>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> we begin tonight with iran. the wall street reported that president obama wrote a letter.

in it, he stressed the country shared interest in fighting islamic state in iraq in syria. he said cooperation could depend on reaching a nuclear deal. the newspaper comes as the u.n. -- the united states and other world powers is advised to reach a deal by november 24. the letter is the fourth he has written since he took office. a white house spokesman person says the policy towards iran has not changed. joining me now are two reporters who broke the story. j solomon and carol lee. tell me what you are reporting about this and in terms of these letters, is anything different than what we know from earlier letters from the president to the supreme leader? >> what is tricky is that they very much stick to the line days

,no core ordination intelligence sharing, no military cooperation. there is a growing example that both sides are tipping each other off on what they're doing in iraq and syria and certainly not targeting each other as has been the case in the past. we reported a couple of weeks ago the commander of the overseas unit of the revolutionary guard in iraq is basically telling shiites not to target american troops or services operating against isis

in iraq. u.s. officials are very much telling allies and even publicly saying they are not targeting the assad regime with military strikes. the fact that he is targeting the supreme leader in this communication at this critical, historical time shows just how much importance the white house and president obama is placing on getting the supreme leader in some way to play ball. there's a lot of skepticism he will. >> what do you make of it? >> i think this letter has to be seen in the context of things that have happened over the past month to suggest to iran the benefits of some sort of agreement on the nuclear issue , in terms of economic dividends or a path to normalization. this letter seems to just cooperation of some issues that the two sides seem to have common interest in, namely the cooperation against isil. they have rejected the notion that iran should cooperate with the united states

'destabilization of iraq. this channel is that we are not targeting their allies in the two front of iraq and syria. it is official policy of the u.s. that president assad has to go. i'm not quite sure about promising iranians a safe passage or sanctuary for their allies was wise in this context. the other fear that i had and concern is how with iranians and the supreme leader who lives in a world of conspiracies interprets this letter. he may see it as a sign as the u.s. wants a deal very much and that may affect the way he negotiates and approaches the nuclear issue. a lot of things in their that one has to be cautious of. >> carol, how can i ask this in a way where i'm not asking for your sources? how did you get this story?

>> the thing about this issue is that there are number of people who wanted to succeed and a number of people who don't want it to succeed. you can find information from both sides depending on which siegefeels they are under or not. >> you have sources. >> they could upset allies in the region. also some of the folks on skepticalll who are about cutting a deal. >> it depends on reaching a nuclear deal. is that what it says? we're not leaking the two. if you have seen what has happened, it was only the new the agreement. -- >> we won't touch any regional

issues with the iranian side. iraq veryalking with publicly. it was talked about in vienna. new york. the issues are blurring even as the white house keep saying there's not going to be any quid pro quo blurring of these , issues. since isis -- these territorial gains -- they have blurred. it is difficult. our allies, jordan, israel, they are all super worried about a realignment or some sort of rapprochement and how that could undercut that interest. one of the difficult things that the white house has done is they kind of have this closed or hold. they were having secret talks going back to mid-2012. none of our allies knew about it

until late 2013. i think another letter of direct communication between obama and the supreme leader will wally heighten these will heighten these concerns that somehow there will be a deal cut behind their backs and it will hurt their interests -- has heightened these concerns that somehow there will be a deal cut hide their backs and it will hurt their interest. >> tell me how naïve i am. second will the president have sent the letter only because someone in iran encouraged him to send it? >> on the first one, i'm not quite sure if the president would have consulted with the saudi regime, nor do i think that is necessarily the obligation of the president even , though i think the u.s. needs

to do something to rehabilitate the alliances that have been quite battered. in terms of a letter being solicited by the iranians, i don't think so. i suspect this was the american initiative to bring to the supreme leader that notion that a nuclear agreement would open up wide areas of cooperation between the two sides on issues that are seemingly of concern to both of them. given the way this issue has played out, i suspect this was an american initiative. >> carol, can you imagine some grand bargain coming out of this? >> two things about the letter struck me. one is the timing underscores how much of this president wants a deal with iran. it is his top foreign-policy priority. he is staring down his last two years in office. this is something he wants. the second, the fact he sent this letter stems from the fact

that the white house knows if a deal is going to be cut, it totally depends on the supreme leader. that is the person who is calling all the shots. whether they can get some sort of grand bargain, i do not know. i think what the president is signaling is if you do this, all of these other doors could open perhaps into other avenues of cooperation. >> can i say one thing about this assessment? we tend to view the islamic republic as a country of personalities and factions. that is true. in any sort of negotiations or agreements over a new year -- nuclear issue, he does had to consult with critical actors such as his military and security services, revolutionary guards, and atomic energy

organization and the scientific establishments. he is the supreme leader to be sure and he is the consequential actor, but he does have to check with those constituencies before signing off on something. they suggest there are good guys, bad guys, black hats, white hats. the color of truth is fair much in the grade. it is entirely possible that parameters of a deal he will agree to have in conditioned or -- have been conditioned or are being conditioned by a dialogue of a variety of organizations and institutions that constitutes the upper echelon of the islamic republic. >> remind us what they had said about any kind of cooperation with the united states against isil. >> again, it is complicated the -- because of these various factions. the supreme leader has made statements and using that as a tool to divide the region.

psalm have made statements saying we have a shared enemy in some ways. maybe there could be some cooperation in the future if there is an agreement. they have kind of played it both ways. different factions have said different things. what i find interesting is to hear three weeks from a deadline, no one seems to know what is going to happen. when you look at how big the big gaps have been as far as what the u.s. wants and what the iranians say they want as far as nuclear programs, it is vast. the way the white house and the top negotiators in the u.s. are describing the potential break down, you do not feel there is any way at all they could walk away from it. initially they were saying -- a top u.s. negotiator said there will be vast escalation across

the region if this diplomacy doesn't succeed. on the one hand, it is so close to the deadline, it is hard to see how they have this big agreement. on the other hand, it is impossible to see the process breaking apart. >> what is the presence of iranian troops in iraq or is it through surrogates. >> my understanding is there are iranian troops, at least advisors, and increasingly in syria as well. to buttress the bashar al-assad regime. the deployment of iranian forces -- in one case strengthens the -- this is howt complicated the region has become even the fact it doesn't have significant, powerful states anymore where everyone is kind of meddling in everyone's

business. given how disorderly the middle east has become, the art common -- there are common interest between unlikely actors. you could see there is common interest between president obama and bashar al-assad. >> one fascinating thing in iraq is the u.s. intelligence believes the advisors including the commander -- on a lot of these militias established to harass the u.s., they are telling them to stand down right now, not to harass or attack u.s. personnel. shifta pretty interesting given how the ieds and other

equipment were moved into iraq to hurt the u.s. came from these malicious who are now being told to stand down, at least for now. >> i've been told they have been seen both in damascus and in -- - >> >> yeah. >> there are photographs of the guy at the front. it is incredibly complicated. in one theater we seem to be on the same side. the message right now maybe it could change from the u.s. military is they are not targeting assad or training syrian rebel troops to go after assad at this stage. this is the message that will be difficult going forward. as far as maintaining this coalition against isis. saudi arabia, turkey, some of our allies in the fight basically have gone on saying assad must go. part of operation has got to be targeted at that.

if the united states is not doing that, and in a few weeks time there is an agreement with iran as seen as allowing them to maintain a capacity to develop atomic weapons, i don't know how you keep that coalition together. it is frayed a long secretary and lines. along sectarian lines. >> in the united states wanted to share some type of military intelligence, my assumption would be they could find a way to do that. >> i imagine that would go through the iraqis. it might even be direct information -- communication between actors on the ground. i do think i want to focus on the notion that the american alliance at least is probably disorganized and battered right now. that is something that should concern washington. particularly, the president needs to reach out more to the allies for what the direction of american policy is.

where it is likely to go. there is a lot of concern in the region about what is taking place and ultimately the defeat of isil and radical sunni islamic forces is contingent on participation of sunni actors such as saudi arabia, the gulf states, and so on. that is a long-term stabilization of the islamic militants we see in the region. >> thank you. pleasure to have in the program. we'll be right back. stay with us. >> we are joined by two former majority leaders of the senate and minority leaders at one stage. tom--and trent lott. thank you both for joining us. >> glad to be with you. >> you look at the landscape. bitter partisanship, dysfunctional in recent years.

you have some optimism, trent. >> i do. there are some areas that i believe the president working with congress could make progress. they're talking about trade. if you want economic growth we , could do more benefit more from trading with asia countries, also europe. the president will not get that. it's going to take republicans. he will have to lead. the republicans will have to league. that is one. the energy area, we are having an energy boom in this country. are we taking full advantage of it? are there some things we can do to to help move that forward? i'm so optimistic that even on tax policy if you look at where obama is and where republicans are, if each one would make one move that could -- >> you're talking about corporate taxes? >> yes. >> do you think things could get

done? >> i do. people have seen the polarization, the confrontation for so long here they are convinced as you go into presidential cycle with the ted cruz's of the world and those who feel that what they have done in the last couple of years has worked. the stand your ground advocates have said, look at the record. i also think there is a responsibility and opportunity to prove you can manage, prove you can govern. people are looking for some indication that governance is still possible. you have got mitch mcconnell saying a lot of the right things. i think they need to step up to the plate and continue to seize on what could be an opening. we will see in the next few weeks. >> let me ask a question or two about the senate. you have such experience there. tom dashiell, what does it mean to get back to regular order?

why haven't we been there? >> we haven't been there in part because we have used senate rules to protect senators and to try in many ways to message what is the senate is supposed to be about at that moment. regular order means going back to a process where you introduce legislation that goes to committee and have markups. you have debate. you offer amendments. you pass legislation. you go to congress. >> we will know shortly. i think that exist because of a point and made a moment ago. both sides need to prove to the american people before 2016 we can govern, we can manage. that this dysfunction doesn't have to be a permanent state of affairs in washington today. >> i know that mitch is serious about it. he also recognizes that most

things will still take 60 votes. one of the things we need to do is get back to passing an annual or biannual budget. it sets the tone for the rest of the year. the majority leader has to give time on the floor with amendments for appropriations bills. we have been funding the government with the so-called massive content and resolutions. it is a big mass. -- it is a big mess. you do all the funding in one little package. i hope to get away from that. the downside for me is republicans did not run on specific messages or agenda. message was, obama is bad. vote against obama. i don't think that is enough. we saw a surprise election in virginia. mark warner did win. ed gillespie ran a very good campaign on issues. none of us expected it. that is a bit of a problem. i wish they had said we take the majority and here are the three things we will do right away. the other side of it is that i

wish the president had been more magnanimous. to say that i'll regret to hear what the republicans have to say. he needed to be more like the after 1994. he couldn't have been more magnanimous and the tone was right. was it easy? no. we had welfare reform, but he be coded twice before -- he vetoed it twice before it got there. i think both sides need to try to find a way to work together. their personalities are such that obama and o'connell will never be able to talk turkey. i don't know. maybe they could. >> when you when you and i first came to washington, there were senate filibusters. it seemed to serve an important purpose. there was a serious debate. in recent years, everything is filibuster and motion to proceed, everything else. with the change harry reid made,

should it be undone? >> it can be. i hope they will take the nuclear option away. in order for that to have the effect you want, he is going to have to let amendments be offered. he should not be filling up the tree, which means blocking every amendment. the leader of the democrats have got to be prepared not to filibuster everything. although the republicans did. i thought, to their detriment, sometimes. it has been evolutionary. every two years it seems to have gotten worse. they need to find a way to back off of that ledge they are on. >> we wanted to talk in the last few minutes about rules and procedures and regular order. is that the root of the problem or is it culture? is it the permanent campaign? >> i think it is all of the above.

the culture has changed. the city has changed. the environment has changed a -- dramatically. people rarely move their families to washington after an election like this. you people living on their sofas and leaving on thursdays and coming back on tuesdays and trying to govern this incredible country on wednesdays. you have too much money in politics today. over $3.5 billion. a culture that has changed. these groups have poisoned the well to a large extent. you have third-party ads. >> you could have campaign financial reform or election reform here that you can do something about anything. that would be hard to reverse. you do have a constitutional question there. he is right on each point. i did see an article quote that

-- quoting kevin mccarthy. it gave me hope. he has set we will go back to , doing things where we are going to be here in washington for major part of the week. for three weeks. off one weekbe where we can go be with our constituents. by the way, we will sink our calendar with the senate. there needs to be a better coordination to get things done. it is one of the little things. tom is right. my favorite quote is the biggest problem is the airplanes. people jump on an air friend thursday morning and fight up in the first discussion is when can i leave on thursday. >> we had votes on mondays and friday mornings.

>> why don't they do it now? >> a couple of reasons. one, they don't move their families here. their families are back there. also, it is the money chase. a typical senator has to raise about $15,000 a day in order to be competitive. you don't have time. >> a senator like you also proposed the parties each week has a republican caucus lunch and democratic caucus lunch , and you all proposed that there be a lunch or dinner or whatever. does that matter? >> it makes a huge difference. it has to do with relationships and the chemistry between all of the members. every time we had a disaster on our hands and we met as a senate, as a party unbelievable , things happened.

, we would both have our party lunches. both sides would come out with fire in their eyes. we'll take it to them. we said, we will wait for people to move on this ankle down at it. if they have regular lunches and sit and hear the perspectives, it would lower the tension a little bit. we are at the point where parties are important, but america is more important. >> have you suggested this? >> verbally and in writing and with our commission on campaign reform and election reform, it is all in there. >> there are things that are very hard to do. you talked about the constitutional issue on campaign finance. there are easy things to do.

this is one of the easier things to do. this is a very contentious city right now. hopefully this election be the catalyst to bring about the question of how to manage better? if you get to know each other and develop better relationships i know in some cases quiet privately. yet to do with some regularity. the caucus has to be a joint caucus meaning. the has to be a joint meeting with the president on a regular basis. it has to be once a week. not just when there's a crisis. >> we talked a little bit about that. there are members, ted cruz is one of them maybe some new , members or outsiders who say no. how do you deal?

you have seen that contingent in your home state of mississippi. >> yes, we have. first of all, i'm a firm believer in reaching out -- pull them in. talk to them. go to them early and often. i always had a little group that i worried was going to get away from them. i had to keep an eye on them. what did i do? i had a singing senators quartet. >> i used to listen to you. [laughter] >> i worked on olympia all the time. here is what i recommend -- don't assume that ted cruz is going to be a problem. go to him. work within. listen to him. let him have some things he can do. don't start off with the attitude that they will be a problem. maybe they will. that is when real leadership comes in. you have to be prepared to go forward even if you don't have , all members of the caucus.

when i was the majority lever -- leader, i could ease over. the point is not that you're stealing, catcher enlarging the loop here. there will be some disagreements. look i really get agitated when , they start questioning my conservatism. i make the point that i was conservative and a leader before some of them were born in a don't appreciate being questioned on that. [laughter] reform,had welfare balanced budget, safe drinking water, raised military personnel pay, that is not conservative. >> and it was not across the aisle to? >> it was. >> what changes does barack obama have to make? >> i think there needs to be a

more conciliatory mood. there has to be -- we were talking earlier about words and how the president described the election. what is more important is action. i'm hopeful the meeting he will hold this week will lead to a commitment not only on legislation, but on process, on how we start communicating more effectively. it may be hard for some to become more inclusive, to become more engaged, to become more personal. it is essential to good governance. >> do think that will change? >> it could. this is the president's last two years. he could make history on a whole array of issues. some really important contributions to public policy. the only way it will happen, especially as there is a realization that has to be a partnership. figure out a way to work together. figure out a way to find common ground.

i think it is possible. >> wouldn't be helpful in seeking common ground if the president deferred any action until sometime next year on an executive order on immigration? should he defer action? important he is takes into account how can i congress the most that i can. i not sure that is necessary. amhe made a commitment that he was going to do something before the end of the year, and violating that commitment to a large segment of the american people may be a mistake. say that he wants to give a chance to his common ground opportunity that we now have on immigration to do something that actually would be in statute rather than executive order. that would be a more impactful approach. that would be far more meaningful. it is not necessarily an either or. he made the commitment. he needs to keep it.

that could be a first step in a series of things that could be very helpful. >> does mitch mcconnell need to change it, too? >> i think so. >> i think he needs to be more accessible and aggressive. .e called me regularly i did not hesitate to call him. i used to call and talk to president george w. bush at 7:20 in the morning. i could talk to him and tell him things i thought were important but his staff did not want me to tell him. get over the insults. do-it-yourself. one of the points i wanted to make, i do think -- i don't want to get him in trouble -- house republican leadership john boehner and kevin mccarthy, steve scalise, these are good hands. they like to legislate on issue after issue. the president would really

engage them. you could see some good things occur. that broad spectrum of both parties would say this is good. it's not just about the senate. the house is were a lot of stuff begins. would be helpful if the republican stopped voting to repeal obamacare? >> well, i think they will both have to do what they have to do. do what you have got to do. he see how it turns out and move on. they're not going to rip your obamacare. >> they are not going to open you up obamacare? no, he is going to veto it. what i would do is i would quickly have a vote to repeal it and get it over with in the process if i could. but the president veto it. we have done that.

here are some things we can do to two improve. some the democrats are going to do. some the president would be willing to do. republicans have got to try to repeal obamacare. that was a big issue. we'd need that. we believe that. can we accomplish that? no, but we need to show we are series about it. same thing on immigration. i think we need to do immigration reform. we need to secure the order. we need to deal with the people here in a responsible way. we need to do with the visa program. he may need to do that in pieces. if obama overplays his hand with executive order, that would be a red flag. if he is careful in what he proposes is brought an -- broad and overarching, but not into the details and letting everyone stay here regardless forever, he is careful. he did not say, by the way.

even this would go by the wayside as we act. so, he has to do what he has to do. he needs to be careful how we does it. you have got to always lead the -- leave the barn door open at the back we can get an escape hatch. >> do have any optimism about immigration? what other issues could be done this year? >> i think this is almost a must pass. if the had to list the most likely source of common ground, i think it would be immigration , if it is done correctly. i think with the presidential cycle now beginning, there is little doubt that a large percentage of the american people are expecting that congress deal with it, that the administration deals with it. i think they will. it is still possible. we have come close a couple of times. i think there is a real

opportunity here with the transpacific partnership. the authorities necessary to pass legislation in the first place. i think that is the second one. the third one has real potential. might be health care. a lot of things. the extension of the children's health insurance program, that is expiring this year. there are a lot of things and help that could get done went you get beyond the repeal vote. >> there are other areas where they clearly need to act for the good of the country. we have a threat in america. we have not been able to act. last year, we had a group of -- they werenators

all working to get a result, and yet they left it on the table. i think we are at risk. if they have not acted in this area, there is going to be held to pay. ll to pay. >> i quickly mentioned both iran and isis, issues that are pretty -- have pretty broad bipartisan support. >> one of the areas that transportation aviation. those are traditionally not partisan issues. the question is how do you pay for them? we have a problem with sewers and water systems and highways. we need to do something. in that area, i think something will happen because some of the best legislators in congress have those committees. bill shuster in the house. barbara boxer in the senate. i say both of them, because they work together. >> really enjoyed having you. we will be back in a moment. thank you very much.

>> sir andrew witty is here. he is the ceo of glaxosmithkline. the leader in vaccines and respiratory medicines. they are currently working on a vaccine for ebola. they became the major drugmaker first that says it would no longer pay doctors to promote the products. it would also stop compensation of sales representatives for the number of prescriptions doctors wrote. i am pleased to have him here at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. we have a lot of things to cover in the small amount of time. a couple of things of the company. there were issues on fraud. that is all behind you. >> yes. we had to deal with some unfortunate events in the past. we are focused on raising the standards of all of our activities. i believe the company has really been focused on trying to

innovate its activities in the health care space and try to make sure there will be balance and not just the benefits, but also access and making sure more people get access to those new medicines and vaccines. >> talk about the vaccines, the ebola vaccines. >> we have been very busy with ebola. we have had help from nih. we are in the fortunate position to have a potential vaccine available. we finished our animal studies. we are now into the dose ranging phase. we are working with various authorities, including the world health organization, to be in a position where we could have a substantial number of vaccines available for the turn of the new year for potential use in clinical trials in the camps that has been affected by ebola in west africa. >> clinical trials might be taking place when? >> could be as early as january 2015.

>> if in fact they are found to be effective and meet all the requirements, they would do what? >> to important thing to focus on is this crisis is in three or four countries in west africa. everybody is focused on let's make sure we do everything to eliminate the and crisis there. it may be that is the end of the story. if not and it becomes a more significant issue, then as you go through next year, other companies are working on it. they could be in a position to great more volume. we can make more available to other countries if needed at all of that will need to be carefully managed and controlled by the regulators. they will need to be happy before any vaccine is provide to anyone. >> you are not a doctor, but the head of a pharma company. what are the lessons so far from the ebola crisis? >> the ebola crisis, clearly there are challenges in the

infrastructure of these countries. they need more health care workers, and any more infrastructure to get on top of these sorts of issues. often i think people who are vulnerable to malaria, tuberculosis, are especially vulnerable in these situations. it is important we address other fundamental health care needs. the west perspective, i have been around long enough to gone through sars, pandemic influenza, and now ebola. i think we need to think harder on whether the areas a strategic ways to resolve these issues and to be better ready. >> what might be one? like you look at a company gs k, we have a number of technologies or platforms the might be useful in developing vaccines. i think we would be ready to work with major governments to put in place more of a standing readiness.

let's treat this as a bio defense threat. let's put in place more of a standing readiness working with the right agencies and making sure rather than having emergency response in the way that we are all now dealing with it can we do something that is a , bit more ready? we'd do not know what the next threat will be. let's put into place a strategic response. if that is an interesting phrase. we do not know what the next threat is going to be. that is a scary thing. >> it is. we also have a series of technologies of building blocks, if you will. in most cases, we have been able to reassemble in a hurry to put together something that gives us a response. that process is very responsive and time pressured. what we can do is step back and say, let's commit some resources. let's work together. let's put together the mechanism where we are working on those i years, but where we have something partially ready. yes, we don't know exactly what the threat is we could get part , of the way there in anticipation.

we could take some of the pressure out of the system in the crisis. >> do advances in biomedicine give you hope. that these challenges can be met? >> absolutely. a powerful example, malaria. if we would like a decade people , would have laughed at you or me if we said we could develop a vaccine for malaria. this is a parasitic foreign infection. how could you vaccinate against it? now we are here at gsk for a vaccine for malaria. this is back in june of 2014. there is a fair chance it could be approved in the middle of 2015. that is an extraordinary technological achievement delivered through bringing together three or four different ideas of technology coalescing , into one vaccine and collaborating with people like cdc, walter reed institute, and here we are with something that just a short number of years ago, people would have said was impossible.

>> the interesting thing about malaria is that a lot of people have made it target number one. he believed that polio could be eradicated and believes malaria could be eradicated over a longer period of time. do you believe that? >> eradication is a tall order. i think it is the right aspiration to have. let's put this into context. in the duration of your program, your show today, more people will die of malaria than of ebola since it was discovered. this is an extraordinarily heavy burden on the world. if there was one to pick, malaria is the one to pick. >> how many die within the time of this program? more than ebola. how many are under the age of -- >> very high. if you look at children, something like 800,000 babies and infants died a year in africa from malaria. it is really an extraordinary burden.

that is why the vaccine we have been developing is focused on those young babies and infants. we believe that is where we can have the single biggest -- can you imagine the second time in the villages who are appointed by the, it greatly undermines everything to do with our society. every parent is spending all their time looking after dying children. it is the most heartrending thinking to see -- thing to see. it completely dictates what society behaves like. that is why bill gates is right to be ambitious. if we can intervene -- whether it is with a vaccine or other things as well as a vaccine, the potential impact on the individual, it is extraordinary. >> how many big pharma companies are there? >> certainly less than 15. >> is there different focus on each of them or are seven or eight of them focused on malaria

vaccine? >> really weird the primary focus point on malaria vaccines. some are focused on medicine. if you look across the board, probably 10 companies that are active in some form or another on some disease. maybe one of the unusual diseases in the west is very uncommon in west africa and other poor countries. we pull together with bill gates help. about three years ago, declaration in london where we got 10 of the biggest drug companies to come together and commit to work together to limit or in some cases work towards the eradication whole series of these neglected tropical diseases. the industry so far has delivered everything and promised it would do and we are on track. >> what else ought to be on the horizon in terms of vaccines delivering enormous potential? ebola? malaria?

human papilloma virus. you have to remember that vaccines are one of the most the preventions in health care. you get a lifetime of protection. it is one of the most cost effective mechanisms to go or -- ford. >> biggest barrier to developing drugs? >> that is a big question. it is a difficult job. somebody once said to me that putting a man on the moon was simple compared to discovering a drug. that is not far from the truth. -- you are thinking about a biological system interacting with the chemical you cannot see what is going on. , it takes a long time to understand the biology and had to figure how to interact with that biology through some kind of mechanism.

you need to find exquisite targets where you just generate the good news without generating side effects. that is why these programs take 25 years. the programs i have commissioned at gsk as ceo, in many cases won't deliver for 15 or 20 years. you need exquisite creativity in your scientists. great connectivity with academia. nih is a great example. one of the great institutions in the world who really helped open the book on biology for people. you need those creative scientists who have that inspiration. when you meet one of these people it is a most like a , eureka moment. you see their ability to spot the pattern. and their ability to develop a drug on the back of that. it is an extraordinary mix of human individual creativity backed up with industrial scale development capability. what you and i need to be happy

with is not this it is a good idea also it is a safe that includes industrial scale. how you put together the creativity with industrial machine is really interesting. >> couple of things before we go. hiv virus, where do we stand? >> at gsk we have been a leader in hiv research. we have seen that disease transform in terms of choices, a major disease and cause of concern for individuals and families affected by it. we have recently introduced a new madison. what we call a super long-acting hiv drug where it may be possible for us to treat people with a dose either once a month or even once a quarter by taking -- instead of people having to take tablets every day. we're now moving into a new era

of hiv treatment. we have been the beneficiaries for the last 10 or 15 years of the number of drugs that has helped control the virus. we're moving into an era where we could do that in a simple way. as i mentioned in the introduction, the idea of having doctors promote your products on how many prescriptions they have sold or are selling, why did you do that? was it some sense this raises questions about our own credibility? chris i think ultimately we want to be and need to be seen for what we are. people who are working hard every single day. >> to be transparent. >> to be transparent. working every single day to develop great new medicines and vaccines. what we don't want is people being suspicious or in into way getting a sense that there's a conflict of interest. all of the ways that we work, perfectly legal and allowed.

the whole industry has done it for many years. we took the view that we shouldn't just innovate in the lab. we should innovate in the market place as well. it is absolutely right we look for ways in which we can eliminate any doubt in everybody's mind about our motivations, and any doubt about our relationship with key customers in the form of physicians. i believe there are alternative ways in which we could be just as effective without having had that risk of conflict of interest. that is why we made the changes. those changes have been berry successful so far. i feel confident that what we have done is the right thing. i think the people who work at gs k r berry proud that we are innovating in that sense. >> thank you for coming. pleasure to have you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

.

>> here's johnny. >> from the moment he stepped on stage to the day he said goodbye -- the king of late night was johnny carson.