value proposition in mind. So for example, if we're talking about, if we're talking about a water purification product that was not able to be successfully commercialized on the first try, but a secondary value proposition was found where that could be brought to the market in a different way, that may speak to us about opportunities for innovation that are outside the conventional mainstream. And I think it's a challenging question for all of us to look at, say, how do we create conditions for that kind of innovation? That particular innovation was recognized, for example, by the USPTO Patents for Humanity program. I think it's worth asking whether there are other kinds of ways to reinforce secondary value propositions through measures like that. You're also gonna hear from Gilead Sciences today. I know Gilead is a participant in the medicine's patent pool. There's another idea of how you reinforce a secondary value proposition, allow the use of patented innovations that have been developed by the biopharmaceutical innovation, by the biopharmaceutical industry, or by innovators like our own national science initiatives here in the United States to be deployed in new ways and extract new forms of value. So I would be very intrigued, Scott, to learn more about what kinds of conclusions we can draw from the conference in the presentations this morning about unconventional new ways to try to underline secondary value propositions and create conditions that allowed them to take hold and grow and create jobs and innovation opportunities for the United States. Thanks very much. Have a seat. Stan's agreed to take a few questions if there are any. There are basically, here at CSIS, three rules for questions. First, wait for the microphone because we're live webcasting this. Second, when you receive the microphone, introduce yourself and your organization. The third rule is ask the question a formal question. Oh, thank you. Anybody have a question for Stan? Shake off the cobwebs this morning. My name is Ed Gerwin. I'm an international trade consultant. Stan, I have a question. You mentioned the idea of creating background conditions for companies to be able to compete more effectively in international markets. And I know in the ongoing negotiations, particularly in the TPP, there's been much discussion of supply chains. Could you give us an idea of some of the kinds of background conditions that you're trying to set in those negotiations to make supply chains work more effectively? And most importantly, to make sure that American companies can get their fair share of global supply chains so we can create opportunity in jobs here. Yeah, thanks for the question. It's a good one. I think supply chain, I think supply chain issues are all the rage right now. It's one of the 21st century issues that we're looking at in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations where we're really trying to grapple with some of the new challenges that we're facing. I think we're still in the midst of working through exactly what it is that we can do. We're also talking in the World Trade Organization right now about trade facilitation, which gets to some of the same issues. How is it that you really get goods and services across borders and ensure we can get goods and services to consumers quickly in a global marketplace? One of the supply chain issues we wrestle with constantly in the intellectual property space is ensuring the integrity of supply chains, including sometimes our own government and defense supply chains against counterfeit goods and the kind of leakage of those goods that can come in and threaten not only commercial actors, but consumers as well. So I think there's a host of challenges there. I'm sure we will only be able to wrestle with a limited number of them in the TPP. I hope that TTIP will present new opportunities to wrestle with some more of those challenges, but I think it's really fertile ground. And when you look at the examples we're gonna talk about today, I was struck by the UPS example where you have basically a packaging product that's treated as an import under some customs rules and what kind of supply chain issues would that create for you if all of a sudden the packaging was introducing a whole new tariff proposition you had to wrestle with. So I think within the concept of supply chain broadly conceived, there's all kinds of problems you could wrestle with and how many of those will come under that rubric for the TPP is something we're still working on. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, sir. My name is Bill Mounce. I'm from the Pacific Northwest and the Northwest Regional Clusters out there. We'd like to ask Scott, how are you doing as the U.S. Trade Representative in reconciling our twin national objectives of trade but also export controls? And specifically with TPP, is that going to be on the same plateau as the Atlantic current state? Thanks. Yeah, so export control is not really my not really my personal area of expertise but I can say that trade and innovation really go hand in hand for us and we're trying to promote all kinds of exports including the area of innovation. Of course, we do have certain export control laws that have to be respected and that's a reality of the trading environment but my experience in the IP space is that those cover a very limited space and we're still very successful in IP exports. I don't know if that matches up with your experience. Given the same, just trying to make sure that the Trans-Pacific Accord is given the same status as the Trans-Atlantic Accord which we have quite a success with. Understood, thanks. Yes, Thelma, up front here. Thanks, I'm Thelma Askem I've seen your advisor here at CSIS and I have kind of a two part question. One is with respect to intellectual property rights protection and the ITC and what you're seeing when you're negotiating with our trading partners, do you see any changes that need to be made there with respect to how we review intellectual property rights protections in the US and what are you pushing for in other countries with respect to how they are going to look at intellectual property rights protection and that leads me to the second question about capacity building in this area and others in your negotiations. We're discussing that a lot within CSIS about how to marry capacity building needs with both private sector and public sector capacity building efforts. Yeah, thanks, that's a great question. In terms of intellectual property and expectations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership we're looking for a high standard agreement on intellectual property, one that will stand alongside the other agreements that we already have in that region with partners like Australia, Singapore, Chile, Peru and the chorus free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea. So a strong IP standard there is critical. We also see it as important to build on that standard in certain ways. There are some 21st century challenges that we haven't addressed in past trade agreements that I think we can address in the TPP. One of them would be theft of trade secrets, for example, very important to the kind of process innovation that we're talking about today because sometimes your innovation is not a patented invention but a way of making the product better, whether you're making glass or paint or dozens of other things. And the ability to hold that information as protected is just increasingly critical around the world and it's critical for U.S. investors who want to be able to participate in a global marketplace that they don't lose that. I'll say that just as one of several examples where I think the TPP gives us an opportunity not only to do what we've done before but to stretch our ambitions into new areas and for the most part we've found our partners in the TPP willing to engage in that discussion with us and work towards the shared goal of an ambitious agreement. So we're now at a critical juncture where we'll see if we can deliver that or not. In terms of capacity building, it's a great point. I think one of the challenges we have in the area of value-added trade is we're talking about not just simple trade propositions where you're dealing with routine customs issues. I think we're going to hear this morning sometimes even routine customs issues aren't so routine but now you're talking about patents, patents, trademarks, copyrights. These can be subtle and difficult matters that require actual rule of law capacity on the part of not just line officials but judges and private attorneys in the system and how do you create that rule of law capacity? Really, what we're talking about when we talk about trade based on innovation is the ability to profit from value-added in the global marketplace that often only exists in the form of a legal fiction, a patent, or a copyright. And in order to capture value from those kinds of operations, you've got to have a rule of law expectation that's met in overseas markets. And that's been a challenge of the last quarter century for U.S. trade policy. But I think you're absolutely right to underline that the capacity-building aspect of that is critical because you can put all kinds of wonderful laws on the books and if the capacity isn't there for judges and law enforcement officials to make them real in practice, then they won't be. Yes, sir. Final question. Thank you, Jill Mahaney, co-founder of Open Revolution. Picking up on the issue of patents, this administration has been refreshingly aggressive against patent squatting and defensive uses of IP rights here domestically. Could you comment on how that does that carry over into your international trade agenda and how do you strike the balance in terms of protecting IP rights with respect to innovation? Yeah, I think it does carry over in the sense that patent quality is really critical for us not only domestically but internationally. And if you look ahead at some of the challenges out there, I mean, you have, for example, in China a coming wave of enormous patent quality problems owing to the fact that a huge proportion of the patents on the books in China are unexamined so-called utility model patents that may be of highly dubious quality. And so I think you will see in overseas markets many of the same challenges that we've been grappling with here domestically and I think we have the opportunity to set a good example in which we underline the importance of a strong patent system with quality patents and the value that that brings home to all of us by also showing our commitment to rooting out low quality patents through initiatives like the existing patent reforms and also addressing the problems of inappropriate behavior by some marginal patent holders through initiatives like the ones that the White House announced last summer with respect to the problems around non-practicing entities. So I think those kinds of initiatives ultimately all share the goal of a strong patent system. We want that domestically. We very much want that internationally as well and I think that we will increasingly see others grappling with the kinds of challenges we're grappling with so it's critical that we set a good example there. Please join me in thanking Stan for his contribution.


Beta defense in 2, BD2, is a protein that is present in the skin and mucous membranes of healthy individuals. It has been shown to be associated with psoriasis severity, but its role in psoriatic arthritis, PSA, remains unclear. A recent study investigating the efficacy of succukinumab, a drug used to treat PSA, revealed that patients with high levels of BD2 at baseline had better clinical responses than those with low levels. This suggests that BD2 may serve as a potential biomarker for predicting clinical response to this type of treatment. This article was authored by Richard M. Zegel, Mark van der Mulebroek, Mathias Cardner, and others.


The Umbrella Academy is a superhero-ish movie, or not even movie, it's a series over on Netflix and in this video we're specifically going to be talking about the way this show depicted addiction in the character Klaus. What is up everybody? This is Chris from the Rewired Soul where we talk about the problem, but focus on the solution. And if you're new to my channel, my channel is all about mental health and what I like to do sometimes is pull different movies or TV shows, kind of look at a mental health topic like addiction and just talk about how accurate was it. So if you're into that stuff, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. And before we get started, I want to introduce today's sponsor. And who is that sponsor you might be asking? It is the Science of Addiction course. Alright, so over on my website right now, go check out the Science of Addiction course. It is absolutely 100% free. Working in a drug and alcohol treatment center, I taught this course to clients to help them better understand why they became addicted, the risk factors and, you know, new solutions to helping to overcome addiction. But I also taught it to family members of the people trying to overcome addiction in that rehab center. So this entire course is up over on my website. It'll be linked down in the description down in the pinned comment. It's 100% free. And even if you don't think it'll benefit you to learn more about the actual science of addiction, we need to end this stigma. So please do me a favor and just spread it around. Let's share with other people so they understand what addiction really is and how we can help more people. All right, but yeah, anyways, let's get started. Let's talk about the Umbrella Academy. Okay, and those of you who have not watched the Umbrella Academy yet over on Netflix, there will be spoilers. All right, so go check it out. Come back, watch it. Or if you're not planning on watching it, just watch this video. We're going to have a good time. All right, so those of you who don't know me, I am a drug addict and alcoholic in recovery. I've been clean since June 23rd, 2012. No drugs, no alcohol, my substances of choice. Started with alcohol, went into prescription medications, specifically opioids, all right? So in the Umbrella Academy, you have the character Klaus, all right? Klaus is somebody who struggles with addiction. So I'm not exactly sure. I'm not entirely sure if his addiction was to opiates or benzodiazepines, okay? So I was a prescription pill addict and mine was opiates, but they never really say which drug Klaus is using. But I'm assuming it's one of those two, most likely opioids because opioid is the major problem. So first, let's talk about why Klaus became addicted in the first place. So in the show, Klaus's superpower is that he can talk to the dead, all right? And his father was trying to help him overcome that fear, but locking him in like, what is that called, a mausoleum? Like at a graveyard.  Well, what he found was the only way that he can kind of turn that off was through self-medicating with drugs, right? And this is very real. This is very real. This is how so many people become addicted. So the two leading causes of addiction are untreated or undiagnosed mental illness, right? And what happens is, is people start self-medicating. And what we do is we wire our brain into believing that the best way to deal with those voices is to take drugs. That's actually how my addiction started. From a young age in middle school and high school, I started developing severe symptoms of depression and anxiety. And at the end of high school, when I started drinking, that became my way to self-medicate. Like the first time I got drunk, I was like, oh my God, the voices in my head stopped, like all the self-doubt and the self-hatred, or hatred towards other people, or my social anxiety, all these things went away. So this is why certain people become addicted. So what we have to do, especially when it comes to the next generation, like Generation Z, our children, or even ourselves. Because I know I have an audience like in the millennial era and stuff like that, we have to find better ways to cope that do not involve drugs and alcohol, because first it becomes substance abuse, then it becomes dependence, then it becomes a full-blown addiction, all right? So in the show, they depicted withdrawal quite a bit with Klaus. So this was done moderately well, I would say. So again, I'm not sure which substances Klaus was using, but when it comes to something like opioids, I did a cold turkey detox, which you should never, ever, ever do, always get the help of a medical facility, or a qualified detox facility is usually your best bet. But with opioid detox, you have flu-like symptoms, you can have restless leg, you have a lot of pains and aches. I remember I felt like a 90-year-old man, I could barely move. There's a lot of vomiting, there's a lot of stuff coming out the other end, there's all sorts of stuff. It is brutal. Now, when it comes to benzodiazepines, this can be similar. But one of the risks of benzodiazepine withdrawal is having seizures, all right? So Klaus didn't experience any seizures in that. But you can see how even when he wasn't using for a period of hours, he would start to feel the symptoms of withdrawal. That's why he was constantly on the hunt for substances until he got sober later, which we're gonna touch on. But for a lot of people who have an addiction, you're no longer drinking or using in order to get high or get drunk. You're simply doing it to feel well, right? Because our body is always trying to maintain equilibrium. And as soon as the substances start to metabolize in our system, our body starts to react in both psychological as well as physical ways. So we start to do whatever it takes to get more. And this is one of the reasons why people start to do crappy things. Like you saw Klaus steal his, his, his dead father's box, right? To go sell it. And that's why, and it's not an excuse, but it's a reason why a lot of addicts do a lot of really shady things in order to get their fix. Because they fear withdrawal that much. And that's one of the reasons why addicts don't stay clean is because of how harsh withdrawal can actually be. Oh my God. So as Tristan and I were watching the Umbrella Academy, this scene right here where Klaus was being held hostage by Chacha and Hazel, and they're trying to get information out of him.   And he wasn't giving up any information. But then when Hazel and Chacha realized that he was a drug addict and found his weakness, just all of the information came out. Just all of it came out and just, you know, yeah, my brother. And here's what I know. Here's him. He's like crying. He's like, please just give me my drugs. You know what I mean? I'm like, I could definitely, definitely relate to that. Now, you know, I've never been like held hostage and been asked to give up, you know, information about my brother with superpowers or anything. But yeah, like when when we're fiending, like we will do all sorts of things. Like I just talked about, you know, stealing and things like that. But we will do just about anything like our morals go out the window. Logical thinking out the window, right? Like before they had that, you know, as leverage against Klaus, he was like, what are you going to do? What are you going to do? And in reality, like if I put myself in that situation, like the withdrawal that he was experiencing was probably a thousand times worse than getting punched in the face, right? Like getting punched in the face was probably something to take his mind off of the withdrawal. So he knew the only thing that would really help him, you know, get rid of his symptoms of withdrawal would be more drugs. All right. So this is something where it's like it gets easier over time. I know a lot of people are afraid of withdrawal, afraid of getting clean. It gets easier over time. Like right now and for years now, I'm not like intensely craving, right? I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. I walk past alcohol, drugs all the time. Weed is legal here in Las Vegas. I'm constantly surrounded by drugs. Every time I walk in the store, there's a pharmacy, but I'm not freaking out. OK, the longer you stay clean, the longer you break any habit, the easier it is to overcome it even longer because you're not craving as much. Like in the beginning, I was obsessing. It was a constant struggle hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second, trying to stay clean. But today I just have a routine set up and it's not even really a second thought. So the last thing I want to talk about, the last thing I want to talk about, which was completely inaccurate, was pretty much the last few episodes where Klaus had been clean for, I don't know, 24 or 48 hours, right? Like while he did like try to make an excuse to not go chase after their sister, Vanya, and it's like, oh, I'm not feeling too good and stuff, right? Like other than that, he was like lively and energetic and like helping out the team and getting involved and all these other things. Like within 24 to 48 hours with the amount of drugs that dude was using, he would be absolutely a miserable and completely useless. Like the like the amount of withdrawal that he would be going through, especially without what they call medically assisted treatment or Matt. Like he would be so useless. Like they would be like, dude, you need to stay home. But like I just kind of got a chuckle out of that because at the end, like he's just like, hey, everybody, hey, team, I'm here. And like, you know, acting all great. Like after a while, you feel that way. But that's not going to happen after 24 to 48 hours. All right. But anyways, anyways, if you are somebody who's in recovery and you have watched the Umbrella Academy, let me know what your thoughts were. Like, how do you think they did showing addiction in the character of class? Let me know down in the comments below. I will be doing some more character breakdowns and plot breakdowns. If there's anything you want me to touch on specifically that you think would make for a good mental health topic. Let me know down in the comments below. All right. But anyways, anyways, don't forget that the the science of addiction course is free over on my website. The links are down in the description as well as in the pin comment. Check it out. Spread the word. Give it to as many people as you know, let's start ending the stigma around addiction and help fight this thing together. All right. But anyways, if you like this video, please give it a thumbs up. If you're new, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell and a huge, huge thank you to everybody supporting the channel over on Patreon. You're all amazing. And if you would like to become a patron and get exclusive videos and perks get involved in our monthly Q&A, thinking about starting a book club. Go ahead and click or tap on that icon right there. All right. Thanks so much for watching. I'll see you next time.