Sponsors

Moderator:
Larry Carroll, News Anchor, KFWB News 980

The buzzer sounded (literally) and the panel got underway. How can athletes transition from sport to business? Where should this transition begin? How does urban culture change the perception of athletes?

The spectator sports industry has grown twice as fast as the U.S. economy as a whole. Television has created an immediate medium connecting fans to athletes. Employment growth in the industry has shot past average U.S. growth even as it has shifted to specialized channels. "Imagine if there were an A-Rod Network," mused moderator Larry Carroll of KFWB.

But he went on to note that many athletes have trouble moving from their "lavish" system of sports to the reality of building their own wealth. That has not been the case for these panelists, all of whom have found business success off the playing field and all of whom make it a point to invest their time and resources back into their communities.

For athletes who are not superstars, prospects are bleak after their sports career ends. Many face tremendous physical problems and find themselves with no financial support down the road. Donald Latson of World Entertainment & Technologies, a former NBA player, noted that athletes have a divorce rate of 73 percent and a shortened life expectancy of only 62 years. Many athletes, he said, also spend time in prison or face bankruptcy. But Leonard Wheeler of Wheeler Enterprises, a retired NFL player, pointed out that a fraternity exists between professional athletes, enabling them to speak to one another as brothers. How, then, can retired athletes help current athletes built a successful life after they hang up their shoes?

Latson felt that much of the problem lies with perception. "Everyone looks at the pretty pictures that are painted of professional athletes; however, the hardships are not projected as highly after their career."

Panelists noted that there are gaps in the social development of many athletes and a sense of entitlement. Tate George of The George Group, a former NBA player, commented that many 30-year-old athletes act with the social capacity of 16-year-olds. This creates hardships for them in pursuing other avenues of wealth to make a living after they retire. Tate felt that professional sports thrusts a system upon its players, allowing them luxuries while they play the game but tossing them to the curb after their services are no longer needed.

Dale Davis, a member of the Detroit Pistons and founder of Pro Player Holdings, felt that former athletes should mentor those currently playing professional sports, helping them to understand insurance, mortgages and other realities of life. "It's tough for an athlete to be connected to the financial world."

The panelists are utilizing their past experience to help athletes transition from sports to business. Latson said that one of the biggest fears for athletes "is not knowing what to do." He felt that parents should offer their children a wider range of choices. "The biggest blessing was being reared in a loving environment. My parents prepared me for life after sports." The panelists all agreed that many athletes never have the options available to make the right decision. George mentioned a study showing that professional athletes are less equipped to develop a successful strategy for a sustainable life than athletes who stop playing in college.

These panelists focus on empowering their fellow athletes and pursuing business and philanthropy ventures that give back to inner cities. George noted that urban communities can adapt to offer children better choices in life, and these neighborhoods can offer athletes the ability to go home and reestablish their life when their playing days are over.

Finally, Latson noted that, "Oftentimes people in our position don't make ourselves accessible or available." Davis offers mentoring to athletes, teaching them how to build character and prepare for success in life after sports. "The hardest thing for some athletes is to transition to being successful off-field. We help them do that."

Moderator:
Betsy Zeidman, Research Fellow and Director of the Center for Emerging Domestic Markets, Milken Institute

Traditionally, governments and nonprofits have worked to solve the world's problems, while businesses concentrated on making money. But new waves of compassionate capitalists are beginning to take on society's challenges. They measure progress by the social goals they achieve, as well as the profits they generate.

But Muhammad Yunus, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 and Managing Director of Grameen Bank, turned that notion on its head with a simple question: "Why can't we accept that we can create business without any interest in making money out of it?"

In this session, tension arose between the majority of panelists who accepted the idea that social entrepreneurs can do good for the world and profit at the same time, and Yunus, an economist by training, who argued that we use the "wrong lens" to view the social problems of the world.

"These are not opportunities for profit," he said. "Rather, they present opportunities to fix what is wrong with the human condition." In his view, "the social business is a non-loss, non-dividend company with a social goal. The bottom line for the social firm is, 'How much benefit did you bring to your people?' This is a new class of business."

There are many issues not being addressed in the mainstream markets. "If you look at serious diseases, some of these have very good vaccines," said Yunus. "But no one produces them because these are diseases of the poor and there no market. These are the 'orphan diseases' that never get addressed. This is a place to create a business! "Now, you ask, why should anyone want to do that?" he continued. "They do it when they feel that people deserve to be vaccinated! We (humans) are not money-making machines ... but we see the world through the money-making lens. With a social business lens, the world looks very different. We can produce these vaccines through social business so that people don't die, and we don't need to make a profit. This is something we wanted to do."

The argument garnered applause and presented a thought-provoking contrast to the positions of the other panelists.

Among the remaining panelists, there was consensus that social entrepreneurship could grow, but the problems it faces are more complex than simply raising more capital. The panelists offered opinions about what it takes to make social entrepreneurship sustainable, and they tended to agree that large-scale, systemic social change occurs best through institutions, rather than the individual. It's difficult for small-scale or individual investors to conduct sufficient due diligence, for example. Kevin Jones of Good Capital explained that his firm has formed a market collective to reduce the costs of conducting due diligence on potential projects. There is also a need, he said, for market intermediaries to address the lending risks resulting from basic lack of information.

Foundations and NGOs have developed numerous methods to support social entrepreneurship and tolerate different levels of risk in these endeavors. According to Debra Schwartz of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, her organization targets early-stage social entrepreneurship ventures through a grant-making program, with the expectation that the grant will be repaid after 10 years at an interest rate of 1 percent to 3 percent per year. Chicago;s community development bank Shorebank was funded this way, she said. On the other hand, Shari Berenbach of the Calvert Social Investment Foundation said that she targets social entrepreneurship models with moderate to conservative levels of risk through an investment tool called a community investment note. The note allows everyday people to provide micro-loans to social entrepreneurs around the world.

Good Capital requires a return on capital, said Jones, but also a high social impact. The firm targets businesses that would traditionally be of interest to venture capitalists, but have a social capital focus. This "new asset class" attracts investors who want not only a return, but a higher social return, he said, who "look at their money in a more holistic way — more risk, lower return."

In the end, panelists concurred that while "there is no hierarchy of virtue," there are clear market failures that social entrepreneurship can address. Indeed, the market is not the solution for everything, they said. To make social entrepreneurship grow, a spectrum of approaches is needed. The common thread is meaningful commitment to social change.

"The value of traditional grants and the value of government dollars should not be lost," said Schwartz of the MacArthur Foundation. "These other sources are important, as are government regulations and incentives." Smart policies, smart subsidies and smart grant-making remain real challenges. "Sometimes," she added, "the problem is not capital, but institution building, and the ability to absorb capital."

Moderator:
Neil Eckert, Chief Executive, Climate Exchange PLC

The passion of this panel to transform lives beginning in early childhood was palpable. Sara Watson of The Pew Charitable Trusts began by citing research on the impact of the earliest interventions with preschool children. Many of the traits that make good citizens (lower arrest and delinquency rates, reduced special-education needs and a lifetime of improved health) are set in motion in a child's earliest years. She maintains that early education is sound economic policy on a nationwide level; that belief has led The Pew Charitable Trusts to provide $2 billion in funding for preschool programs over the last four years.

Four longitudinal studies have shown tangible economic benefits from investing in early childhood care and education, running from an 8 percent to a 20 percent internal rate of return, depending on the quality of the early childhood program. Arthur Rolnick of the Federal Reserve Bank told how these enviable returns have captured the attention of CEOs, causing many of them to become actively involved as champions of early childhood spending.

Moderator Neil Eckert of Climate Exchange PLC turned to tennis legend Andre Agassi and asked him to recount his experience in offering educational opportunities for at-risk youth in Las Vegas. Agassi prefaced his remarks with a simple statement, "If we say we care, then it's real simple: We have to act." He continued, "You can always find people who will say it cannot be done."

Agassi and fellow panelist Elaine Wynn, the national chair of Communities-in-Schools, hail from Nevada, the state with the nation's highest dropout rate, and both are determined advocates for education reform. Agassi shared stories of his college prep academy, a public charter school that raises hopes and expectations in one of the most challenged neighborhoods of Las Vegas.

He compared the hard work of a quality education to his success as a professional athlete. "There are no shortcuts in education. Just like in tennis, if you want to be good, you have to spend the time," said Agassi. Students at his charter school have eight-hour school days, resulting in 16 years of total schooling compared to the traditional 12 years. He summed up his philosophy on teachers: "No teacher tenure. If you're good, you stay; if not, you're fired." His school now has a seven-year record of academic success and Agassi has a statement to make nationally. He intends to continue his work to halt the downward spiral of students at risk through quality education.

Elaine Wynn reiterated Agassi's urgent commitment by stating, "Let's just stipulate that it's much more expensive to ignore these issues." Wynn's work has grown from Nevada to the national level. She elaborated on the dire state of education in Nevada, where "we lead with all the wrong statistics. One third of our kids drop out and half of those are ethnic and minorities." Her work in Nevada with multiple government and private agencies led to her current focus on a single point of service delivery. Although there are multiple support programs for students in need, Wynn questioned the feasibility and functionality of these initiatives. "We expect the children who are least capable to be program specialists, which makes no sense." The best place to get services delivered to children in need is in schools. She is currently working on legislation for integrated services in Washington, D.C., and raising more state money to improve schools in Nevada.

Panel members nodded as Wynn stated, "Programs don't save people. People save people. In the absence of the humane, which is the key aspect of the word 'humanitarian,' many people most at risk will not make it."

Carlos Bremer of Value Grupo Financiero told stories of mobilizing the humanitarian capacity of virtually the combined professional athletic teams of Mexico to help children. Eckert asked Bremer how one individual managed to rally such extensive support for this cause. Bremer replied that he observed the myriad problems of poor Mexican schoolchildren, including the prevalence of drugs in public schools; he also noted many empty seats at professional sporting events simply because most poor people cannot afford to attend. Bremer set up a program to reward students in grades 3 through 9 with tickets to sporting events if they achieve good academic results. Then he called on professional basketball, baseball and soccer teams, ultimately getting 70 of the nation's 76 pro sports teams to donate seats. Nationally, 2 million Mexican children take math, science and Spanish tests annually — and 1.5 million seats have been made available to those who do well.

Though his program is now a national campaign, Bremer's modesty was apparent when he was asked how he had done all this. He shrugged and said, "You just need a good idea. Share it, and others will help."

Moderator:
Michael Milken, Chairman, Milken Institute; Chairman, FasterCures / The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions

Michael Milken moderated a lively dinner discussion about following your passion. Though each panelist came from a different background, they all illustrated the potential rewards of taking chances.

Peter Diamandis of the X Prize Foundation described the $10 million competition he designed to create a manned space vehicle. The prize program energized a variety of private-sector actors in aeronautical engineering. Its success has spurred the creation of the next prize competition — one to create a commercially viable passenger vehicle with fuel efficiency greater than 100 miles per gallon.

Elaine Wynn of Wynn Resorts described how she and her husband played a role in the development of Las Vegas. She described the city when they moved to it as one that was "democratic with a lowercase 'd.'" The freedom of thought and career pursuit that she found in this environment inspired her to becomes a determined advocate for improving education. She described the life she has lived as a privilege, and she has been striving to pay it forward, placing others in a position where they are free of constraints that might get in the way of their own dreams.

Milken gave Quincy Jones a lengthy and at times comical introduction. Jones winced when Milken mentioned that he had graced the earth with his presence for the last 75 years, but the balance of the accolades directed toward the guest was serious and impressive. A brief video entrance listed Mr. Jones's many accomplishments, including producing Michael Jackson's Thriller and "We Are the World," scoring films, directing The Color Purple, and having former Secretary of State Colin Powell admit to being a Quincy Jones groupie.

Each panelist spoke of specific individuals and events that inspired their own entrepreneurial pursuits. Diamandis cited President Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon at a time when "no one knew if the human brain… could survive in space." Wynn included President Reagan and educational advocate Bill Miliken as major influences and Jones looked to Nelson Mandela for his courage and example.

Finally, the speakers spoke of the importance of taking chances. Diamandis said he believes that America is "killing itself" with risk aversion; he encouraged the next generation of leaders to "be audacious with your dreams." Similarly Wynn said she thought that taking chances was the only way to get things done.

Jones was direct with his advice. Citing a figure showing that only 11 percent of Americans (and 25 percent of members of Congress) own passports, he said, "You have to go to know." He described a rapidly changing world that demands engagement and understanding to ensure that every child around the globe shares "a common destiny."

Moderator:
John Tedstrom, Executive Director, Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Moderator John Tedstrom of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria opened the panel with two sobering facts. "One million people die every year from malaria," he related. "And every 30 seconds a child in sub-Saharan Africa loses his life to the disease." On top of that devastating toll, malaria harms productivity, creating annual losses of around $12 billion for Africa. But even though the disease poses immense challenges, Tedstrom declared that this moment "also holds some hope for success."

There was an uncontested agreement among all panelists that the costs of the disease can be seriously minimized in about 5 to 10 years. Tedstrom cautioned that there is "one dark cloud" that threats prospects for eradication of malaria: inefficient access to therapies and preventive measures.

Sir Richard Feachem of the University of California, Berkeley, called for an aggressive global initiative that will shrink the "malaria map." He recommended implementing four key strategies that have been proven to dramatically improve child mortality rates. The first is a system of rapid diagnosis and treatment, using effective drugs that cost only 37 cents per child. The second principle is that every women and child in a malaria-prone area should sleep under a bed net, protected from the mosquitoes that carry the disease; that simple preventive measure costs approximately $2 per person per year. The third goal is to have indoor residual spraying, while the fourth strategy is offering anti-malaria therapy to pregnant women. Feachem also noted a fifth method of prevention, which involves draining the breeding sites of mosquitoes adjacent to residential areas.

Feachem described the global challenges of fighting malaria. Over time, humans develop resistance to anti-malarial drugs, so new drugs must be introduced. Moreover, mosquitoes similarly become resistant to insecticides. Another obstacle he mentioned was the sustainability of the overall effort. "Success is our enemy," he noted, fearing that a significant alleviation of the disease will divert public interest to some other cause. But the battle against malaria will have to be a sustained multi-decade effort. Feachem also noted that the need to create incentives for the research and development of drugs and technologies.

Blaise Karibushi of the Access Project in Rwanda explained the success of recent anti-malaria efforts, noting that the initiative was led by community organizations. Their strong political commitment and coordination increased the percentage of households using bed nets from 15 percent to 74 percent in just one year. Rwanda's mortality rate from malaria has decreased by 66 percent, and malaria-related visits to health centers are down dramatically. This translates to a tremendous "freeing up of health facilities" that can now focus on treating other illnesses. Karibushi noted that it is vital to enlist the local community, concluding that health services should be managed as self-sustaining businesses to insure long-term viability.

Belinda Stronach, a member of Canada′s Parliament, commented that "it is important to inspire and educate the pubic about the issues of malaria because it will create political will." She recounted her experiences in founding Spread the Net, an organization that partners with UNICEF Canada to subsidize the purchase of bed nets for poor households in developing countries affected by malaria. She recalled the positive public response to the organization's projects, including 35,000 unique visits to its web site and $200,000 raised from youth initiatives and high school programs. Yet Stronach noted pointedly that "there are still 120 million nets that we need to buy." She calculated that "$1 billion of preventive spending translates to a $12 billion return in productivity."

Peter Chernin of News Corporation agreed that political will is a crucial element. As chairman of Malaria No More, he felt that increased coordination is needed among the many initiatives working to tackle this challenge. Chernin referred to malaria as today's "most compelling global health crisis" and called for greater involvement by business leaders. He believes there should be a concerted effort to rally public attention, donations and political commitment. Malaria No More has already begun to shine a spotlight on the issue through high-profile media partnerships that have reached a wide U.S. audience.

The panel concluded with some remarks about the economics of the disease. Chernin noted that there is not enough commitment from industrialized countries such as Germany, Italy and Japan to eradicate the disease. Feachmen added that Africa's economy can benefit from local production of bed nets, which would create jobs and reduce the price of transportation.

In the United States, the buzz of a mosquito is a trifling annoyance that can put a damper on a backyard barbeque. In Sub-Saharan Africa, that same buzzing insect is synonymous with something much more ominous than an overdone burger: death by malaria.

It is a death measured in millimeters. One million people die each year of a disease that can be prevented with gossamer-thin bed nets treated with insecticide that can protect two people's lives for just $10. A mere $2 supplies lifesaving medication to a child, and 20 cents can buy preventative treatment for a pregnant woman.

This was the central "malaria challenge" discussed during the session led by five luminaries in the field and others who participated in the roundtable discussion.

The experts in the room agreed on one central premise: While the strides in malaria prevention had been great, thanks to life-saving organizations like Malaria No More and the Access Project in Rwanda, the disparity in the distribution of resources was wide, partly due to the potential for "sharp elbows" and "tunnel vision" between aid groups when facing health and economic challenges omnipresent in Africa. The question is: how do we fix this divisive problem?

In describing the crux of the issue, Sir Richard Feachem, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley campuses, pinpointed three fundamental gaps preventing the eradication of this deadly disease in the Third World: funding, management and scalability of aid distribution.

In particular, the theme of management — and finding the right talent to manage — resurrected itself many times throughout the hour. While Feachum applauded the presence of M.D.s in Sub-Saharan countries, for example, he lamented the lack of financially and operationally capable M.B.A.s to ensure that important programs are well constructed, accurately forecast and appropriately funded, and that supplies are adequately delivered.

Taking it a step further, Karibushi of the Access Fund Rwanda called for local economic renewal, encouraging the manufacture of nets domestically to help improve Africa's economic position. Today, 93 cents on the dollar go to purchasing aid materials from the United States. Redirecting lobbying efforts in the United States could help shift the way aid is provided, with African companies, such as AtoZ Textiles, potentially switching from clothing to mosquito nets manufacture.

Still, the group was hopeful, citing awareness programs that were making a difference, such as the popular "American Idol" campaign, "Idol Gives Back," that this year raised $250 million to fight malaria. And corporations like DHL and Accenture have found ways to get involved that may be more indirectly related to their core competency. Other organizations are finding ways to piggyback malaria prevention on top of a measles initiative, giving away free bed nets during measles immunization. With smart management and a steady flow of resources, collaboration is critical in bringing an end to a disease that kills 3,000 children a day.

Moderator:
Timothy Lappen, Founder and Chairman, Family Office Group, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP

This panel discussed the legal, personal and practical challenges that face leaders in the long-established Rockefeller and Pritzker philanthropic foundations. Anne Bartley of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors discussed her organization's history, which dates to 1913, when John D. Rockefeller Sr. established the foundation. Rockefeller's parents influenced his interest in philanthropy, and Bartley noted that the values of social commitment and philanthropy have passed from one generation to another and became embedded in the family.

She described the foundation's earliest definitive goals, which are still being followed by the foundation today: The foundation has historically worked to uncover underlying social problems by cooperating with other agencies and foundations familiar with specific issues. If no such foundation exited, said Bartley, then a new one would be created. The family also believed that the business approach should be used in the philanthropy world.

Moderator Timothy Lappen of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro added that the foundation has been extremely generous in its local and global initiatives. For example, John D. Rockefeller Jr. and the charitable foundation spent millions for rebuilding the decaying Versailles and Trianon palaces after World War I.

J.B. Pritzker of The Pritzker Group also noted that philanthropic values played a role in his family tradition. He was just 10 when he realized the extent of the family′s endeavors, after seeing the family name "engraved in a Chicago hospital stone" (the University of Chicago renamed its medical school in 1968 to the Pritzker School of Medicine in recognition of the family′s support). His parents taught him that "philanthropy is about your time because time is the most valuable thing you have."

Lappen also discussed the changing nature of the philanthropic activities. "Once, philanthropy seemed to be people writing checks," he said. "Yet with the development of venture philanthropy, it's becoming more like a business with venture that has to be carefully planned." Pritzker acknowledged that sometimes philanthropic venture investments fail and added that his greatest pleasure comes from "building something from nothing." He cited the foundation's work building the new Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center as such a venture.

Pritzker's family has had intergenerational changes in the distribution of holdings and he explained that the division of family holdings has "led to a lot more giving and involvement of family members." The organization has three kinds of charitable donations: discretionary giving; institutional giving to organizations with whom the family has a personal attachment and directed giving.

The panelists agreed that "philanthropy and political activism often go hand-in-hand, but that the former "has ultimately got to be led by government effort." Bartley commented that with a staff knowledgeable about challenges in the market, the foundation can actually change public opinion and help develop legislation.

Bartley and Pritzker agreed that decisions to invest in some programs are influenced by the family's personal attachments so that there is "a wide range of interests in the philanthropy's portfolio, yet it is carried out in a unique way." These established philanthropies are challenged by the long-term consequences of their work. Bartley disputed the suggestion that donations should always align with current issues and social problems, and that endowments should be spent over shorter periods. Pritzker noted that while endowments can stipulate the nature of a foundation's work, there is "a limit to how far you can reach beyond the grave."

Moderator:
Marcia Stepanek, Editor-in-Chief, Contribute Magazine

Private philanthropy has exploded in the past few years in the United States, with $300 billion given to charitable causes in 2007, an increase of 65 percent from 2006. With this growth, however, has also come a wave of skepticism about whether the return on charitable giving matches the types of returns that individuals expect from their business investments.

The session was opened by moderator Marcia Stepanek of Contribute magazine. She stated that goal of the panel was to discuss how private philanthropy demonstrates its impact in innovative ways, given the current "crisis of confidence" among donors. "The average donor is having a serious problem trusting organizations," she said.

Perla Ni of GreatNonprofits channeled her frustration of the post-Katrina charity fiascos into a new web site. "It's so important to measure the impact of nonprofits today," Perla said. "How can we create a way in which capital flows to the highest-performing organizations that are delivering the best services?" The web site features user reviews from those who have worked with nonprofit organizations, thereby providing a reputation management tool. The reviews capture organizational performance in meaningful ways that traditional financial indicators don't reflect. They are also a low-cost solution to program evaluation for small organizations that can't use traditional research methods to demonstrate their impacts due to cost and ethical reasons.

Greg Simon of FasterCures, described his organization's philanthropic advisory service (PAS). The group focuses on innovation, high risks, high returns and fast change. Using 20 measures of performance, the PAS creates an information marketplace for charities and aims to stimulate philanthropy by allowing people to be efficient in how they give away money.

Tracey Pettengill Turner of MicroPlace leads a web-based microfinance enterprise whose goal is to break the cycle of poverty in developing countries by allowing individuals to loan small amounts of money, which can make a big difference. "There's a solution to global poverty that's actually sustainable," she said. "There's no end to the cycle of enabling people to break out of poverty with this approach."

Joe Cerrell of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided the perspective from a large foundation. "We start with the fundamental belief that all lives have values," he said. "Our measurement is, are you saving lives?" This is an exciting time for philanthropy, he said, and many breakthroughs are near realization. New tools are needed, as well as better access to available solutions, and the private sector should be part of the solution.

Panelists discussed the appropriate use of measures to evaluate nonprofit impacts, with most agreeing that the current, financially oriented indicators are inadequate. "We're much more interested in how (nonprofits) are changing the world than how they're changing their bank accounts," Simon said. The burden of measurement on small organizations must be considered, however.

In addition to specific measures, the system in which information about nonprofit activity is tracked and reported is problematic. Greater transparency is needed in order to sustain the current rate of philanthropy, and the way in which that information is delivered must also be effective — the right information, in the right way. The innovative tools that are available now "empower us to channel our dollars in a way that is more informed than before," said Pettengill Turner.

Panelists also noted that the lack of information on failures — which provide valuable lessons — is another part of the problem. "As philanthropists, we need to encourage our nonprofits and foundations to be much more open about sharing their failures," said Ni. Additionally, donors are not always sufficiently credited for their successes. The panelists discussed challenges of working with international governments, as well as their own indicators of success.

The discussion concluded with panelists commenting on their visions for the future. Cerrell stated that this is a "golden age" for giving, with a perfect storm of resources, a robust pipeline for innovation and rising political commitment. Ni encouraged the use of social networking and personal recommendations to boost the reputation of worthy nonprofits. "It's a great time to be a donor," she concluded.

Moderator:
Michael Milken, Chairman, Milken Institute; Chairman, FasterCures / The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions

One of the highlights of the 2008 Global Conference came as Michael Milken sat down with three of the most brilliant innovators of our time: Craig Venter, Muhammed Yunus and Eric Schmidt.

Milken began by introducing Venter, one of the leading scientists of his generation, with a video chronicling his race to decode the human genome. In 2007, Venter published and placed online the most complete genome ever sequenced: 6 billion bit of his own DNA. And just weeks ago, his institute created the first synthesized bacterial genome, the first step toward creating artificial organisms.

Milken asked Venter to review a list of humanity's top ten problems for the next 50 years. "Environmental issues will determine the long-term future of humanity — possibly the survival of our species," he said. "We have to come up with new sources of food, fuel and water to sustain human existence. As we've gone from 6.5 to 9 billion people, the CO2 situation has become dire."

Having discovered a host of new species and genes through DNA sampling on ocean voyages, Venter is convinced he can use synthetic biology to come up with alternatives to oil and coal. "We now have 20 million genes in our database. They are the design components of the future, the tools in our toolset. They will help us find new ways to fix CO2 ... The whole economy will change based on getting off of oil and coal."

Milken asked Venter how to accelerate new cancer treatments and energy breakthroughs. "A lot of science in this country is done is very parochial fashion. It's dependent on government funding — and the government seldom takes risks," Venter explained. "The government is way behind in the energy crisis. It's one of our biggest national security issues, but the funding is a fraction of what goes to simpler fields. The exciting developments are all being driven by venture capitalists now."

Venter noted that it currently costs about $1.5 million to decode a complete human genome today, and the price is coming down. But to achieve real medical breakthroughs, we need much more data. "To scale this, we need at least 10,000 genomes to answer fundamental questions of nature vs. nurture and solve disease," he said. "We need large data sets."

As Milken introduced Yunus, he noted that BusinessWeek called him "one of the greatest entrepreneurs of all time." Yunus, who conceived the notion of microcredit for the poor, started with a $27 loan from his own pocket. He now heads Grameen Bank, which operates in tens of thousands of villages across Bangladesh and in countries around the world.

When asked for the solution to eliminating poverty, Yunus replied, "First we have to believe that it is possible. Experience shows how easily people move out of poverty given the slightest opportunity."

"It is amazing how financial institutions reject such as large number of human beings on this planet, saying they are not creditworthy," he said. "Instead of banking institutions telling people they're not creditworthy, the people should tell the banks whether they are people-worthy."

Yunus recounted how Grameen began giving tiny loans to poor people without demanding collateral or involving lawyers, enabling them to create income-generating activities. "The basic principle of banking is the more you have, the more you can get. We reversed it. The less you have, the higher priority you get." He noted that Grameen has even extended small loans to 100,000 beggars. "Within four years, 11,000 of them have stopped begging completely. They've become successful door-to-door salespersons. The remaining 90,000 ... I would say, they are part-time beggars, in the process of closing down their begging division."

"The entrepreneurial ability in human beings is amazing," he said, noting that Grameen's default rate is below 1 percent. "The poor are like bonsai trees, planted in small confining pots. There's nothing wrong with their seed, but society never allowed them the space to grow tall." He noted that most of the poor in Bangladesh are illiterate, but 100 percent of the children of Grameen families are in school — a trend with the potential to transform Bangladesh in the long term.

Yunus sees information technology offering a host of possibilities to the developing world, from cell phone service in rural villages to solar energy systems that can bring light and entertainment to places that have never had electricity.

Milken noted that the field of finance felt a surge of pride when Yunus won the Nobel Prize for peace rather than economics. "Poverty is a threat to peace, a breeding ground for violence and disorder, which come from a sense of injustice," Yunus explained.

"Capitalism is a wonderful idea and it works so well, but it's not complete. Human beings are multi-dimensional, and the business world cannot capture it. People felt they had to go outside the business world to be charitable or philanthropic. I said no — we can accommodate it in the business world. We can create social businesses to address problems like clean drinking water and health care."

Yunus described an example of this concept: a venture Grameen established with Danone to produce cheap yogurt fortified with micronutrients to reverse malnutrition in the poor children of Bangladesh. Milken summed up the sentiment of many in the room: "You're a living example that doing good is good business."

Milken then turned to introduce Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, noting that in a very short period of time, Google has transformed the way we live, work and interact. He asked Schmidt to describe how he manages a freewheeling company full of minds that think outside the box.

"The company is chaotic by design," Schmidt acknowledged. "Innovation occurs randomly. The important thing is to recognize brilliance when you see it and nurture it to be successful."

"We believe in the power of information and we use it ourselves all the time. We believe in the creativity of small teams. Teams are constantly, constantly coming up with new ideas. We have a set of values, starting 'don't be evil.' That provokes the conversation about where to take new technology. We debate and debate: Is this a good idea? Will people like it?"

Schmidt noted that the rate of change brought about by the Internet is accelerating, not decelerating. "I don't think we really understand the compounding that we're going to see. Ultimately it will be possible to use computers to help us get to real understanding."

He pointed to new opportunities for harnessing computing power to achieve goals such as Venter's project to analyze millions of genomes. Schmidt envisions personalized health records that can be controlled by individuals and carried from provider to provider—and that soon individuals will be able to compare their own genome against others to predict the likelihood of disease.

Schmidt did have a caution for the new information age, however. "We've created devices that are so addictive, we have no time for contemplation — the kind of deep thinking that comes from reading books."

Echoing the hopes of Yunus, Schmidt agreed that the implications of bringing information technology to the developing world are enormous. "The other billion people who have never had access to information will now become part of our world. They'll be able to participate. They'll be able to take advantage of the things that we all saw as we were growing up. And that's a great calling ... The intrinsic creativity of people worldwide when expressed is something we've never seen."