President Bush Hosts Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy PODCAST VIDEO

President George W. Bush delivers his remarks following the conclusion of the Summit with Financial Markets and the World Economy Leaders Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008, at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. President Bush stated in his remarks, "The United States, in the midst of this financial crisis, will not abandon our commitments to people in the developing world." White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

President Bush Hosts Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy FULL STREAMING VIDEO National Building Museum Washington, D.C. In Focus: Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy and Fact Sheet: Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy 2:11 P.M. EST PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE PRESIDENT BUSH: Welcome. Good afternoon. We just had a very productive summit meeting. Thinking about three weeks ago, when I was talking to President Sarkozy and Barroso at Camp David -- some of you were there -- I don't think we could have predicted then how productive and how successful this meeting would have been.

The first decision I had to make was who was coming to the meeting. And obviously I decided that we ought to have the G20 nations, as opposed to the G8 or the G13. But once you make the decision to have the G20, then the fundamental question is, with that many nations, from six different continents, who all represent different stages of economic development -- would it be possible to reach agreements, and not only agreements, would it be possible to reach agreements that were substantive? And I'm pleased to report the answer to that question was, absolutely.

One of the things we did, we spent time talking about the actions that we have taken. The United States has taken some extraordinary measures. Those of you who have followed my career know that I'm a free market person -- until you're told that if you don't take decisive measures then it's conceivable that our country could go into a depression greater than the Great Depression’s. So my administration has taken significant measures to deal with a credit crisis. And then we worked with Congress to deal with the credit crisis, as well.

We're beginning to see some positive results. One of the things people around the table were interested in is, are you beginning to see the results of your actions? And our credit markets are beginning to thaw, having been severely frozen; businesses are beginning to get access to short-term credit. It's going to take more time for the measures we have put in place to take hold. No question about that. As a matter of fact, we just started, for example, on the $700 billion fund to start getting money out to our banks. So it's going to take more time.

But I was pleased to tell the folks around the table that the significant actions we've taken are beginning to work. All of us committed to continue to work on pro-growth economic policies. It's phrased different ways -- fiscal plans -- but the whole point was, was that we recognize that, on the one hand, there's been a severe credit crisis, and on the other hand, our economies are being hit very hard. And so there was a common understanding that all of us should promote pro-growth economic policy.

We also talked about broader reforms -- so in other words, the discussions were focused on today and what we're doing about it, but what are we going to do to make sure it doesn't happen tomorrow.

One of the key achievements was to establish certain principles and take certain actions for adapting our financial systems to the realities of the 21st century. Part of the regulatory structures that are in place were 20th century regulatory structures. And obviously, you know, the financial industry went way beyond them. And the question is, how do we establish good regulatory structure without destroying the incentive to innovate, without destroying the marketplace.

Our nations agree that we must make the markets -- the financial markets more transparent and accountable. Transparency is very important so that investors and regulators are able to know the truth -- considered improving accounting rules, so that investors can understand the true value of the assets they purchase. We agree that we need to improve our regulations and to ensure that markets, firms, and financial products are subject to proper regulation and oversight.

For example, credit default swaps -- financial products that ensure against potential losses -- should be processed through centralized clearinghouses. That's a significant reform. Heretofore, the credit default swaps were traded in over-the-counter, unregulated markets.

Yesterday the Working Group on Financial Markets, which is -- which is obviously associated with the White House, announced an initiative to create these kinds of clearing houses. And I know that other nations are working on them as well. This process will help expedite credit default swaps and other types of instruments not being traded in unregulated, over-the-counter markets.

By bringing greater stability to this important sector, we will help with liquidity, but also mitigate risk.

Third, we agreed that we must enhance the integrity of the financial markets. For example, authorities in every nation should take a fresh look at the rules governing market manipulation and fraud to make sure that investors in all our countries are properly protected. We agree that we must strengthen cooperation among the world's financial authorities. There was a lot of discussion about the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, for example.

Leading nations should make regulations consistent. As well, we should reform the international financial institutions. Again, these institutions have been very important -- the World Bank, IMF -- but they were based on an economic order of 1944. And so to better -- we agreed that to better reflect the realities of today's global economy, both IMF and World Bank should modernize their governance structures. They ought to consider extending greater voting power and representation to developing nations, particularly those who have increased their contributions to the institutions.

All this is an important first step -- in other words, this is a beginning of a series of meetings. People say, well, why don't you have one meeting and, you know, call it Bretton Woods II. Well, Bretton Woods I took two years to prepare. I don't know what you want to call this one, but whatever name comes from this meeting, it took three weeks to prepare. And so it makes sense to come out of here with a firm action plan -- which we have.

It also makes sense to say to people that there is more work to be done and there will be further meetings, sending a clear signal that a meeting is not going to solve the world's problems. A meeting will help begin a process so that we can say over time that we will have a regulatory structure in place that will make this less likely to happen in the future.

And so we've directed our finance ministers to work with other experts and consult with officials in other economies and then report back to the leaders with detailed recommendations. Whatever we do, whatever reforms are recommended, we need to be guided by this simple fact: that the best way to solve our problems and solve the people's problems is for there to be economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free market capitalism.

Leaders at this summit agreed on some other matters of importance. One is to reject protectionism and refrain from erecting new trade barriers. This is a very important part of this summit. The temptation in times of economic stress will be to say, oh, trade isn't worth it, let's just throw up protective barriers. And yet that attitude was rejected, thankfully. And matter of fact, not only rejected, there is a determined effort to see if we can't complete the modalities for Doha by the end of December.

One of the things I stressed as well is that the United States, in the midst of this financial crisis, will not abandon our commitments to people in the developing world; that the HIV/AIDS initiative, known as PEPFAR, will remain strong and vibrant; that our deep desire to significantly reduce malaria deaths in countries on the continent of Africa will not be diminished; that our obligation to help feed the hungry will not stop; that in the midst of all this turmoil and financial crisis, we will meet our obligations. These obligations are in our national security interests and our economic security interests and they in -- are in our moral interests.

And so I will tell you that I thought this was a very successful summit. And they're going to meet again. I keep saying "they" because some of you may not have heard yet, but I am retiring. But I told the leaders this: that President-Elect Obama's transition team has been fully briefed on what we intended to do here at this meeting. I told them that we will work tirelessly to make sure the transition between my administration and his administration is seamless. And I told them that I hope he succeeds, that it's good for our country that people see a peaceful transfer of power. And I hope it was good for them to hear that even though we're from different political parties, that I believe it's in our country's interest that he succeed.

So I want to thank you for giving me a chance to come and visit with you. Thanks for covering this summit. Goodbye.

END 2:23 P.M. EST

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 15, 2008

Biology enters “The Matrix” through new computer language

Dr. Jeremy Gunawardena (left) and Dr. Aneil Mallavarapu

BOSTON, Mass. — Ever since the human genome was sequenced less than 10 years ago, researchers have been able to access a dizzying plethora of genomic information with a simple click of a mouse. This digitizing of genomic data—and its public access—is something that would have been unthinkable a generation earlier.

But as molecules go, DNA is pretty straight forward. With its simple composition and linear structure, it easily lends itself to mathematical models. Not so with proteins. In fact, proteins are an order of magnitude more complex than DNA. It is proteins, not DNA, that carry out the cell's heavy lifting. However, with their intricately folded three-dimensional shapes determining a seemingly endless range of possible functions and their manifold interactions with other proteins and with DNA, the leg-work required to mathematically capture the protein universe seems absurd.

And it is.

That is why a team of Harvard Medical School researchers have decided to attack this issue from an entirely new angle. Rather than build a mountain range of proteomic data one grain of dirt at a time, they have developed a computer program that can take on the responsibility of assembling such a gargantuan model.

Enter Little b, a computational language that can penetrate the "mind" of a cell.

“Through incorporating principles of engineering, we’ve developed a language that can describe biology in the same way a biologist would,” says Jeremy Gunawardena, director of the Virtual Cell Program in Harvard Medical School’s department of systems biology. “The potential here is enormous. This opens the door to actually performing discovery science, to look at things like drug interactions, right on the computer.”

These findings will be published in the July 23 issue of Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

Most current computational methods of modeling biological systems are not unlike writing a document with pen and paper. Each new project starts from scratch; there are no facilities for cutting and pasting, for linking to other texts, for including images, etc.—things that come so "naturally" to electronic documents.

Harvard Medical School researcher Jeremy Gunawardena, a mathematician by training, teamed up with Aneil Mallavarapu, a cell biologist and computer scientist, to lead a project that would bypass these limitations.

"We knew that the secret to doing this would be to assimilate fundamental concepts of engineering, concepts like modularity and abstraction, into the biological realm," says Mallavarapu, who was recently awarded the Merrimack prize by the Council for Systems Biology in Boston for developing this program.

Modularity involves breaking a problem down into separate modules and constructing each module so that it can interact with the others. Abstraction refers to extracting generic biological properties and incorporating them into the modules, so that they can use this abstract information in concrete contexts. Put another way, abstraction means that, unlike the old days of pen and paper, each new model does *not* need to be built from scratch. Models can be built upon each other and their individual modules refined and re-used.

To do this, Mallavarapu used the programming language LISP, a language widely used in artificial intelligence research. LISP is famous among computer scientists due to its ability to write code that, in turn, can write code, enabling a programmer to derive new mini-languages.

"LISP isn't like typical programs, it's more like a conversation," says Gunawardena. "When we input data into Little b, Little b responds to it and reasons over the data."

For example, Gunawardena's lab works on kinases, a kind of protein that transfers phosphate chemicals to other proteins in order to regulate their activity. While this property is common to all kinases, there is a great deal of variety in how particular kinases carry this out. Little b, however, understands this basic property of kinases, this abstraction.

Here, the researchers demonstrated how they were able to interact with Little b to build complex models of kinase activity, using Little b as a kind of scientific collaborator, and not simply a passive tool.

On a larger scale, the researchers also used the program to query the development of fruit fly embryos. As a result, they discovered levels of complexity in these embryonic structures that previous research had missed.

"This language is stepping into an unknown universe, when your computer starts building things for you," says Gunawardena. "Your whole relationship with the computer becomes a different one. You've ceded some control to the machine. The machine is drawing inferences on your behalf and constructing things for you."

The researchers sometimes admit, half-joking, that Little b sometimes feels a little bit like "The Matrix"—referring, of course, to the film trilogy in which human beings lived in a computer-generated virtual world.

Mallavarapu and Gunawardena have a pretty clear vision for this project: they want every biologist in the world to use it.

But in order to bring the program out from the early adopter community, where it is currently being used by colleagues in the Harvard community, it needs to be more accessible.

"The next step is to create an interface that's easy to use," says Gunarwardena. "Think of web page development. Lots of people are creating web pages with little or no knowledge of HTML. They use simple interfaces like Dreamweaver. Once we've developed the equivalent, scientists will be able to use our system without having to learn Little b."

And the more people use it, the smarter it gets. As researchers around the world input their discoveries into Little b, the program will assimilate that information into its language.

The ultimate goal is to have an in silico, virtual cell—a dynamic biological system living in software.

"Sure, it's a long way off," says Gunawardena, "but we're getting there." ###

This research was funded by Harvard Medical School. The funding and data sources for this study had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and in the writing of the report.

Written by David Cameron

CITATION: Journal of the Royal Society Interface, online publication, July 23, 2008
“Programming with models: modularity and abstraction provide powerful capabilities for systems biology” Aneil Mallavarapu, Matthew Thomson, Benjamin Ullian, and Jeremy Gunawardena Harvard Medical School, Department of Systems Biology, Boston, MA

Contact: David Cameron david_cameron@hms.harvard.edu 617-432-0441 Harvard Medical School

Harvard Medical School has more than 7,500 full-time faculty working in 11 academic departments located at the School's Boston campus or in one of 47 hospital-based clinical departments at 18 Harvard-affiliated teaching hospitals and research institutes. Those affiliates include Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Cambridge Health Alliance, Children's Hospital Boston, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Forsyth Institute, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Hebrew SeniorLife, Joslin Diabetes Center, Judge Baker Children's Center, Immune Disease Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Massachusetts General Hospital, McLean Hospital, Mount Auburn Hospital, Schepens Eye Research Institute, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, and VA Boston Healthcare System.