Transcript: I’d say how can we live in a world filled with unknowns, be comfortable with unknowns, but at the same time not be paralyzed by them and be able to take action, be able to make decisions, be able to effect change, but be able to overturn them based on new evidence? How do we achieve a comfort level with that in the 21st century?

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: My first instinct would be to say President Bush because I don’t think that what has happened over the last seven years has been insignificant to the state of the world. And I think that I would really like to understand, because I think that there’s great intellectual value in trying to figure out how this was all built in order to disentangle it going forward; to understand the hostility towards science that he personally, but that his administration, and that some members of his party have espoused and advanced. And I think that it’s useful knowledge. I am deeply interested in it, and hoping that it comes from a place of intellect and of reason that I will completely disagree with; but I really wanna understand the war on science. Beyond simply being fearful of the unknown, maybe it’s that. You know maybe it’s the certainties that he and others characterize as qualities of leadership, and maybe science doesn’t provide that. Maybe it’s taking man under the equation and seeing a world without us, and our perhaps inconsequential value to the world. Maybe it’s the God factor. Whatever it is, I think that in order for us to really achieve a scientific renaissance in the 21st century, I think the United States has to be a part of it. It certainly can’t be a force against it. And in order for the United States to be a force for it, we need to understand the motivations for the disruptions and the disruptive forces acting against it.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: Today’s generation of scientists is tackling science and sees science in fairly substantially different ways than the previous generation. First and foremost they are coming about at a time when to be experts simply in one discipline is limiting, is not impossible, and is not without value. But to not be capable of connecting other disciplines, and being comfortable and fluent in this new interdisciplinary landscape is an . . . is an inadequacy. It’s something that I think would hinder, you know, understanding. And so I think the capabilities of thinking laterally as opposed to just simply vertically within a field is different. I think that scientists are also becoming more aware of their responsibility as citizens. One of the potential great silver linings of the war on science in the United States over the last seven years has been that it has galvanized the U.S. scientific community in important ways. And when the ideals of science are under attack; and where scientists themselves are censored; and where freedom of flow of information in a free way is hindered; and where, you know, a society is making its widely believed anti-scientific decisions; it (01:14:31) has almost consequently led to scientists reaffirming the core values of being a scientist – what it is to be a scientist. In fact Sir David King, who is the British science advisor, has recently laid out a pretty visionary idea of a Hippocratic Oath-like thing for scientists so that all scientists have some sort of unification; some core values that we all subscribe to. So I think that scientists now see the connection of their work to society at large. They see how their work can be misused and misinterpreted. They see that the funding for their research is coming, in many cases, from tax payers. And so there’s a natural desire and “responsibility” on the part of scientists to have transparency and find ways of communicating. And I think that the fact that more scientists are blogging right now, or are blogging right now, are . . . is a sign of new ways of kind of bypassing traditional media outlets to create this direct communication channel with the general public. And it’s allowing the public to connect with scientists and scientists to connect with the general public in very, very powerful ways I think.

Science is also a more global enterprise today. And so there is value in being able to understand how to connect and how to navigate across cultures, and languages, and geographic boundaries. Science has always been a borderless enterprise, but today more so than ever before. And when you look at a project like the human genome project, that brought together, you know, 29 disciplines from 50 plus countries. The Large Hedron Collider in Geneva now is an $8 billion project which is employing half the particle physicists in the world coming from dozens, and dozens, and dozens of natures . . . nations; dozens and dozens of languages. Globalization has permeated science, and science has permeated globalization. And so I think that creates a new lifestyle now for being a scientist. So all of those things are making scientists more engaged and global citizens.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: Today’s generation of scientists is tackling science and sees science in fairly substantially different ways than the previous generation. First and foremost they are coming about at a time when to be experts simply in one discipline is limiting, is not impossible, and is not without value. But to not be capable of connecting other disciplines, and being comfortable and fluent in this new interdisciplinary landscape is an . . . is an inadequacy. It’s something that I think would hinder, you know, understanding. And so I think the capabilities of thinking laterally as opposed to just simply vertically within a field is different. I think that scientists are also becoming more aware of their responsibility as citizens. One of the potential great silver linings of the war on science in the United States over the last seven years has been that it has galvanized the U.S. scientific community in important ways. And when the ideals of science are under attack; and where scientists themselves are censored; and where freedom of flow of information in a free way is hindered; and where, you know, a society is making its widely believed anti-scientific decisions; it has almost consequently led to scientists reaffirming the core values of being a scientist – what it is to be a scientist. In fact Sir David King, who is the British science advisor, has recently laid out a pretty visionary idea of a Hippocratic Oath-like thing for scientists so that all scientists have some sort of unification; some core values that we all subscribe to. So I think that scientists now see the connection of their work to society at large. They see how their work can be misused and misinterpreted. They see that the funding for their research is coming, in many cases, from tax payers. And so there’s a natural desire and “responsibility” on the part of scientists to have transparency and find ways of communicating. And I think that the fact that more scientists are blogging right now, or are blogging right now, are . . . is a sign of new ways of kind of bypassing traditional media outlets to create this direct communication channel with the general public. And it’s allowing the public to connect with scientists and scientists to connect with the general public in very, very powerful ways I think.

Science is also a more global enterprise today. And so there is value in being able to understand how to connect and how to navigate across cultures, and languages, and geographic boundaries. Science has always been a borderless enterprise, but today more so than ever before. And when you look at a project like the human genome project, that brought together, you know, 29 disciplines from 50 plus countries. The Large Hedron Collider in Geneva now is an $8 billion project which is employing half the particle physicists in the world coming from dozens, and dozens, and dozens of natures . . . nations; dozens and dozens of languages. Globalization has permeated science, and science has permeated globalization. And so I think that creates a new lifestyle now for being a scientist. So all of those things are making scientists more engaged and global citizens.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript:  I think with each new wave in science we . . . one of the natural consequences is it does force us to think differently about who we are; our relationship with each other; our relationship to the planet; our planet’s relationship to the solar system; our solar system’s relationship to the bigger universe.  And I think one of the sort of interesting things that’s happening right now is not only are we getting data and results that are contributing to that – so most certainly in genetics, in evolutionary (01:01:45) biology, in theoretical physics, in neuroscience – but also I think there’s an interesting marriage of that kind of research with the sort of physically . . . the new ways we’re looking at things.  So not only are we starting to achieve new ways of thinking about ourselves, but we are thinking about ourselves differently as a result of evolutionary genetics, for example; and projects to really see genetic similarities across . . . across populations around the world; to see the relationship that we have with other species in our __________; how like we are of something ___________ to something else that definitely does change our sense of self.  And sometimes it’s humbling forces; you know forces that make us feel less special.  I think that’s kind of cool.  In other cases it makes us feel incredibly important, and kind of evolved, and like the higher being.  And so there is constantly this back and forth between a notion that we are the highest form of evolution, and we are simply but yet another thing that’s come about on this planet at this moment in time under these initial conditions of the planet.  But I think the other sort of as interesting dynamic right now is the way we’re seeing all of these things.  We are a, you know . . . a visual society, and the images are as important as the ideas.  And sometimes it’s an image that’s come from science that has changed our way of thinking about the world.  As an example, you know, the first image of the earth from space led to the establishment of the EPA in the United States and the first, you know, silent spring kind of era of environmental concern.  It’s about seeing that, you know, as Carl Sagan said, that little blue dot.  And feeling like it was this precious little blue dot that we needed to preserve, and that we all live, and all of our fights, and all of our battles and everything we knew was on that little blue dot.  That really did change our way of thinking about things and led to very concrete social, political, economic action.  And so I think today the new images that we’re getting back from deep space is just a stone’s throw from the big bang; or new images that we’re starting to see of human genome; of new visualizations that are still very, very, very fresh, and are currently the fodder of sort of design science geeks who kind of love to look at all these things – myself included – but that I think will ultimately become the visual language of the 21st century.  These are new ways at looking at ourselves, new ways of looking at our human genome.  We are going to, in the next little while, start to see images of really comprehensive maps of the human brain.  And so we all have this notion of the brain as this organ in a very anatomical way but not in a more computational way.  And it could be an image, again, that really does completely transform our notion of intelligence; our notion of nature versus nurture; our notion of complexity versus simplicity.  And so I am as excited about the visualizations, the imagings, the functional magnetic resonance imaging that we see as so . . . such a dominant tool in our newspapers and media streams.  You know here is the brain.  Here’s a red dot.  Here is . . .  When you love someone it’s red here.  There are pros and cons to some of these images.  But regardless we’re seeing more images. And I think scientific imaging is going to have just as much an impact on our notion of who we are; our notion of identity as . . . as the ideas themselves.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: I think, you know, there are far too many because I think that . . . You know they are obviously the highlights of the 20th century. And certainly the highlight scientific discoveries of the 20th century have been an important ending with, you know . . . starting with Einstein and ending with the human genome project. And each one in between has obviously had, by now we know, great material value on our economies, societies, lives. We’ve cured disease as a certain landmark of the 20th century. So to, you know, reintroduce them into our thinking into the 21st century, to me they’re proven. To me they are . . . They have achieved great social value. I think that we’re kind of at a point now where there are some leftover questions from the 20th century that are carrying forward into the 21st that arise as a result of some great discoveries in the 20th century that have caused us to rethink many things at this cusp of, you know, we’re at this 21st century. And those are like Einstein and Newton both having really good ideas, but their really good idea is not kind of jiving when you put them together. And Einstein really believing in the pursuit of a unified theory of something that would marry the very, very big and the very, very, very small and move towards a theory of everything. And that was one of Einstein’s . . . What is one of Einstein’s intellectual legacies is the absence of the unified theory that he attempted to conceive of. And so it is one of the major thrusts of modern science now, and it does shape a lot of our discourse and the way we think about science to move in this direction of a kind of big unification in physics. I think that we now have the human genome mapped. We’re accelerating the mapping of the human genome. We’re mapping more things. We’re seeing how similar or dissimilar we are to each other and other species. We’re seeing the importance of R&A versus DNA as a . . . maybe something that might change a little bit our notions of some of the central paradigms of biology. And that’s gonna force us to start thinking in a kind of post-genomic way of what we do with all of this. And so I think the human genome project at the end of the 20th century has led us now with data, with comparisons, with tools, with new insights. And so it can spur a new way of thinking in a more systems way of how do we bring all of these different pieces together. And this is where . . . And again in neuroscience, we’re seeing starting . . . We’re starting to see the incorporation of greater computer science and computational neuroscience . . . computational biology mashing up with neuroscience. We’re seeing biologists turn to physicists for their skills in creating bigger theories. We’re seeing ecologists working with computer sciences to create more comprehensive technological tools to survey the planet and look at biodiversity. So I think probably the most interesting force at play in science right now where we are is that the promise of interdisciplinary research is proving true. When you map, as we’ve done at Seed, all of the papers published over a given time – I think we did over a year or two years, looked at hundreds of thousands of research papers – and start to see what paradigms have been identified, and then map them by discipline and see what relationships they have, it’s in fact the new bridges between disciplines; the new mash ups that are taking shape today that I think are going to define our . . . the way we tackle problems. We’re starting to build institutes in science today that are less organized by discipline as they were in the 20th century by biology, physics, chemistry, but by the question we’re trying to solve; so an institute for infectious diseases that may bring together physicists, mathematicians, biologists, infectious disease people, and sociologists. Or we’re looking at, you know, behavior. And it may bring together neuroscientists, economists, and psychologists, and you know linguists. And so I think that . . . I think that this is an interesting reform that’s taking place as a result of some of the sort of big institutions, and big amounts of data, and big projects that got completed in the second half of the 20th century. And now we’re kind of looking at it all and saying, you know, “Well what next?” And the coming together of disciplines to advance our understanding is really, I think, one of the most exciting hallmarks of where we are right now in science.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: No. I don’t . . . That doesn’t . . . That’s not an idea that resonates with me. There may be. There may not be, but it’s not an idea that I feel comfortable with. I like the idea of an __________ total relationship with truth, something that we get very, very, very, very, very, very, very close to. I don’t know what capital “T” is, and I’m kind of not . . . That idea doesn’t sit well with me.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: Does it? No. Should it? No. Do I want it to? No. No. I do think that there is a place for . . . Again I think it’s also about viewing . . . Again it comes back to that fundamental of, “What is science?” I think that science does have surpassing powers in terms of its utility as a lens. It does cure things, you know? It does have actual great functional value. I’m not sure we could deal with the catastrophic impacts of climate change simply through the arts. I don’t mean that flippantly. I mean there is great value actually to the arts now in making people emotionally invested and even better citizens when it comes to these issues. But you know fundamentally you do need a scientific lens to actually deal with these issues. And so do I think it has surpassing value? Yes. Do I think that it . . . it can be a complete, full worldview? For some yes. For some no. For society at large, I don’t know what that means. There is no such thing as one global lens. (51:46) So I think it’s a lot more nuanced than that. I do think that there are greater many . . . There are many more forces acting against science than there are forces acting against some of those other lenses. I do think that science is a more certainly progressive . . . It almost seems a copout to say “better”, but better lens than religion at a high level through which to view the world and its problems. Because I think that we as a planet, as a population are better when we know things, when we question things, and we’re capable of understanding the foundations for decisions. And I think that that’s generally true. I would struggle with how to incorporate that into the challenges that a country like China faces today in achieving political reform. Because on one hand those are somewhat democratic ideals that I’ve associated with science. And I think that science and democracy do go very nicely hand-in-hand. And I think if you’re sort of pro-science, you’re pro-democracy. If you’re pro-democracy, you’re pro-science. Or you kind of should be fundamentally, which is why it’s non-partisan. But as you look at, you know, emerging economies and you look most importantly at China right now and its profound place in the world; and on, you know, the next, 20, 30, 40, 50 years of our lives, on one hand I still believe in the power of science; but the way we view democracy . . . the way we view all those kind of institutions I kind of laid out as being analogous with science, somehow all of this needs to be rethought in the context of . . . in the context of China, which is what I was saying earlier about kind of rethinking science in the context of both the eastern and western perspectives. Because some of those same ideas may not hold true for what is ultimately in the best interest of China going forward. So I . . . That would be an interesting, you know . . . That’s something I don’t know yet. I’m not sure how that all mashes up with the rise of science in China.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Traanscript: I mean I grew up . . . And when I grew up . . . I grew up in Montreal, I went to a Jewish elementary school and a Jewish high school; and studied Torah, and Talmud, and Hebrew and speak Hebrew; had a bar mitzvah; went through a full sort of Jewish upbringing. And so to say that that’s, you know, completely absent from my worldview would be inaccurate. I have, you know, more recently separated, I think, sort of the tribal qualities of religion from the more spiritual qualities of religion. And whereas the tribal qualities of religion – the sort of practices, and languages, and foods and things like that – are great forces to bind people together, I think my greatest concern with the spiritual side of religion is the practice of religion without coming at it on your own. I think that for . . . I spent . . . I’ve been spending quite a bit of time recently with religious leaders; and many religious leaders who have been taking up theoretical physics, in fact, and reading sort of the great works of the 20th century and 21st century. And it is forcing them to think differently about their faith. And think differently is all I’m looking for. Not change, not radically transform, but think differently. If at that point, once you’ve achieved a scientific literacy, you feel incomplete without God in the equation, then at this stage in my life I think that there’s absolutely nothing wrong . . . If anything there’s something kind of beautiful and harmonious about reintroducing God into the equation. If you need, as sort of Dan Dennet says, sort of a “sky hook”; if you need something to anchor it all to, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. But if you’re given religion as a solution to the ills of your life and of the world, and as the way of making things easier and simpler . . . because religion is easier than science. It’s a lot easier to blindly believe than to rigorously test . . . then I have a problem with that, and I have a problem with the people who preach that. I think that there is absolutely a place for the coming together of science and religion – both individually and as a society. And in fact I think the most important thing science should be doing right now when it comes to this question is not – as many great public intellectuals in science have recently done – attack religion, but instead do what science should do in the case of seeing billions of people doing something, is to study it and to really understand why we believe, what motivates that, and what really is at the root cause of that. I have a problem, and I think most would, with the ability when you do then blindly . . . so what the reason is for all of that . . . is that when you do sort of blindly or easily . . . too easily come to religion as your moral compass and as your kind of guiding philosophy of life, it is a way of thinking that is less rigorous in rational inquiry, and questioning things, and in being constantly inquisitive and curious. And so I think that when things happen in the world, you are less likely to question. You are less likely to think about them, and twist them, and turn them around, and turn them upside down, and see what happens when this does that as a scientific worldview would predispose you to. And I think that as a consequence of that, or as a . . . as a potential consequence of that, it is easier to mobilize those who look at religion as their kind of predominant worldview philosophy towards extremism than those who are more naturally predisposed to question things.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: Plenty. Plenty. Where to begin on this one? (Chuckles) So in two ways I think science can learn from the arts – at least two ways. One very concretely in terms of ideas, and the other in terms of communication. The idea is being . . . let’s say a little bit more important. I think we’ve reached a point in science right now at the vanguard of science which I would consider to be theoretical physics and neuroscience; where the ideas and the questions that we’re asking have become such that the tools at our disposal in sort of traditionally scientific ways may be inadequate to achieve the kind of ideas and truths that we seek. It takes $8 billion dollar Super Colliders to move theoretical physics forward now, and that may or may not yield satiating results. We’ll find out next year. Neuroscience has been built over the last little while from the bottom up. It’s a field that is dominated by bits of research, and bits of understanding, and is deficient right now; is lacking for top down kind of masterful theories . . . big theories which certainly physics has. In both cases the study of consciousness requires that we certainly recognize that we ourselves are in the equation as we’re studying consciousness, which necessarily effects the equation. And in theoretical physics, if you believe string theory to be true – or if at least you assume . . . hypothesize and you . . . you use string theory as your dominant theory right now, you need an 11 dimensional universe. And so devising the experimental conditions, and more importantly being able to even intellectually grasp that kind of an idea which our brains as we know them and as we currently use them are incapable of fathoming. An 11 dimensional universe is simply something that we don’t know how to think about, we also don’t know how to talk about, we don’t know how to draw. So we become bounded, limited by our own inadequacies in trying to understand a universe that didn’t build itself for us. And similarly trying to understand the mind, thinking about thinking is no simple task. And so there’s an important marriage, I think, in trying to achieve real understanding of these areas of the natural world in marrying both experiments and experience. There’s a wonderful book going to be coming out this fall called “Proust Was a Neuroscientist” by a writer at Seed named Jonah Lehrer based on a work that he published in a magazine which basically looks at some major thinkers in the 20th century – from Proust, to Cezanne, to Stravinsky, to __________, to others, and looks at how they very much in their expressions of experience, in their writings, in their music, in their paintings, anticipated some of the discoveries in modern neuroscience. I think that when you look at multiple dimensional universes today, many physicists will site a 19th century book by Edwin Abbott called “Flatland” which sort of very beautifully articulated a world of two dimensions where everything . . . one big sheet of paper and all of us were just sort of sheets of paper on another sheet of paper. And based on the size of the sheets of paper and how they interacted, that would determine the hierarchies in society and how we communicated. And then at some point this two dimensional world hears about . . . talks about a third three dimensional world, and they can’t even begin to fathom what a three dimensional world would be like in some distant space land somewhere. And that kind of interplay of not being able to even grasp the idea of a three dimensional universe is quite relevant _________. ________ many theoretical physicists today citing Edwin Abbott’s work in the 19th century. I think metaphor and language is critical not only to communicating – so this maybe bridges both the idea and the communication . . . It is not only critical to communicating scientific ideas outside of science to the people who fund it . . . and so there’s very, you know, practical reasons why science needs new languages, new tools, new visualizations; but also within science. Just to be able to navigate these very complex ideas, metaphor is incredibly valuable. Metaphor is sort of one of the pillars of . . . Being able to understand science is to create metaphors. Our metaphors become profoundly more rich when scientists interact with artists and engage the arts community in the kinds of ideas that they’re navigating. We’re also, as a result of the rise in super computing and the incredible powers that technology is contributing to science, being overwhelmed with data. If you think about the sheer size, the magnitude of the human genome project; or of efforts now to map the brain; or of missions in deep space, and of satellite data that’s coming back; and so on and so forth – great simulations that are being . . . They’re able to happen right now as a result of super computing, we’re able to do a lot more and get a lot more back. But we are still limited by this 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, or by this 15 inch monitor that we have at our disposal. And so somehow expressing data – communicating, visualizing, synthesizing data in ways that is functional and has real value is no simple task. And this is a world that design has a much greater aptitude with than science. And so there’s great potential for designers to greatly benefit scientists in that regard. I think also the arts has a completeness to it in the way that people perceive its relationship with truth. People see art as something, because of its subjectivity; because of its incompleteness in some respects; or fuzzier kind of qualities; because of the way it looks, because of course the aesthetics; and for other factors, we see the arts . . . some of us see the arts as a more full way of understanding love, or peace, or war – sort of very big ideas. And science is, in many respects, lacking for that kind of quality in the way it’s perceived by the general public. And so finding the ways to imbue science and not just make it pretty . . . You know it’s really not about making it prettier before it goes out, you know, to the papers and the press release; but really finding ways to express scientific ideas in more satisfying ways to our . . . to sort of satiate our needs for this romantic kind of quality that we associate with truth I think is really important. And I think that’s something that the arts is . . . are very contributing to the sciences today. I think that the only way that we really do achieve the kinds of understanding that we seek about the questions that are in front of us about the natural world today will come from the consilience of the sciences and the arts. This is something that’s been talked about for quite some time, and of course historically has been one of the great sources of innovation and prosperity in the world. And when you look at the Renaissance and you see what the sort of forces were at play influencing the Renaissance centuries ago, we find ourselves in a sort of similarly interesting . . . and suitable conditions right now, both in terms of the kinds of questions that are in front of us; in terms of we’re starting to see new things about the world because of globalization; because of our abilities to interact on the Web with more people, see more things, experience new things. There are so many different forces acting on the world right now that should be useful in spurring that kind of renaissance. And I think there’s a great desire on the part of many scientists and the part of many artists, and we feel it. I mean this is a world that we live in. This is a world that we’re certainly helping to spur. We feel an energy in the coming together of the arts and the scientists which is fresh and both practical and philosophically satisfying.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: I think there are many. I think there are many leaders who . . . I think the House Committee on Science and Technology right now, which is obviously made up of Democrats and Republicans, is starting to advance in very, very important legislation. I think the kinds of things that emerge from the __________ Report that was produced a little while back, and that’s now being used as the foundation for policy by the committee is really good. I think that Hillary Clinton’s speech a few weeks ago . . . recently is sort of textbook brilliant in terms of a view of where science can go in the world. I think that there are some very simple things that we’re starting to see. I think even Newt Gingrich has started to speak very eloquently about the importance of science in America and the future of America. So it most definitely . . . most definitely is both the Democrat and Republican issue. I think that . . . I think that what we’re starting to see is the recognition that science is not a, you know . . . an issue to sort of block off and isolate as a, you know . . . an issue that has its own lobbyist, and its own causes, and you know logo. It is a root issue. It is . . . It’s not even an issue. It’s progress or not progress. Because you can most certainly look at science and see its consequence on national security. You can look at science and see its consequence on environmental policy. You can look at science and see its impact on education, and obviously math and science education; science, and jobs, and economic (32:10) competitiveness; science and the perception of the United States in the world. It was missions like going to the moon that gave the world a profoundly positive view of America; of what America stands for. And it’s interesting to note that in the last few years there have been more space launches from non . . . from outside the United States than from within the United States. And it’s, in fact, many other nations now that are advancing, in very interestingly American-like ways, space programs that although today are not pushing technological boundaries necessarily, but they are pushing geopolitical buttons and sort of national pride buttons. And the space program in various parts of the world right now is a sign of progress and “can do” attitudes that are quintessentially American. And we’re dealing with a NASA which, although technologically robust and scientifically important, is aspirationally bankrupt.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: United States is a lot easier. I think the United States has suffered from an anti-scientific presidential administration for the last seven years. I think that we’ve seen a war on science, in the words of our Washington correspondent Chris Mooney, that has had devastating consequence on America; on the American dream; on the perception of America in the world; on the competitiveness of the United States; on the U.S. economy; on every possible facet of American life. I think when you disregard science, you are at risk of damaging some of the great strengths of a modern society. And so I think that part of the reforms that need to take place in the United States right now are, in fact, to elect a president – Democrat or Republican – who recognizes the importance of science to the future of America. One presidential candidate very recently just gave a major policy speech on that a few days ago. And so I think that what we’re starting to see is a return of reasoned inquiry; of rational inquiry; of evidence-based decision making; of the kinds of values that science brings to the table to Washington. It’s a function now of whether Americans elect a leader who believes that or not and elevates science to even places that it has been previously in the United States in both Democrat and Republican administrations. This is a non-partisan or post-partisan issue. Science is not for one side at all. And so I think that reform in the United States, the greatest barrier to scientific renaissance, scientific innovation is President Bush. And that’s, you know . . . that’s a few days away.

I think globally it is about starting to see the disruptors working against science. But I think there are a lot of things going for science right now. More than anything else they’re greater . . . There are far more enablers for scientific renaissance and scientific innovation in the world than there are disruptors. That’s kind of why the net effect is a greater rise in the scientific culture in the world today. I think the fact that the African Union came together this past year, and their leadership summit in Ethiopia was focused on science for Africa’s development; I think the fact that China’s premier and president both have spoken publically about the importance of science for economic and social development in China bodes incredibly well for the future of science. I think the fact that India has put a substantial emphasis on science is exciting. I think that the new leadership in Europe right now – one who in Germany is in fact a physical chemist by training – bodes very, very strongly for the state of science in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union. I just came back from Japan, and there is certainly no shortage of cultural emphasis and social emphasis on science in Japan. So I think in many, many, many parts of the world, we are seeing the great rise of science and of a scientific culture. It’s . . . It’s kind of unfortunate that the United States has just not been part of that for the last few years, but the world is moving ahead. And if anything, part of the challenge is to U.S. kind of dominance in the world may in fact be whether or not it rekindles that kind of “change the world” spirit that is characteristically American; and that has, in many cases in history, come out of science and innovation or not. And I think this is fairly binary right now. I think that we’re at a moment in time where this is about progress or not. But at the same time I’m deeply optimistic and deeply enthusiastic about what I see when I travel around the world. Science is reaching a point where it is the topic of conversation on the world stage. I know that, you know, at one upcoming meeting of world leaders early next year that takes place regularly, science will be a much more substantial focus of global dialogue – of multi-state ___________ dialogue than ever before. So there are significant steps being taken now to . . . that reflect this, you know, increased discussion about science at sort of the leadership stage in the world.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: I hope that what we’re doing is inspiring and suggesting new ways to communicate those very ideas. We’re a media company. I left science to start a media company because I believe in the power of media. I believe strongly in the power of a fourth estate as a value. I believe strongly in the power of media to affect the way people think; to influence the way people make decisions. And I think that good storytelling by its very nature has great potential. And science is a great story, and new stories come about with almost greater frequency than in any other realm of society. But for some reason our interest in science as a society continues to climb. And our understanding of science, though, is either stagnant or it’s dropping. And so whatever media architecture we built in the 20th century – the magazines, books, TV shows, films, museums – to raise public understanding of science here in the United States and around the world achieved whatever objectives they achieved in the 20th century. It had great success and had great contribution to society. But media has changed substantially in the last few years – the way we interact with media, the way we consume media. The challenges in the world have clearly changed, and science is changing. And scientists themselves are changing. The role of the scientist today in society is changing. All of those, you know, combine to suggest to me a need for a new way of communicating all of these ideas in science. And so what we aspire to do at Seed Media Group is that through media, across a variety of different platforms, and in different markets around the world for different audiences, re-imagine the way science is communicated. And whether that’s to world leaders and work we’re doing with policy makers and world leaders; whether it’s with scientists themselves; whether it’s with architects and designers, and programs that we’re doing for architects and designers; whether it’s for liberal arts grads; or whether it’s for people in mainline China; with whatever project we’re undertaking, it’s really designed to raise scientific literacy through media, and by really trying to use the new tools of media today; use the sort of new aesthetics that are available today in science; use the new ways of telling stories and some old ways of telling stories and modernizing them; and also coming at it with certain kind of missionary zeal. We come to work every morning, it’s predominantly a group of, generally speaking, quite young people who feel very strongly about these things. And so there’s a . . . I think there’s a soulfulness to kind of what drives this every day. There’s a real desire to change the way people think about science because we believe in what impact that will have in the world. So that’s what we’re doing. The impact is measured for us first and foremost through influence. You know as a media company we can look at more quantitative measures and see things rising in traffic growing up, and see things in circulation growing up and things like that, and those are great; but for us the primary metric for success is influence. And if we can influence a certain group of individuals as we’re starting to see take place now in some successes that we’re having, that’s a good day’s work.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: I really think that the more important thing right now is not the facts. I think that the proliferation of digital media and simply web tools makes for just knowing facts to be less significant. I’m sort of less concerned about what are the top 10 things that every person needs to know about DNA; or that they should be able to pronounce “deoxyribonucleic acid”; or they should be able to list the planets; or they should be able to tell you what a stem cell is. Although all those things are valuable, and certainly you can go deeper into a conversation if you can skip the step of going onto Wikipedia and checking what it is. But you can go, and you can go to Google and check what it is. And there’s a great plethora of information that will, you know, satisfy that objective. So I’m kind of less concerned about the data points. I don’t know what the data points should be. That to me is a tertiary matter that we’ll work out once we figure out the bigger issues now, which is what should people be thinking about science? And that to me is truly what science is. We need a much better understanding of what science is and why science works the way it works; what pure view is; how science achieves goals. When we read something, you know, page one of our newspapers in any part of the world, and it simple says, “Scientists at a certain university here today announced that . . .” we immediately skip to discovery. We immediately skip to the outcome, the output of science, and we don’t have a sense of the input of science. And I think that’s terribly deleterious to our notions of what science is. Because if all we see is this output – as science kind of churning out results, and data, and things in a kind of mechanical process; a manufacturing sort of resource for society – then we forget that it’s actually people, human beings who may also have liberal arts backgrounds and then decide to study science; and have girlfriends; and go to movies; and go see an art exhibit; and have life issues; and have biases; and read books. And the way that they view these problems, which are becoming increasingly nuanced, they’re the kinds of questions that we’re all very concerned about – how the human genome suggests things about who we are; the power of synthetic biology to completely transform our notions of security, of asymmetric warfare . . . these are things that, you know, the Large Hedron Collider in Geneva that’s trying to understand fundamental questions about the nature of the universe, and who we are and where we come from work in evolutionary biology . . . I mean these are questions that we all work on the mind now to create more complete maps of the human mind. These are things that we all are interested in, and scientists are the ones doing the work. Scientists are the ones that are advancing our collective societal notions of what these things are. And if we don’t have a certain sense that scientists themselves are getting input as human beings from a variety of different sources, (a); (b) the scientific community, in order for them to arrive at a conclusion and publish it in a paper, it has to go through a process of pure review of vetting the rigor of the scientific method that really does make science the best intellectual instrument we have for understanding things about the world. It’s in fact because of what science is . . . It’s because of the institution of science that makes the output from science so valuable to society. And I think that we’ve seen so many different forces acting . . . as I was saying before, so many different forces acting on science that are disrupting it, that we need to come back to redefining what science . . . what we want science to be; what science is; how science works so that we all really genuinely have an understanding. I think the next step, and it could be five years of this, is scientific literacy and what everyone should think about . . . about science is simply what science is more so than any one data point that comes out of science.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: A deep question. I don’t know. I think I know and we all know what a science-literate citizen in the 20th century constituted. We lived at a time of kind of a competitive pressure with Sputnik sort of in the west, and certainly in the United States. And a lot of how we defined being scientifically literate was in terms of boosting competitiveness and ensuring that each nation had the intellectual resources, the human capital to compete in this sort of new military equation which was a lot more symmetric at the time. And so we defined scientific literacy in terms of certain concepts, certain ideas, certain sentences we memorized, certain things we learned in order to advance. And the way we build science literacy tests; the way we tracked science literacy; the questions we looked at had a lot to do with that paradigm. Over the last, you know, 30, 40, 50 years . . . We just celebrated this year . . . We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Sputnik. Over the last 50 years certainly the world has changed. Science has changed too, and science’s place in the world has changed. And so I think that the other most significant factor at play to sort of define science literacy today is what are the forces acting against science? What are the disruptors that could throw off this 21st century scientific renaissance, this new science culture? And what is it that’s motivating those disruptive forces? And so in order for scientific literacy to be the tool that combats those kind of disruptive forces, we need to better understand those disruptive forces, and I think we’re still at the beginning stages of understanding that. For example, science is buttressed by its instability. It’s in fact the ability for science to be constantly overturned and constantly proved wrong, and for theories to only last as good as they are – until someone comes along and overturns them that gives it its greatest . . . one of its greatest sources of instability. But that means living with unknowns and being very comfortable with the unknown, and being comfortable with change and not being fearful of it. And politically many have been able to successfully leverage that instability on issues like evolution, on issues like climate into incredibly powerful political positions in the world, and certainly in the United States. And flip flopping has become a negative attribute as opposed to one which is one of the highest virtues – being able to change one’s mind with new evidence. And so really trying to understand what motivates those destructive forces and expressing to people what science, in fact, is; what the scientific method actually is; why science survives as a tool that we built to understand things; to __________ totally veer towards truth is something that will certainly constitute scientific literacy today. I think that the other factor in science literacy today . . . one of the other factors is certainly a transformation from something that is very western; something that we see as, you know, as sort of a western enterprise; although the Chinese historically have contributed much to the world by way of science, in navigation, in gun powder print making and so forth. But you know for centuries science has been a largely western pursuit. And when you look at who wins the Nobel Prizes, it’s the Americans. Science is clearly changing. Sort of the landscape is changing the world today. And the emphasis that China is placing on science I think suggests both the amount of money they’re spending on science, and also just the emphasis that the leaders in China are now placing on scientific literacy as a cornerstone of economic development in China, and of political reform in fact. Suggests that we need to start thinking about science less as a strictly western enterprise that’s defined by western values and western ways of thinking, but becomes a more global enterprise. And I think part of that is that my understanding of the way many Chinese people view the way many American people view science is as this far more perfunctory, technological enterprise and the kind of more philosophical, and slightly more romantic, and kind of holistic and complete way of looking at problem solving. And so it’s also that reforming the way we look at science as part of scientific literacy – coming back to that in the way that Richard ___________ spoke about it; and starting to see things not purely as science as purely a tool to sort of reduce things . . . as a tool for reductionism, but really as a way of achieving an understanding of the most beautiful parts of whatever it is you’re looking at. He said famously that, you know, you could look at a rose and a poet would talk about, you know, some beautiful language about the rose; and a painter would talk about the red; and someone could talk about the smell. And that sounds so much more gratifying and satisfying. And then the scientist would come along and give you the biochemical equation for the rose and ruin the whole thing and unweave the rainbow; when in fact if you listen for the next six minutes to the scientist and really allow yourself to go deeper and understand where he or she is going, you understand the dance of the molecules that allows for all of that to take shape. And you see the inherent aesthetics, and poetry, and beauty of what is at the . . . sort of beneath the surface of all those other things that artists and humanists will then interpret. So it’s about changing our perspective on science that I think is the other pillar of 21st century scientific literacy.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: I think about science and how science figures into our lives, our policies, and our culture broadly, and try to develop new ways of expressing scientific ideas, scientific stories to different audiences in ways that I think ultimately serve or hope to serve to raise the conversation about science in the world. It all stems from a conviction that I think today we’re living at a time where science is having a transformative role on the world. More so than recent times, science is influencing our policies. It’s driving our economies. It’s spurring the development of developing countries. It’s also inspiring and influencing our arts, and design, and architecture in the buildings we’re building. It’s certainly having great philosophical consequence on the world – the way we look at who we are, where we come from, our sense of self. It’s having a profoundly interesting dynamic with religion. I think now more so than ever before, science is culture. And I think scientific literacy being able to not only understand concepts in science, but far more importantly what science is that will be the precondition for progress in the 21st century. And so I see my job as coming up with tools, platforms, media solutions, ideas, things, products to move that agenda forward.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: The one that was probably most memorable – this was probably one of the first experiments – was . . . was a little bit later in life. It was starting when I was, I don’t know, 13, 14. And I was . . . This was for a science fair project, and I was a total science fair nerd growing up, and did science fairs every year and loved it. And I . . . I was researching this . . . this drug called Melatonin, and I was kind of interested in its properties in terms of affecting the __________ rhythms and __________ gland of these unicellular organisms called rotifers. So rotifers are basically like these black globs that grow in swamps. And so I decided to take this room off of our kitchen and turn it into my lab – not to everyone’s great pleasure in my house – and had these Petri dishes set up with different rotifers. And I would put different amounts of Melatonin and different amount of ___________. And so it created this little kind of lab set up with a microscope, and it was one of the first science fair projects – turning the kitchen into a microbiology lab.

I always knew I wanted to be in science. I think from an early age, from probably 13, 14; from just kind of fooling around in the backyard and, you know, causing things to blow up or to caught . . . catch on fire; to look at something under a microscope or look at something under a magnifying glass. Just kind of seeing, watching, looking at ants. That was highly pleasurable. Lifting up this rock we had. There was always just a ton of ants – and seeing how they moved around and kind of build a little community down there. It always fascinated me. I loved looking at pictures of science, and it was as much the kind of aesthetics of science that appealed to me as anything else. I’ve always been fascinated by how science looks, the architecture and design of science as much as the more philosophical ideas in science. In fact it was an image of a protein that was done . . . So an x-ray crystallography. So basically looking at the structure of a protein – of this particular protein that’s responsible for how our cells adhere to one another. And it turned out that this molecule looks like a zipper – a zipper in between our cells, sort of a molecular zipper. And we’re seeing an image . . . an x-ray crystallography image of that protein complex that got me on a path for a few years of doing biochemical research and cancer research. It was an image. It was sort of the architecture of this protein that was just so compelling and overwhelmingly satisfying in kind of a visceral, kind of romantic way, and an aesthetic way that led me to then try and understand it further and in a more deeply biochemical way. So it’s always been as much the language, and aesthetics, and culture of science as it has been the actual scientific ideas themselves that have excited me.

Recorded on: 10/17/07

Transcript: Adam Bly. Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Seed. I’m originally from Montreal. I grew up in Canada and spent the first 20-some good years of my life in Canada. And I think both Canada and Montreal specifically provide sort of an interesting perspective. Canadians famously have a kind of love-hate relationship with the United States, and have this kind of neutral, Swiss-like place on the world stage. And so from both perspectives . . . And maybe thirdly because of the emphasis Montreal places on . . . and Quebec places on sort of multilingualism, multiculturalism, I kind of have greater emphasis on social nets and kind of social values – Canada’s universal healthcare system and the prime minister, who I guess I’m most associated with, was ___________ growing up. And so in the last few years of ___________ premiership he . . . leadership, he very much kind of stood up for some sort of distinctly Canadian values that didn’t seem to be entirely American or entirely aligned with the United States and their values. So you know Canada’s identity has always been a subject of kind of fierce debate within Canada – whether there is one or not. Montreal certainly has one, and I think that I sort of naturally gravitate towards the kinds of ideas, aesthetics, qualities that Montreal and Canada espouse. It definitely affects how I look at aesthetics, how I look at the kinds of cities I gravitate to, and the place of cities, and also sort of social issues. You have a unique vantage point looking at the U.S. from a Canadian perspective. We have this, you know, mix of a little bit of aspiring to be like the United States; on the other hand desiring strongly to not be anything like it. And so you get a unique, I think, window through which to view U.S. politics and U.S. issues.

Probably most significantly was a neighbor of mine who I first came to know when I was probably three or four years old. His name was Dr. Cato – Dr. Laslo Cato. And he was a microbiologist. He was a scientist who worked for many, many years . . . I first got to know him when he was in his seventies, so he spent most of his adult life working on leprosy, and working with the WHO and other bodies around the world on global health issues. And I think the things . . . And so I guess I first encountered science with him in our shared backyard. And I would see him planting beets, beans, or bringing this tree that only grew in certain parts of the world for the first time to Canada and train it – naturalize it to the conditions in our . . . you know in our backyard in Montreal. The thing that was significant though was his . . . his emphasis in his own life and in his wife’s life who was a concert pianist. And they had to come to Canada from Europe . . . from Eastern Europe years earlier. The kind of emphasis that they placed on other things in life . . . They were both passionate about science, but she was a concert pianist. He loved classical music. He gardened. She painted. They had beautiful collection of antiques; was as interested in sort of the history of science and the philosophy of science as the practice of science; sort of a technological dimension of science; spoke about world issues in the context of the science. And so my first encounter with a scientist was, in fact, with this truly renaissance-like man who saw science more as a lens through which to view culture as opposed to purely an academic subject matter.

Recorded on: 10/17/07