[MUSIC] Let's look at a second case study. Here, it's the case of scientists and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Now if we look at the incentives to return in the early year, the key incentive was the 100 Talents Program that I talked about. 2 million RMB, a laboratory, a research team, 20% of the money went for salary, right. We could figure that out, was about $1,500 US a month, not bad. Many of these people got very nice positions with actually only having been a post-doctoral fellow overseas. So maybe they got their PhD and then worked for two years overseas and then they came back and got a very nice position as the director of a laboratory. Chinese Academy of Sciences received a lot of money from the national government for work on biotechnology, nanotechnology, environment, energy, and other national programs. And so in the early days, also these 100 Talents people sometimes received very rapid promotion. They may have come back as associate professors, or some of them came back as full professors, and if they came back as associate, they got promoted very quickly. So here's some data, again, this is data from 2002 that shows the early years of this, and it shows the pace of promotion in, when we ask people in the past five years from associate to full researcher within CAS. And here you can see that here's the returnees, again we have a control group or a comparative group of local people versus the returnees. And if we ask people, were you promoted very quickly, the returnees were much more likely to feel that they were promoted very quickly. They were also felt that they were promoted rather quickly, here we see big numbers again, and as we start to switch towards relatively slowly and very slowly, we shift over and this is what the locals felt. So we could see that there was a significant relationship here between being a local PhD or a local trainee and a overseas person, a returnee, and the pace at which they felt they would been, promoted. Now talking also, I talked before about the shortage good, and it was actually in a conversation with a scientist, a return scientist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences up in the northeast of China. That I was introduced to this idea of a shortage good, and so I in fact, included those kinds of issues in my questions, and in the questions that we did in 2002. And here, extremely short supply, not much different. But again, comparing returnees and locals, we can see that returnees felt that their specialty was in relatively short supply, fewer locals felt that way. And in terms of people who had a specialty that there was No Shortage, or an Oversupply. Here we can see that the locals are much more likely to have that kind of feeling than returnees, who generally felt that they had come back and that they had brought something valuable back. I also discussed, you may remember, I mentioned the author's name Cerase, C-E-R-A-S-E. He talked about bias, and so when we did the interviews in CAS, we again included questions that would give us the chance to measure whether or not there was a bias. And I already did this for the academics before, right? So, how would you evaluate the contribution of returnees? Very good or good, only 50%, half of the locals thought that their contributions were Very good or good, while 78, almost 80% of returnees thought that their contributions were Very good or good. And only 15% of them thought that they were only Average, whereas 25% of locals thought that the returnee's contributions were only Average. And here again, you see, what do you think about the government's emphasis on returnee? The returnees don't feel that the government's giving them a lot of emphasis or help or favoritism. But here, 36% of the locals feel that there is just, I'd say too high, too much attention being given to returnees.