So thank you for sticking around in the late into the afternoon and giving me a chance to talk to you a little bit about Really sort of big picture stuff about some things that I've been thinking about with respect to early translational research at UCSF and some very preliminary Plans early plan your term plans for what what we hope to be able to to do in the in short order so As clay had just mentioned I Joined CTS I very recently Three months ago to be exact as a director of early translational research and before this I was at Genentech for Seven years in clinical development and in various different capacities and my most recent role was as the head of Infectious diseases cardiovascular metabolism and respiratory programs in in early clinical development And before that I was at UCSF for for a number of years as a clinical fellow in pulmonary and critical care a Research fellow and then on faculty and I also had directed the high-risk asthma clinic at San Francisco General And Why now some people have asked me why are you coming back and do you not like Roche or you know? So and it's actually not that it's not really so much a push, but it's really a pull I really think it's a very exciting time to be doing translational research especially in the in the setting of a place like UCSF for a variety of reasons UCSF I think by far Has some of the best science and some of the best scientists Around and those are obviously the two fundamental building blocks to be able to do good translational research You look around the campus and there's real intent and commitment to making translational research work better there's a Lot of energy being being expended into trying to figure out how to make translational research work better both here in academia and in the industry all around us and and Having good basic building blocks of good science and good scientists to work with is a great place to start you look around the campus And there's real intent and commitment you look at what's being done Through the evc's office with Decade of Human biology you look at what's being done at qb3 and and many other pockets around the campus People want to make this happen and then of course the leadership here with Jeff and the evc's office and sue has as the chancellor There's there's commitment External to UCSF it's it I think it's a really exciting time. There's it's dynamic lots of things changing very quickly there's full Acknowledgement and full recognition that things could be working better and Thing not that things have been working horribly, but a lot of things a lot There are a lot of variables that are rapidly evolving and therefore new gaps are sort of being identified and funding agencies by way of NIH and and regulatory agencies and and Industry from startups all the way through very large companies are acknowledging this and looking for new ways to Make this happen better and why because it's really important It's really a mandate because a great science that we have here should be translated to better help My goal and commitment is to really facilitate and enhance and accelerate early translational research and use at UCSF and The specific tactics for how that's going to happen is going to evolve over time I'm going to share one little bit with you a little bit later, but but really Spend a little bit more time just talking about the framework that I've been using to think about where the gaps are So what I've been doing I've been on a listening tour meeting with lots of folks around the campus some that are in this room to Understand what's been going on on campus with respect to T1 translational space and What works well what doesn't work well? What's missing? and and You know what what they wish they had that they don't have and then I'm also using that information to put together a business plan So the framework that I've been using to think about this is is is laid out over here. So Translational research, there's the early. There's late T1 T2 under T1 we're talking about science how science gets translated to invention Or discovery and and I'm using invention to be synonymous with that which is Which results in a patent? Recognizing that not all discoveries are patentable and not non patentable discoveries can also result in improvement of health and Then also there's the translation of this invention or discovery to a product and I'm using the word product to mean That entity drug device or diagnostic or software or whatever it is that can then be used to improve health out in the community and Then there's the other layer of bench to bedside bedside to bench and then how this gets then translated in the community and Really how then there's that feedback from community back to Bench and bedside to inform the science that occurs in Ideally and in reality That feedback Process is iterative I think one can argue that that feedback process could work better And we should be thinking about how that that Cross-fertilization could be facilitated better as well to to to create better science and then in terms of looking at Where does This work at the different ends of the translational spectrum occur Academia traditionally has been involved with work. That's fairly early bench at the bench some bedside and then science to invention and Sometimes a little bit beyond that Traditionally when there's an invention startup companies would Would come and and and get involved and then and then when those inventions have made a substantial progress To becoming a product larger companies would then take on that that program either by acquisition or by strategic partnership and then the other aspect is larger Farmers and traditionally and in the past historically has been really Doing a lot of investment into their own R&D pipeline So they've been putting a lot of resources into generating their own pipeline and doing their own research and development and I think all analysis would point to the the the Conclusion that that investment has not been nearly as fruitful as they had hoped and so they're looking for other other ways to fill their pipeline as well and What's happening now? I mean The number of there are a lot of variables at work Venture Venture resources are more scarce than they used to be started. It's harder to get startup companies Going and it's harder to keep them sustained Until a time when they're considered to be attractive to a larger strategic partner So there's that that gap between academia and startups is Increasing the gap between startup companies and large pharma and where in large pharma comes in It's also increasing for a variety of reasons one startup companies can't stay around quite as long as they used to because they don't have the Venture money that they used to and large pharma is Choosing to wait a little bit longer to invest in companies until sufficient risk has been mitigated in those companies So those gaps are being being increased So when we talk about a dynamic environment, this is sort of changing real-time and these gaps are Moving as we speak and so for so for so now large pharma is not is is Lot of large pharmas that that you've probably heard about in the press Are moving away from investing into their own R&D and Looking to academia and looking to get engaged more actively with the research that's going on in academia to Impart impart populate their R&D pipeline which From where we said I think is really an opportunity for a variety of reasons. They bring with that Potential resources not just monetary but capabilities things that we don't have in the university because we're not Primarily driven to do drug development. They bring their process development capabilities. They bring their manufacturing capabilities, so I think there are a lot of potential opportunities that we ought to be looking at in leveraging in this new dynamic environment so Looking at those three different levels Bench to bedside science to invention to product and then academia to industry, you know, they're they're They're their gaps from each of those steps so science to invention are How much science is really being left on the table without getting patents filed in this university and how do we Get access to that science so that whatever support it needs it can get to to move along Science with the potential to actually impact health and then invention to product. What keeps those those inventions? that that under go Getting patents filed from moving along to getting licenses done is it that That those capabilities are not Easily accessible to men. How do we how do we identify those to actually provide the necessary support to move that along? Bench to side and bedside to bench Do we have the infrastructures that we need to actually allow that bench to bedside bedside to bench to happen? And what are those things are those things that we have to build internally? Are those things that we can try to access and leverage from From the outside and I think these are all things That I've been thinking a lot about and I know lots of people here have been thinking about and working actively on and Then community to bench and then community bedside is the other Important piece and then academia to industry. We're in a dynamic time. It's it's gonna be interesting I think there were were open, but also the industry is also open to To really forming collaborations that make sense that are fit for purpose not one size fits all which I think has been more the approach historically And I think UCSF is a in a really unique unique position to really lead and influence and drive this Transformation that's occurring in that in the translational research space for a lot of reasons We have great science as we talked about and great scientists. We have this Institution that really has an amazing reputation, but also around us. We're probably in the most rich biotech innovation In the world area and the geographical area in the world So we have a lot of resources Around us that we ought to be tapping into that we need to leverage and I and I think that's really exciting There's a lot a lot of opportunity there so so What so I'm going to talk a little bit about? Specifically about one of our programs that was designed to address I have three minutes. Oh boy, okay And I need to go fast so To to address invention to product Stage the T1 cat trial and translational catalyst award meant to identify the best projects and then and then bring in missing pieces and help the the project along to a place where it's it's Then thought to be attractive to a some some some specific milestone and It's a phased award approach and I'm just going to share with you a case study of Bob Nussbaum Who apply for this program and the punchline is he actually didn't get the development award, but he did what what happened with his? his Program really beautifully illustrates the the strength of this program and that is he apply to test a commercial not commercial product the product and development at a at a startup company in a disease indication that Was different than what the company was working on so And what the company was planning on he really didn't have any idea so using a consultant that CTSI provided through the T1 catalyst program. He was then able to work out a collaborative Collaborative agreement with the company to be allowed to use the compound that they had in the disease indication that he's interested in We were then able to also provide them together the company and him and then a collaborator a Translational grant writer to apply for Michael J. Fox award together, and they've been invited to apply to do a full application now and We're in the final phases also of getting an MOU Memoranda of understanding written with this company so that should this Product and this should this invention ever become a product in This particular disease indication that UCSF would get something back for the investment that we made for for getting this program going so T1 catalyst award we did three cycles we Got some feedback that the pilot grants That were given through the program are thought to be very helpful Customized consulting service that was provided was very useful, and it can see that in the news palm case What we decided what we're working on now is thinking about how we can make those Those those aspects of the program that are thought to be most valuable more broadly available and in the process of thinking about How to broaden this t1 Translational catalyst award to a t1 translational catalyst program to include the award as it stands but also to have a separate freestanding customized consultation program and Then a pilot micro grants program and I the second and the third components of the consultation program and micro grants program are Designed to really be rapid turnover with minimal process Designed to help us identify the science to invention earlier programs a little bit better, so T1 translational or program is also being we're in the process of working on expanding the Expanding to have multiple tracks not just therapeutics, but diagnostics devices mHealth as well as orphan and rare diseases We're talking with many potential industry collaborators help to fund some of these different tracks so again instead of so we're we're It turns out that the t1 catalyst program is a a very interesting platform for the industry in Informing a potential collaboration with us, so we have been actively discussing That possibility with a number of different companies, so stay tuned and then so again I think it's one of the most important things that that are gonna help to to really extend the t1 Translational capability or capacity in academia is going to be innovative partnerships with Industry in a very innovative part partnerships with early-stage investors Founding foundations venture philanthropy and others and we are Exploring many of these avenues as we speak so please stay tuned there as well Your turn focus I'm going to be working on enhancing the t1 translational catalyst program and building and enhancing the Innovative partnerships and working closely with Eric from the ABC's office as well And then continuing to assess for opportunities and in figuring out ways to do Multidisciplinary cross-fertilization so important in the translational process from bench to bedside bedside to bench community bench and bedside and then and then also Really starting to think about what sort of t1 focused education both didactic and otherwise would be useful and then As we just finished talking about definition of success. How are we going to measure? Whether or not we're making an impact so How you can help me let me know For those of you who I haven't met with let me know when things if you know of things that are working well things that aren't working Well around the campus All years If you are aware of interesting and successful programs here or elsewhere that I to be aware of that we should evaluate Please let me know that too. If you have any project program or issue That CTSI or I in particular may be able to help with please call and contact me because I think that's part of that's going to be Part of my database and trying to figure out where where the gaps are on this university and then again other inputs are also appreciated Dynamic environment Means that we have to what you know We're gonna We're gonna need to do a Continual evaluation to identify and address gaps and this means gonna need to be agile And we're gonna need to be willing to take some small risks But most of I think we're really gonna need to work together because this is really a multi-disciplinary process And that's it. Thank you Thank you, June. So so June's just getting going here So it's already a lot of plans and a lot on your plate in a short period of time Any any questions from the group? We didn't really give you too much time to to talk about some of the exciting things that are sort of in the works but There are many We think and I wanted to just explain maybe before we transition if there are no questions that the this Why the T1 catalyst platform work seems to work so well So one of the one of the challenges in working with anybody outside the university is for them to know that they're interacting with the best folks Within UCSF right that these are the best projects that might meet their needs In otherwise our the environment. It's just too overwhelming. They can't understand what the heck's going on. They're just too many people From our perspective too when we've tried to do matchmaking Without any kind of assessment of projects and in that it's overwhelming to we get you know We say our doors open a lot of people come a lot of what they bring isn't worthwhile And then a lot of people who are doing the greatest stuff aren't motivated to bring their stuff in so what T1 catalyst does is it encourages People to submit their things for us to evaluate for us to prioritize them and then to present them to to buyers Basically, you know the potential partners whether they're foundation partners or industry part partners or whether it's our money That we're spending on it and that that seems to be working to help to to to bridge those gaps so sort of Take off on what was talked about earlier with profiles I'm wondering if there's any consideration Especially what clay just said on being able to drive profiles into that marketplace Maybe not being individuals even always but programmatic Programmatic profiles where we are the best asthma center in the country or we are the best and here's what we offer so that people can come into UCSF and understand what are what we're offering up so we don't have to necessarily always go out But we would be a place where people would come to if they have an interest in a disease area or in a in a in a biology area or in a In a group of people right now I think that's that's a great comment and there has been discussions and there's some thinking around not just saying This is the best asthma center, but really internally compiling a disease biology area that we have a continuum of expertise on from bait all the way from basic to basic to animal models to to clinical expertise and really compiling compiling those teams to to to be ready to engage quickly so Yes, and being able to being able to use I think profiles to a certain extent to to initiate that That that compilation of teams Yeah, it's a state stay tuned We're we're sort of selling that as part of a package in some of these relationships including the recent Pfizer one and then we'll try to deliver on their needs and through that will try to improve the product from their perspective Add a comment and question the first comment is we've we as a campus that we've done so much better at Talking about ourselves and what we're doing and you know our website is better or we have people who are ongoing around looking for Good work that people are doing we we mine good paper good publications and write about it in plain English And I think we should encourage the campus to continue to put resources in that because that'll help Elevate a lot of them, you know, it'll tell the stories and internally we'll learn and Externally people will learn about us as well because they will pick pick that information up and I think we've been doing so much better, which is Don't let that be one of the things we drop the ball on and my question is Jeff and you're You're you're pushed to us was to the decade of human biology and I wondered maybe I missed this But how is how are the two tied together and are there is there? Complete overlap with your goals in that and and the goals here to CTSI Well, we're in the process now of sort of our statement Reports to our office and so clay and Suzanne and others are talking all the time That this is an incredibly integrated process But what I don't want to lose in this and this is why I asked the question earlier on Is that in a sense the decade of human biology has a broader definition than what's being talked about here for translational research It's also talking about the human as a complex organism to do very basic research on It's it's human biology from the most basic research on and so we're gonna if anything make sure that The research community is involved as well. So it's not just a full overlapping Venn diagram Great. Well, I think we better move on it. Thank you very much, June


So about a hundred years ago, scientists were making a lot of discoveries that now allow us to connect turbidity currents on the ocean floor and turbidites, the rocks that show a characteristic flowing flow through time. So about a hundred years ago, geologists were describing turbidite rocks and suggesting that there were actually very fast flows on the bottom of the ocean floor, even though dynamically it's very difficult to sort out how to do that. Oceanographers were mapping the bathymetry of the sea floor and discovering that there were these giant canyons on the sea floor. And they were trying to understand what processes could actually form those canyons and suggested, well, maybe when sea level was low, rivers caused them or there are all sorts of different processes. And then at the same time, engineers were starting to put telegraph cables between the continents on the ocean floor. So for example, there were a lot of telegraph cables that were going from Newfoundland and Canada across to Europe to aid intercontinental communications. And then finally, there were also people doing experiments with flumes, and they discovered that when you mix sediment with water, if you get enough sediment and it's dense enough that it will flow along a slope under standing water that doesn't have as much sediment. And so all of these things eventually came together into the idea of turbidites and turbidity currents, but not until the 1950s. So it's a really interesting story about how different pieces of evidence of science come together for a specific interpretation. And so I want to use an example of a flow in 1929, which was not understood at the time, to show how those pieces of evidence came together. So in November 1929, there was a magnitude 7.2 earthquake off the coast of Newfoundland. And immediately after the earthquake hit, about six telegraph cables broke. And the timing, the break of the cables is known instantly because the telegraphs stopped getting transmitted. And then over the next 13 hours, plus a little bit more, more and more cables broke going south from the epicenter of the earthquake. And each one of those cables that broke was also in deeper water. And interesting, none of the cables in the shallow water on the continental shelf itself broke. So there had to have been a process going on in the deep ocean, along as you went away from the coast. And in 1952, Hazen and Ewing recognized, two geologists recognized, that what was probably happening was that the earthquake had triggered a landslide that generated a turbidity current. And that current was flowing down the slope and breaking the cables one after the other. People had proposed turbidity currents before, but there wasn't a real understanding about how they worked and how fast they actually went. So by looking at the sequence of cable breaks, they were able to calculate that the flow speed was initially 90 kilometers an hour. And then it was breaking cables until it was flowing as it slowed down to 20 kilometers an hour. So still very, very fast. And they could also track the slope of the area where the cables broke. And what they saw was that it was a very steep slope initially, and then the turbidity current would have slowed down as the slope decreased, which is very consistent with the dynamics. Finally, there's one more point of evidence that suggests that it really was a turbidity current is that the ships, when they went out to repair the cables, dredged up a lot of sediment, and they were finding pebbles and mud clasks and sharp sand, sharp sand, meaning it's hard on the equipment, so coarse sand, when they were dredging things up. And so that suggested that there was a fast flow, it was fast enough to transport those large grains, but it was also slowing down through time, so it was actually depositing those grains. So if the flow keeps going fast, it will keep transporting the grains themselves. So this is a really nice example of how all different types of science and observations can feed into discovering a new process, and in this particular case, it fits really well with the turbidites that we can see in the rock record. Thanks for watching.


A film in three minutes, Sorcerer. I've got a job for you. It won't be easy. You've got to drive a truck through the Amazon rainforest. The route? Treacherous mountains. The cargo? Highly volatile. Oh, and there's no guarantee you'll even survive the trip, so be prepared to have your limits pushed to the extreme. Think you're up to it? You'd better be, because in William Friedkin's 1977 masterpiece, Sorcerer, you don't have much choice. A loose remake of the 1953 feature, The Wages of Fear, Sorcerer's narrative follows the lives of four men who each have become outcasts, and now reside in a remote, poverty-stricken village in Columbia, out of money, and seemingly out of luck. That is until an explosion at the local American oil refinery presents the men with an opportunity to earn good pay, but more importantly, their freedom out of the country. The only problem is that they have to drive crude, the assembled trucks 218 miles over deadly terrain, transporting dangerously unstable nitroglycerin to extinguish the fire. If there was one adjective I could choose to sum up this film as a viewing experience, then it would undoubtedly be tense. As from the very outset, we are introduced to this grimy, unforgiving world, with its shady, hard-nosed personas constantly being doused in mud, rain, blood, sweat, and tears with a cold nihilistic eye from Friedkin's lens, who made no bones about the fact that each of the main characters are neither outright heroic or villainous, but somewhere in between and therefore unlikeable and often difficult to root for. Tense too could be used to describe the situation that Friedkin and crew faced on a daily basis as they wrestled bouts of malaria, food poisoning, injuries, gangrene, and hostility from locals whilst shooting, leading to approximately 50 people having to leave the project with the erratic hubristic director firing multiple production managers and the original director of photography. The film's iconic suspension rope bridge scene acts as a case in point of the shoot's chaotic development, with the set piece costing a reported $3 million to construct over several months for the 12-minute sequence, requiring the specially made bridge to be expensively disassembled and then relocated due to a drought at the original filming location. Sorcerer's dismal box office performance would only solidify its reputation as the first death knell of the fading new Hollywood era that had dominated the decade up to that point, but regardless of the initial reception to the film, Sorcerer has enjoyed a kind, even magical re-evaluation decades after its theatrical run, whose story acts as a fitting metaphor of an ambitious, self-destructive last hurrah of a mode of filmmaking and of a director's creative ego that, for better or for worse, is now long gone.


What's going on, everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards. I've been 23 for any black football hobby. Six bucks, half case break, number 19, pick your team style. Read off the list for names of our teams. Got Boyd S. with the Raiders. Brett W. Eagles, cardboard legacy with the Niners. Chihau L. Patriots, George M. Saints. Gu H. with the Jags. Jacob E. Texans. James C. Rams. James P. Bills, Broncos, Bucks. Jason M. Lyons, Giants. Jeffrey H. Steelers. Jesse K. Chargers. Johnny A. Titans. Joseph C. with the Vikings. Justin C. Chiefs. Keith B. Falcons. Mark A. Ravens. Patrick M. Bengels. Paul R. Seahawk. Sean O. Cowboys. Sean G. Commanders. Steve C. with the Packers. Todd C. Bears. Tomomi N. Dolphins. Troy A. Cardinals. Panthers. Browns. Colts. And William P. with the Jets. Good luck here, everybody. Let's do it. Barry Y. with the Finns in 17 and 18. A gold standard. Thank you, Barry. Appreciate you, buddy. Again, just five to go in the next one. Ravens still on the board. Colts on the board. Titans on the board. All on sale. I'm still trying to process that one a little bit. This dude's freezing out today. I said that when it was like, I was like, oh dude, I was freezing today when it was like, like 65 degrees out. Illegal guys, you just lost your New England card for that one. There's Chris Rodriguez, Jr. to 35. Commanders. Okay, dude, it was cold. Mack Jones base. Jamira Gibbs is gonna be your futuristic jersey to 199 for Detroit. Congrats, Lions. Dave with the Saints in 17. Let's go, Dave. Thank you, buddy. Nice one there. Lions. That is gonna be A. Keanu Benton. I believe he is a stealer. Let me double check that. 20, 23, mini, football. I believe Keanu Benton is a stealer. Benton, yes. Pittsburgh Steelers. That'll go to the Steelers. Congrats, Pittsburgh. Keanu Benton, rookie auto. Should be the 199. One of the Steelers. And then Stetson Bennett on the RPA to 199. Nice patch on that. Congrats, Rams. Georgia legend. Actual Georgia legend. Grats on that one there. LA, again, five to go on the next one. Go. Lose again. I think lose again. OT to the freaking safe. Chris Rodriguez, Jr. again to 35. Another Chris Rodriguez, Jr. Here you go, Commanders. Got Nolan Smith, rookie. That is a rookie influx to 150 of Bijan Robinson. Rookie jersey for the Falcons. We've got Jerron Hall, sizable signatures, 15 of 99 on the rookie jersey auto for the Vikings. Congrats, Minnesota. Grats, Minnesota. We've got a Jake Heiner, rookie patch auto to 75. Grats on that, Stets, Jake Heiner. Manual Forbes to 75. He's a stud, I like a manual Forbes. So they do get lost by somebody. Alec Pierce on the base. That is a Jonathan Mingo futuristic jersey to 99 for the Panthers. Got another redemption of Will Anderson, Jr. Rookie autographs, what is that, Citrine or Citrine? Citrine, I think, I guess, honestly. Nice one there, going to the Texans. Congrats, Houston. Will Anderson, Jr., first defender off the board. And then Aiden O'Connell, rookie patch auto to 199. Nice one there, Raiders. It's like the perfect color match this product for the Raiders. Black card with silver ink. Yeah, it'll get much better there. Fox four, Travis Kelsey to 10. There you go, Chiefs, still dealing. 3-0. Michael Pittman, Jr. He's still in, yeah. Jordan Madison to 150. Nice one there, congrats to the Vikings. Let's see how we're doing again. Can't be good. Going back to one live entry. Chase Brown, rookie auto 35 of 35 for the Bengals. We avalanche down the lobby there. Nice one, Bengals. And then Michael Meyer, rookie patch auto 20 of 25, going again to the Las Vegas Raiders. Jacob F, picking up the Packers in number 18. Thank you, Jacob. 35, Brenton Strange, rookie. Yeah, not great. Jared Goff. That's Spencer, dude, Jared Goff. Thumbs up. Jaden Reed, rookie jersey. Going to the Packers to 99. Going to the Packers. We've got redemption of Tyreek Stevenson. Is he a patriot? No, he's a bear. He's a bear, I believe. Let me double check that. Pretty sure he's a bear. Tyreek. Yep, going to the Chicago Bears. Congrats, Bears. Nice one there. This pen is Merritt, dude, look at this thing. And Jordan Madison, sizable signatures, rookie jersey auto 99 again, going to the Vikings. Congrats, Minnesota. Very nice, Minnesota Vikings. Last box. And just five to go in the next one, everybody. Five to go. That is a TJ Hawkinson to 75. Dak Prescott base. Another Jameer Gibbs, this time to 99. Congrats on that one there. There you go, Lyons. We're getting an extra hit in this. I think we did, because there's a Luke Shoemaker, six of 10, there you go, Sean. Sean O, with the Cowboys. Said he got four cases, four breaks, pulling me a cool Cowboys card, got one. Nice one there. Sean Clifford, rookie jersey auto to 75 for the Packers. Congrats, Green Bay, Penn State alum. And then going to the Lyons, Sam LaPorta, 11 of 25. Two-color, two-colored RPA. Congrats on that one again, Detroit. Very nice. All right, quick recap here, everybody. We had Jameer Gibbs, Jaden Reed, Jordan Addison, Jonathan Mingo, Bijan Robinson, Jameer Gibbs. Autos, we had a Sean Clifford, Luke Shoemaker, Jordan Addison, Tariq Stevenson, Chase Brown, Michael Meyer, Jay Caner, Aiden O'Connell, Sam LaPorta, Will Anderson Jr., Jerry Hall, Stetson Bennett, and Keanu Betten. That'll do it for the break, everybody. Thanks again for the fill. Up next is number 20.


We're back at the Seaport in Boston, Dave Vellante and Paul Gillan, you're watching theCUBE's coverage of Red Hat Summit 2022, a little different this year, smaller venue, maybe 1,000 people, love the keynotes, compressed, big virtual audience, so we're happy to be coming to you live, face-to-face. It's been a while since we've had these comments. For a lot of folks, this is their first in-person event. Yeah, it's kind of weird getting used to that, but I think in the next few months, it's going to become the new quasi-abnormal. Francis Chow is here, he's the vice president and GM of InVehicle OS and Edge at Red Hat Francis. Welcome, that's the most interesting title we've had all week, so thanks for coming with you. Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Paul, for having me here. So the Edge, I mean, the Edge is, we heard about the International Space Station, we heard about ski boots, of course, InVehicle. What's the Edge to you? Well, to me, Edge actually could mean many different things, right? The way we look at Edge is, there is the traditional enterprise Edge, where this is the second tier, third tier data centers that just extension from your core, the network, and your centralized data center, right, to remote locations. And then there are like telco Edge, right, where we know about the 5G network, right, where you deploy base stations, and which would have a different set of requirements, right, of traditional enterprise Edge networks. And then there are operational Edge, where we see the line of business operating on those locations, things like manufacturing for oil rigs, retail store, right, so a very wide variety of Edge that are doing OT type of technology. And then last but not least, there is the customer-owned or kind of device Edge, where we're not putting things into things like cars, as you said, like ski boots, and have that interaction with the end consumers. Is this why, I mean, there's a lot of excitement at Red Hat, I could tell, among the Red Hat people about this GM deal here. Is this why that's so exciting to them? This really encompasses sort of all of those variants of the Edge in automobile experience, doesn't it? I think why this is exciting to the industry, and also to us, is that if you look at, traditionally, how automotive has designed, right, the way the architect vehicle today has many, many subsystems. They are all purpose-built, very tightly coupled with hardware and software. And it's very difficult to reuse, right? So their cost of development is high. The time to develop is long. And adding to that, there is a lengthy safety certification process, which also kind of make it hard, because every time you make a change in the system, you have to recertify it again. And typically it takes about six to 12 months to do, so every time you make a change. So very lengthy process, which is important because we want to ensure occupants are safe in a vehicle. Now what we bring to the table, which I think is super exciting, is we bring this platform approach. Now you can use a consistent platform that is open, and you can actually now run multiple domain applications on the same platform, which means automakers can reuse components across model years and brands, right? That will lower their development costs. Now I think one of the key things that we bring to the table is that we introduce a new safety certification approach called continuous safety certification. We actually announced that in our summit last year with the intent, hey, we're going to deliver this functionally certified Linux platform, which is the first for Linux, and the way we do it is we work with our partner, Exeter, to try to define that approach. And at a high level, the idea really is to automate that certification process just like how we automate software development, right? We're adding that monitoring capabilities with functional safety related artifacts in our CI-CD pipeline, and we're able to aim to cut back, cut that certification time to a fraction of what is needed today, right? So what we can do, I think, with this collaboration with GM is help them get faster time to market, and then lower development costs. Now adding to that, if you think about a modern Linux platform, you can update it over the air, right? This is the capability that we are working with GM as well. Now what customers can expect now for a future vehicle is there will be updates on apps and services, just like your cell phone, right? Which makes your car more capable over time and more relevant for the long term. So there's some assumptions you're making at the edge. First of all, you described a spectrum, retail store, which to me, okay, it's edge, but you can take an x86 box or a hyperconverged infrastructure, throw it in there, and there's some opportunities to do some stuff in real time, but it's kind of an extension, natural extension of IT, whereas in vehicle, you got to make some assumptions. Spotty connectivity to do software downloads, and you can't do truck rolls at the far edge, right? None of that is okay. And so there's some assumptions there, and as you say, your role is to compress the time to market but also deliver a better consumer experience. So what can we expect? You started to talk about the future in vehicle, you know, or EVs, if you will. What should we expect as consumers? You're saying over-the-air software, we're seeing that with some of the EV makers for sure, but what's the future look like? I think what consumers can expect is really over a period of time, right? A similar experience, like what you have with your mobile device, right? If you look back 15, 20 years, right? You buy a phone, right? That's the feature that you have with your phone, right? No update, it is what it is, right? For the lifetime of the product, which is pretty much what you have now if you buy a vehicle, right? You have those features capabilities and you last it for the lifetime of the vehicle, right? Or sometimes you have to drive in for maintenance and service to get a software update. We're going to talk about that too, right? But as we make the systems updateable, right? You can now expect more frequent and seamless update of both the operating system and the application services that sits on top of that, right? So I think, right, in the future, consumers can expect more capable vehicles after you purchase it because new development of software can now be downloaded and updated over the air. I assume this relationship with GM is not exclusive. Are you talking with other automakers as well? We are talking to other automakers. What we're working with GM is really a product that could work for the industry. Right, this is actually what we both believe in is what I think they do, right? As we're able to standardize how we approach the infrastructure, I think this is a good thing for the whole industry to help accelerate innovation for the entire industry. Which is sort of natural next question. Are we heading toward an open automotive platform like we have an open banking platform in that industry? Do you see the possibility that there could be a single platform that all or most of the automakers will work on? I wouldn't use the word single, but I definitely would use the word open, right? Our goal is to build this open platform, right? Because we believe in open source, right? We believe in community, right? If we make it open, we have more contributors to come in and help to make the system better in a way faster and actually, like you said, right? Improve the quality, right, better, right? So that the chance of recall is now lower with this approach. You're using validated patterns as part of this initiative, is that right? And what is a validated pattern? How is it different from a reference architecture? Is it just kind of a new name for reference architecture? What value does it bring to the relationship? For automotive, right, we don't have a validated pattern yet, but they can broadly kind of speak about what that is and how we see that evolve over time. So a validated pattern basically is a combination of redhead products, multiple redhead products, and partner products. And we usually build it for a specific use case. And then we put those components together, run rigorous tests to validate it, that's gonna work, so that it becomes more repeatable and deployable for those particular edge use cases. Now, we do work with our partners to make it happen, right, because in the end, right, we want to make a solution that is about 80% of the way and allow our partners to kind of add more value and the secret sauce on top and deploy it, right? And I'll give you kind of one example, right, you just had the interview with the reference affairs team, right? One of our patterns, right, the medical diagnosis pattern, right, actually we work with them in the early development stage of that, right? What it does is to help make assessments on pneumonials with chassis rates, right? So it's a fully automated data pipeline. We get the chassis rate from an object store, use AIML to dynos whether there's new pneumonia and then I'll put that in a dashboard, all automated with the validate pattern. So you're not using them today, but can we expect that in the future? Yes, absolutely, it's in the works, yes. Vertical, yes. How do you believe your work with GM, I mean, has implications across Red Hat? It seems like there are things you're gonna be doing with GM that could affect other parts of your own product portfolio. Oh, absolutely, I think this actually is a pivotal moment for Red Hat and the automotive industry and I think broadly speaking for any safety conscious industry, right? As we create this proof point, right, that we can build a Linux system that is optimized for footprint, performance, real time capabilities and be able to certify it for safety, right? I think all the adjacent industry, right, think about transportation, healthcare, right? Industry that have tight safety requirements. It just opened up the aperture for us to adjust those markets in the future. Can we talk about a lot about the consumerization of IT over the last decade? Many of us feel as though that what's going on at the edge, the innovations that are going on at the edge, real time AI inferencing, streaming data, ARM, the innovations that ARM and others are performing, certainly NVIDIA until we heard from today, this notion of no touch, zero touch provisioning, that a lot of these innovations are actually going to find their way into the enterprise, kind of a follow on fault at what you were just talking about and there's probably some future disruptions coming. You can almost guarantee that. I mean, 15 years or so, we get that kind of disruption. How are you thinking about that? Well, I think you, Capiti, right, some of the edge innovation are going to kind of bring back to enterprise over time, but the one thing that you talk about, zero touch provisioning, it's critical. You think about edge deployments. You're going to have to deal with a very diverse set of environment on how deployments that happen. I think about like tailcode base stations. You have somewhere between 75,000 to 100,000 base stations in the US for each provider. How do you deploy it? If you let's say you've pushed one update or you want the provisioning system. So what we bring to the table in the latest open shift release is that, hey, we make provisioning zero touch, right? Meaning you can actually do that without any menu intervention. Yeah, so I think the edge is going to raise the bar for the enterprise, I guess is my premise there. So Francis, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. It was great to see you and congratulations on the collaboration. It's an exciting area for you guys. Thank you again, Dave and Paul. Thank you. Our pleasure. After this quick break, we'll be back. Paul Gill and Dave Vellante watching theCUBE's coverage Red Hat Summit 2022 live from the Boston Seaport. We're right back.