Science Communication
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
| Title |
| |
| Title of Series | ||
| Number of Parts | 340 | |
| Author | ||
| License | CC Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0 International: You are free to use, copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor. | |
| Identifiers | 10.5446/45063 (DOI) | |
| Publisher | ||
| Release Date | ||
| Language |
Content Metadata
| Subject Area | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings308 / 340
3
5
15
16
18
22
23
27
32
33
34
35
47
54
58
67
69
70
72
73
78
79
83
84
85
86
87
90
92
95
100
102
103
104
105
106
114
115
116
118
119
120
122
126
128
129
130
131
133
137
142
143
145
147
148
149
153
155
156
159
162
163
165
168
169
174
176
178
181
182
189
194
198
201
202
203
206
209
213
214
217
218
219
220
225
227
228
237
240
241
244
245
250
254
257
260
261
266
273
278
284
285
287
291
293
297
302
308
310
317
318
319
321
325
327
328
333
00:00
Meeting/Interview
00:48
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
01:21
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
03:52
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
04:18
Lecture/Conference
04:43
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
05:40
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
07:28
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
08:44
Lecture/Conference
09:14
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
09:40
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
10:16
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
10:56
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
11:32
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
12:01
Lecture/Conference
12:29
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
14:08
Lecture/Conference
14:35
Lecture/Conference
15:22
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
15:50
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
16:58
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
17:41
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
19:36
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
20:44
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
22:01
Meeting/InterviewLecture/Conference
22:59
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
24:50
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
25:39
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
26:19
Lecture/Conference
28:31
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
29:18
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
29:46
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
30:53
Meeting/Interview
31:46
Meeting/Interview
32:41
Lecture/ConferenceMeeting/Interview
33:12
Lecture/Conference
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:14
Good morning and welcome, everybody. We've just been talking about wars and crushed ant termite tennis courts,
00:23
and we've both got the wrong shirts on because we're going to be filmed today. So, excuse us, we're working off the back foot here. And he should know. Yeah, I should know, but, you know, I tend to ignore these things. So, welcome everybody to this Agora talk here at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meetings 2018.
00:44
I am very happy to be here, very, myself, very happy to have met Peter Doherty for the first time properly. We met once before, about 2015, when you, yes, you did, I've got the video to prove it, but don't worry about that. I don't remember anything.
01:00
No, good, that's fine. Let's say again, we're on the same footing here. Right. But no, that was the time when there was the Minow climate change agreement that you all signed, or a couple of you signed, not everybody. That's really been massively successful, the Minow climate change agreement. You've got a declaration. Think how it's changed the world. It has indeed, and we're going to get into that.
01:22
Nobel Laureates getting together, making pronouncements, has about as much effect as, and I, I can't. Yeah, exactly. Stop while you're behind, I think. No, I think so. I may not be asked back, but. Of course you are. Hands up then, first of all, who needs an introduction?
01:41
Because I wonder whether Peter needs an introduction here. Yes, right. Okay, so you're all awake. You've had your coffee. I'll give you the introduction anyway. So Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, 1996, was awarded the award with Rolf Tinkernagel for your research into the immune defense systems, particular,
02:06
specifically, killer T cells, and how they function. We've learned a lot about that. The work was actually done in the 70s, wasn't it? So it took 20 years. Yeah, it's over 40 years ago. So we've learned a lot in that period of time.
02:20
We've learned a lot about these particular cells, and there is a reason why I'm mentioning this particularly, and that is what we know about T cells. Now, trust me, I come from a non-science background, so bear with me. How they operate, how some get exhausted, correct me if I'm wrong, some get revived,
02:40
some have a T cell memory as well, which is really interesting, like muscle memory, and that sort of thing. And all this can have a bearing on how we treat and will come to treat particular things in the future, influenza, HIV, cancers, and all the rest. All that sort of stuff is the stuff that scientists are working on, you, Peter, working
03:03
on, and the public's really interested in it as well, because who wants flu? Who wants HIV? Who wants cancers, right? And we're all happy that we know that there are some people out there working on this stuff, right? Okay. So I want to try this hands up thing once again. So if I can read my writing here, hands up.
03:25
You of you, you young scientists who are in the field, hands up, how many of you think you would want to know or care about the function of T cells if you weren't scientists? And how many of you would just be happy to know that there are people out there doing
03:44
something that's going to give some magical cure, like a vaccine for HIV at some point? So first of all, hands up, who would really like to know and would probably think that they would understand, as a non-scientist, the function of T cells?
04:01
I mean, if you saw the word T cells somewhere in an article or whatever, would you go, T cells, what's that? I need to look deeper. Or T cells don't get it, chuck it. Yeah, okay, so we're getting there. And who of you would just be happy to know that there are some people working on this stuff? I think that's more exposed of you, isn't it? Okay.
04:20
Yeah. So this is where we're heading to, because this is what I'm really interested in as a journalist, a science journalist who doesn't have a science background breaking through these barriers. How far do we have to go? And that's what we want to talk about today. And this is something that you have been very interested in and have done a lot of work on over the years. About science communication and what is becoming this science of science communication.
04:43
Yeah, well, one of the things the Nobel Prize does to you is it gives you a sort of public profile. And suddenly you're transformed from being a lab scientist of very little interest to anybody to being a global authority on just about everything, quite frankly.
05:02
That's okay. So, but you can either take up that challenge or not of trying to talk to the broader public about science. And some people who win Nobel Prizes do and some don't. And some are good at it and some aren't good at it, just like all of us are good at some things and not others.
05:20
And so I've been trying to talk about science to the broader community now for more than 20 years. And, you know, we've been spectacularly successful. We now see President Trump in the White House. He's a man who doesn't believe in evidence. And so I think science has had, we've got a way to go, quite frankly.
05:41
So how does something like the conversation, which you helped set up in Australia, but it's gone international, and also the Knowledge Wars, how does that feed into? One of the things I've been very interested in is how we get good information out there. OK, how do we communicate broadly? And of course, as we all know now, there are many avenues that particularly guys like
06:06
you will use. I mean, if you're in social media and you read a good article, you can tweet the URL to it and hope that other people take some interest. If it's a readable account in somewhere that's really accessible, you can put stuff up on
06:23
YouTube and all sorts of things like that. So you, for the first time, I think in history, any one of us, any one of us in this room has the capacity to start to put out good information about science. And I think if you try to do that, especially if you're thinking, say, about social
06:42
media or YouTube, I think visually, if you can put out visual information, because a lot of science that's really hard for a layperson who doesn't think in these terms to understand, we're used to a kind of scientific language. We're used to the idea that evidence matters.
07:01
We're used to the idea that you do experiments and you probe and you ask questions and you try to come to conclusions. But that's not generally the way society works. So the language of science, even the simplest language, even the idea of probability and relative risk, which is embedded in everything we think about, is not embedded in the way
07:23
the general public thinks. So if you can get beyond words and you can put things visually, I think it's a great way to do it. And basically, this model is what's called the conversation. It's one word, the conversation. And basically, the model is this. This is an open access website published every day.
07:43
And all the articles are written by academics. And by academics, I mean anyone in this room. If you're associated with a university or a research institute, you can sign up to write for the conversation. It's the conversation, one word, and it can be the conversation.com or .edu or whatever.
08:02
And basically, the model is this. You contact the editors, you write an 800-word article on the thing that you know about or you're passionate about or you're very interested in. I mean, you may be interested in multi-drug resistance or you might be interested in, well, circadian rhythms. We had wonderful talks this morning.
08:21
Now, that information is not out there in most of the public. You might be a graduate student. I mean, you might be writing historically. So you write 800 words. And then it goes into, you submit it online, and then it goes into a newsroom of professional journalists, people who really know what the public reads, what they can
08:41
take and what they can't take. And it goes back and forth in a very simple online editing format. They may add some really nice illustrations, and then it comes out and it's published online. Now, it's available to anyone anywhere who wants to read it. Any citizen anywhere can just put their email address in.
09:00
They can get this to their inbox free every day. And any media organisation that wants to republish that article can republish it just with an acknowledgement on the understanding they don't edit. Which is really nice because, I mean, you probably all are on things like Researchgate, Researchgate and that sort of stuff. It's closed to people who aren't scientists.
09:22
So this is very, and coming back to the original point, what I actually really do like is Peter wrote a very interesting article about the bugs that we all carry and how the immune system fights those bugs. It was not superficial at all. And I think I kind of understood a bit of it as well. Yeah, so that's a very good case in point.
09:40
In this case, I didn't initiate it. One of the editors from the conversation in Melbourne initiated the idea that we try and write about this sort of microbiome immunity interface and all the rest of it. Now, and she asked me if I'd write about the immunological side. So I wrote something, and I've written now six lay books.
10:00
And I've talked a lot on the broader theme. And I've got some understanding of public communication, but no training. No, I'm not a journalist. But she looked at it. I don't have any training either, so don't worry about it. Yeah, I mean, that training is vastly overrated. But she looked at it, and she couldn't get a lot of it.
10:21
So she then changed it and sent it back. And there were bits in it then that were obviously wrong and made no sense. So it went back with them forwards about three or four times. And then eventually we got it to a stage where we both agreed it. And then it went out. And so what happens then with these articles is many of them get republished.
10:42
I think it's about something like 60% get republished somewhere. And what's more, if your university is signed on to this, you can get feedback when it comes to trying to get a job. And they say, well, what's your experience with talking to the public about science or science communication?
11:01
You can actually get a feedback and say, well, I wrote for the conversation. X number of people read my article. It was republished six times and all the rest of it. And so you can actually get that as metrics. So the conversation kicked off in Australia in 2011. Just a totally new thing. It gets something like, I think it's 50 million hits a month or something like that.
11:26
It started in Australia. It then started in the United Kingdom. It's running in Africa. It's running in the United States. Canada and Indonesia are the two latest. It's running in France. And so look at it.
11:40
And there's a global one. So any of you can sign up to write for the conversation, even if your institutions are not involved. So anyway, it's an attempt to try to get good written material out there. And I'm pleased I had some small involvement and I'm kind of proud of that. Good on you. Now, just one point in the interest of one of those favored old journalism lies, the interest
12:07
of balance and, you know, non bias. Peter mentioned the Murdoch industry. There was at some point also some issue with Fairfax Media, which is another one of the big Australian media outlets.
12:21
I forget her name, but somebody who's deeply involved, her family deeply involved in the mining industries in Australia took over Fairfax. And there were also similar fears. She tried to, but she didn't. She didn't actually manage in the end. I didn't manage. Good. So we cleared that one up. Now, as I sort of alluded to at the start, there's also this idea of the science of science communication.
12:40
So going a bit deeper into, you know, past sort of gut feelings as to what the public can take and what you think you can reveal and what you think you're comfortable with writing about and reading some of the studies. I'm sure you have as well. I get the sense that there's a bit of a sort of a sense of tribalism, right? And when we talk about educating the public, getting more knowledge out there so that people
13:06
understand more about science, they can go a bit deeper. What does it actually do now? You have also written about being, you know, one of the stars of the book circuit now. You're, as you said, you said you're an expert on absolutely everything now.
13:21
So that's great. But because you have a name and a reputation, it allows you to express yourself in certain ways. And if you'd allow me, I'd like to, again, try to read my writing here. Some of these sort of the terms that you've used recently, this is an example of the environment in which science operates at the moment, the public and social environment.
13:46
So we've got here infinitely greedy, infinitely self-serving, infinitely corrupt, morally bankrupt, power elites, manipulating democratic governments. And this is before Trump, before Cambridge Analytica.
14:00
This was in 2015 from the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, of course. You know, you had to come up with some dangerous ideas, didn't you? Yeah, I tried. I tried to be an equal opportunity left and right offender, actually. I also did. I also defend nuclear power and GM technology. So, you know, so there's the darlings of the left and there's the darlings of the
14:20
right and it's all crap. I mean, we have to work, we have to go to evidence. If we're really going to think of ourselves as scientists, we've got to base our approach in what the evidence is and try and understand what the evidence is. But does it help when you use terms like that? I mean, you can use terms like that. When you lot go out and you speak in public and you might, I don't know, become science
14:43
communicators, local school or whatever, you know, to try and spread the word, does it help to take positions like that? Or does it feed into a tribalism where people say, I know more about the science and that actually justifies the position I already had, which is to deny climate change? Well, you know, one of the things I share with President Trump is we both tweet.
15:04
He has a lot more followers than I do, so that's why I'm madly jealous of him. But look, obviously you have to be careful with social media and we all know that. But basically, if you're trying to communicate with the broader community, the first thing
15:23
is you have to look at your language. I mean, we all use words in science that we think everybody uses. I mean, probability's one. I mean, they don't. I mean, immunologists particularly used to use the word abrogate.
15:43
When was the last time you said abrogate? Last week. I mean, there are words. In a moment, I'd like to open up the floor to questions from you lot. But while you're thinking about your questions and if you'd like to in the meantime, sort
16:01
of make your way to these two microphones. There are two microphones positioned on your left. Imagine you're on a plane and the other emergency exit is over there. On my right, your left. So if you've got a question, please make your way there. In an orderly fashion. And I have one last question for you.
16:21
Because you started in Queensland, northern eastern coast of Australia. You now have a base in Melbourne. So down below in this sort of southern eastern tip, Melbourne University, where you also have the Doherty Institute. You are still active in the US at St. Jude's Children's Hospital.
16:44
Sort of bringing that to an end. Okay. But still, what I'm trying to say, and you also did your PhD in Scotland, a country that's growing in my heart more and more. Well, that has nothing to do with satellites, nothing to do with immunology. The measurement system obviously is difficult because, I mean, basically the kind of person
17:05
you meet, well, obviously in this forum, it's very selective. If you publish books, you go to book festivals. The kind of person that comes to your talk is a different kind of person from the one that goes to the one, the romance novelist.
17:21
I tried to write a novel, but the romantic bits were just so bad. It never went anywhere. It really was dreadful. That's why a lot of male mystery writers have a character who's had six failed marriages and he's alcoholic just so they don't have to write the romantic bit.
17:44
But so the problem is it's the base that you work from, the people that come to a public lecture. I mean, you think you're communicating through public lectures. You get a lot of people coming. They're really nice people, but they're mostly sort of academics and retired school
18:02
teachers. This is not the constituency you need to talk to because they're already engaged. So it's getting out to that broader constituency. I mean, there are things that you've got to be a little bit careful of in interacting with the media, with the print media and with the visual media, anything that's edited.
18:27
If you appear in something or you write something and it goes to a print newspaper and you don't see the final product. Even if you've agreed the article with the journalist who's writing it, if they're kind
18:41
enough to do that, you don't know what their sub-editor will do with it and what they may pull out of it until it uses a heading. Because what they want to do is sell newspapers. How do you sell newspapers? Bad news and controversy and anger and fear. That's basically the basis of the newspaper industry, I'm afraid.
19:02
And so you've always got to have in mind that that's risky. The very safe forms of media interaction are direct-to-air on audio or visual or something you write which you have control of, which you do with the conversation, for instance,
19:21
and how that's subsequently published. And so there I think you can take on anything. I've been on talkback radio, on sport radio. One of the best interviews I had was on heavy metal radio. And it wasn't about lead poisoning. I mean, it was really fun. The guy was into it.
19:41
He was asking good questions. And he obviously hadn't been taking a lot of heavy metal. So it was good. Right. I think we have a few questions. Who was first? Flip a coin? You pick. Left or right? Yeah, sure.
20:01
I'll be quick. So thanks a lot for your enlightened comments. Actually, I have a very specific question I want to ask you. So I studied circadian clocks. And as a side project outside of the lab, I also study how scientific knowledge is integrated into Wikipedia.
20:20
And I've had a case study about the reflection of circadian clocks in Wikipedia as a popular platform. And in my recent paper about it, I proposed three options in which either Wikipedia contradicts scientific tradition, reflects it, or expands on it. And I could happily argue either with you, but I would like to get your input on that.
20:44
I'd really like to know your results, actually, because I tend to look at Wikipedia. And when I look at Wikipedia in the areas I know about, it's generally pretty good. Right. So then I naturally make the assumption that Wikipedia is generally pretty good.
21:01
Well, that may be a wrong assumption. Is that a wrong assumption? So I think from my experience, I took as a case study my research field for circadian clocks, which was surprisingly accurate. But I think the interesting question is not so much whether it's right or wrong, but what it says about our culture and how it could reflect, for example, citation,
21:23
activity, or how it would open up editing and opinions for not so much the expert. Let me ask you then, if, for instance, someone writing a newspaper article on circadian clocks was to use solely as their information what they could find in Wikipedia, would it
21:43
be a good article? I would say overall, yes. So the reference list would have all the papers that a good clock person should be familiar with. And it's pretty accurate. And actually, in my study, what I did is since every edit in Wikipedia is logged,
22:01
then you can go back in time and read through all the edits. And I could also see how over time it can also reflect changes in scientific thought. But maybe... I'm encouraged by that, because I do think it's a good... But I think the type of person who goes to Wikipedia is the kind of person who's already kind of switched on to how you get decent information.
22:23
Because, you know, it's classic. I mean, it's the tale of two cities. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. I mean, I think there are some great beginnings to books, and that one is, it was the best of times. I might do that. I think the other one is Jane Austen, that every man of wealth must be in need of a
22:43
wife. I mean, that's a pride and prejudice. And I think every romantic novel... Not that I spend all my life reading romantic novels. Every romantic novel is basically Jane Austen revisited. But I'm really encouraged by that. Thank you. I would have to continue talking when it's not...
23:01
That's a good idea. Thank you. Because with an eye on the clock, we've got 10 minutes to go. Over to you. Hello. My name is Naomi Bruhn. I'm from the United States. I'm an engineering student. And a lot of times, as an engineer, I'm looking to find ways that I can share my knowledge with people who are in the humanities or in the political sphere. But oftentimes, I have the issue that they don't want to hear what I have to say if
23:21
I talk to a politician or someone who's interested in English, per se. So I was wondering how practically scientists could better collaborate and communicate with people in the social sciences and the humanities, in addition to things like the conversation. Yeah. I mean, well, the conversation's one way. Social sciences are a little bit easier sometimes, depending on what social science
23:41
you're talking about. I think of economics as a social science. Maybe that's wrong. And it is sometimes, and sometimes it's not. I think it's trying to put things, initially at least, in terms they're interested in. But I think there is a real problem in the humanities culture.
24:02
And that as soon as some people, I don't know whether it's what happened to them at school or what it was, but some people who are educated and think of themselves as well educated in the humanities sense, as soon as they come across any scientific statement or statement about science that's even vaguely sciencey, they turn off.
24:23
And it's frustrating because I think it's reasonable to say that just as in my era at least, and my era is a long way back now, you wouldn't regard an educated person as someone who hadn't read a bit of Shakespeare or whatever, or The Great Poets
24:43
and all the rest of it. And of course, there's debate about that too. Kanye West. Yeah. But so, did you say? I said Kanye West, The Great Poets. Yeah, he's... Don't let me derail you, keep going. The Kardashian phenomenon is a fascinating one.
25:03
But I think I got it right. You did indeed. I think anyway. I think, yeah, this is beyond me. But I think that's a real issue. And that's what this book was about actually, that I wrote, to try and talk to people
25:21
who don't like science, who are not interested in science. Of course, it's hopeless. But I think if you can sort of try and drag them in through some sort of practical example, maybe that's one way of doing it. Engineers, of course, are wonderful because they actually do things. That are useful. Look at that smile.
25:42
Look at that, yeah. Well done. Over here, we have the next question. Yeah, thanks very much for a fascinating discussion. My name's Mike Daniels. I work in Edinburgh on Alzheimer's disease and dementia, which is something that's particularly hit by, I think, media headlines and things like that.
26:01
Do you think that clickbait and media headlines suggesting cures for diseases all the time, do you think that's ever going to change? And how do we, as scientists, act to try and kind of put a lid on all these headlines about research that was done on cells in a dish? I know. It's really problematic. And there are all sorts of dynamics operating here that are really unfortunate.
26:24
I mean, you publish your wonderful study of Alzheimer's in a dish in nature. Your organization, your university's media department says, hey, this is a nature paper, the media should be interested. There may be no real intrinsic entrance for the media.
26:42
If they do manage to engage with a journalist, even an informed journalist, then there has to be a story comes out of it. And the story that you've got, which is a great story for the people who are working on Alzheimer's or the people who are working on protein folding or whatever it is, or G coupled receptors or whatever the aspect you're looking at, they
27:02
think it's a great story. But it's not a story that resonates with the general public. When it's beaten up to try and make it of interest to the public, the problem with that is it doesn't actually lead to anything. And when you get this year after year after year, and I can remember growing up
27:21
in Brisbane in the 1960s, when your grandfathers were around, that cancer was cured at least twice a year. Usually when the guy who was doing cancer research in Brisbane didn't get his grant, there'd be this thing about how the terrible people are refusing to give money to this
27:44
guy who's cured cancer. And that has led over the years to a kind of blase view of science in much of the community and the pronouncements of science. And what made it even worse, I think, was when biotech came along.
28:02
And there were quite a number of people in the scientific community who made a lot of money out of really crap biotech. And that also created a lot of cynicism in the financial community. And so some of what's happened, it's kind of a lethal mix between different cultures.
28:21
It's not that people are being deliberately dishonest. It's just that you've got different motivations operating in different communities. Although in terms of the dishonesty, if I can just... But there is this issue that once something is out there, it's very hard to remove that from the public consciousness, isn't it?
28:41
We talk about vaccine... Well, the whole anti-vaccination thing with that terrible paper in The Lancet, which has done enormous damage. There's a whole segment of that population who's totally convinced if you vaccinate, you give the MMR vaccine, it's going to cause autism. And the people writing the headlines, I think, are just as culpable. So to what extent can you convict someone who writes a dishonest headline
29:04
and results in a change in public behavior that is... Well, you can't. You can't convict them for it. It's not a crime. Dishonesty is not a crime. And stupidity is not a crime. We got time for one last question. I do want to say one thing, though.
29:20
You're right in a sense, right? But our top article of all times is the 10 most deadly diseases. It doesn't matter what we write about whatever subject in science and technology, that's the only article that's always top ranked. Why? I don't know. But over to you. Good morning. I'm from Russia. My name is Larisa, and I have a question.
29:43
In Russia, we have a little bit opposite problem. We have a lot of events that is dedicated for science, but there is a very few scientists who want to talk. How can I convince my colleague to talk with people?
30:01
I don't know. It's not dangerous, is it? No, I don't think so. I mean, you know, when the Soviet Union fell apart, one of the really impressive things we saw with Russian scientists, particularly coming into the United States, was their scientific literacy, their mathematical literacy,
30:23
and their philosophy. They'd learned philosophy. A lot of leading US scientists had that education, but yes, of course. I mean, scientists want to do science. I mean, you guys, most of you, what you really love doing is science. I mean, you like working at the bench.
30:40
You like pipetting. You like getting results. You don't necessarily like to take the time to look at the results properly, and many of you hate writing. Who loves writing in this audience? Oh, you're a very exceptional selected audience, I tell you.
31:00
It's the ones who come to a talk on communication, because a lot of young scientists hate writing, unfortunately. So getting people away from the bench to do that, but if you can sort of seduce them a little, I mean, into maybe putting something out, and if they've got a really nice video of what they do. You know, if you want to explain a virus infection,
31:22
if you get a good graphic artist, or if you're a bit of a graphic artist yourself, you can actually explain a virus infection infinitely better in a little video than you ever can in words for the broader community. People can relate to it. They can see it. So maybe try and intrigue them a little bit in that way. If you've got a few sort of nerds in the lab,
31:42
I mean, you've got some guys, I suppose, and they're usually nerds, right? There are some people, though, say that we do tend to get a bit wowed by imagery these days, and we sort of don't see past, what's behind the image. We see this a lot with satellite data. Wonderful picture of the earth. That's my telephone box at the end of the... We don't do telephone boxes anymore,
32:01
but you know what I mean. That's my dustbin. But get overboard. I think that's true of television, particularly, because it flashes past. I think if it's actually online, and you can go back and forth to it, it's better. I mean, long form writing, I think, is still important. That's why I've been writing books,
32:20
because you go back and forth, and you go back and forth within the context. The short form, like the conversation 800 words, that's good, too, but it doesn't have that cohesion that you would have from a much longer form book. But I think stuff that people can go back and forth to is really good, which... Well, I think online's pretty powerful, actually.
32:42
We have unfortunately come to the end of our time. Yes, indeed. I can see that hook from the eyes and the back of my head. Thank you very much. There's so much more we could have discussed. Thank you for all your questions. I'm sure Peter will be open to discuss more things if his very busy Lindau schedule permits. So grab him while you can.
33:01
I want to thank you, Peter Doherty. It's been great talking to you. Thank you. And thank you to all of you. I admitted to say, just for my bosses and for the record, my name is Ulfric Carabani. I'm from DW, Germany's international broadcaster, Deutsche Welle. We do plenty of boring headlines, too. So if you want to have boring, truthful headlines, go to DW.com.
33:23
I've done my job. Thank you very much. Excellent.