The Great Debate: THE STORYTELLING OF SCIENCE (OFFICIAL) - (Part 2/2)

excellent okay we selected the red great questions and we won't have time to get through all of them but we'll see we can do and I'm going to some of them are directed at individual people some Muslim art and so I'll just saw it open and people can can answer each one this one the first one we'll start with I think it's interesting one it says for man if you could give us all a one-word piece of advice for our own science storytelling what would it be and PS thanks for showing us how sexy science is I don't think that refer to your shirt cut it okay so one you know that we can probably do one word I guess we can go across or if you want one any and well I didn't unhappy everyone anyone want to give a one-word piece of advice yes go ahead algebra learn algebra yep I got one word at that one word is ambition that is that is something not encoded by any practising exam in the school system yet in fact if you look at the most successful people there ever were they are not the ones necessarily who got straight A's those are the ones who had ambition which overrides it all yeah okay I agree it's a long word but it's a good one I would add though I would say passion I think you know in the terms of storytelling too many people we said this last night to too many people I think are afraid to inject their own story or their own passion when they're talking about it at science but if you don't talk about what you're interested in no one else is going to be interested in it empathize what empathize because the best people the best teachers of science and the best writers about science are the ones who can empathize with people who don't quite get it yet I was going to say the same thing any other the other one else what's going in I've been jumping ahead no I say just what I was going to say am emphasizing that too the same reason but I'll say instead poetry then poetry excellent excellent anyone well I would just say that it you should be able to tell it so that your mother can understand it hey that's good my mother never listens but it's okay if your mother's a theoretical physicist yeah yeah you should tell you this okay here's one that's actually a little bit related to and and but to what Neil was just talking about but I think if we can expand on it I've always adidas said I've always wanted to be an astronaut achill injured engineer but I am horrible at math but I've got lots of passion can this dream ever be a reality and where do I start so it's interesting I guess I'll start with that I mean I think Matt as as bill said you know math is the language of science and I think yet you have to be able to be adept at it math is the language of the universe yes you're right I agree I agree but but let me just finish them we can that too many people think that you have to be a mathematical wizard to be even a physicist I mean much less an engineer but but uh Turkel oh no it takes all types I know people who won the Nobel Prize I know people you don't have to be the best math business in your class you don't have to be a whiz it takes all types to do science and then a stereotype just doesn't work if you're interested do it what's that to do with you knowing Nobel laureate who we're not the best in their class oh hey Nestle even that strong in math but the other thing I would say you say you're bad at math I bet you're not that bad and I just want to remind you that there's when it comes to math there's no substitute for practice it sucked for me if it sucks for everything you just have to practice so when you come to me it comes to me and say I'm bad at math I am open-minded of course but skeptical I'll bet you can do it whoever you are you know that's an important point we were talking about it last night to that and it touches on what you said you know I like science museums because often because they show science is fun but sighs it is hard work like anything to do like music like anything else to do it well and it takes a lot of work so you just and if you don't enjoy it you can't do the work but but just enjoyment alone isn't enough you've really got to be willing to work at it I think what's really going on here is people presume that in order to be good at in order to they presume that if the math is not coming easy that therefore you'll never learn it and and I meant it literally that math is the language of the universe and it's like any other language especially a language that does not share the Roman alphabet so for example if you wanted to study Chinese it looks completely intractable at first it looks like Greek exactly and so and you can ask the question how long does it take one to become fluent in Chinese if you're not Chinese yourself and so it can take years in five years almost 10 years if you never go to China you go to China maybe five years of intensive exposure and you've never done that with math imagine that level of exposure to math what kind of foolin see you would have at the other end of that pipeline so at least give yourself the opportunity that any person learning a foreign language would give themselves before you turn around and say you're not good at math Brian get me started yeah you don't want to get in this car I know that's an experience um you're actually only you're a professor of math as well as as both physics probably only one on the tape yeah and the question that comes to mind for me is how do you know that math is the language of the universe I was gonna say by multi the universe told me yeah okay the first approximation okay we're not doing science by revelation or ya wondering cuz I have a question about this yeah could you imagine that one day far in the future we encounter some alien civilization and they say hey show us what you've done to understand the universe we bring out our math books with all our theorems and physics and they turns on and say math we tried that yeah Tate you just so far and the real way to do it is like this I would say that whatever that real way is well to manifest to us at this moment and until that day happens when an alien tells us how backwards we are all I can say is that the math that we did invent out of our human brain as you surely know Eugene Wigner said the unreasonable effectiveness activeness of mathematics in describing the universe the fact that it works at all is sufficient enough for me but but no but I'll here I wanna I wanna I want to have it you know cause wait just because you still can't figure out your big theory back in your continent my enemy second me you came from in fact you got him started I got him started then don't give me and it start no but I want to go on record warned you not to get him start I know I told you but I want to go on record I want to go on record and so momentous occasion I want to go on record is agreeing with Brian is it on the record no in the sense that it is fascinating if you're a theoretical physicist to wonder when you find something fascinating whether at math mathematical formalism fascinating whether it's a property of our brains or whether it's proper the universe in it and we just don't know I think is the answer we if you straight you've string right but a basic question I find it slightly confusing because Neil you described math is something that we create so why is it the thing that we create is somehow intrinsic to the universe that also description it is also obvious right it is the prize rip I don't lose sleep over that I celebrate it it's a good thing I celebrated too but bunch of equipment is a question there may be limitations yeah understanding the universe because of the way our brains work and I think early and and for Republicans already happened but it's a but but but no but seriously that's an interesting question and we you know it we really have to wonder about that and if you're again working as some of us are at the forefront of physically you wonder at some point when when it's going to end is some Republicans yeah but to the questioners question mm-hmm I wouldn't worry about the possibility that mathematics is going to turn out to be ineffective in describing the universe and use that as a reason to not keep practicing Russell that's right okay next question could be an engineering perspective yeah no there you go excellent next question from Joel what do you believe or hope will be the most significant scientific advancement over the next few decades and I know I have a pat answer this but I'll wait to see if anyone else has one no no what the next most significant scientific discovery is going to be for crying out loud exactly the point are we safe I wait what are you guys exploring Mars what are you going to find there we don't know that's why we're going great that's not going it's not way why were there two kinds of exploration one of them is I have no idea what I'm looking for but maybe I'll find it when I see it okay another write about another kind of explanation we can't argue with him I've learned it is another kind of exploration is we think we know what's going on and we want to test our hypotheses that's another kind of exploration and one of them is is there life somewhere else we know there's life in at least one place in the universe and that's called Earth so what I want to do is go to the the frozen surface of Jupiter's moon Europa cut a hole go ice fishing down there put a submersible see if something swims up to the camera like camera and licks the lens that's what I want to look for look sunlight yeah like an eel you are looking for something what was the last time you just went I hope to discover something yeah you're always looking for something no but whenever we look for something we are often surprised and I think that the point is that if we really could anticipate the progress of science it almost in some sense wouldn't be worth doing because we means we'd already kind of know where we're going and what the answers are and I think that so when people ask me what's the what's the next great thing I say if I knew I'd be doing it right now and so I think there is a sense we are driven by questions interesting questions but often those questions lead us to answers that lead to more interesting questions that are totally different than the ones we came actually not just often but most times yeah so I think that you but you can say something about the question which you really would wish to know the answer to and I mean for me it would be what what's consciousness because because that's that's totally baffling Michie you know what I think I agree not that you asked but what I think on this is a consciousness has kind of baffled us for a while okay and evidence that we haven't a clue about what consciousness is is drawn from the in from the fact of how many books are published on the topic right we're not really continuing to publish books not really on like Newtonian physics it's done alright so so the fact that people keep publishing books on consciousness is the evidence we don't know anything about it because if we knew all about it you wouldn't have to keep publishing so so what I wonder what I wonder Richard is whether there really is no such thing as consciousness at all and that there's some other understanding of the functioning of the human brain that renders that question obsolete to that I gotta say like oh wow perfect okay remember am I like thinking okay or am I just like thinking that I'm thinking wow Richard we went we went decades we went decades not understanding the precession of mercury it was this big mystery and we invented solutions to it like a mysterious planet Vulcan tugging on it such that its perihelion processed and and that wasn't the explanation at all it was obviously general relativity another thing not the original question we were asking so you say you want to know what consciousness is maybe that's not even the right question how about this what's the nature of consciousness excellent ok let's move on actually I Tracy I think I want to direct this one to you who's you to Tracy that's not that's not Neil I'll be happy okay okay okay it says here science has recently become somewhat trendy popping up in the show The Big Bang Theory or in I beep loving science on Facebook oh she's here she's here now she's here okay often the focus is not actually on the science but making entertainment out of science is this ultimately good for science do you think so I think you have a perspective on that yeah I do i I don't I don't think when it's done well it's diminishing the science or or the scientists for that matter I think that what is really spectacular is when you can take high-level science and apply storytelling and all kinds of things that we know help people learn about a subject I mean we learned in again broadcast news I was with ABC News for many years and if any one said well we must do that story because it's very very important we knew that was just deaf because you know eat your peas journalism or eat your peas writing you know you must know this because it's important is just it's never going to light a fire in people's imaginations children or adults so I I don't think it's turning you know entertainment is not a bad word as long as you continue to preserve and and communicate the the real stuff the real science and that's the philosophy we you know we apply to this we didn't want to do oh not to science and then go off and tap dance I mean it was really engaging with the material but recognizing that sometimes this stuff is really hard and you need to write it well acted well and and producer well and I have to say you do a great job of producing I and I only want to answer that question all you have to look at is what is going on in this stage tonight this is entertainment I hope so this is absolute entertainment I'm sitting here just one time ducking out of the way sometimes but I'm sitting here watching it it's making a point about science and how to convey and how to make science interesting to the public you're getting into these this is not yeah I agree is that a do it did you do I think fun and entertainment are overrated oh that's because you're British that's cuz you're British no no it's okay before more alike than they are different science is hard but it's worth it it's fascinating it's enthralling but if we only talk about the bits that have fun and make bands and smells and things then we we don't do science justice I I was once some mean that we use the phrase dumbing down and and we mustn't we mustn't do that um I I once gave a speech at a British conference about the public communication Esaias and I was ranting against jamming down and at the end some some man got up and said this is not an exaggeration this is a true story he said maybe we need dumbing down in order to bring women and minorities into silence we're gonna we're going to get there because of you questions about that attack that's why we fought a war to get out of England in starting the country I had today I have to say he was booed in the original okay okay good absolutely and we actually speaking about we're going to have we are going to have Larry Summers here one of our events next year so you can ask him about benefit and if you know about that but anyway the question is meant out the next question as many of you are involved or aligned with the skepticism movement how do you keep an open mind scientifically without using skepticism as an excuse for inaction can a person be a product proactive skeptic I think that's are you kidding I knew you don't I think Lawrence correct me but people can confuse in the modern word that's been made up is conflate the word cynicism with the word skepticism I mean I know not I see a lot of young people but one is you're not going to pay any attention to anything you just think everything's screwed up and nothing's ever going to work out right that cynicism but skepticism is you're presented with evidence and you do your best to draw conclusions based on that so as the saying goes I am bill nye do you believe in ghosts No however I'd love to see one I am open-minded to the idea but I the more I look into it in skeptical frame of our way of thinking the less likely it seems but bring it on when I was young the universe was slowing down it turns out that's not right mm-hmm do I run in circles creaming or do I go that's cool but I do want to know why yeah and well you know and I think that's the point it's being wrong is really the most exciting thing in science and in fact as often say you know what when I debate people speaking of skepticism there are people who don't accept the fact that evolution is a fact and I've spent a non-dual amount of time in this country talking those people well talking to talking to school boards and others in government trying to give I want to work for but anyway but but but there's this there's this illusion that we somehow have this pact that we shake hands we get our PhD work you know we evolution can't question it and you know we want to be right and the people understand that the way to become successful is to prove your colleagues wrong that's the way to become a well-known scientist is to make a discovery that proves are wrong so if there was something better than evolution if it didn't work you know you'd be Richard we the first person to want to try and discover it in a sense because it would mean we'd learn something right yeah yeah okay think we can add something to that which is that there's a an attitude in the culture that says that everybody's entitled to their opinion you got to respect their opinion no you damn well haven't got to respect you know you know that's a that's a great segue because oh because there's an opinion of meals and I don't like and really boy knocked me over with a feather actually he's gonna say it's not opinion but let me ask let me ask this jump to this question ring it on yeah okay do you think the privatization of space travel is a hindrance to the long-term goal of deep space exploration it should have happened in decades ago and it no and and okay and actually I agree with you in that sense because well I'm not sure decades ago I think the government had to be involved to learn how to get things going I don't think that years ago we knew how yeah I know how to go in and out of low Earth orbit since nineties actually - that's right oh that's a Cades ago that's right and that's not the fact that but that's not deep-space exploration but I think you're absolutely right the private industry is a perfect place to do low-earth orbit because yes and not now so because it's boring and dull and it you can generalize it it's not simply that private enterprise is for low Earth orbit private enterprise is for anything where the risks have been pre-assess staffed by the government investment in the frontier which is why I think where NASA should live on the frontier on the moving frontier and and act as that frontier moves it leaves behind routine it leaves behind certain needs of the of the activity and those needs would then be avoid filled by private enterprise who would surely do it more efficiently than any government Enterprise can but the frontier where it's dangerous it's expensive and all the risks are unquantified you combine these through three you cannot establish a capital market valuation of that frontier and so therefore government has to take the first step if you're going to do this at all and that's why the post office doesn't have their own postal planes you rent space in the belly of Delta Airlines because they can do it more efficient yeah that's it but that's that's true about that's true of all science medicine is the same way business is not going to step it into fundamental research NIH is going to do it they're gonna take that risk and it's okay you can apply it any big rip in fact it's really important in art right now people are saying well you know you've got to fund science that has immediate application but in fact the government is there to fund the research that no private industries have be ever going to fund because the benefits are a generation away but in fact 50 percent of our gross national product comes from fundamental curiosity based research a generation ago and the only way to do that is with the government correct now we're all agree with that but the thing where we may disagree in a beet stew deceit because actually the interesting cuz you're the planetary society and I wonder whether Bryan agrees with me of this because I most many scientists like me would say the frontier doesn't involve people the frontier that NASA is doing in space the most in the real science that NASA does doesn't involve hundred pound bags of water I didn't say science I talked about no no I want arch okay as a distinction here if you only want to do science in space yeah you would never send humans you're great and robots even the geologist who loves to go to Mars with the hammer would just love it if you gave the geologist the option I can send you to one spot or I can send 100 base craft now space 100 Rovers to 100 different spots you can pick they pick in 100 no actually that's not true I'm in the Department of Geology among other things and many of my colleagues there disagree and say they think a geologist could do in a little while we're over skidoo I happen to disagree I think no no did you tell them 100 rolls well I get a different spots I did you know what I told them okay I told them the real number which is probably a thousand different Rovers because okay let me finish for a second Neil you can send as often say you can send a rover to Mars for the price that it takes to make a movie about sending Bruce Willis to Mars and Ray and let's let it fly if you told if you told the geologists it was a one-way trip which is what I've are good they still want it again they still want to go yeah then they're just crazy I mean just why you even talking to most job well so you guys just if I may speak briefly about the Planetary Society we are fighting the good fight to restore funding and a planetary exploration we're trying to get one and a half billion a year so we need 300 million for planetary science and it's it's being threatened so fiscal year 14 is coming up for NASA if you got nothing else to do please check out planetary org and consider supporting this because our claim is science is what NASA does best and planetary science is the best of that and so we really would like you all to consider support them it is such a good value it is such in such an amazing value so considering by the way it's been estimated that what the rover does built by our very best Rover engineers driven by our very best Rover scientists Rover drivers who are influenced by our very best scientists what that does in a week a human geologists can do in about a minute yeah but I I agree but there's the cost it's not gonna run to 100 different places on the plant in fact actually the human geologists think most often is not going to make it alive to the planet well I mean so on and so on but guess it's where you see it's instead of 10001 it's got to be like a billion to one so we'll get there the longest journey starts with foot a single step no but the other thing the other thing I want to like I met let's stay on this topic for a little longer because III maintain the reason people are interested in humans traveling of spaces because they can die that's what makes it interesting and you want to see if they're going to die and and I but you know and ever like that car what but that was NASCAR that you're talking about but you know but but I find but let me ask you a question I find it or okay what one I'll ask you this question when I see a picture from the rover I I'm more excited about it that from coming for the rover than if it came from an astronaut taking the picture because the astronauts using a camera but the rover is taking the pits part of the rope let me tell you why that's probably not true even though I think it is ok ok most people don't know that there were robots as well as Rovers on the moon while we were first going to the moon but you didn't know anything about those because the media focused on the astronauts and it's the astronauts through which we gain vicarious access to space because they have mouths that brings they have a childhood memory they have school teachers that can talk about those astronauts and I've yet to see a ticker tape parade for a robot so I submit to you that if at the same time the Curiosity rover landed if at that same time a human astronaut landed on Mars you would have known nothing about the Curiosity rover but it would have been relegated to page 30 and the front page headlines would have been humans put footprints on Mars and it's that force which will bring less science than the robot that has a power of influence on our culture that inspires an entire generation to want to do the same thing my generation my generation when you ask my fellow scientists should we send humans into space no that's too expensive send robots yet say I said well how did you get interested in space oh because of the Apollo program and I slap them I'm saying what are you oh I'm the other on the other hand on the other hand if you freak if you remember if Apollo 13 hadn't been the dramatic failure it was they would have canceled the rest of the Apollo they canceled three of the last nine John that three there were three Apollo the three Saturn five rocket slide on the ground around space around the country because they it was so interesting that they abolished the last three yes that's delusional and I'll tell you why it's not uh didn't graphics no no no you can argue with the facts all right watch me okay so III I'm sorry everybody like mention their book it's time for me to mention my latest book I don't think anyone mentioned their book actually my most recent book is titled space chronicles and that wasn't the original title the original title was failure to launch but the truths and delusions of space enthusiasts and the publishers on s2o dis too depressing can have the word failure in your title it's but that's what it's about what you just said is a complete delusion it presumes that we went to the moon for science it assumes that we went to the moon to explore it but that's not why we went oh you know Fred Amiel no it is not no it is we went to the moon because we were at war Sputnik was not just some orbiting spacecraft it was a hollowed-out intercontinental ballistic missile where they took out the warhead and put in a radio transmitter the military knew this that's what founded NASA NASA's budget for science has it averaged over all these years about 25% the rest has been for geopolitical purposes all right so it's the I don't want to die driver in this world that's why we spent all this money and so the moment we learn Russia's not going to the moon and is certainly not going to Mars we cancel the program it had nothing to do with public interest okay now let me it is it is a let me try I gotta pull back yeah you gotta come in but but it is let me try and bridge that gap a little bit I'm gonna be sorry um no you're not um but I think it's really important to point to point out that this is a political issue and in fact I me and Buzz Aldrin together so testified before the House SEC Science Committee on space exploration and I when I said that that humans don't do science in space I didn't argue in fact even before the committee that we shouldn't send humans in space we should just say what honestly why we're doing it we're doing it for adventure that's why we're doing it no that's not what funded on hold on notice that's not true so you said you wouldn't talk but I did you can say that uh no no it with this there's no there there okay okay no justjust just look at the history of everybody doing big projects and it's never driven by exploration it's never driven by science it's never driven by curiosity none of its big and expensive it's driven by the fact that people don't want to die so there's a war driver there's also driven by the fact that people want to get wealthy so a model we have might try the Large Hadron Collider Large Hadron were tricked you do you know Hey just prove my point the Large Hadron Collider please remind me of the total construction cost the Large Hadron Collider I know about ten billion about ten billion that is six months of NASA funding so you call that big budget not here in America it's not yeah NASA's budgets about seventeen billion doesn't go as far as it used to know so it's expensive but not on the scale that we're talking about here okay a country shared that's that's not big money okay big money is but a shuttle mission cost a billion dollars here one s a shirt cost that but that's what it does and what who who writes those checks it's people who do it for geopolitical reasons not because they care about science our super collider the one that you would have benefited from the soup the superconducting supercollider started to get funding in the 1980s wasn't it damn good mile ring it would have been up would exceed 60 miles 60 miles an octave the circumference 650 miles around yeah I throw 60 times take it from me it's high no no it's okay spend time with two hundred Brian sixty-six circumference yeah yeah okay I haven't seen it wrong all these well lever line thank you okay know what what so here's a super collider we America would have found the Higgs boson decades ago all right so what happened the budget gets cut for reasons oh the cost overruns right excuse me okay I got cut in the early 90s what happened in 1989 peace broke out in Europe all of a sudden the physicists who is the hero of the 20th century from making the bomb is no longer viewed as necessary to national security and so the the project gets cut like that actually you got it wrong the project got cut actually for even sillier political reasons which was the Texas congressional delegation voted the wrong way and if we were still at war that would have never come out he's also the International Space Station right yes that's true that's that's that's the top story the bottom story is and we don't want to think we I so what we've let's leave this topic but science and politics are alas inextricably mixed and we I think in politics I think what what I would say is that it's vitally important for the public to understand what their issues really are so they won't be lied to by the politicians effectively and they can elect people to base policy on empirical evidence and not on ideology or NGO story now there are two more I'm going to go go a few minutes late because I - more questions I want to I want to get to just and the last one perhaps I was born but Neil I want there were a bunch of questions that had to with science fiction but but please discuss speculative fiction in its role and expanding interest in or knowledge of science in general let me just have question how many scientists here read science fiction when they're growing up you didn't put your hand up make it sound like okay good there we go anyway Neil what do you think what do you think that relationship is well that the the kind of science fiction that that was coterminous with the Apollo program and the stuff that got us all excited about going to the moon and and and I think helped create the political support for the kind of big NASA that we've been talking about hasn't been written in a while science fiction kind of took a different turn and I'm sort of exhibit a of this so for the last few decades a lot of science fiction has tended to be darker more introspective more more about sort of the the hero being the kind of hacker who's trying to figure out how to exploit a system that somebody else built as opposed to the the engineer or the scientist discovering or building something new and for I don't know whether there's a cause and effect relationship but but that has coincided with what looks to me like a big drop-off in the rate at which we've made big advances in new ways of getting around new sort of major infrastructure space exploration etc so I'm trying to pay my debt to society right now by by working on a project here at actually Arizona State writing some science fiction in a more technologic it came out of a so public argument that I had with with Michael crow a couple years ago where we were trying to figure out whether science fiction writers could take any share of the blame for for this and so you're the one yeah I'm the one so so we're trying this experiment I'm writing a story about a tower 20 kilometers high for launching rockets off of and I'm working with people here at ASU when I try to to to write that story in a kind of technically responsible way so it's not just pure speculation and we hope to have other people involved in the project as well twenty kilometres high yeah we could turn that into a sundial all the engineers here's the energy here's the thing for me I am of a certain age for me it was Star Trek yeah and the thing about Star Trek I can't argue with that well I mean there's technology that everybody speaks the same language generally and they beam up and down which is huge shortcut but it was this intensely optimistic view of exactly and so what I what I would like you to do science fiction guy up now of the future is I tell you guys if you want to worry about things we are living at a great time I mean we've got this worldwide economic crisis we got human immunodeficiency virus we've got all kinds of diseases that are resistant to earth things we have wood used to be one and a half billion people now it's going to be 12 or 15 billion people and really you everybody here climate change is the thing but what if we had an optimistic view of the future where we come up with new technologies new social structures where people get along and address climate change and improve the quality of life for everybody I would love to have that yeah well just before you is the tribute to my mother the key to this the start of this is to educate women and this.f half of the humans are women or female because there's some people that are younger half the half of the humans are female so half the scientists should be female and I think gives us the possibility if you have now suddenly not suddenly in a few decades have twice as many brains on the problem we could dare I say it change in world I I just wanted to say that I've I've actually learned a lot of science from reading science fiction I think I first came to understand information theory through reading science fiction the point about scientific discoveries being made independently in different places at the same time as there's a sort of something in the air the idea that there are deep problems which which we may be ill-equipped to solve but which are may be that this the scientists of five hundred years hence will solve the idea that it's arbitrary what form information comes into the brain whether it comes in through the eyes or the ears it's still or if it's always neurons that finally do it and so it's that there's a kind of arbitrariness about the nature of this of the scientific medium all these things which I regard as part of my scientific equipment I got from reading science fiction and I think that that that optimism you talk about is really important I think it really was what I mean one of the things that kept Star Trek going for example there the idea that that science often too often it seems to me in math science fiction there's a dystopic view of the future that science makes the world a worse place but science has made the world a much better place people live much happier lives healthier lives on the whole and much longer because of science and and and so that optimistic view is I think incredibly important to to push which is how I'm going to almost end this now because I think we've gone over time there is one thing that you point out and there were some some questions about this and I think I want to address it directly which is the the fact that there weren't more women on this panel and and and it'sin and III was at the Nobel Prize ceremony a few years ago and and they addressed the fact that there were more women Nobel laureates and what they said was it's it's it's a fact that because of societal issues that women weren't encouraged to go into science and the Nobel prizes are given most often for things that have done 20 years earlier as fifty years earlier and in 50 years from now half the Nobel Prizes will be for women because there are women in science and I'm hoping that events like this we are the old guard for the most of us you even you and and I'm hoping and that we will encourage young women to go into science and go into communicating about science and the end so that when we have this panel in the in the future will have an all-female panel but thank you very much too one of the table let's do about let's go we gotta go bow home safe room you can see are moving at a million miles a day in and out just for long at 40,000 miles an hour of the galaxy we call the Milky Way you

Channel: ShirleyFilms

Views: 1,199,355

Rating: 4.9268384 out of 5

Keywords: Science, Storytelling, Origins, Project, ASU, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Ira Flatow, Tracy Day, Neal Stephenson, Gammage, Auditorium, Arizona State University, Black Chalk Production

Id: 40YIIaF1qiw

Length: 45min 47sec (2747 seconds)

Published: Sat Apr 06 2013

Reddit Comments

[u/OnStilts]

The most interesting portion of that talk, imo, is the part that starts at the 22 minute mark where they discuss the different roles for the private and public/government spheres in scientific endeavours. NDTs point about there being no sustainable incentive for private industry to do fundamental/frontier research when the unknown returns make valuations impossible is incredibly important.