REMARKS OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION, www.bio.org, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, APRIL 11, 2006
(AgBioView from http://www.agbioworld.org - April 14, 2006)
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am delighted to be here, and I'd like to thank Jim Greenwood and the Biotech group for inviting me. I was laughing. You know Jim was in Congress when I was in the White House and he was a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania, whom I actually quite liked. And the partisan atmosphere was so bad in Washington, I had to be careful to whom I said, "I like Jim Greenwood," otherwise it could have totally destroyed his position in the House of Representatives. So it's very nice for us to be out of politics now. I don't have to hide the fact that I think he's a good man.
I know there a lot of people here in the audience who were a part of my White House years, I thank them all for coming. I hesitate to start, because I haven't seen any of them but I know David Wilhelm is here, who was my Campaign Manager in '92; and Bob Nash, who worked for me and appointed and disappointed people in my behalf. My friend, Kevin O'Keefe was in the Counsel's office; and I think Fred Eichner's out there, he's the largest supporter of my AIDS work around the world, something for which I am very grateful.
I wanted to speak a little this morning about the relationship between what you do and all forms of biotechnology work and the work that I do today around the world and here at home. I think it is fairly well known that I did everything I could as President to support the development of biotechnology and its practical applications in American life. I did support, I plead guilty to supporting the development of the genetic engineering and agriculture, as long as we subject all the results to proper testing and continuous monitoring. I think that we should be driven in America by science, evidence and argument, not by assertion and fear. Most of the criticism in the last few years has come from the political right in America and the attempts to muzzle the findings on climate change and other important scientific developments. But I think it's wrong from whatever direction. We have to take the facts as we find them and keep trying to move humanity forward.
Let me talk a moment about what I do and then explain why what you do is very important to me and I think to the world, and how the two efforts intersect. I spent a lot of time trying to talk to my fellow Americans and citizens all around the world urging them, first and foremost, to develop for themselves a simple view of where we are today and where we need to go. You don't have to accept my worldview, but you need one. If you don't have a clear, concise view of where America and the world are now and where you think we need to go, then every day will be a headache for you. When you read the news or see the television news, it'll look like the political equivalent of chaos theory in physics. It also is very hard to sort the wheat from the shaft, to make a distinction between items that may be big today but are fleeting in their significance, and items you may have to find buried inside the newspaper or on some obscure website that may have profound implications for the future. The difference in what I call the trend lines and the headlines.
So, for whatever it is worth, in my opinion, the dominant characteristic of the modern world is its interdependence. I prefer that term to globalization, because for most of us globalization has primarily an economic meaning. But we are interdependent today in a way that goes far beyond our economic relations. Actually the global trading system was about as interdependent 100 years ago as it is today. But in addition to that, we have easy travel, immigration, open borders, increased diversity within societies, and an explosion of different kinds of communications with information technology.
I have a cousin who lives in the mountains of North Arkansas, who plays chess with a man once a week who lives in Australia. They play on the Internet and they take turns deciding who has to stay up all night. These kinds of things would have been inconceivable just a few years ago, and this interdependence has had all kinds of good and bad implications. It's good for most of us in this world. I just had a picture taken with a group of farmers from all over the world who are all interested in biotechnology because of what it means for their capacity to grow food and to feed the people in their own countries. That's technology they got from somewhere else. That's a part of global interdependence. So most of us have been the beneficiaries of, for example, the global effort in sharing scientific advances.
The human genome project was the product of global interdependence. It was announced jointly when we finished sequencing the human genome in 2000 with an event that occurred in the White House with me and representatives from all the governments involved and over satellite television, a similar event in London with Prime Minister Tony Blair. But not all interdependence is good. What happened to us on 9/11, 2001 was a supreme act of global interdependence. You had people from another country using the forces of interdependence. They used open borders, easy travel, easy immigration, and easy access to information, to learn how the World Trade Centers were constructed, to learn how to fly a plane without taking off or landing it, and turn those big planes into giant chemical weapons.
If you look at Iraq today with all the trouble that's going on, people being killed in the sectarian violence; they're highly interdependent, the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis and all the tribes in between, it's just mostly negative interdependence today. But just a few months ago when they voted in higher percentages than we ever voted in the 20th Century, in America, many of them risking their lives to do it, it was an expression of positive interdependence, or the hope for positive interdependence. Sometimes interdependence has both positive and negative elements.
If you see the highly charged debate on immigration in America today, you see that. The positive aspects of immigrant are there for all to see. Our country is a stronger, richer, more diverse and a far more interesting place to live than anywhere else 30~years ago because we had a second great wave of immigration. When we had the first great wave around the turn of the century, it was also a great thing for the United States. On the other hand, the more open our borders are, the more vulnerable we are to the infiltration of terrorists or to chemical, biological and nuclear materials, which can be turned into weapons.
So the trick is to find out, in the immigration issue, how do we get the positive benefits of becoming a more diverse society, giving people a chance to come here and achieve their dreams, while minimizing our vulnerability to the infiltration of terrorism, of dangerous weapons and materials, and also without rewarding people who break the rules and punishing those who patiently wait and obey the rules to become immigrants? It's a complicated problem simply because there are positive and negative interdependence elements in it; and therefore I would urge you all to look at it in that way, and not give into xenophobia on the one hand, and into the native notion on the other, that we have to pay no attention to our borders and the consequences of not manning them properly.
If you buy this analysis, that the fundamental characteristic of the world is its interdependence, that it has both positive and negative elements, then our mission, all of us in various ways, becomes clear: we have to spend the next few decades moving from an unstable, inherently unstable and inherently unequal interdependence to a more integrated set of communities: locally, nationally and globally. What is the definition of an integrated community? Shared opportunities, shared responsibilities and a shared sense of belonging, if you follow the rules and make a contribution. It sounds simple. It's easy to say, but hard to do. You have to believe that every person has dignity and deserves a chance, that we all do better when we work together, that our differences are interesting but our common humanity matters more, and then you have to turn this set of lofty ideas into action in a world that is profoundly divided, not just as we see it, over our political and religious differences, but divided in fact. This interdependent world that enabled all of you to come here to this magnificent convention center, well clothed, well fed, depending on systems that work to give you clean water and good food and the lights to come on and the microphone to work is totally alien to about half the world.
Keep in mind, half the world's people live on less than $2.00 a day; a billion people live on less than $1.00 a day; a billion people go to bed hungry every night; a billion people never get a clean glass of water in their entire lives; 2_1/2~billion people have no access to clean sanitation facilities; 10,000,000 kids die of completely preventable childhood illnesses that claim no lives in America every year; and 1 in 4 of all the deaths on earth this year, all the deaths including from natural disasters, wars, accidents, crime, heart attacks, stroke, cancer, everything else in the whole world, 1 in 4 deaths will come from AIDS, TB, Malaria and infections related to dirty water, principally cholera and diarrhea-related illnesses. The 3,000,000 people that will die from those diseases, 80% of them are 5 years old or younger.
So you wonder why maybe in some countries, people who seem very hostile to the modern world get elected. The reason is that they represent people who see no benefits from it. Therefore, if you want to keep integrating the world, we have to create a strategy and follow it to move from interdependence, which is unequal and unstable, to integration, with shared benefits and shared responsibilities. That requires a security policy, some of which we can't do anything about, those of us in the private sector now, dealing with terror, weapons of mass destruction, the killing of innocents in places like Darfur. But there are two aspects of this security policy that bear directly on biotechnology.
One is the threat of the spread of infectious diseases in an interdependent world. That's why everybody's so worried about avian influenza. So that if one chicken gets avian influenza in Romania, we see it on our television and we know that they've killed every chicken within two square kilometers, and that's good because it shows we're aware that this is a shared security threat.
When the SARS epidemic broke out first in Hong Kong and then in Canada a few years ago, it was a fascinating development. Originally the Chinese claimed that they didn't know much about it and it really hadn't originated on the Mainland. Most everybody thought it had. But when the young people of China jammed the government's websites demanding that the truth be told, to their everlasting credit, the Chinese government turned on a dime, acknowledged what they knew. We all began to work together and what could have killed tens of thousands of people turned out to be a relatively isolated epidemic. But don't forget, this is a big security issue.
Between 1918 and 1920, when the world's population was about a third of what it is today, the so-called Spanish Flu, which was really a flu that began on an American Army base in Kansas and was spread by the soldiers in World War I all across the world, killed 25-50,000,000 people and it was not until the 1930's that the real virus was identified and isolated, which caused the waves and waves and waves of influenza deaths. Because of biotechnology, that won't happen today and we've got a chance to turn back the tide. But this is a serious security issue that you can be involved in.
And finally, the only existential security threat we face is the potential of calamitous changes in our way of life because of climate change and global warming. Just in the last six months we have seen an avalanche of evidence that the ice caps all over the world are melting quicker than we thought; that the climate is warming more rapidly than we thought; that extreme weather events were picking up. In the last decade, insurance losses from extreme weather events were three times what they have been in any previous decade since the advent of insurance as a global system. So we have to deal with this.
Among other things, what you do in agriculture is important because if the climate continues to change, we will see a continued erosion of the top soil, more dust storms; and in the Northern Hemisphere, agricultural production being pushed North and the Southern Hemisphere being pushed South. And since the first obligation all societies have is to be able to feed themselves, we have to explore every conceivable alternative not only to reduce the rate of the climate's warming and to reduce the human contribution to it by restricting greenhouse gas emissions, but also to make the best of what will inevitably be a more difficult situation.
If the climate warms for the next 50 years at the rate of the last 10, where we've have 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded), we'll lose 50~feet of Manhattan Island, where my office is. My office is in the middle, thank God, so we'll survive. We will have to evacuate one of the countries that former President Bush and I worked so hard to help after the tsunami, the Maldives. We won't have to worry about it anymore, we'll just take a bunch of boats out there and bring the people somewhere else, because it'll be under water.
If the Greenland ice cap continues to melt at the present rate, the seas in the North Atlantic will rise and perversely global warming will lead to colder winters in Ireland, Northern England, Scotland, Norway, because more fresh water going into the North Atlantic will interrupt the current flows that moderate the climate in the wintertime. All of this will have unpredicted, and to some extent, unforeseeable, but almost inevitably negative consequences for food production on earth. Therefore, there's something for you to do in this area, and I'll say more about that in a moment.
In addition to the security policy, since half the world is not a part of the benefits of globalization, we need a policy to make more partners and fewer enemies, fewer terrorists. That means we have to promote a way for people to work themselves out of poverty; a way to put the 130,000,000 children who never go to school in school; a way to build decent health systems; and a way to build sustainable energy systems that are clean energy and don't contribute to climate change. In all these areas, again, biotechnology has a major role.
And finally, in order for America to keep leading a movement toward the kind of world we want to live in, we have to keep making America a stronger, better country. And we've got some serious problems. Now unemployment in America is under 5%, but one of the reasons is that the people, the percentage of Americans looking for jobs has dropped since I left office. After the recession in 2001, a lot of people dropped out of the work force and they haven't all came back. If they all came back, the unemployment rate in America would be almost 6% today. More troubling is that the inequality we see in the rest of the world is coming home to America. This is the first time since we've been keeping good economic statistics, when we have had 5~years of increasing productivity in a row and still the average wages of working people in America has declined in constant dollars by $1,000. This has never happened before. So we cannot possibly hope to sustain our role in building a more interdependent world unless we make America work better at home, which means we need good new jobs. We need to deal with the fact that we have a totally uncompetitive health care system, spending 5% more of our income than any other country on earth does on health care for a system that's rated 37th among all the nations on earth.
We need to deal with the fact that we're wasting tons of money every year on energy costs, much of it from imported energy, contributing 25% of the greenhouses gases in the world even though we're only 4% of the world's population with 20% of its wealth. We have a lot of work to do at home.
And in all these areas, biotechnology has a critical role. I try to spend a lot of time now thinking about which of these tasks has to be done by government; which of these tasks can be done by the private sector, either in the private free enterprise economy or the in the sector that I'm in now, and where we need a partnership. One of the most encouraging things to me about the 21st~Century is that private citizens have more power to do public good than ever before. It is no accident that Time Magazine's "People of the Year" last year were Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono. They never held a single elected office among the three of them. Why were they selected? Because as private citizens, they have done a lot of public good. Bill and Melinda have spent a billion dollars on health care in Africa and India alone; and over $250,000,000 trying to build 21st Century high schools in America.
If Botswana, a country where almost a third of the people are infected with the HIV virus, if that country survives, it will be in no small measure because of what Bill Gates has done there. But you don't have to be rich to be a part of this movement. Because of the Internet and information technology, we have democratized citizenship in the world. I'll just give you a couple of examples.
In the 2004 election, for the first time since presidential campaigns became expensive, both Republicans and Democrats raised more money in total from small givers than big ones because of the Internet. When former President Bush and I started helping raise money for Tsunami Relief in South Asia, it was an amazingly moving experience because Americans gave over a billion dollars to places most of them have never been; 30% of all households contributed, over half of them over the Internet.
Last August, Katrina hit, the most costly natural disaster in American history. So the President asked his father and me to help in the Katrina area, and we set about to do that. Much later, I made my only obligatory trip every year as a Senate spouse. There's only one place a guy from Arkansas can do a Senator from New York any good, at the New York State Fair. Because, you know, I've got belts with rodeo buckles and well-worn soles on my boots and I know one end of the horse from another. I'm handy at the State Fair. So I'm going up to the State Fair, and I'm going down the midway area, where they've got all those little booths. You know, where you throw balls at dolls and you try to win stuffed animals for kids. I had my little 10-year-old nephew with me and we're checking out all these things.
This lady comes out from behind one of these booths in a khaki shirt with a little logo on it, and she stuffs 50 bucks in my hand and says this, "This is for the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. I am sorry to give it to you in cash, but as you can see I'm working and I don't have time to send it over the 'net.'" Now, this conversation is inconceivable just two years ago. Right? This lady is not a dot-com millionaire. How much money can she make working in a fair booth in Syracuse, New York? But already her preferred way of giving is over the Internet. Why? Because she knows that if enough people see the world just like she does, together with likeminded people, they can move the earth with 50~bucks multiplied millions of times.
So it's a different world. And we know that if a magical day ever arrives, whatever your politics are, that everybody you vote for, wins; and they do everything that you want them do; and the economy does just what it ought to do, there would still be gaps into which citizens will have to step to make our country and our world what we want it to be.
So that's what I spend my time doing. And I won't latinize everything that we work on, but my little foundation has provided the world with the lowest priced AIDS drugs in the world and has enabled about 25% of the people who are getting medicine, who weren't getting it 3~years ago, to get it, with a pittance of the cost that most governments spend. And we do a lot of work on small businesses in poor areas in America. And we have economic projects in India and Africa, and education projects and citizens of service projects in the United States and Africa and the Middle East. We do a lot of work. But I see the work we're going to do as being critically tied to biotechnology and I would like to just give you a few examples.
First of all, if you look at agriculture - I'll say again – I did support the development of genetically engineered crops. If anybody could give me any evidence why I shouldn't do it, I'd be happy to change my position. But failing evidence, I think the use of agricultural technology, which uses less fertilizer, takes better care of the soil, increases productivity and could be transferred at low cost through seeds to poor farmers in developing countries is a good thing. We need more people to be able to grow their own food and feed themselves.
I'm about to undertake a project with a philanthropist from Scotland named Tom Hunter. He's a really great success story. Twenty-something years ago, when he was like 18 or 19 years old, he started selling running shoes out of the back of an old truck. And a couple of years ago, he sold 258 comprehensive state-of-the-art sporting goods stores for about a billion dollars, and he's determined to spend the rest of his life giving his money away in an intelligent fashion. So we're going into a couple of countries in Africa and we're going to try to have a comprehensive development program that will dramatically raise the per capita income of the countries in which we work. And one of the things we have to do is to improve agricultural productivity.
The man who is in charge of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, Jeffrey Sachs, has a village-by-village approach to do health education and agriculture productivity. This is an important part of that. And so I think that's important.
In health care, there is an enormous role to play, for biotechnology. Let me just mention a couple of things. The most serious health problem today in America that is currently not being properly addressed in a comprehensive way is the explosion in obesity rates among young children. And the explosion for the first time in our history of Type II diabetes, what we used to call "Adult Onset Diabetes", in our children. Now there are many reasons this happened. For one thing, food is still a great bargain in America. In some ways, some of you farmers in the audience may have done your job too well.
But if you look at wages in America, average hourly wages, they have basically been steady since 1973 except for 4~years in my second term when we finally got the labor market so tight and changed the job mix, thanks to information technology, that wages went up. Then they were stagnant again. Meanwhile, the cost of health care, housing, transportation, a college education and child care, have all increased at more than the rate of inflation. So they gobbled up more and more and more of an average person's money. What has dropped in cost, compared to inflation, in that same period? Clothes, consumer electronics and food.
Secondly, starting in the 1980's, we got into this sort of binge-buying with bigger and bigger portions being advertised. Thirdly, as more and more mothers went into the work force, we started eating out more. Thirty-five years ago, 70~cents of every food dollar was spent on food eaten at home and prepared at home. Today, it's almost 50/50 and over half of the money spent eating out is spent at fast-food places. This is something that you can all do something about. I'm coming to that. But what you need to know is now, as taxpayers, a lot of the taxes you pay to the Federal government, and the State government go to provide health care to poor people under the Medicaid program. Over 20% of the Medicaid program today is spent treating people for problems related to diabetes. We really are at risk of having the first generation of young kids grow up to be less well, to live shorter lives than their parents.
Now, part of this is something that you don't have a direct responsibility for. We need people to eat less and exercise more. Calories in, calories out. The biotech industry could have an impact on is this. We know that the metabolic rate of people has been affected by the changing of food composition. For example, something that seemed like a really great thing when it was developed, especially for all the corn farmers in the audience, when we started growing fence row to fence row in the 1970's, we started paying farmers not to produce instead of funding farm programs to enhance production and to sell food around the world, something, which as a guy from a farm state, I totally supported. One of the unintended consequences was that we felt out we could make fructose from corn and it was a whole lot cheaper than corn or beet sugar and we put it into soft drinks. Now, here's what happened. Today, about 16% of the caloric intake of children is from soft drinks. And fructose metabolizes in the body different from beet and cane sugar, and tends to go straight to fat, which makes it harder for the kids to burn it off.
So here's an interesting task for biotechnology: how can we continue to use, to get the benefits for the farmers of making a contribution in this area but fix the metabolic problem? It's a third leg here. First, you've got to get people to eat more sensibly. Then you've got to get people to exercise more; but we've also got to make sure that we're operating at maximum metabolic efficiency, and I think it's unlikely that this problem would be solved by anyone other than someone in your line of work. So as you look ahead, in America, that's something we really need help with.
I think the most important thing; however, you can do is to give us a different energy future. As I said, we are contributing 25% of the world's greenhouse gases; that's oil and coal. We have to go to clean coal technology, which is somebody else's job. But we also need to recognize that 70% of our oil consumption is in transportation. If you look at America's greenhouse gas consumption, it's basically about a third in transportation, a third in manufacturing and electricity generation and a third in buildings: homes and office buildings, structures of all kinds, and there's a lot to be done in conservation.
But in the fuel area, clearly, we need to go to biofuels. We need to move to a biofuel future. And in my opinion, need to move to a biofuel future based more on cellulistic fuels than corn, which is a principal contributor to ethanol now. Why? Because the conversion ratio is better. If the goal is not only to have clean fuels but to reduce the use of greenhouse gases, then you want stuff that's lying around anyway, that you didn't have to burn oil to produce in the first place. And there's all kinds of agricultural waste that can be used. There's wood waste that's lying around.
I could have fueled every shrimp boat in the Gulf with the fallen trees and shrubs and other greenery that was all over the ground from Alabama to New Orleans if we'd had the plants available and the distribution mechanisms available. And at $65 oil, bio-diesel for those shrimpers is $3.00 a gallon. With the tax subsidy available in the law now, we could sell them biofuels for about $1.80. And if you're in the shrimp boat business, the difference between spending 18% of your revenues on fuel and 33% is the difference between making a living and going broke.
The thing that's important to me about this, is that if we made a serious decision to go to a clean energy future, we would reverse the declining wages problem. Why? Because if we want America to stay in a global economy, where more and more of our jobs are in competition with others, in every single decade and maybe every 5 to 6 years, we have to keep finding a source of new jobs, that are good jobs, that pay well and create strong consumers. I'm under no illusion that it was just my economic policies that produced the enormous prosperity of America in the '90's. I think they were essential to it, but we still had a private economy. 92% of the new jobs that came into being in the United States when I was President came in the private sector. It was the highest percentage of private sector jobs in over 70~years. We actually reduced the size of the Federal government to the size it was that Eisenhower had when he turned the government over to President Kennedy. So you've got to have a source of private sector growth.
In the 90's, information technology was rifling through every sector of the economy. My former friends in Arkansas were driving tractors that have computers on it that told them exactly what to put in the ground, how to mix the fertilizer, what was happening in the weather conditions. Information technology went into everything, increasing productivity and generating jobs. In this decade, we have not found a new source of those jobs. The new source is right there before us. It's converting to a clean energy, an alternative energy future. But energy conservation technologies and clean energy technologies and biofuels are the bird's nest on the ground.
Now this new energy bill that passed last year, is a good bill. It does things that we haven't done in a long time. It gives you a 25% tax credit for the production and purchase of solar products, for example. And it puts some serious money into research and biofuels, but it's really a pittance compared to what we should be spending. To give you just some example, whether you're for or against the operation in Iraq, we should all hope it works. But it's cost $60,000,000,000 a year. If you spent a third of that for 5~years to create a clean energy future, to fund R&D, to set up distribution networks, production facilities, provide low-cost loans to people to do joint investments, to have the government procure the system, totally reorganized toward clean energy, it would make a huge difference. But you have to keep not only developing the more energy-efficient biotech products in fuel, but help us to figure out how to take it to market. I could give you lots and lots of other examples.
The most important thing I want to say is if we don't deal with this, a lot of these other issues are going to become totally academic, because our children and grandchildren will be spending all their time trying to figure out what to do in a world where there are tens of millions of food refugees, where there are dust bowls which used to be breadbaskets.
I was in Beijing last year, and they have a lot of localized smog, the way all newly industrialized cities do, but because it's Northern China, which used to be a wheat-producing area, they've lost all the top soil. They now have constant dust storms which come down from the north, and the localized industrial smog is like a big net and it catches the dust coming down from the north giving you the thickest haze of any major city that I've been in, in a very long time. I went out to play golf with these guys and we turned off the street and we looked at this beautiful golf clubhouse that was about 300 yards up a long road and all I could see was the dimmest outlines. And that's what we're facing if we don't do something about this. This is a biotechnology issue.
Let me just say one other thing. In the next decade, I think biotechnology can replace energy as the main source of new jobs because it'll take us about a decade to reach the full implications of the sequencing of the human genome, so that we will be able to apply it to all kinds of diseases and conditions, develop vaccines, develop preventive strategies, be producing all kinds of products and services that we never even dreamed of before. But first we've got to get the energy thing right, and then in the next decade, if I'm around, I'll be talking to somebody like this about all the things we should be doing to generate all the applications that our understanding of the human genome will make possible.
And in terms of the people that have genuine questions about this, I don't think there's anything inconsistent with beef or organic farming and supporting genetic developments. When I was Governor of Arkansas, we grew 40% of America's rice crops and we did a lot of experimental rice development. At our experiments stations, we had over 200 different varieties of rice. Now every time we bred a new variety, it was genetically modified. And in America, as we're becoming more of an immigrant nation, we're genetically modified.
One of the things that we learned when we sequenced the human genome is that all human beings are 99.9% the same, all the wars, all the fights, all the hatred between people of different races and ethnic groups was all over one-tenth of 1% of our genetic structure. It makes you see just how silly it is when we think our differences are more important than our common humanity.
I believe that the 21st Century will be the most exciting period in human history. I do not believe, that even with the threat of terror and the looming threat of these weapons of mass destructions, I think it is unlikely that as many people will be murdered by crazy politicians as were murdered in the 20th Century. Keep in mind, we had two World Wars; two horrible purges in the former Soviet Union; a horrible purge in China, 2,000,000 people killed in Southeast Asia in the slaughter in Cambodia; and a lot of horrible problems elsewhere. In the 90's, 10% of Rwanda disappeared in 90 days.
I think we've got a chance to avoid that, but we have to deal with climate change. We have to deal with the security threats. We have to deal with the prospect of global diseases because of globalization; and we have to get the half of the people that aren't part of this group deal into the mix, which is why I was glad to see all the farmers here from developing countries today.
In all these areas, biotechnology is going to be critical and all the people like me or Bill Gates or the lady at the State Fair in Syracuse, everybody who wants to contribute to the non-governmental sector, everything we hope to do to build a world that will be fit for our children and grandchildren, will depend upon continued advances in biotechnology. So I wish you well. Let's not be defensive. Let's not hide the evidence. Let's invite people always to find evidence that something that we're doing, whether it's you, me or anybody else is wrong. But let's stick with the evidence and look to the future. I think, on balance, it looks pretty good.
Thank you very much, and God bless you all.