captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: new york city mayor michael bloomberg announced today he's giving $100 million to the global polio eradication initiative. he joins forces with michael -- and chairman bill gates who leads the world's largest fin thrawpic organization with his wife lynn de. to battle polio has been in the melinda and bill gates foundation. more than one and-a-half bill

dollars on the cause. the on war a polio is at a critical juncture. in 1998 it affected countries affecting children each year. afghanistan, nigeria and act stan are currently the only three countries where the disease is endemic. the number of case fell to a new low of 233 last year. the goal is to wipe out the disease once and for all by 2018, five years from now. i'm pleased to have mayor bloomberg and bill gates back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: so what led you to him? there had been a history. >> right. starting actually with education, we've had a chance to work together on things. and that was a fantastic partnership. still lots to be done there. and then i think tobacco is the next big thing we did together, where mike had gotten out in front of that. was doing wonderful work. >> rose: and you supported him in that effort. >> that's right.

actually some of the money flowed through his foundation and he had a strategy that we're able to enhanced, particularly in china which is terrible and trying to get africa notto get to the the high numbers. and so this final plan six year plan to finish polio was coming together. i had a chance on a couple occasions to talk to mike, and was interested and eventually i asked him to partner. very amazing, within a few hours of my sending out the mail, he sent back mail saying we're in. >> rose: you're that fast. >> not complicated stuff. i know he was working on it, i knew the gates people know what they're doing. and i was honored that he asked. >> rose: that simple. >> you don't have to make things complex. it feels right or doesn't feel right. >> rose: you brought in the idea of e rad indicating polio is a very important objective a

lots of places to put your money. >> charlie we're old enough to remember life magazine cover of this enormous room with people with iron lungs. i'll never forget that, had to be in the 50's. polio used to be, friends, you and i both have friends who walk with crutches, they had severe cases with polio. there's another version of polio you get it and you don't have severe effects. this friend of mine is a cardinal who had polio. and you talk to him, you would not know. look very carefully he walks a little bit carefully. but then i have friends who walk with crutches and have a tough time. if we could get rid of polio, you'd save an awful lot of lives. it's one of those diseases like smallpox. you literally could in theory eradicate it. >> rose: the "wall street journal" had an editorial by both of you. it asked a question and you've acknowledged in in the piece you

wrote. why polio when there are so many causes you could put vast sums of money. >> with little money you could have so much positive impact. polio's worth prioritizing because you get to zero, then you save forever all the costs of vaccinating kids. and you make sure no kid ever gets paralyzed again. in fact, success here will really energy gize the whole endeavor. we'll pick ambitious goals, once we get this done. it's very everybody's coming together, bringing some innovation, realizing what we haven't done right in these three countries. dealing with the violence that's a real problem. it's pretty exciting, and you know it's the thing i made my top priority. >> rose: you mentioned the six or five year plan learning from old lessons and therefore coming up with new approaches. what are the new approaches?

>> well, we're able to use new technology, like satellite photos to see are there people moving around, nomadic roots. we see it when we go out to get all the children if there's some settlement areas that we actually missed. we also put a -- in the vaccine box they carry around that looks where they're located every three minutes and so it has that gps data at the end of the day you plug that in and compare it to where they were asked to go. and you can see if you're really covering all the kids. >> rose: also you pointed out to me and apparently at time it's important to have a long range plan, it's important to have an end point, a goal where you get the job done. as in so many past cases the goal kept being moved and you couldn't quite accomplish it because you didn't have enough resources or some other. >> that's right. the polio campaign by the year 2000 had gotten the cases down

by 95%. and everybody involved including ourselves is a bit naive thinking okay just three or four more years of the same. then they got well just one more year.lllearly, the last case going to be tough enough, going to require stepping back, getting the six year funding, using new tactics. that's what this plan represents is actually saying okay, it is these three countries, there's a lot of thing that make them tough. let's put enough in the plan that we'll really get it right. >> sports analogy, you're inside the red zone. the defense is much tougher. you're inside the red son here and going the last mile is much harder. as bill points out, if you can eradicate it you save forever. you don't come back to visit it. my foundation working on smoking and obesity and traffic accidents and maternal health which we've done with melinda, no matter how much you do you always have to come back. there will always be a chance for resurgence.

hopefully it wouldn't happen but it comes and says it will. you got to keep reminding people what will improve their lives or what things denigrate their lives or degenerate. >> rose: what's interesting is both of you coming to philanthropy. when the foundation was created have been drawn to global health or to health issues. what is it about health? >> well it just seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to prevent things rather than rush to cure them afterwards. the school of public health at johns hopkins has a slogan savings lives millions at a time. you can do that with a relatively small investment. sounds like big numbers, $5 billion for polio. just think about what the cost would be to society down the road. it's enormous leverage in doing things prophylactically rather than waiting until afterwards and trying to clean up. >> rose: why do you think this could be a model? >> i think if people can see the

kind of tough minded business thinking that really makes sure that it's minimal amount of resources but enough to get the thing done. if they see that whether it's foreign aid or their own giving dollars, they see that it has this kind of impact. they feel good about it. they want to get involved. the cynicism sometimes these things aren't run well, people don't like that. this is one where every effort's being put in to make it a model. i do think it will be not only a benefit to eradicate this disease and build a lot of systems in these countries that will help with other things. but that it will draw people to it. people with ideas, people with influence. >> also the leverage, you can do this from the private sector and show how to do it then make the public sector where the money is much greater, are they will follow. they will put in practices and measurements and goals and

evaluations that you need to make some progress. the united nations does some things. the world banks does some things. there are countries, and america does a lot of things. philanthropy is able to tackle problems the government is unwilling to or can't get to and approaches it in novel ways. in the private sector you can innovate and in the must be sector you have to use the tried and true because you're using public moneys. >> rose: are you applying what you learned in business and government to the running of a foundation. >> you learn you have to have accountability. you learn they need recognition and attract them. if you delegate to people they'll do wonderful things or at least a handful will. and you wouldn't if you didn't. it's no different than running a company. it's the same values you have in your family with your children. in many senses of saying let's go and do something and discussing what objectives would

change the world, would help, would make you feel good. i assume bill when he turns out the light at night looks in the mirror at the last second got to have a smile on his face. you think about what he and his wife have done over the years, not just with their money but being an example to others in leading. one of the programs we have is working a maternal health in tanzania, training high school graduates with no medical -- >> rose: this is bloomberg plan. >> bloomberg is doing this but it's the under the bill and melinda gates. people are learning cesareans. if you are in tanzania and you need a cesarean, you die. you got to be able to do better than that. in fact with the tanzanian

government, because of the melinda calling, that's why it came to our attention and that's why we're doing it and she deserves a lot of credit for this. >> rose: you're the first to give her that credit. >> absolutely. a tough night -- >> rose: how is it the two of you working together. is it different you now have almost full time there at the foundation. >> it's nice to have a partner. microsoft steve balmer and i we grew as partners. for the foundation, melinda's playing that role. she's got things she gets out in front of and gets a little advice from a me. and likewise some of the science things i like to get out in front on. and it's great that you have partners like mike where you can go out and talk through these things. you know, we see different things. we get to travel to africa at different times and come back and turn notes about these things. >> rose: the purpose of the

travel is what other than get an observational viewpoint on how things are going. does it do something for you to see the people who are living with disease. or the people who you might benefit. if these programs work. >> absolutely. the hands-on heart wrenching site of the people you're not helping out yet. in the case of polio, i held a girl, three years old who was one of the last children in india to get polio. and her legs are paralyzed. she doesn't realize what a huge burden that's going to be, particularly in that kind of society, to not be able to walk. and so it really reminds you that these statistics are a measurement of human laws just like ourselves. >> rose: you wrote your

letter to stockholders and letter to people this year is about measurement. you suggest that measurement is essential now because we're in tight budget circumstances and people who might want to be invested in what you're doing need to know how the results will be achieved and as mike said accountability. >> measurement is one of those things that's common sense in a business world in a well run government it's pretty key. i think mike set a good example here in new york city. well, okay. [laughter] >> we had a close encounter example. >> if you can't measure it you can't fix it. >> rose: exactly. >> one of the problems particularly in government when you don't measure things is you keep doing the same thing again and again and again even if it's not working. and if you repeat something that's not working again and again, it's not going to start working. you're just wasting your money. and you only have a finite

amount of money so think of the good things you could be doing if something that's working and move your resources. one of the resources in government compared to the private sector in private sector you move your moneys from profit lines that don't work to profit lines that do work. in government you tend to move your moneys from programs that do work to programs that aren't working because the people that deliver the services are worried about their jobs and they put a lot of pressure. and we continue to do things that don't make any sense and always reminded of the pete seger song knee deep in the muddy, push on. we do that just too many times. we did in the private sector as well the government isn't the only one that does it. >> rose: this is a $5.5 billion initiative. how much government, how much private, how much ngo. >> it will be about 50% philanthropic and -- from the

very beginning. and they are fund raising is very helpful. their voice, their involvement is very important. we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are without rotary's key partnership. >> rose: the three countries that are now that continues to have polio at nigeria, afghanistan, pakistan. their government's on board? >> yes. and the leaders of all three of those countries were here in new york city october talking about their commitment. i'm on the phone with them on a pretty regular basis. they need to hear measurements. they can hear okay, what parts, what districts are doing well, what districts are not doing well. maybe make some changes in the tactics or the people, the budgeting. so the measurement system help takes that political commitment and turn it into improved execution on the ground. >> rose: when do you know you've eradicated polio in a certain country? >> what happens is that you're always, are you have a

surveillance system that reports kid who show this characteristic paralysis. and then you take the stool sample and within ten days of that, you get back was that caused by polio. and so you're looking everywhere. it's not as easy as smallpox which had a characteristic rash. once you get the stool samples then have you a case. that's unfortunate, you map that case, look at the genetics. eventually that gets to zero. india had its last case over two years ago. and every day we feel good that they've extended that record. because it can come back, it hasn't but it could if we're not vigilant, come back into the countries that we've cleared. >> the trouble is if you get down to instead of a million cases you get down to one and you don't get that case, you can start seeing that case, it's a

contagious disease so you can be right back to a million if you're not careful. one of the thing is we've done a lot of research on a foundation that's been supporting on what people die of. you think in our society of course you look at the death certificate. well if you look at the death certificates in these countries death unknown. you don't know whether or not there are cases of polio or guinea worm or whatever the case may be. so the better the numbers are, the better you can focus your attention and know whether or not you want to, you have to keep working on giving out vaccines there or go some place else. >> rose: india now is kind of a model case is it not. you look at them and say how did they do it and maybe that's a guide. >> not only the tactics that worked there but actually a lot of the people are involved that man who ran that campaign is now in charge of the global campaign. actually an employee of the center for disease control, another key partner in this whole thing.

>> rose: there's also a recent worry that the virus may have been able to slip into egypt. can you tell me more about that. >> one of the new tools is actually go and look in the sugen system. and you can filter it and see if there's polio virus in there. in fact a virus was detected in the cairo sugen -- sewage and the genetics came out of pakistan. we want to make sure in cairo we don't have reinfection in egypt. that would be easy to clean up if it happened but it's a good example of the risk we run we have to just keep giving this vaccine to everyone until we get to zero. >> rose: what's interesting about what you have done, you started with tobacco. i remember the skepticism and cynicism when you started that. how do you decide.

if it's right, you go ahead? what's the mechanism for saying okay i'll tackle this. >> we set out as a goal to go after things nobody else is going after. there's a lot of money for aids a lot of people are working with aids and lot of funding sources. no one was working on tobacco or traffic accidents. the next thing is obesity. obesity will kill more people in new york city this year. >> rose: because of related diseases from obesity, diabetes. >> yes. in 2012 for the first time in the history of humanity more people died from overreaching from too much food than too little food. even in india where you still have starvation they have a diabetes rate off the charts. those getting food are obese. it is a problem on those starting up the economic ladder that maybe don't have a great education, understand why watching your weight is good for

your health. you don't have access to a balanced meal or don't have time to exercise or whatever it takes. but this is a problem that it's particularly true. it's the first disease, charlie, in the history of the world we think went from being a rich person's disease to a poor person's disease. if you remember those pictures of the big bangers back in the roaring 20's, that was a sign of success. today those guys are doing pilates and have personal trainers and it's the poor who have the big stomachs. >> rose: because they're not eating well. global warming is a passion you two share. you must talk about that too. where do we need to go today? and do you believe we have the will to go there? >> our current track record on will is very poor. we need innovation, and so i'd say if we had a carbon tax, that

would be a price signal for innovation. and if we would increase our basic research budget and get other countries. in fact, i'm stunned that that hasn't happened because we've spent so much on sort of subsidizing some appointment we should prioritize the research much higher than we have. >> we need big things to grab the public's intention. hurricane sandy, all of a send oh my goodness the climate change is here. i don't know in it is or isn't and hurricane sandy isn't enough to prove it. the ocean is warmer, we have strange patterns in this country. 50% of the country is in draw the. there are snowstorms where there weren't before. there is more talk today than ever before of climate change being well a lot of the people said well that's a democratic plot or whatever, a commie plot. all of a sudden well maybe there's some substances to it. they certainly aren't out there

decrying it and poo-pooing it that way we were. >> rose: what do you think will happen with gun control. >> there are three things they can do. closing the loophole where 40% of the guns sold don't have background checks. the law says you can't sell guns to minors people with criminal records, psychiatric problems or drug abuse problems. 99% of the gun dealers follow the rules. but 40% of the guns are now sold outside of the gun dealer's world. they're sold at gun shows and over the internet which didn't exist when the laws were written. if you can just extend the background checks to that, you will make a very big difference. also you see all these military guys going to congress and saying look, these assault weapons, these are things that belong in the battlefield in the hands of trained soldiers. they don't belong on the streets. and police chiefs say the same thing. there's the whole trafficking thing of whether or not it is a

crime. >> rose: do you think on the question of gun shows and getting the kind of background checks, do you think you will be able to achieve that least that. because the nra has already come out against that. >> you know, i hope so. we've got to do something this year that will be 12,000 people killed in america with illegal handguns. there will be 19,000 people who commit suicide with illegal handguns. and there will be about 400 people killed with assault weapons and big magazines and automatic weapons, semi automatic weapons. it's fascinating, if you look, new york city has a suicide rate half the national average. but the reason is new york city has a suicide rate with guns a tenth of the national average. that brings the whole thing down and the reason is it's very hard to get a gun. in new york city we have a very aggressive go after the kids carrying guns get them out of their hands. make sure they understand if they get caught with a gun they're going to get arrested. in fairness our state has

reasonably great gun laws. when people say you can't make a difference. just think about if you could rules the number of suicides. and there's no like the nra talks about a good guy going after a bad guy with guns. there's no bad guy in a suicide. there's a tragedy a family who lost the loved one, a life that's snuffed out. you can make a difference here. >> rose: sometimes i've heard police chiefs say that hand guns are bigger problem, that the ak47-'s of the dramatic instance where they do something obscene and awful. >> the day when there were 26 people killed with automatic weapons or semi automatic weapon in connecticut, they were on average 33 murders and 45 suicides with handguns throughout this country. but because they are spread out they don't make any press. nobody cares. but incidentally they are percapita the same in urban

areas and rural areas and suburban areas. they have the same north, south, east, west. this is a nation-wide problem. that's why when you survey nra members, 80-90% are in favor of things like the background check. they just say why should we give guns to criminals. i don't want to get killed. >> rose: do you think the head of the leadership of the nra listens to its membership. >> i don't care whether the head of the nra listens to its membership. i care whether congress listens to the public. and that's what i'm trying to make sure happens. i don't think incidentally the nra listens to its members because the polls say something different than they do. but that's not, it's a private organization, that's their right. it is congress' just got to understand that the public wants to be safe. and the public wants their children to live long happy lives and the ways to do that is to get control. don't take away the second amendment, you have a right to a gun. you can use it for sport, you can use it for protection, whatever you want to do.

but our federal laws that really would limit the damage and those laws are not being enforced. they don't apply now to 40% of the sales and the federal government has, congress has been unwilling to fund these enforcement of those laws. in fact, congress literally passed laws that said i think it's cdc, cannot follow guns and see whether gun deaths are important. there's stopping science they're so scared of those things. >> rose: now we have a question of sequestering. most people believe it's going to happen. what are the implications of that? >> well i think it's unfortunate that you're cutting the discretionary budget. they committed themselves to some very tough caps which would be the lowest percentages ever. and that's essentially the

budget that comes to future medical research and foreign aid. well the future of other countries. but our health, our education, research is in that piece whereas the other pieces, the entitlement pieces really where the big problem is. so the unwillingness to solve the entitlement piece by both parties has got to be a disappointment. and you certainly wouldn't call sort of last minute across the board cuts, a reasonable way to spend government money efficiently. keep in the sequestering was started by the president and the republicans and the democrats in congress all of them thought it was a great idea to make something that was so terrible, you couldn't do it without ever thinking about what happened if you actually did it. >> rose: defense spending for the republicans and other --

continue your thought. therefore created by the president and the republicans -- >> they all did it, let's get serious here and they've got to all get together to solve the problem. you have as bill pointed out the entitlements are social security, medicare and medicaid and a handful of programs are so big they just are going to take over the whole budget. the defense budget for health and welfare benefits for retired military is going to be 50% of health benefits. 50% of the defense budget's going to be for that. i don't know what to do about it. you can't walk away. these are people who put their lives on the line. >> rose: did you recommend to him to lay out what entitlements you will cut and see if that brings the republicans around on hef new. he ought to take the initiative. >> it is the job of the chief executive the president of the united states to do exactly that. there's nothing wrong incidentally with the republicans also coming up and laying out specifically what they would do. >> rose: on the revenue side. >> or on the expense side. they're just as afraid of standing pop and taking the

lead. we don't want to take away anything from anybody. you see what happens. this brew ha ha closing the post office on saturdays. pennys cost a dime or something. this is craziness. but there are so many people working in the penny or nickel business. i think yes it is the president's job to specifically say this is what we should do and then try to build a consensus. he would say i've done that, i think he could do it more specifically. but on the other hand i don't t the republicans off. they could do it if they don't think the president isn't doing it. >> rose: shoot the president go ahead. >> i think there's discussion of what has the lease positive impact should begin and get beyond the more government less government and really go through foreign subsidies. >> rose: on the entitlement side where the president has to

go and lay it out rather than discretionary income which you know is much smaller part of the problem. >> entitlements are where the big money is. and particularly in the healthcare piece. and i don't think either party has really talked about what they're going to do to reduce costs. they've talked a little bit about shall we just make the citizen pay versus the government pay. but that's zero sum. the idea of how you increase efficiency of what is a pretty poorly run system, that hasn't gotten much debated on. >> they are making it more difficult to give moneys to charitable donations to universities, hospitals, those kinds of things. at the same time federal government's defunding universities and medical programs. they're trying to shift costs on to doctors because they are unwilling to let, cut services. and certainly unwilling to say the public's got to pay. and so you're going to have

fewer doctors when we're trying to get more people covered by health care. who is going to treat them. the government doesn't stop to think about that. everything is a political decision. or at least it seems that way to an outsider. is a nice way to phrase it. >> rose: you thought about being. no, you have. what would you do -- chose not to. but what would you do if you were president today. >> i think the president has to stand up and say i've got a plan. this with medicare, this with medicaid, this with social security, this with the healthcare. i think the mistake that was made here is we let congress write the healthcare bill so that it's just a collection of special interests. you got yours, he got his and i voted for both of those because i got mine and it doesn't make any sense. nobody's ever read the bill. it's just not going to work. the same thing is true with dodd-frank. congress shouldn't be writing specific laws.

the president should send to congress a specific law that was created by people, experts in the field. and then sell it to them. they may have to tinker a little bit here and there to get some votes but fundamentally the leadership has to come from 1600 pennsylvania avenue and not the other way around. >> rose: do you agree with that? >> the mechanics of how you get a bill written properly, i think yes the executive branch probably has to take more of a role. you know, we're not really hearing what 9 -- the way forward health costs and some day the political leader of the u.s. -- >> rose: do you have a way for it. >> there are a society people that the president could call together would have a different expertise that would help on this medical healthcare thing. if i was one of the people picked for that, it's a problem i've studied because i think it's so key to the country, you

bet. >> rose: would you serve if asked. >> sure. the first thing i would recommend is copay and more copay because that make the recipient of the service have some skin in the game and not go for things that aren't important. and also raise the age where these programs kick in because life expectancy has gone up dramatically from when the programs were created. and our pension system can't possibly support these people. none of this stuff works if you really think about it. people living into their 80's. they used to live into their 60's. when social security was started there were 33 people who worked for every single recipient. today it's three or two for everyone. pretty soon you have to double -- half your salary's going to go to support somebody else. >> rose: you get much more pay back than you put in. >> the people in the beginning yes because of those nice ratios. they got the leverage. >> but when they say the social

security trust fund. there is no trust fund. they throw the money in into a pile like everything else and they spend it on their favorite programs. that's true. the bottom line is are we going to provide services and then the current, it's got to come out of current revenue because we haven't remotely put aside enough money to fund it. >> rose: just this question. on next monday, joe scar borough and paul krugman from the "new york times" will come here and debate the idea how severe the debt issue is to our future. while i have the two of you here. the debt that we have to deal with, and how it affects our gdp. what are your thoughts. >> well it's certainly an issue but it isn't the same as your family's budget. when people say you can't keep spending money you don't have, that's certainly true for a family. it is probably true for most countries. it's way down the road for america. america does have the only

reserve currency. and we could, may not be intelligent but we could kick the can down the road for a lot longer. i'm not convinced spending and stimulating is the only way to get it done. i always thought business needs specificity. if they knew what the tax law was going to be or the regulations was going to be they would go and create businesses you would go and buy a new house, he would go and take a vacation. we all stimulate the economy. and the uncertainty is one of the real problems. but it's also true that down the road the deficit is going to kill us. now that doesn't mean you have to balance the budget today. we're not a small country. we are something different. but it's also not the same as your household. >> one of the ironies is people are willing to take our debt up to a higher level of gdp than most countries because we've been so well run. we have been responsible. and so as they see more and more dysfunction, their threshold for how they think we're going to

handle this debt might change. so it's not a near term or even a midterm problem. and as krugman would say, you don't want to cut government spending too drastically. but if you want to fix medical care costs, a lot of the solutions that will be created will only kick in over a ten year period. so it's not too soon. >> the aarp was complaining somebody proposed raising an age in 2050 and they said their members are going to get hurt. how many members -- which i am a member. i hope to be around in 2050 and find out. >> it's not going to happen. >> the other thing about focusing on the deficit, it does have another benefit though that is to me more important and that is to focus on what works and what doesn't rather than just willie nilly keep doing this. we could do a lot better with the money. >> rose: there's a measurement factor. >> isn't there an enormous amount of waste and corruption. there are misdirections of these

funds. and the discipline of having to justify things or explaining why you need it or actually doing more with less is a very healthy discipline. there's where the government's the same as your family. >> rose: the military hardware is one. >> sure. >> rose: i want to come back to global health. polio is one thing. what are the other places that demand the same kind of focus that you are putting on polio. is it malaria, is it tb, hiv or something else. >> certainly those are the big diseases. and we're not ready, we don't have the tools to do eradication. we have tools where we should be able to bring the death rates on all of those down pretty dramatically. if you had to pick one thing you'd still pick vaccination in general. getting a higher percentage of the kids all of these vaccines. that could save an immense number of lives. but the research on -- >> rose: vaccines work. >> vascular means are amazing.

you don't have a vaccine for malaria. we understand the science a lot better. people at johns hopkins are doing amazing work on that. hiv, we understand the science better but it's still could be a decade or more before we have the vaccine. so we need to keep the steady progress there. >> rose: the other thing that's interesting about this i notice from a lecture you gave in oxford, is the notion that disease and global health issues affect your entire life. >> right. that's the thing that is so amazing is even the kids who survived almost half of them in africa had been damaged because of malnutrition or cerebral malaria so this brains don't develop fully. so their ability to contribute is greatly reduced. and that's a tragedy for them and it's part of the reason that those economies have had a more difficult time becoming self sufficient. so they fix health the capacity goes up, productivity.

and the population growth families choose to have less kids. so that's a pretty strong multiplier that eventually means they'll be able to take care of themselves. >> there are other diseases which you can argue god gave us. and then there is behavior, human behavior that is self destructive. a billion people will die on the 21st century from smoking. a billion people. >> rose: a billion people in the 21st century. >> yes. in china, russia, bangladesh, indonesia and india is where half the smoking. and chile just announced today going smoke free. we've got almost every country in latin america now all of western europe is smoke free. in the united states people said people won't stop smoking. then they said they'll still smoke outside the building. you don't see people outside buildings anymore having a cigarette. the consumption of tobacco has

really gone down. we're working with the russian government and the chinese governments where they own the factories. china is a different. they look at their air breathing it saying they got to do something bit. the economy at all costs. no, you can develop it but you have to worry about the environment. same thing with the river and smoking and those things. if you can explain to people why certain behaviors are not in their interest, explain to people why they should educate their kids. that's another public health thing. kids that don't veg case in this day and age doesn't have a future. and what a waste. >> rose: and if you don't have a government that appreciates the necessity to invest in the future and invest in science you won't come up with the kind of vaccines. >> governments do what the public asks them to do rather than tell the public what's in their interest. >> rose: is that a question

of leadership, explanation. >> it's the job of the government to do the research, they can afford the science, they can afford the consultants and read the literature. and then tell the public what is in their interest and then convince the public to go along. the smoking is a good example. there was nobody that was in favor of cutting smoking in bars and restaurants. today nobody would smoke in a bar or restaurant. are you kidding me. people now today they wouldn't work in a restaurant if as a waitress or a bartender or chef if there was smoke. so you can change people's use but it has to come from leadership. the public's not going to do that on their own. >> rose: you've had real cases of violence in places especially in nigeria. is that going to be a problem for you? >> it's a huge challenge. >> rose: it's a question of culture, it's a question of perceptions. >> if we didn't have the security challenges in these three countries. we wouldn't be saying we need six years to get this done. and -- >> rose: meaning that there are people who want to stop you. >> that's right.

and bad rumors are spread about this vaccine isn't good for kids. in nigeria we need the religious leaders come in and talk to the family if they refuse to take it. bad rumors about vac vaccines s not good. we're bringing muslim leaders -- >> you have that in america. people think fluoride -- >> the rumor is always more powerful than the truth on these things because it gets out there. and responsible voices have to do a very creative job communicating. and that kind of social outreach is part of what we're funding in these campaigns. >> rose: you can make a case also that it's the press that encourages some of this

disruption and sensation. >> rose: sensationalism. >> yes it sells newspapers or sells interest in minutes the way i describe it. you can have 999 nobel prize winning doctors saying smoking is bad for you and one witch doctor that says it's good and you see the headline in the paper doc says smoke and in the 87th paragraph -- >> rose: is that also true about global warming. >> less so i think but there are certainly parts of the country and parts of the world where the press is sensationalizes. i'm not just here to knock the press but i think responsible journalism has to put things in perspective and understand what they're writing rather than just taking some quotes to fill stories. and partially i think that the economics of the news business has taken away some of the older more experienced reporters and editors. and so you do get more sensations. >> rose: and the process too. what's the motion exciting technology for you. >> to me it's the biotech world

that's really changing things. when it come to the social media, creating enormous businesses and companies with a billion customers after three days in business and all that sort of stuff. and it's really a challenge for government when there's an instant poll on everything and everybody thinks that there's a thousand people here and you can create a crowd in times square. you can get a quarter million of people there in five minutes if you twitter the right thing. but the real advantages long term are things like new vaccines and new understanding of how human behavior is and constitutes itself and how to distribute things. >> rose: if you could do it over -- would you go today into the life sciences. >> well, i was very lucky that there was a ground floor opportunity in something than a hobby of mine since i was 13.

so i have no regrets. i think somebody who as a break through idea it would more likely be in biology than anything else. there are deep complex things that it takes a young person's mind to look at in a fresh way. i do think the digital revolution though still has a lot to give whether it's just sort of the horizontal level people like microsoft and its competitors but take education. in the next decade with lots of he had -- dead ends, the way people can personalized training, get more engaging how it's combined with the classroom. this is a pretty exciting decade as far as technology finally actually helping out education. >> the biggest complaint i had today was i couldn't download a whole movie in 37 seconds. it took 38. you forget, you know. we've gotten so used to.

in africa 50% of the people have cell phones. it's fascinating. technology really is amazing and it's changing things. you have a tool for education. whether or not we use the too many intelligently, i don't know. i had big discussions at dinner the other night with the president of johns hopkins and we talk about whether or not you want these mass moocs. >> mooc. >> what if that's the same thing as getting an education. in fact some of the studies have shown i think in community colleges that if the kids take a lot of the courses on-line, there's the results are not great. and the editorial, bloomberg wrote an editorial about the discipline needed when you go to school and somebody forces you to come and read the book and take a test and that sort of

thing. most people don't have the discipline at home that bill gates has. and bill, he's always been my hero. he goes and reads everything. i just call him up and say what do i do. it's very easy. i've delegated everything to him. polio, okay. >> rose: bill will be the reader. >> he does more than read, he understands. that's one of those things. [laughter] but the technology is great. but how you use it, you know, kids now they, the parent says oh look my kid did this great report it's got links and video and everything. yes but the kid doesn't know what it's about. you know, whereas you used to go in the librarian helped you through the dewey decimal system and the teacher asks you why did you write this and what does it mean, the context and that sort

of thing. some of that is i don't think automatable in the foreseeable feature. we need teachers. >> rose: you have both made huge amounts of money. top richest people in the world. why did you give it away. why did you make a decision i want to create a foundation and give most of the money i've made to a foundation. >> well i have kids, i have friends. i want their lives to be better. i want my life to be longer and better. the satisfaction you get out of helping others is something that is much greater than anything i think you could do in buying stuff. you know, you can only sleep in one bed at a time so having lots of houses is nice, i guess. so what. you eat too much food. it's not healthy for you. on the other hand, the more diseases you cure, the better you feel.

and i think bill and i and others and their a lot of others, a lot more than you know, a lot of people do things privately have a unique opportunity and they recognize that when you look, you talk to them they take enormous pride. bill has put together this giving pledge. it's a great idea. to me the best thing about it is it just reminds people that there's some people that are very fill philanthropic. you don't have to give -- the giving pledge take somebody who dedicated their lives to defending this country or educating our kids or keeping the streets safe or clean or whatever. in many senses they're doing exactly the same thing that bill and i do. >> rose: why did you decide if i know you were always going to do what you said and decided

to do it early. in the end, was there a person or an idea that led you to do what you're doing today. >> it's a fund as building a business was. >> rose: as easy or as hard. >> equal. you want it to be hard. you don't want it to be easy. you want to have a chance of failure. gosh i promised mike about polio, we need to get to work. i'm taking money from warren buffett, i don't like letting him down. it's got that deep engagement complexity. the fact that it helps those most in need, whether students in america or people kids growing up in africa, that gives it a special meaning. but philanthropy has this diversity. i'm thrilled that mike's going

to get more time for his diversity for his philanthropy and it will be interesting to see what new things he picks. >> 307 days. >> rose: so that brings me to this. a lot of his friends including me are trying to figure out what he should do next. do you have anything you would like to suggest for him. >> i think he's had an incredible impact as mayor of new york. being willing to take on things like smoking that were not popular, how do you get after this obesity thing. i'm totally with him on that. and we need voices that look at the long term problems we get. most of the things we talked about here are cases of doing something now to avoid a problem later. climate change, obesity. and the natural course of society will often not see those problems and do the right thing. so having somebody whose got a

business background, some resources, willing to put his reputation behind it who speaks out about hey let's, you don't want your kids to get overweight. let's work on this now. not later. it's so valuable to society to have a credible voice whose got a track record and is going to go about it in an effective way. >> rose: another thing is you can shake it. when you do it early and young, you can shape it as you were doing and you were doing. >> the opportunities to be creative and to be a leader are i think maybe more so in philanthropy than any place else because there's always other needs, there's always other things you can go after. and there are diseases that nobody's really working on because not that many people get it but those that do are real tragedies. these orphan diseases they're called. you can go after those. you can, you know, just help kids. education is a bottomless pit. we've just got to figure out how

educate the kids around the world. those winning nobel prizes. sad lay going to be behavior that's going to be destructive. you can enter the arts. there's a number of things you can do. >> rose: thanks for coming. congratulations. >> this is the guy that deserves the credit. >> no, thank you he's supporting a great cause. >> rose: thank you both. bill gates and mike bloomberg. a program note. on monday night here on this program, a debate between paul krugman the nobel laureate and "new york times" columnist and joe scar borough a former congress mong and holes of morning joe. it's about the economy and death. join us. it's captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> announcer: explore new worlds and new ideas through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> dr. tanzi: simply put, you need to realize that you are not your brain. that's right. you are not your brain. you are the user of your brain. your brain serves you. you shouldn't be serving it. >> announcer: dr. rudy tanzi is a professor of neurology at harvard university and director of the genetics and aging research unit at massachusetts general hospital. >> dr. tanzi: you need to become the master of your brain. you need to balance all three

parts of your brain so that they work in perfect harmony and balance. >> announcer: based on the latest research in neuroscience, dr. tanzi gives us the roadmap on how to unlock the hidden powers of our brain. >> dr. tanzi: what can you expect from a super brain? well, you'll find it easier to solve everyday problems, you'll find yourself making better decisions with a greater sense of intuition. you'll have a better memory. you'll be less stressed. you'll even find it easier to lose weight. >> announcer: introduced by his co-author and world-renowned colleague dr. deepak chopra, please join dr. rudy tanzi for "super brain." (applause) >> dr. chopra: i'm dr. deepak chopra. as you may know, my training is in internal medicine and endocrinology. for the last 25 years, i've been working on the mind/