Conversations in Science with Dan Rather and Paul Nurse: The State of Science

Top

00:00:10.10 _DR_ Well first of all thank you very much for doing this Doctor Nurse Paul.
00:00:14.09 _PN_ It's a pleasure to be here, Dan.
00:00:16.16 _DR_ Well it's a pleasure to be in your presence.
00:00:18.24 I really appreciate you are doing it. Let's talk about science.
00:00:21.21 What is science?
00:00:23.06 _PN_ You know that isn't such an easy question to answer.
00:00:26.29 And I've been a scientist for 45 years and I'm still struggling.
00:00:32.10 The way I sort of think about it is what are attributes of silence.
00:00:36.05 It's an activity about wanting to know how the natural world in ourselves works.
00:00:41.11 Good scientists are skeptical about their own ideas.
00:00:44.01 They get evidence about a phenomenon,
00:00:46.11 they get an idea or hypotheses about what can be used to explain it
00:00:51.27 then they test it, and they tested it to destruction,
00:00:54.07 and if it survives then they keep going and they test it again.
00:00:58.12 What about the idea that to be a scientist, particularly to be a world class scientist as you are.
00:01:03.18 There is a genius within you. This idea which you are either born with it or you are not.
00:01:08.16 I'm not sure I completely buy that.
00:01:11.13 I think that a scientist needs to have something in born.
00:01:16.00 But they also have to acquire ways of thinking from experience of the whole world.
00:01:22.18 And sometimes you can acquire what I call a low cunning in research.
00:01:28.25 You sort of get used to how nature tries to fool you
00:01:31.29 or perhaps how you trying to fool yourself.
00:01:34.20 And that is over the years a sort of maturing of your thinking
00:01:39.01 that comes with experience, comes with interacting with others.
00:01:42.14 So I think it's both inborn,
00:01:44.05 but also something you acquire, and something that you gain from
00:01:50.04 interaction experience with the rest of the research community.
00:01:53.11 _DR_ Were you an outstanding brilliant student at school?
00:01:56.15 _PN_ Not really, if I can be quite honest with you.
00:01:59.23 I came from not an academic family.
00:02:02.20 My farther worked in a factory for HJ Heinz actually looked at machines.
00:02:07.13 My mother was a cleaner.
00:02:09.22 I was the only one in my family to stay at school beyond the age 15.
00:02:13.13 I wasn't good at exams. I was very erratic.
00:02:18.07 So sometimes l could be near the top or even the top of my class.
00:02:22.16 Next time I could be near the bottom, just I just didn't seem to be very consistent.
00:02:27.27 But I got through it. I did manage to eventually get to university even that was actually quite difficult.
00:02:34.08 And as I gradually moved up the tree, so to speak, it became easier and easier
00:02:40.04 because we get rely so much on road learning. I got a terrible memory can never remember things.
00:02:45.11 It did rely on trying to understand very difficult problems and that I wasn't bad at.
00:02:51.18 What I wasn't good at was remembering all the bits of information that you needed to pass exams well.
00:02:58.17 _DR_ Well for example, in the beginning chemistry, could you memorize the elements table?
00:03:05.24 _PN_ I of course was supposed to but I kept getting it wrong.
00:03:10.01 But when I understood what the table was based on, when I could pull order in there
00:03:16.00 and think about electron shells and so on the whole thing fell into shape.
00:03:20.10 What really mattered for me was understanding the basis of the order then I could put the names to it.
00:03:26.19 If I was just learning the names with no order I was hopeless.
00:03:30.16 _DR_ I have a feeling that any number of parents and grandparents
00:03:34.05 listening would be very much encouraged
00:03:36.15 to find that someone who didn't have a particular good memory,
00:03:40.09 might've been a poor memory as a matter of fact, and who didn't test well, grew up to win the Nobel Prize.
00:03:46.18 _PN_ They should feel really comfortable
00:03:48.18 if they have a child or grandchild who's interested in the world,
00:03:52.23 who is curious about the world because that will keep going.
00:03:56.03 That will serve them well for the rest of their lives.
00:03:59.10 If they are just learning stuff by rote so they can get good marks,
00:04:03.01 and we have too much of obsession with grades,
00:04:05.03 they will do well even if they may not have the highest marks in that class.
00:04:09.19 _DR_ And what advice could you give to a parent or a grandparents if they have that kind of child,
00:04:14.25 he is smart but it doesn't do well in tests, and sometimes fails his tests
00:04:18.23 and he can't memorize a pledge allegiance to the flag.
00:04:21.27 _PN_ I would take him out into the natural world.
00:04:24.03 I will show him the plants, the bees, the insects, the birds, the moon, the stars,
00:04:29.07 see if that interests him or her and if it does I wouldn't worry.
00:04:33.04 _DR_ Want to get back now to your story.
00:04:35.29 So you go on, you get into university. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong.
00:04:40.26 You actually never passed what you should've pass to get in terms of foreign language.
00:04:46.22 _PN_ No. I had great trouble getting to university. I can tell you that story.
00:04:50.11 We have a series of rather simple examinations you can pass in a range of subjects,
00:04:56.26 and then you have the more specialized ones in my case it's sciences.
00:05:00.21 I actually did the most specialist advanced ones early in my schooling.
00:05:05.17 I was very good at that, but I could not pass but the only low grade examinations
00:05:10.19 that you need to get into university.
00:05:12.16 And I managed to fail this examination in French, six times on the trot.
00:05:18.06 I mean six times, one after another, and it wasn't that I wasn't trying.
00:05:22.10 I was trying very hard. I was simply hopeless at it.
00:05:25.23 And of course that meant I was rejected from every university I applied to.
00:05:29.14 No Oxford no Cambridge.
00:05:30.20 No. Cambridge offered me a place as long as I pass that exam for example which I continue to fail.
00:05:36.00 And then eventually, I got into the university of Birmingham good university but not top school.
00:05:41.27 And the reason I did and I this is a nice story.
00:05:45.14 The professor, the head of department, was looking through the candidates that they had rejected.
00:05:51.10 What on earth was he doing doing that?
00:05:53.20 But he was looking through the candidates they rejected.
00:05:56.11 He saw my CV. He saw I've done well in the serious examinations and why I'd been rejected.
00:06:03.06 And he asked me to come up and see him, and he spent the day with me.
00:06:07.25 A head of department with the 17 year old.
00:06:11.01 At the end of it he said "em, if you come here, I'll fix the university Senate so they let you in."
00:06:17.26 That's exactly what he did.
00:06:19.06 _DR_ Well that's tough word but in effect he cheated to get you in college.
00:06:23.00 _PN_ Yes. Yes. That's right exactly right.
00:06:27.10 _DR_ Want to get back to the students. Young people coming up.
00:06:33.11 Listen. You can educate you can illuminate. How do you inspire?
00:06:40.18 Imagine for me a moment, a 6 year old, 8 or 9 year old, can you say anything that you think might inspire them
00:06:49.04 to at least have a, something more than a passing interest in science?
00:06:53.13 _PN_ You put your finger on the exact point: inspiration is key.
00:06:58.07 We have to inspire.
00:07:00.16 Actually our population but particularly our young people are teaching has to inspire.
00:07:06.23 And when I go to lectures sometimes and I listen to somebody who's very accomplished
00:07:13.01 and that so flat, so non inspirational I think what are we doing?
00:07:17.10 We write scientific papers. Now I can't even bear to read my own scientific papers!
00:07:22.14 I mean there's nothing inspirational about them at all
00:07:25.11 by the way that we have to publish and we get edited at and saying anything interesting and so on.
00:07:29.22 I find it more interesting to read the 19th century literature about science!
00:07:34.08 Good we are losing the ability to inspire by the way that we are communicating science.
00:07:39.17 Getting back to the question you asked me. It's crucial to have good inspirational teachers in school.
00:07:46.03 We absolutely need it. The fact that in primary school children, that is up to the age of eleven,
00:07:52.17 I think in both the US and UK, less than one two percent of teachers have any scientific training.
00:07:58.16 I mean that cannot be right and then we have to train teachers to be inspirational.
00:08:03.16 Now how can they be inspirational?
00:08:05.21 One part is actually to teach science through doing science, through investigating the world.
00:08:12.09 A second is of course simply to have inspirational charismatic teachers.
00:08:17.26 _DR_ What would I say to a 7, 8, 9, 10-year-old is what inspired me.
00:08:22.14 _PN_ Go and look at the moon at night, go and look at the stars and wonder.
00:08:28.03 And wonder what it all means and you're already on the first step to science.
00:08:32.29 And what we have to do in education is to take that natural wonder that children have
00:08:38.13 and develop it into understanding how all of that works.
00:08:42.13 _DR_ Well. I want to get back to what you describe what scientists do and how you do it.
00:08:48.21 What makes a good scientist?
00:08:50.11 _PN_ Scientists is always curious. They desperately want to know the answers.
00:08:56.10 They want to know how something works.
00:08:58.08 That's really the key thing being interested in the world of action.
00:09:02.01 Learning it as a trade at a later stage depends on other features-
00:09:07.11 having a good adviser who teaches you the right values and culture of science is crucial.
00:09:13.21 You're not there simply to get a paper in the best possible journal.
00:09:17.24 We would like that. You were there to understand how the world works.
00:09:22.09 So either in a little way or a big way and as long as you do it in a proper way you have contributed.
00:09:28.04 And I think the right values for science and the respect and the data is really, really important.
00:09:35.14 Fundamentally you should be aimed at improving knowledge of the world in, a process.
00:09:42.12 That is really quite ethical and idealistic and I think you need to constantly hang on to that.
00:09:49.10 _DR_ I don't think of science as having the, the, Ethos you've just described.
00:09:55.23 Let's talk about that. What is the ethos?
00:09:58.02 _PN_ If you are there to find out how the world works.
00:10:00.27 And if you're prepared to cut corners, by which I mean ignoring things that don’t
00:10:06.05 fit with what you you believed to be correct, or to speak up data that isn't quite as clear as it should be.
00:10:15.24 That's usually seen as a sort of ethical problem of cheating.
00:10:18.23 But in addition to that, it's stopping you getting to your ultimate goal, which is to understand how it works.
00:10:25.17 Because if the state you don't like is actually real, my word you've got to take account of it.
00:10:30.17 And if you're not taking account of it, you are not getting to your goal.
00:10:33.28 So although we view it as an ethical issue, I think I prefer the word you use - the right ethos.
00:10:40.08 In addition it's more than that. It's fundamental.
00:10:43.13 To actually producing the knowledge, reliable knowledge, that you need for good science.
00:10:48.08 _DR_ Let's talk about the importance of science.
00:10:50.29 Why should anybody care about science beyond a certain fundamental elemental level?
00:10:56.14 Well I think there are two answers to that question.
00:11:00.05 One is the contribution it makes the culture and civilization.
00:11:04.01 When the first director, I'm blanking on his name, I haven't got good memory,
00:11:08.07 I remember, of the Fermilab accelerator, was being interviewed,
00:11:13.12 cross examined in the house and Capitol Hill.
00:11:16.19 And he was asked the question what use would the accelerator be for the defense of the country.
00:11:24.00 And answer was he did not think it would be of any direct use for the defense of the country.
00:11:31.14 But he thought it made the country worth defending.
00:11:35.05 Very nice point and what he was really saying of course is that
00:11:39.24 a country that respects culture civilization and knowledge needs defending
00:11:44.27 and that's one thing science can do. But of course science does much more than that.
00:11:50.03 Society invests in science. Because the knowledge that's acquired through it
00:11:55.16 can be used for the public good in the most general sense.
00:11:58.29 It is very difficult to imagine any minute of your day or anybody else's day
00:12:04.01 that is not influenced in some way by scientific discovery.
00:12:07.29 It is in fact the driver in my view of much of economic growth
00:12:13.23 and also all the things that we care about - protecting the environment,
00:12:17.21 knowing about climate change, being able to assess the quality of water and so on.
00:12:23.08 All of these rely on science. So the public good in the most general sense depends upon the science.
00:12:29.13 _DR_ When you mentioned the economic benefits of it,
00:12:31.18 fair or unfair to say, at the economic dominance of the most the 20th century of United States,
00:12:39.21 was science based?
00:12:42.02 _PN_ I think it's a reasonable statement.
00:12:44.22 And I think it's sometimes a little difficult to know as economists lump to be able
00:12:50.10 to argue that a certain percentage, 32, 34, 37% was due to that.
00:12:56.25 A knowledge economy is important and sometimes when people ask me to prove it
00:13:03.09 I say well imaging and ignorant economy. Does that work?
00:13:08.01 In other words if we don't have knowledge, could you imagine how we could drive our economy?
00:13:13.04 I think the United States has been extremely liberal in its thinking about science.
00:13:18.12 So in the public sphere it funds open research that's publicly available
00:13:25.09 across the world, but in the United States in particular.
00:13:29.11 And then of course commercial interests compete that up
00:13:33.01 and it goes into a more closed structure because for commercial advantage.
00:13:36.25 But it relies on that public base. One is for the generation of the knowledge.
00:13:41.05 Two is for the manpower and women power that are generated that can fuel the commercial work.
00:13:50.18 And thirdly just a culture that out of knowledge you can generate interesting application.
00:13:56.26 You need the right culture for it and that's exactly what the US has or much of the U. S. has.
00:14:02.09 And I would argue is a very, very significant contribution to the economy here,
00:14:09.05 and to the great quality of life in the United States enjoys.
00:14:12.13 So they must keep preserving and supporting their basic science.
00:14:17.23 _DR_ I can't resist asking you. And keep in mind absolutely most of my career
00:14:21.28 in radio and television, primary in television. And television. It leads to arrogance. It leads to egoism.
00:14:34.28 And in science there is this perception that because particularly in the upper reaches of science
00:14:42.28 you deal with things that people by and large do not understand.
00:14:47.03 There is this feeling of arrogance. It must exist.
00:14:51.21 And how did you resist it yourself?
00:14:54.16 _PN_ It does exist and we have to be very aware of it.
00:14:57.21 We have to have the humility, first of all, of recognizing in our own profession
00:15:02.25 how much we do not understand.
00:15:04.11 So even in our own research, our own professional activity, we need to be have some humility.
00:15:10.01 When it comes to interacting with society, with elected political representatives,
00:15:15.15 with the public at large, we cannot retreat into 'Believe me. I'm the expert'.
00:15:23.04 We have to do more than that.
00:15:25.05 The experts gotta get out there and engage.
00:15:28.24 Many scientists are no good at that sort of thing. We've got to be honest about it.
00:15:32.05 Some are. We need to encourage those who are good at talking to the public to engage
00:15:37.11 and that all has to be part of the system. So I think you're right. We do have a challenge.
00:15:41.24 It's easy to be arrogant but very dangerous to be arrogant and we have to avoid it.
00:15:46.01 _DR_ Our discussions of science that we see on the daily newspaper, on television,
00:15:50.23 that little attention television pays to science. Is it more ideological, political or more scientific?
00:16:00.16 _PN_ Well science journals do on the whole a pretty good job.
00:16:02.18 But there are certain areas of science, which are admired in ideological and political issues.
00:16:10.07 I mean climate change is the obvious one.
00:16:12.08 And when you see this happening, it distresses me enormously
00:16:17.01 because there isn't a focus on what the sciences are telling you.
00:16:20.21 There is a focus on an ideology which doesn't like those sorts of results.
00:16:27.01 So for example let's take climate change.
00:16:29.12 Now if the climate is warming considerably and human activities contributing to it
00:16:34.18 and the vast majority of experts in this area think that is the case.
00:16:39.07 Then what you have to do to be able to deal with that is how worldwide concerted action.
00:16:45.23 And a consequence of that is that there is restrictions on nations, on companies and on individuals,
00:16:51.15 which some of a particular political hue simply don't like.
00:16:57.02 They don't like the fact that it may slow down economic growth
00:16:59.26 And sometimes they think about developing nations and slowing down their economic growth.
00:17:04.15 But instead of arguing those sorts of arguments which we have to work our way through.
00:17:09.06 Many of the them now start attacking the science itself in ridiculous ways.
00:17:14.15 I I've never seen so many absurd arguments that you can get from.
00:17:18.11 Some of those who call themselves climate skeptics,
00:17:21.21 but a seldom skeptical themselves of what they are, what they are saying.
00:17:25.15 What we need to do is get the science right,
00:17:28.03 and that means listening to the majority of experts in the area and they work out the consequences.
00:17:33.11 Don't be arrogant and think that you can just overturn the scientific evidence,
00:17:37.22 the scientific arguing in the same ways you could do in a school debating chamber
00:17:42.02 because you cannot do that. And it's really quite wrong to do that.
00:17:46.00 _DR_ Embrace climate change?
00:17:47.06 _PN_ Yeah.
00:17:47.27 _DR_ The wall street journal no reason particularly why you've said this, or what I've seen it.
00:17:53.16 But by Lamar Smith. He's a powerful man in the United States Congress,
00:17:57.27 charity, sub-committee on science.
00:18:00.07 Its headlined his opinion on the climate change. The climate change religion.
00:18:05.26 Yeah.
00:18:06.13 But I wanna bounce to things that he said.
00:18:08.05 I think people are confused about climate change. They are confused about science for climate change.
00:18:14.02 So for example he says given that for the past decade and a half
00:18:17.27 global temperature increases have been negligible,
00:18:22.05 and that the worsening storm scenario has been widely debunked.
00:18:27.01 The pronouncements from the Obama administration
00:18:30.21 but it means basically those who argue about climate change sound more like scare tactics
00:18:36.02 than fact based declaration. Does he has a point?
00:18:40.17 Is this talk about climate change primarily scare tactics?
00:18:44.29 Well why doesn't he listened to the two greatest science academies in the world?
00:18:50.06 Which is the National Academy of Sciences in the United States,
00:18:53.16 and the Royal Society which invented modern science which I'm president at this present time
00:18:58.21 who have both done major studies into this area, reasonable, rational studies.
00:19:04.24 And they would disagree with both of those things that he said.
00:19:09.05 _DR_ Based on their science?
00:19:10.07 _PN_ Based on the evidence, based on the logic.
00:19:13.02 The point about the 15, last 15 years, and remember I'm not a climate scientist
00:19:20.08 all I know is to listen to the experts, is that the time scale they've chosen,
00:19:24.25 he's chosen to point out there, is one that just happens to favor his argument.
00:19:29.11 If he goes back 20 years it's a different answer.
00:19:32.15 He's cherry picking data that fits his argument.
00:19:35.27 When he talks about eh for example extreme weather
00:19:39.23 if the temperature of the planet, of the atmosphere is rising,
00:19:43.24 the possibility of more intense weather will go up
00:19:46.21 because it can absorb more water vapor is just simple physics.
00:19:50.08 I'm afraid he doesn't know what he's talking about.
00:19:53.18 I repeat even look at the headline there. Read the headline out again.
00:19:57.02 _DR_ The climate change religion.
00:19:58.28 What that is implying is the tactics of the lobbyists
00:20:02.20 listen to the vast majority of experts and they would disagree with what he says.
00:20:07.18 But the counter argument, and we are not gonna go through the whole lot but
00:20:10.23 the counter argument of that is, those who deny this,
00:20:14.00 their argument is, they are frequently at error but never in doubt.
00:20:18.22 Well. Let me put it another way. If you are ill. If you had a cancer.
00:20:25.01 And you went to the hospital, and you look for treatment.
00:20:28.28 Would you take the treatment that is supported by the great majority of clinician scientists
00:20:35.24 who recommend a certain treatment
00:20:37.15 or would do you listen to the treatment by a few standing on the sidelines
00:20:42.11 who are often political, often commentators in the press, what would you do?
00:20:47.21 _DR_ The answer speaks for itself.
00:20:49.17 Of course and it's the same logic here.
00:20:51.26 Let's get the science right. Then you can have the politics.
00:20:55.02 Don't mix the politics in the ideology up with the science and that's exactly what's happening in that article.
00:21:00.20 _DR_ I understand your hope. I'm not sure that's a realistic hope.
00:21:04.08 _PN_ Of course not, but I have to say what I think is right.
00:21:06.18 _DR_ Well you obviously have a passion for. But just scientists in general. Do you have fun?
00:21:12.12 I have a lot of fun. I do. Now sometimes is a bit stressful.
00:21:16.24 You know just before this interview I'm writing paper yet again
00:21:20.10 because it's been rejected for publication.
00:21:22.08 And it's stressful to think how can I present this in a better way so that we can get it accepted.
00:21:27.19 _DR_ Let me get this straight.
00:21:28.22 Nobel Prize winner and you submit a paper and it get kicked back.
00:21:32.26 _PN_ Of course it does and that's just right.
00:21:34.27 There's no doubt that there is probably something wrong which have to be sorted out.
00:21:38.04 It is part of the process. If it isn't perfect, you may have misunderstood it.
00:21:41.25 It may be that the aberration that you're seeing in the data is not an aberration, it may be real.
00:21:47.15 So you have to repeat it to see quite what what what what is what is happening.
00:21:52.10 Even in my cases it has been long periods of drudgery interspersed with extraordinary eureka moments.
00:22:01.27 So it's great when you discover things but there're a tough patches.
00:22:05.21 _DR_ What was your best eureka moment?
00:22:07.21 _PN_ Well I have two actually.
00:22:09.00 One which is maybe it's little technical.
00:22:11.24 I was interested in what controls the division of a yeast cell from one to two.
00:22:17.08 Very simple problem. But it underlies the growth and reproduction of every living thing, so it is important.
00:22:23.04 And I was looking for a mutant, that's cells which contain damaged genes,
00:22:30.13 which means they couldn't reproduce properly.
00:22:32.19 Because they couldn't reproduce properly, they couldn't divide, but they grew bigger and bigger.
00:22:37.09 So you could see them under the microscope.
00:22:39.17 And I was looking through and collecting these sorts of mutant strains
00:22:44.05 because they helped us understand things.
00:22:46.09 And then under the microscope I saw something different.
00:22:49.12 I hadn't predicted it. I had no idea about it.
00:22:52.08 And it's obvious but what I saw was a cell, or a series of cells dividing smaller than usual.
00:23:01.20 Remember I said I was looking for ones I couldn't divide.
00:23:03.26 And I looked down the microscope and I thought they are dividing smaller than usual.
00:23:08.11 What can that mean?
00:23:09.18 And my mind raced through it and within seconds I was thinking
00:23:13.13 they are dividing prematurely before they've grown to the right size
00:23:18.23 That means that the reproductive process that normally takes a certain amount of time
00:23:23.24 has been accelerated. And that one observation actually opened up this whole new field.
00:23:29.20 I ran around the lab. I told and chatted with everybody what I'd see and in other labs.
00:23:34.10 People thought I was crazy. Because they didn't quite go through the thinking obviously.
00:23:38.17 This is bringing a whole new world of genetics.
00:23:40.29 It was a significant step toward a whole New World
00:23:43.09 in understanding what controlled the division of a cell from one to two.
00:23:47.20 And so that started me with my work. I mean I was in my mid twenties. I wasn't very old.
00:23:52.16 The second one, some years later my colleagues, myself had discovered genes
00:23:57.16 that control this reproductive process. So we've made a lot of progress. But I was working with yeast.
00:24:04.13 And being perfectly honest I may be interested in yeast.
00:24:08.04 but I don't expect the rest of the world mostly to be interested in yeast.
00:24:12.07 And so the question was do human beings,
00:24:14.27 do human cells have the same genes and therefore the same control processes?
00:24:20.00 And we did an experiment. It was done by a lady called Melanie Lee in my lab.
00:24:25.20 And what we did was to take yeast cells that couldn't divide properly because of the defect.
00:24:32.11 And we sprinkled on them human genes.
00:24:35.26 And the argument was if there was an equivalent gene in human beings
00:24:41.24 and that entered into the yeast cell that was defective, but now that yeast cell could grown and divide normally.
00:24:48.12 And this was a ludicrous experiment because yeast and human beings
00:24:52.27 diverged apart from each other maybe 1.5 or more billion years ago.
00:24:58.08 Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago just a flicking time, in comparison.
00:25:04.01 So that experiment shouldn't have worked but it did.
00:25:06.19 We found cells that could grow and divide.
00:25:09.20 They contained a human gene.
00:25:12.15 We analyzed it and we found it was exactly the same gene as the yeast gene.
00:25:16.22 And what that told us was that the process was control in exactly the same way
00:25:22.00 and it had been like that for 1.5 or more billion years.
00:25:27.06 _DR_ That was a eureka moment?
00:25:29.27 Did you go for bouncing around the laboratory and shouting we got it?
00:25:32.05 _PN_ This time I wasn't looking down the microscope.
00:25:34.09 I was looking at the computer that was comparing the the gene sequences
00:25:38.01 And this time it was obvious. This time I went around and shouted it. This time everybody got it.
00:25:42.28 _DR_ Interesting. Fascinating. But why should anybody care about it?
00:25:47.28 Right. Well. What this did was identifying network of genes,
00:25:54.04 and of course it wasn't just my work. I told you it's collaborative.
00:25:57.19 There are other labs that contributed to all of this.
00:25:59.24 Identified a network of genes that determined whether a cell was accurately copied so it could divide,
00:26:08.10 and whether that division process would take place.
00:26:12.25 Now why is that important?
00:26:15.22 Well it's important because it underlies the growth and reproduction
00:26:20.08 of every living thing, or most living things on this planet.
00:26:24.00 I mean of the trees out there, of you, of me, of the fly that's buzzing around,
00:26:28.24 all the cells in that body, all the different bodies of all these different organisms,
00:26:33.27 it's controlled in the same way by the same network.
00:26:36.20 So it is a contribution to our culture, to our understanding of the world.
00:26:41.18 But that isn't the reason you asked question.
00:26:43.28 I think you were thinking in a more utilitarian way what use might it be.
00:26:48.06 _DR_ Exactly.
00:26:48.20 _PN_ And the reason it's useful
00:26:50.13 is first of all, it could make us think about how you can control that process
00:26:55.12 because we know the main elements that do it.
00:26:57.12 And secondly it goes wrong in cancer.
00:27:00.08 Cancer is uncontrolled cell division.
00:27:04.01 There are as many causes of it, but in the end they all have to focus
00:27:07.26 on this gene network to promote the cells to divide.
00:27:11.06 It's not that it's gonna provide a cure for cancer,
00:27:13.23 because all cells have this particular network.
00:27:17.08 But I do argue that unless you understand this,
00:27:21.07 you cannot even think properly about cures for cancer.
00:27:25.05 And it's, it's the background knowledge that you need
00:27:29.27 before you can translate these understanding into cures.
00:27:34.21 And so it is very important. And indeed quite a few pharmaceutical companies,
00:27:39.24 I'm not involved in that work myself,
00:27:41.18 are working on this network or on other components that interact with that network
00:27:46.27 to look for new ways of treating and diagnosing cancer.
00:27:50.29 _DR_ And of course you will get a percentage of what the pharmaceutical companies make out of it.
00:27:55.02 _PN_ Well for some reason I didn't manage to put something together allowed me to do that.
00:27:58.18 So the answer is no, but I don't have a problem with that.
00:28:03.01 _DR_ Let's talk a moment about the, what are the directions of science?
00:28:07.13 In the 21 century, what are the major directions of science now?
00:28:11.10 _PN_ Well. That's of course many, and most interesting ones are probably the ones
00:28:15.23 that we're not going to predict today.
00:28:18.03 But the ones that I'm particularly interested in is physics. Dark matter, dark energy.
00:28:25.10 15 years ago, we thought we understood by looking at the universe
00:28:30.23 that we understood most of the matter in the world, in the universe.
00:28:35.04 Today we know we are only looking around 15% or some such low percentage,
00:28:41.07 because there is a whole mess of stuff out there,
00:28:43.09 which is contributing to gravity, and galaxies and so on, that we have yet to detect.
00:28:47.25 _DR_ You mean we don't see it?
00:28:49.15 _PN_ We don't see it with our normal ways of measuring fundamental particles and so on.
00:28:55.17 There are something else out there that we have yet to discover.
00:28:58.24 _DR_ Excuse me, doc, but how we know that?
00:29:01.00 Because if you look at the rotation and movement of galaxies,
00:29:04.28 it's clear they have much more mass, and it's also much more energy which is a related argument,
00:29:10.06 than we can predict by the visible mass that we know about that.
00:29:14.29 It's incredible, isn't it?
00:29:16.14 15 years ago we thought we knew it all.
00:29:19.05 Today we know 85% percent is unknown.
00:29:21.19 And we might find it in the large hadron collider in Geneva
00:29:26.22 or we may find it with the, some of these new telescopes,
00:29:29.10 but it's a big problem and is one we didn't even know we had a couple decades ago.
00:29:34.01 _DR_ So dark matter?
00:29:34.26 _PN_ Dark matter and dark energy, which is related.
00:29:36.29 In biological sciences, well here I'm biased because I'm a biologist.
00:29:41.09 And I think that, what I think we're going to see is a, a really good understanding of how cells work.
00:29:48.21 Cells are the basic building block of all living things.
00:29:52.00 You were once a single cell, you underwent repeated divisions to make you.
00:29:56.02 And understanding how cells work is really a key to understanding how life works.
00:30:03.13 We understand how a cell works, how it organizes itself in space and time,
00:30:07.24 how it is homeostatic maintained itself, how it can ...
00:30:11.23 _DR_ Excuse me. You said homeostatic?
00:30:12.14 _PN_ Homeostatic means...
00:30:13.11 _DR_ It's a new word to me.
00:30:13.20 _PN_ It's a new word. It's Greek and it's how it maintains itself in its present state.
00:30:18.15 _DR_ I see.
00:30:19.07 _PN_ So if it gets perturbed you can correct for this.
00:30:22.02 Or this is a complex regulatory system, a complex system.
00:30:25.14 And understanding how cells work is going to be informed I mean by
00:30:29.17 knowing all the components and what they do and how they're connected,
00:30:33.09 which is a lot to do with how we manage information.
00:30:36.09 And the reason I mention that is that all these advances in computing
00:30:39.21 and so on are going to contribute even though it doesn't seem to be related.
00:30:43.22 And understanding complex systems is going to contribute to understanding how cells work.
00:30:48.12 So that's gonna be my second pick over the coming half century.
00:30:52.10 I think will make great progress in understanding how cells work.
00:30:56.19 And that'll get us closer to understanding how life works.
00:30:59.18 _DR_ You a bit talked about support for sustainability.
00:31:04.09 Explain that to me why means it mean so much to you?
00:31:07.04 _PN_ Well we talked about science driving economic growth.
00:31:10.00 But my view is in the planet of finite resources,
00:31:14.28 we have to have economic advancement in a sustainable framework.
00:31:20.00 So that we don't have limitations on natural resources like water for example,
00:31:26.15 that we and food and we have to always have our mind thinking about that.
00:31:32.14 _DR_ I'm an optimist by nature and by experience.
00:31:35.19 But we have a planet now populated by what, at least 7 maybe 8 billion people.
00:31:44.00 _PN_ Yeah.
00:31:44.27 _DR_ How can you be optimistic?
00:31:46.15 Would you realistically if you will with a scientific mind look at the facts?
00:31:51.02 _PN_ We do have some economic solutions to this, to do with redistribution.
00:31:55.00 There is really things that can be done,
00:31:57.28 which we somehow never managed to do properly,
00:32:01.02 which means that even with today's resources and the food wastage.
00:32:03.29 You know, 40% of food in advanced nations is wasted, 40%.
00:32:08.29 I mean if we could only get all of that right we will be a long way to solving the problem.
00:32:14.03 So the things to do with politics and distribution and equality which would help greatly.
00:32:19.07 Then the science. The science can help solve these problems too.
00:32:24.12 If we look at crop production, ever since the green revolution of the 1960s,
00:32:29.10 when principles of proper plumb breeding combined with and good husbandry and fertilizer and irrigation,
00:32:40.17 we've seen a dramatic increase in food production.
00:32:44.16 There is a field in Rothamsted. This is an agricultural station in United Kingdom,
00:32:50.24 which is being growing wheat, I think for something like, I'm not sure I get the figures right here,
00:32:56.24 but over 150 years maybe 200 years, and the production now per acre is now 8 to 10 times higher
00:33:07.10 than it was over the exactly same land.
00:33:10.01 _DR_ Because of the science?
00:33:11.00 _PN_ Because of the science. And we still have places to go.
00:33:15.10 Now you got me on climate change.
00:33:17.25 Now I go on to GM, genetically modified crops.
00:33:20.19 We have the possibility of helping feed the world, cultivating marginal habitats
00:33:28.05 by better plumb breeding, which will include genetic modification.
00:33:33.09 And I think that the objection to genetic modification of crops on the whole is irrational.
00:33:39.20 In the united States, it is less of a contentious issue.
00:33:42.02 But if I go back to Europe it's a hugely contentious issue.
00:33:45.10 _DR_ Well, it is a building issue in this country.
00:33:47.00 _PN_ It is. genetic modification
00:33:49.01 Let me say one thing about these two issues,
00:33:50.25 which come up all the time in the politically and ideologically influence.
00:33:54.08 What really interests me, I don't have a solution for this,
00:33:56.17 in the U. S. on the whole, GMO is being generally accepted, certainly better than in Europe.
00:34:03.07 But there's a much greater debate about climate change
00:34:06.25 whereas in Europe is the complete reverse.
00:34:09.18 And I find that interesting and also tells us that this isn't to do with science,
00:34:14.10 is to do with ideology in politics.
00:34:16.08 _DR_ It is true that the United States, it's not as hot issue as climate change.
00:34:20.28 And I think your point is interesting with Europe it's the reverse.
00:34:26.05 But there is of a building movement, of resisting, these genetically modified foods.
00:34:33.02 And saying we will behind your on this.
00:34:36.21 But you know as individuals, as people, as a society, what would you do about this?
00:34:42.15 I mean I'm interested in having your food as the next guide?
00:34:45.23 Well I tell you what I think is very important here and the scientists,
00:34:50.02 and maybe the commercial interests failed here with GMOs.
00:34:54.14 We didn't really have a good and proper debate about the issues early enough.
00:34:59.04 It was just assumed these would be acceptable to the public
00:35:02.23 when the public didn't really know what was going on.
00:35:04.22 One thing was the very aggressive marketing and advertising by companies.
00:35:11.17 With people got deeply suspicious of.
00:35:17.05 But the second reason, which was really interesting
00:35:17.17 when the normal the normal public were asked the question why don't you like GMOs
00:35:23.07 and the answer was that by far the most frequent answering in the surveys
00:35:27.14 that I was involved in this, we don't want to eat food which has genes in them.
00:35:32.09 Now the reason I mention this is that this is something that a scientist can't conceive of
00:35:37.15 because they know all food has genes in it because it is made from living organisms.
00:35:41.28 Now they want saying foreign genes or anything more sophisticated, just genes.
00:35:46.08 And it made me realize that we had never even going out and
00:35:51.16 ask the public what bothered them.
00:35:54.08 And that's just plain stupid. We were just stupid.
00:35:56.24 What we need to do is engage the public,
00:35:59.15 know what the issues are, know what their fears are, and then we have to answer them.
00:36:03.17 And so is proper engagement, proper dialogue, I think helps solve out all these problems.
00:36:08.27 _DR_ Well certainly in any talk, any mention of genes is right in your wheelhouse.
00:36:13.16 _PN_ It is.
00:36:14.25 _DR_ As a broad generality I take your point. Should I be worried about GMO food?
00:36:21.08 No. We've been mortifying the genetic makeup of food for ever since
00:36:27.19 the agricultural revolution in 10,000 BC.
00:36:32.25 I mean we've been doing it by crossing different plants together
00:36:36.12 and we could have made very dangerous plants and very dangerous animals by
00:36:40.13 crossing certain, a genetic material that could cause it.
00:36:44.25 We now can do it in a way where we can introduce genes from more distant organisms,
00:36:49.21 which gives you greater possibilities.
00:36:52.22 But the key point is, not how you do it but what you make.
00:36:57.13 And this is what's so crazy about it,
00:36:59.15 you can have a production line making cars or making tanks.
00:37:03.28 And they are very similar. Cars are safe. Tanks are not safe at least for people. They kill people.
00:37:13.02 Yet the means by which they are made are the same.
00:37:15.18 This is the basic argument behind GMOs
00:37:19.07 That you can make something safe or you can make something dangerous by
00:37:22.15 conventional breeding or by GMOs.
00:37:24.23 Focus on what you make not how you make it.
00:37:27.26 _DR_ Let's talk about the Nobel Prize.
00:37:30.03 Where were you when you got the word?
00:37:33.26 _PN_ Well I was in an office with Jim Watson, Watson and Crick fame.
00:37:40.05 It was in London. It was 2001.
00:37:43.11 And then somebody came in from the office and said
00:37:46.19 Your office is just phoned and they would like you to turn on your mobile phone.
00:37:50.27 And so I went out. It was pretty clunky mobile phone.
00:37:55.01 And there was a recorded message.
00:37:58.24 And I listen to the recorded message and it was somebody with a very heavy accent.
00:38:03.28 I don't know if you've ever listen to Swedish accent speaking English
00:38:08.02 but it's a bit like speaking English with a hot potato in the mouth.
00:38:11.14 And I didn't understand what was being said.
00:38:14.17 Is he speaking English?
00:38:16.21 He is speaking English but I couldn't quite get it in the Scandinavian accent of course.
00:38:21.25 I of course can't speak Swedish so what am I complaining about.
00:38:24.29 But I listened to it and I thought I think they are asking me to comment on
00:38:30.27 who's got the Nobel Prize this year.
00:38:34.01 I mean that was my first thought.
00:38:35.18 So I then went back and listened to it again.
00:38:38.19 And then it gradually trickle through they were telling me that I won the Nobel Price.
00:38:43.10 I just didn't quite, sort of, you hadn't thought the sun came.
00:38:47.21 So I sort of stopped there and then I thought that I had to go back to the office
00:38:51.14 so I went back to the room with Jim and the other sitting and I said
00:38:54.21 "Do excuse me." Just listen to this and one of the most stupid things that I have ever said in my life.
00:38:58.21 and "Do excuse me but I got to go now because I think I've won the Nobel prize."
00:39:05.16 And I just left to try and confirm it, which I did when I got back to my office.
00:39:11.12 _DR_ It's one of the most cliches questions in all of television.
00:39:15.13 But what was going through your mind? Right from ‘I got to go’.
00:39:20.09 When you understood you were pretty sure that you won a Nobel Prize?
00:39:25.09 Well it wasn't a complete surprise
00:39:28.04 because I have won several prizes that sort of lead up to it.
00:39:30.29 It didn't come like a meteorite hitting me.
00:39:33.07 But the noble prize is the only scientific prize that anybody in the world knows about.
00:39:38.25 The fact you probably wouldn't be talking to me today if I hadn't won the noble prize.
00:39:43.19 You suddenly become a figure that people in a minor sort of way pay attention to.
00:39:49.21 And so you do become a sort of different person and
00:39:54.13 I knew enough about it to realize that was going to happen, which indeed it did.
00:39:59.24 But you know there's a lot of luck in winning the Nobel Prize. Let's be blunt about.
00:40:04.22 I know many scientists at the same quality.
00:40:07.01 You do have to be in the right place in an area at the right time,
00:40:10.20 has to be work that can be identified with two or three people.
00:40:14.02 and if you get all those stars together than the Nobel Prize can come
00:40:18.22 but does many of my colleagues who I know are equally deserving
00:40:23.10 _DR_ But I'm a great believer in that cliche
00:40:25.04 that where preparation leads to opportunity is what many people call luck.
00:40:31.17 _PN_ Yes. Well look... I'm a pretty good scientists, I’m not trying to deny that.
00:40:39.02 I have exploited serendipity.
00:40:41.12 I told you the story of how I found the small cells dividing.
00:40:45.05 I wasn't looking for those
00:40:46.08 But when I saw them I interpreted it and I got it right.
00:40:50.11 _DR_ Because you have prepared yourself for that moment.
00:40:53.16 _PN_ Somehow I mean of course I haven't prepared myself in the sense I was looking for them.
00:40:57.13 But soon as Nature gave it to me. I recognized it and that's how I viewed it.
00:41:02.08 And I thought I view a lot of biology you have to follow where nature takes you.
00:41:06.21 And so I was very open to that.
00:41:09.15 And so indeed it was serendipitous,
00:41:12.11 indeed it was luck, but you did have to indeed as you're implying capitalize on that luck.
00:41:17.23 _DR_ You have a very interesting what we call backstory.
00:41:20.24 Let's talk about your own genetic background,
00:41:23.08 and there's interesting, a fascinating story of what you found out very late in life.
00:41:28.27 Well when I was working in the United States as president of Rockefeller University which where now we are sitting.
00:41:35.06 I applied for a green card. And I was rejected by homeland security.
00:41:41.24 And I was a bit miffed by that because at the time
00:41:44.25 I was president of university. I had a Nobel Prize and I was nitid.
00:41:48.09 _DR_ But you can't get a green card?
00:41:50.05 _PN_ I couldn't get a green card. Okay.
00:41:51.15 And the reason they didn't give me a green card was because they didn't like my birth certificate.
00:41:56.10 And my birth certificate identified me as a British citizen
00:42:01.02 when and where I was born, but it did not name my parents.
00:42:03.29 Now I knew that I had a birth certificate of that sort it's called a short birth certificate.
00:42:08.28 Cause I’ve asked my parents about it and they said well you have a short one because
00:42:13.08 a long one was more expensive.
00:42:15.04 Being naive I thought well good enough reason.
00:42:18.29 I wrote away for long birth certificate. It came back.
00:42:22.08 I was in my office just a few yards from here.
00:42:25.28 And opens the envelope is given by my secretary to me
00:42:30.03 and she said I didn't send it back to home land security
00:42:32.25 because I wondered whether you'd got the name of your mother wrong.
00:42:36.13 I said of course I didn't get the name of my mother wrong.
00:42:39.13 I opened this letter. I looked at it. There were several people in the room.
00:42:43.21 You know sometimes there is a certain emotional intensity rises and they were all looking at me.
00:42:49.01 And I opened the birth certificate and I looked at the name of my mother.
00:42:52.21 And it wasn't the name of my mother, it was the name of my sister.
00:42:56.23 And I looked at this and I thought how could this be.
00:43:01.03 So then I looked for the farther and under the father there was just a line. There was no name.
00:43:07.01 So I stared at this thing and then slowly this coincidence began to drop very slowly in my head.
00:43:14.11 And I realized I'd been brought up by my grandparents.
00:43:18.23 _DR_ So the people you thought were your mother and your father ...
00:43:22.09 _PN_ were actually my grandmother and my grandfather.
00:43:26.05 What happened was this, my sister, who of course is my mother
00:43:29.26 I know it gets very confusing got pregnant at 17.
00:43:33.15 Like a Victorian novel she was sent away to her aunts.
00:43:37.21 I was born. My grandmother came up.
00:43:41.00 And lived there for several months and then came back pretending she was the mother.
00:43:47.01 _DR_ To bring it straight you mother is pregnant she is sent away.
00:43:50.27 Very common in Victorian times.
00:43:55.00 _PN_ This wasn't Victorian times. This was just after the second World War of course.
00:43:58.20 _DR_ Uh, just after second World War. I want be very respectful here.
00:44:02.06 Do you thought in your mind that your father whom I understand you still don't know,
00:44:06.16 might have been an American serviceman?
00:44:09.01 _PN_ In fact, it could be anybody.
00:44:10.04 I mean but I imagine that's possible.
00:44:13.04 I mean there were many American servicemen in the UK and she loved jazz.
00:44:18.13 And of course jazz came over with the American GIs.
00:44:23.16 _DR_ You were at what age when you found this out?
00:44:24.24 _PN_ I was in my late fifties. My mother, sister died early.
00:44:31.05 _DR_ I see.
00:44:31.27 _PN_ So I never had that discussion with her,
00:44:35.27 which would have been of course of great interest to me.
00:44:38.10 _DR_ Put it mildly what a shock this must have been!
00:44:41.04 _PN_ I was a bit sort of confused for a little while.
00:44:46.02 I remember I I told my doctor here when I was living in New York.
00:44:50.10 and he looked at me and he said, "I hope you're under investigation." You know, …
00:44:59.00 _DR_ And I hope you are in therapy.
00:45:00.00 _PN_ I hope I was in therapy. That's right. That's the word I was blanking on.
00:45:02.25 It never occurred to me. I was brought up happily. I have no problems.
00:45:06.25 It was all straightforward.
00:45:08.08 _DR_ It wouldn't be very straight forward in the fact that the grandmother was
00:45:12.00 None of this was straight forward but it was very straightforward as child for me.
00:45:15.02 And I was as I said happy I think it would have been better had they told me.
00:45:21.04 But they didn't and in the end I can't say I came out as damaged goods.
00:45:25.15 so I'm okay and I'm grateful for what they did.
00:45:29.08 _DR_ Ever find your father who he was?
00:45:31.04 _PN_ No. That remains a blank.
00:45:34.24 _DR_ Aren't you curious enough to run your own investigation?
00:45:36.20 _PN_ I'm a geneticist so if this was a Hollywood film I would sequence my own genome.
00:45:42.22 And then you know go out and use that information.
00:45:47.07 Now I am a good enough geneticist to know that with that sequence
00:45:51.12 you'd have to do a lot of analysis and you have to do a lot of work
00:45:55.06 to be able to make sense of it.
00:45:56.27 Maybe a few more years if nobody has volunteered I'll have to go myself.
00:46:01.25 _DR_ What a story!
00:46:02.25 _PN_ Well thank you. Very good. Thank you. Great.
00:46:07.18 _DR_ I didn't do anything. Thank you. Great interview. Thank you so much. You were terrific.
00:46:10.18 _PN_ No, you are too nice to me.

This Talk

Speakers: Paul Nurse, Daniel Rather

Audience:

General Public
Educators of H. School / Intro Undergrad
Student
Educators of Adv. Undergrad / Grad
Researcher
Educators

Recorded: November 2015

Talk Overview

Audio only:

About the interview
Paul Nurse and Dan Rather have both spent their lives looking at the world and how it works, albeit from very different perspectives. Now the Nobel Prize winning geneticist and esteemed journalist come together for a frank and thoughtful conversation on the state of science and its role in society. Topics include climate change, GMOs, science education, how research spurs economic development, and Dr. Nurse’s own remarkably inspiring and surprising personal history. Funding for this interview was provided by the Lasker Foundation.

Read Dan Rather’s thoughts about the interview in this Mashable article: A scientist examines the folly of ‘I am not a scientist.’

Dan Rather has a resume that reads like a history book. He has interviewed every American president since Eisenhower and personally covered almost every important global dateline of the last 60 years, from the Civil Rights Movement to Vietnam, to Watergate to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Rather helped pioneer the very idea that television could be a place for news, and he has kept that spirit of innovation alive by constantly pushing the boundaries of what video storytelling could accomplish. His independent production company News and Guts specializes in high-quality non-fiction content across a range of traditional and digital distribution channels. He has a special interest in telling the stories of science.

Speaker Bio

Paul Nurse

Sir Paul Nurse is a leading geneticist, science advocate, and policy maker who has had an major impact on science throughout his career. Nurse won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2001 for the discovery of the protein cdc2/CDK1, a cyclin-dependent kinase that is the key regulator of the cell cycle. He is… Continue Reading

Daniel Rather

Dan Rather has a resume that reads like a history book. He has interviewed every American president since Eisenhower and personally covered almost every important global dateline of the last 60 years, from the Civil Rights Movement to Vietnam, to Watergate to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Rather helped pioneer the very idea that television… Continue Reading