(SILENCE)
MODERATOR: So welcome again at Securing public values.
We're heading for panel number two, where the question is:
what is the role of governments in securing public values?
And of course we're also interested in what is the role of supervisors...
civil society, businesses, etcetera.
We're going to have two short presentations, first by Lorelien Hoet.
Lorelien Hoet of Microsoft, would you like to start?
It's not turned on yet.
That's it.
LORELIEN HOET: Okay, thank you.
So I'd like to start with...
you know that digital services are everywhere, are very widespread...
and that also goes for our services...
Microsoft services.
We focus mainly in our services...
on cloud-based productivity services...
communication services.
I would not qualify Microsoft in the social media platform category.
Of course we have LinkedIn, but it's a separate company.
That doesn't prevent that cloud and AI, the services that we offer...
are very important for society and have huge impact on society.
And that is also why we think it's very legitimate and important...
to think about the role that our services play and how they should be regulated.
And that is also why we very much appreciate to be here.
I'll try to be quick, you asked me to.
In the coming five minutes, I'll try to just spend some thoughts...
on how do we see our role as digital actors in this values debate?
What is also the role, the impact and the process of regulation?
And lastly, spend a few minutes thinking...
about what should then be the underlying values.
So first of all, when thinking about our role and again going back to digital services...
of course digital services can have many implications.
It can be used like any object...
it can be used for great purposes and for very bad purposes.
It's maybe a simple comparison, but if you think about a knife...
it can be used for smearing butter, peanut butter, whatever...
or Nutella on your bread.
Very innocent, but it can also be used for murder as a weapon.
And of course we need to think about that as a society...
and that is: we have criminal laws, we have productivity laws and all of that.
It's maybe a bit simplistic, but the same goes for digital services.
They can be used in different ways.
And especially AI services can be used for great achievement...
but also can cause harm and thereby impact our society.
And that is what we want to think about and that is precisely what we try to do.
As a company, we have introduced internal risk management processes...
a responsible AI office.
We have six AI principles.
I'll just name them, because I think they are important...
because they very much converge with the values we've heard already today.
It's accountability, transparency, inclusiveness...
safety, privacy, security and accountability.
So we have an internal governance system.
I will spare you all the details of all the organs that we have created...
but it's quite a few.
And the idea is that these people in those internal organs...
think about how these values are reflected in our product...
and what we need to think about when putting products on the market...
what harms we can potentially see and which measures we need to take.
And this is something that we do in AI, but we also do it in other areas.
Cybersecurity is typically an area where we try to think ahead.
Online safety, sustainability, law enforcement and a few others.
And of course, is this perfect? No, of course not.
Our services evolve and our thinking needs to evolve as well, and we learn.
And digital services move fast.
Is it sufficient? No, also not.
We also need regulation next to that and I'll come to that in the next chapter.
But maybe just about our role, even though it's not perfect and sufficient...
I would maybe...
some may say: it's a function creep, because Microsoft is thinking about...
or you see, Microsoft is taking the role...
of politics or values.
But I mean, we do not see ourselves as a replacement of government...
but we do think it is important to think ahead...
and we try, for example, also to be here.
And we don't have the answer alone of course.
Civil society, governments and all of us need to work on this together.
The next element is of course regulation.
And it is clear no service should stand above law.
And digital services, given the important role they play...
of course they will and should be subject to increasing regulation.
We've seen, and you have mentioned that as well...
the Commission has done an impressive move in the past years...
in terms of regulation.
We've spoken about GDPR, but we've spoken about DMA, DSA, Data Act, AI Act.
We haven't even mentioned NESTORE, CRA, CSAM regulation...
terrorist content online regulation.
There is really a lot of regulation out there, which is pretty new.
And in our view, it's quite important to now also look at how this regulation lands...
because it is a big package with many regulators.
And I think someone mentioned it in the previous panel.
We are sometimes a bit afraid about enforcement, how it will work.
And we think it's also important to also look a bit...
about what will happen now with this next package of regulation, which is quite big.
Then, last point, when it comes to regulation, we try to engage.
We think it's important, and of course you could say...
try to influence the regulation, yes.
But it's also very important we think, that we explain the services...
and that we have a dialogue about: is this regulation fit for purpose?
Is it efficient?
These are sometimes very technical topics.
So we really want to, we hope that this dialogue can remain there...
both in the pre-legislative phase and in the enforcement phase.
Can I make a last point about values?
MODERATOR: We are at seven minutes now.
I can wait. No, the last point about values is like...
all the values that have been mentioned earlier in the panel are very important.
Sometimes it is, for example, in Human Rights Impact Assessment...
it is not so easy, and we see that ourselves, to make balances between values.
For example, online safety and privacy.
Will you apply detection techniques...
to prevent that children are potentially abused online...
or do you think that that is too far-reaching from a privacy perspective?
These questions are sometimes very difficult.
I think it's not only about big tech versus values...
it's also about values amongst themselves.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Lorelien Hoet from Microsoft.
(APPLAUSE)
(SILENCE)
MENNO COX: Thank you very much, Shai.
I'll dive right in, because actually the timer has already started running for my speech.
So I'll try to keep it as short as our colleague from Microsoft did.
My name is Menno Cox.
I work specifically on the global aspects...
of digital platforms and services...
which refers to the Digital Services Act...
and the Digital Markets Act.
And we've heard both of those...
a few times today already.
And I would be very happy to give you a bit more detail about these two laws...
that apply today with specific deadlines to different service providers...
as we go forward, but they are going to be felt.
Their first effects are going to be felt very soon.
So I would like to take these two Acts and the fact that we are now testing in a way...
a new enforcement mechanism with the whole of Europe...
and placing it in the context of our broader digital strategy...
as a European Union...
and then also looking at the question of the panel today...
and doing all of that in now five minutes that I have left.
So bear with me, I'm going to try to do it fast.
I wanted to start by mentioning a document that wasn't referred to yet today...
which is the Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles...
a solemn, unilateral declaration that was made by the European Parliament...
the European Council and the European Commission...
that sets out a number of rights and principles...
that we believe we should all strive to respecting and providing for our citizens.
So that already goes to the questions of:
who plays what role in securing public values online?
It's very much about:
what rights do we strive for and respect as governments...
when we act in our relations with citizens, but also as regulators?
When do we step in and make sure that we also get the market...
to respect those values, and where do we restrain ourselves?
Now, applying that specific declaration...
to the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act as I mentioned...
they are a core part of this declaration.
It's very much about getting that balance right...
between safety and freedom of expression online...
in the Digital Services Act...
and between letting the free market deliver innovation...
and putting some boundary conditions and a framework in place...
to make sure you can still test and oversee what is actually happening in a free market.
But much more than that...
I would say the two Acts are about optimising all fundamental rights...
which are always inherently balanced...
including very much so the fundamental right to conduct a business...
which is all about the right to be free from government interference.
But that right takes on a bit of a different notion...
when the right of some businesses and some citizens...
is being overly restrained by other businesses and citizens...
and the government actually has an imperative to intervene...
to make sure that balancing is again right.
So this is about optimising all fundamental rights.
I would say the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act...
are a strong intervention, but a proportionate one.
I think it's highly necessary at this point in time...
that the EU acted, and it's the EU 27 acting together.
And the two Acts, very much built on the body of work...
including in digital, that the EU has built up.
This includes very much also the enforcement of the GDPR...
where so much work has been done and where now finally also today...
the various regulators and the persons building up that expertise...
are going to come together.
But it is a decisive intervention, those two Acts, because they provide...
first of all, both of them, centralised enforcement.
So the European Commission is in a way the voice...
of the 27 EU member states that came together and said:
we need this decisive intervention now and it is proportionate...
precisely because we face unavoidable trading partners or gatekeepers...
in every sector of the economy...
that is increasingly and inherently digitally intermediated.
And we face very large societal risks given the sheer scale of these platforms.
And indeed we still apply, also in the Digital Services Act...
a risk-based approach.
But we say there is no exception for the obligation...
to perform annual risk assessments...
and even risk assessments triggered by every introduction of a new feature...
that critically impacts those risks.
We say you need to do that in any case.
There's no privacy-based argument or security-based argument...
that can exempt you from that obligation.
I would in that sense present the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act...
as regulatory frameworks that we know...
or there are some parallels to the energy sector...
and the banking area with systemic banks.
These are regulated industries now.
And the companies will need to come to the table...
and see themselves as regulated entities.
So they need to not only come to the table with government...
but with their stakeholders, with citizens and with businesses...
and they need to make sure that the compliance solutions...
they now have to implement...
work for all of those stakeholders on a lasting basis.
And we can bring them back to the table and all sit down as often as is necessary...
to make this actually work.
A part of a proportionate response, and I'm almost finished...
is also that you take decisive action..,
where you have overwhelming evidence that there is a problem.
And I think the DSA and the DMA do that as well.
There is a ban of the targeting of minors using profiling of their data...
and of all of us using sensitive categories of data.
That is a decisive intervention based on evidence.
The DMA also imposes vertical interoperability...
for instance, to allow alternative identification services to be provided...
together with online platforms, that then get access...
to the near-field communication chip in your phones, for instance...
so that you can actually provide that service...
on an equal footing with the gatekeepers.
So those are decisive interventions.
But the other aspect of proportionality, and I would finish on that part...
is that you also restrain yourself...
in line with that obligation you have as a government not to overreach.
And this is not any sort of libertarian argument, not at all.
But we are looked at by the rest of the world.
And the EDPS representative here today said it well.
The whole world looks at the EU acting as a global regulator.
And it's the same for the DSA and the DMA.
I'm in contact with virtually every government of the world...
and there is over 100 attemps at social media regulation around the world.
And the United Nations tracks those and doesn't see shortcomings...
in their human rights compliance for virtually all.
So what we do as the EU needs to also set that standard...
because the regulation is happening at a global scale regardless of what we do.
So however we can help, and also help ourselves...
because global consistency also helps...
bring those values to life domestically in the EU, will help all of us.
So I think having that international standard in mind is also extremely important.
I'll finish there and I'm sure we'll have plenty to talk about today...
and thank you for inviting us.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: Thank you, Menno.
Some food for thought from the both of you.
Maybe Tamar Sharon would like to react already to what has been said.
TAMAR SHARON: Actually, yeah.
So I didn't prepare anything for this part of the panel...
but I would like to react on something...
being the philosopher of technology and the crowd...
because this has been mentioned twice already.
I'd like to back us up a little bit...
but the notion that technologies...
and so digitalisation are somehow neutral...
is something that we try very much in my field to push back against...
and teach is one of the core principles to students in philosophy of technology.
So technologies are neither good nor bad, this is true, but they are not neutral.
They have transformative effects on the world in various ways.
When we pick them up and put them down, we are not exactly the same as we were.
They change how we relate to the world, they change how we relate to ourselves.
I'm thinking of quantified self and self-tracking.
But you can think of simple examples like the contraceptive pill.
The world before the contraceptive pill and the world after the contraceptive pill...
is not the same, regardless if you use the contraceptive pill or not.
So that's one way in which they're transformative...
but I think there's another way which we really need to take into account...
when we're thinking about digitalisation, which is that they are also not neutral...
because they tend to foreground a specific set of values...
which I think is in quite some tension with many of the public values...
that we're talking about today.
So they tend to foreground values like efficiency, like optimisation...
like objectification, like speed.
These are values as well, but they can be in tension with many other ones.
So a simple example of this could be if you think of a home nurse...
a home nurse, when he or she is caring for a patient at home, is not very efficient.
They do things quite slowly if they're putting on somebody's socks...
or if they're feeding them.
And they do this inefficiently with a purpose...
because while they are inefficiently or slowly doing their practice...
of providing care, they're also smelling what's happening in the house.
They are peeking into what's happening into the kitchen.
And this gives them signs about what is happening...
so that they can provide care.
If you throw a robot into the home, which does this much more efficiently...
which can bathe a patient, feed a patient and dress a patient...
you will be missing out on that.
These are tacit, implicit aspects of a practice...
which automation tends often to automate away.
The same thing we can think about in education.
What we see in EdTech is that the values...
that tend to be written into EdTech technologies are about personalisation.
Education thought of in terms of an individual task...
a knowledge-oriented tasks, which is important...
but then we are also automating away things like collaboration...
which is very important for education, creativity, communication skills...
all these other aspects of education.
So I think we should be wary...
of thinking about digital technologies as neutral things...
that do nothing except for the intentions of the user.
They do things to these...
and so they can reshape sectors as I've mentioned before...
but they can also change how we think...
about these really fundamental focal practices like health care, like education.
MODERATOR: So are you stating that generally we're too fast at saying...
we need technology to make something better?
TAMAR SHARON: Oh, certainly. I would always slow down there...
and do a little test of, you know, if we're facing a problem...
like what we're seeing in education these days...
we can first say: well, okay...
is this a problem that could be solved by digitalisation?
But knowing what we know about digitalisation...
that it's not neutral and that it does change these focal practices...
let's be careful and let's also think about non-digital solutions.
I know it's not the most popular one, but paying teachers more, for example.
Maybe we want more human teachers.
If we say: no, digitalisation is the right way to go...
then we can say: okay, digitalisation, yes.
Then we can start thinking about whose digitalisation.
Do we want that to be done in the private sector or in the public sector?
And if we agree that digitalisation coming from private actors...
is what we need to solve a certain problem...
that's when we need to lay down some conditions for collaboration.
So I think there's a much slower process indeed of addressing a problem...
before we jump into saying we need a private tech actor, for example...
to offer a service that could address it.
MODERATOR: It almost sounds like an algorithm. Four rules...
easy to follow.
TAMAR SHARON: Decision tree, I prefer.
But that's an algorithm in its essence, right? If I follow the definition of an algorithm.
Lorelien and Menno, would you like to react to what Tamar has said?
LORELIEN HOET: I can react.
I think there is much value in what you say.
This is a bit of a personal view, but I do think that...
these choices are not only about digitalisation or not...
it's also the broader capitalism in which we live of course, but okay.
Leaving that aside, I wanted to come back, if I may...
also on your point of sphere transgression.
I hear what you say and there is a lot of sound thinking there.
I do think that sometimes it sounded a bit gloomy.
And that it's almost as if there is little attention...
for the positive elements that digitalisation can bring.
If I, for example, think of the HoloLens, it can be used in education...
it can be used in health, it can be used in musea, it can be used in pure industry...
to look at, you know, you monitor elements from a distance...
and you see it on your screen and you operate in a different way.
Doctors can use it.
For example, the HoloLens, and there are other tools...
but Microsoft has the HoloLens.
If a doctor uses it, it's the hospital's data or the doctor's data.
It's not our data. So first of all, I know...
this data would, for example, not be used for AI learnings.
Secondly, what I also felt a little bit in your story...
is it's like Microsoft is everywhere.
Microsoft indeed... Cloudification is everywhere in society...
and all sectors are becoming digitalised.
Not only the public ones, but also the traditional industrial ones.
But it's also not: Microsoft can afford a cloud platform...
but, for example, what makes usage of HoloLens in hospitals very succesful...
is the apps that have been developed.
And these are, I know, for example, in Belgium...
it's a company called Mr. Watts and they have developed the technology...
so that the doctors can really use this in a very efficient way.
So it's not as if it is one big platform and then only they...
There are many players in the ecosystem as well.
I wanted to add that to your story. -MODERATOR: Thank you.
A short word in addition, a super interesting point.
I just wanted to come back to the point on taking it slow...
and also tried to talk a bit slower to emphasise a point.
I think the Digital Services Act interestingly is a general framework...
and it covers quite a lot of risks for negative impacts...
that online digital services and online platforms can have...
for the respect for fundamental rights, so in a very broad sense.
And in doing so, it allows us all on a structured basis...
with strong transparency obligations...
including data access for researchers to the algorithms of these platforms.
It allows us on that structured basis...
to have a discussion with the whole of society about these wicked problems.
And I want to specifically mention disinformation...
which lies outside the realm of clearly illegal content...
where we have illegality based in clear national laws...
subject to our constitutional traditions and judicial oversight.
But disinformation, where so much of the rest of the world tries to define that...
and then give power to the government to act as the Ministry of Truth...
as we've heard so many times.
But where we now a society can come together...
and indeed have the power to take it slow.
I think that's quite a powerful idea...
that we don't stop ourselves from giving, our society is the power.
But at the same time, be very careful not to throw away...
any of the autonomy or agency of our citizens...
because it's precisely about giving agency back to citizens.
I really like that element of slowness as well.
MODERATOR: Tamar, would you like to react?
To come back to Lorelien...
And I admire your courage for being up here...
especially after my talk where I got such a big platform.
So I wanted to acknowledge that.
You're right, there are many good sides of digitalisation.
That's not what my talk was about.
There are enough people in the world trying to make that point.
But also, I think I've been in this business...
of looking at the ethical and societal implications of technologies...
for a long time now.
The promises are always on the horizon and the harms are empirically already here.
We see this constantly.
So I know the promises that come with digitalisation.
I study them, I know them very well.
What we see is still that many harms are being caused...
and they are happening in the present.
And the focus on promises is interesting, but I think it doesn't do justice...
to what's actually happening today...
and what we should be regulating and legislating for.
I don't want to present a gloomy story...
but I don't think it's a very positive outlook if I see the trends in digitalisation...
and how important digitalisation has become...
but also how quickly we jump to digitalisation for solutions...
for things which are wicked problems, societal problems...
and that have to do with these values that we hold very dear.
MODERATOR: Okay, thank you.
There are some questions online.
One is, and that very much connects to making this a lively debate everywhere...
the question is: the landscape of EU acts is hard to comprehend.
How do we make this widely accessible...
and create a public conversation on this topic?
After all, it's government for the people, by the people.
Is there somebody that would like to react on that?
Who would like to answer this question or react on this remark?
I can try.
It's indeed a very dense picture right now with all the regulations.
And in a way you could say...
this has already happened in telecom and banking...
now it's coming to digital.
But I do think it's important to...
Of course, we should continue looking at: are there gaps, are we missing something?
But we should also, as Rosa has also said, we can do a lot in implementation.
So I do think it's time now also to take stock of what there is...
start implementing it, see how it works, whether there are overlaps, duplications...
because they will definitely be there...
because all those areas are interconnected...
and to see how we deal with that efficiently.
And the broader democratic problem is maybe beyond my eyescope.
Maybe that's for you.
MODERATOR: May I add another question?
And maybe you can take that with you as well, Menno.
What can we do to support member states implementing all that regulations?
Are there things that maybe Microsoft or the European Commission can do...
to help member states implement all those laws?
Some general thoughts on this.
I think regarding the new framework that I specifically work on...
the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act...
of course it's important to remember that the bulk of the obligations in those rules...
apply to the largest companies out there...
with the most important services in terms of user numbers...
and the first companies under the Digital Services Act...
have already been designated, and also under the Digital Markets Act.
Some of the potential gatekeepers are testing their compliance solutions...
and we've been engaging with them...
as soon as those laws were entered into force basically, or even before.
Companies came forward voluntarily, are very well aware of them...
and have the resources to deal with them.
And it's precisely also the reason those laws exist...
is the sheer size of those companies.
So that's not a problem, it's more an urgency to make sure they are enforced.
Then I think there's a question of once we start to feel the effects...
and see some of the benefits...
to also make sure that citizens are aware of their rights...
and can leverage these laws.
And also that we as EU governments, I think, take some credit for this.
Because what tends to happen or what has happened in the past...
is that companies within a week of a legal deadline...
suddenly are offering a very nice roaming package...
to give just one example, out of the goodness of their hearts.
So we can do some marketing as well, but most and more importantly I would say...
is to involve the citizen as well as our entire academic community.
And again, the example of the Digital Services Act is interesting...
because we've just established...
this European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency in Seville...
which is really supposed to build up a global network of academics...
to help make the most of these legislations...
and investigate all of these wicked problems...
that we have with digital services and online platforms.
And there we need the community to be aware, but also to be organised.
Data access requests, they need to be structured.
We need to have the research questions...
we need them to be coordinated to an extent...
so that we make sure they can be processed and dealth with...
but we need that capability and the excellence in place.
So we cannot do enough to promote these laws.
And I think indeed it is then a broader question...
about how we can optimise the interactions as all of our governments.
I think there's strength in complexity, also in the EU with many governments...
that you belong to as an EU citizen.
So governments should do something, the question is how quickly.
We obviously cannot look into the future.
But on the basis of what do we make what decision is the big difficulty.
How sure are we that AI is super dangerous...
or is it dangerous and what do we allow it to do, for example.
That's your difficulty at the European Commission if I'm correct.
Well, I'm personally happy to see that we don't jump to conclusions...
other than what we see that is supported by evidence...
and where we actually say: okay, we need to intervene.
And that doesn't mean we don't intervene. We can actually intervene.
And even with the negotiations on the AI Act...
I mean, the proposal has been out for a long time...
and we were able to act also in that area...
not pre-empting what the technology might do...
but recognising that it brings risks in different categories.
I think that's a concept that is very, very important...
and prevents conclusions.
You would have manifold...
The amount of legislation we see now...
if you were to exhaustively regulate every potential risk of course.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
Lorelien, Tamar, do you want to say something?
Is there somebody in the audience that would like to ask a question?
WOMAN: Maybe I, myself, may I ask you a question?
My name is Leonie Gerding, I work for the Ministry of the Interior.
I've been an attorney for a couple of years, I've been a consultant for a lot of years...
and I wanted to ask you: how do we prevent...
this is going to be a lawyer's or a consultant's paradise?
I would love to see this discussion also to be discussed on all levels...
on business, on boardroom level...
so I would love to hear what your thought is on that.
MODERATOR: Who wants to answer that question?
Multiple panel members can provide an answer obviously.
Who wants to start?
Lorelien.
I'm a lawyer and I work in the government affairs team...
but these questions are followed very closely by our management as well.
I'm trying to get the question correctly.
WOMAN: With the GDPR, I strongly feel that this was quite a lawyer's paradise...
to discuss on the role of processing, processors and all that kind of stuff.
I really would like to see this discussion to be at another level...
so not very influenced by the legal people.
Because this is public values.
I feel it in my tummy, this discussion.
So I really would love to hear how you do it.
How do you speak with management in all levels?
LORELIEN HOET: No, clearly.
I think of course our CEO cannot deal with a question...
about which data is processed.
But clearly there is lots of attention, both to the GDPR implementation...
but also, for example, to how we will have the AI thinking and reflection.
And precisely therefore, we have these multidisciplinary teams in our company.
And I can be super honest that I say that in our company...
the lawyers, yes, they have an important role to play...
but the engineers have at least an as big role...
because they understand the technicity.
It's software, it is complex.
The CEO is 100 per cent committed.
And then the management levels are fully conscious...
of the importance of these questions, but of course they don't deal with them...
on a day-to-day basis.
That's normal as well.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Tamar Sharon.
TAMAR SHARON: I could try.
I think that, in my case at least, I tend to focus mostly on the medical domain.
So this is all cross-domain, but the one domain where I'm busy doing research...
is health and medicine.
And I try to do a lot of work at professional conferences...
but also in our research to discuss with medical researchers...
and professionals involved in research projects...
that are taking place with big tech, for example...
what these risks are that we are identifying.
And I find that this is very important...
because practitioners are not necessarily aware...
of the broader impacts of this kind of thing.
Practitioners also should not be responsible for those broader impacts.
But I think it is important that they are aware of it.
And this goes at the level of...
so if I'm thinking of the sphere of health and medicine...
there are medical researchers who...
what I see is that there is very little regulation...
as to: can these public-private partnerships take place?
So the medical sphere, which is one of the most regulated ones actually...
which has a tradition of bioethics, of medical ethics...
of institutional review boards.
If a company like Google or Apple approaches a medical researcher...
and says: we'd like to collaborate with you on a research project.
This has to go through an IRB, an institutional review board...
which is very good.
But what the institutional review boards look at...
this is what they've been trained to look at...
patient safety, of course very important, and informed consent.
So will there be bodily harm to the patient?
And are they properly informed as to the risks about this bodily harm?
This is very well established, it's very good...
but we need much more by now, because as these actors...
come in with these other values of efficiency, objectification, etcetera.
With other values, which can also be market values, the impacts are different.
So I have this burning question as to what would it take...
to add into an informed consent form of such a collaboration...
to inform patients what this means...
when they don't even know sometimes that these companies are involved...
let alone what types of harms are further down the line...
to something like the transformation of a sphere.
So for me it's a very big question as to how to bring these broad societal risks...
to a level which could enter some form of institutionalisation...
regulation, legislation at the level of a sector.
I don't have a good answer for that, but yeah.
MODERATOR: But contracts were important for you.
I think you mentioned it in your speech.
TAMAR SHARON: Yes, those would be the kind of the commercial side...
of a collaboration.
But when you have a medical research collaboration and you're involving patients...
and the patient gets an informed consent form...
which is very detailed about types of risks.
These risks, the ones I was discussing today, do not have place in that.
And there is a question if they should, I think they should...
but it's a very different type of risk. These are broad societal risks...
these are trade-offs that will take place much further down the line for the sector.
And so how do you get medical practitioners to become aware of this...
how do you get institutional review boards to become aware of this?
It's an open question I think.
Thank you.
Anymore remarks, questions?
No?
I think... -LORELIEN HOET: We are on time.
We are very much on time, but more important...
this was an extremely interesting discussion I think.
Thank you for that. Thank you to the audience for that as well.
(SILENCE)