Nobel Minds 2017

Hello, I'm Zainab Badawi. Welcome to the concert hall here in Stockholm, where this year's Nobel laureates received their awards from His Majesty the King of Sweden for their outstanding contributions to literature, economics and science. This is the first time that they have been brought together in discussion on television, and we're also joined in the audience by some of their family and friends who traveled here to be with them, as well as students from Sweden. Welcome to this year's Nobel Minds. Nobel laureates, welcome to you all and congratulations. You all won your Nobel prizes because, you know, you are these very rational, logical beings or you have great clarity of thought in your novels and in your economic work and so on. So do you all really act very rationally with great logic in your personal lives generally? You're nodding, Richard Henderson, so yes, you obviously do. Yes, I'm 100% rational, but very, very occasionally we have to step outside that circle. So the one little memory I have is a new piece of equipment that was being developed. We only had access to it before 8am. I come in very early to try and use it. I couldn't get it to work. I tried everything, unplug this, unplug that. Eventually, I said, I'll just have to go home, but I'd write one final thing, give it a kick. I kicked it, it sprang into life and there was a loose wire, so that was mine. All right, well, let's just see. I'm going to go around the table, you know, and just get a quick quip from all of you. Joachim Frank. I was in an earthquake in Pasadena in 1970. It happened at six o'clock. I was asleep. I immediately jumped out of the bed and went to the toilet and flushed the toilet, immediately. As a kind of reflex, actually. As a reflex. We won't go there, Professor Frank, I don't think. Okay, Jacques Dubochet, the third of the chemistry laureates. Do you know the word falsification? Falsification, yes. This is the rationality of a scientific. When you have a good idea, you have to prove that it is wrong until you have tried everything and then you have proven the idea. But I'm very unrational. I try to show that my idea is right and sometimes I push a bit too far. Okay, Kip Thorne, one of the physics laureates. My greatest insights come in the middle of the night and I'm sound asleep. It's not rational. I don't know how it happens, but my mind somehow irrationally throws things together. I go write down notes in the bathroom. Wake up the next morning and believe it or not, a third of the time, it's good. It's good. I have no idea where it came from. That sounds, yeah, sort of serendipity, I guess. Yeah. Ray Weiss, you ever done anything completely crazy? Oh, I've done a lot of irrational things. I think the most important one was I fell in love at 19. Went chasing a woman to Chicago and it was the end of me. I flunked out and then I eventually got back into that. Flunked out of MIT. Yes, back to MIT. I flunked out of MIT. And back after that, I came and I got a job and that job made my career. The education wasn't worth a damn. Oh, well, we'll come back onto that kind of theme later. Barry Barish, another of the physics laureates. I became a physicist in a totally irrational way. It was to decide not to be a chemist, not to be an engineer, not to be a writer. And the last left was my freshman physics class. Richard, I'm going to leave you out just for a moment because I'm going to come to you because we're going to talk about your economic theory. But the medicine laureates, Mike Young. Well, so choosing to be a scientist is, I won't say it's irrational, but it does come with a lot of risk. And I got lots of advice from people that were close to me. When am I going to get a job? When are you going to choose something that is understandable to the outside world, that has a simple track forward, that you can be sure to support yourself in such and such a way? So there's a very important component. There's an emotional component in choosing to take risks and become a scientist. Michael Rosbash. So I would say in order, having a self-destructive temper as a young person is not very rational. Being a sports fan is not very rational. And then the concept of risk taking is actually has a deep biological basis. But of course, people like taking risks. And that has an upside, of course, as Mike mentioned. But it's also, it also can be destructive. You seem very benign now. You've lost the temper, have you? The self-destructive temper. I'm most of the time under control. Work in progress. Work in regress. It's a work in progress. What about you? This handsome fellow to my right and I work together. His name escapes me. We came up a number of times with labored pieces of puerile public behavior. We thought our stunts were hilarious. I'm not sure that everybody else in our midst did do. But we couldn't help ourselves. All right. Okay. Well, Kazuo Ishiguro, our literature laureate. Have you ever done anything completely crazy that you... Not crazy. But I guess my wife and I, we have a large collection of soft toys, which we pretend still belong to our daughter. Although our daughter is 25 now and disowns them. And we have voices for them all. And they have whole kind of personal histories. And the relationships between them have histories. I guess that's verging on the irrational, perhaps. But I think it's perfectly reasonable. All right. Okay. Well, I brought up this whole issue of irrational versus rational behavior. Because you, Richard Thaler, won the Nobel Prize for your work in behavioral economics. Which really says that mainstream economics didn't get it right. That people, individuals, households don't act in a rational way when it comes to taking economic decisions or indeed any other kind of decision. So just explain to us, give us an overview of what behavioral economics actually is. Well, behavioral economics is sort of just doing economics that would accommodate all of the stories that we've just heard. It was triggered by a dinner party and a bowl of cashew nuts, wasn't it? Oh, well, yes. I removed a bowl of cashew nuts that was addicting a dinner party. And after I came back, everyone thanked me for removing these bowl of cashew nuts. But then, since it was a group of economists, we began to wonder how it was that we could be happy. Since an axiom of economics is more choices are always better than less. So yeah, that was my apple. Why did they thank you for removing the bowl of cashew nuts? Because they didn't want to eat anymore. And they had plenty more coming. But if the bowl were there, they would have continued. And Richard, I mean, a lot of people have focused on just one component of your work, which is this concept of nudge. And you wrote a book, of course, with Cass Sunstein called Nudge. And it's about how people can be nudged into making better decisions. And David Cameron, former British Prime Minister, set up a nudge unit. And indeed, many, many other countries followed suit. So just give us an idea. How does nudge actually work? What does it try to set out to do? Well, nudge takes into consideration what our biases are, and then tries to introduce small features of the environment that will adjust them. So for example, suppose we're worried that this show might run over. Then fortunately, I set my phone for the amount of time we're supposed to do. So when it starts beeping, we'll know to end. And we won't worry about the risk of running over. So that's it. But can you, I mean, some people, thank you. I get the message. No, I'm just trying to be, it's a little nudge. Sure, sure, sure. You can keep going, it'll be beeping. But the idea is to nudge, I mean, you've advised governments on nudging, you know, trying to get policies that, for instance, will get young people like the students we've got here in the audience to save up for their old age, pensions, and to try to get people to take decisions which are in their self-interest based on the fact that people don't always do so. But can we really leave it to politicians and policymakers and their advisors, such as yourself, to really nudge a person into doing something like that? I mean, isn't it manipulation in some ways? Well, the real point is that we have no choice. So there's no alternative to nudging. The only alternative is bad nudging. Gentlemen, I mean, what do you think about behavioral economics, and in particular, this aspect of it, which is, you know, the concept of nudge. Would some of you have liked to be nudged or have been nudged into doing something that avoided reckless behavior? Yeah, I want to nudge the society into something different. I wonder how you think about this. I mean, we teach the wrong kind of math to our kids. Yeah. You agree with that? I mean, for example, I mean, if you want to nudge me into a certain thing, I'd like to know the odds. Right. And we don't know how to make odds in high school or grade school. I would teach it by having them gamble. Yeah, right. So that what people know. Deadly serious. Yeah, yeah, so am I. You want a nation of gamblers? No, it's not. No, no, you see, you got it wrong. Okay, okay, yeah. No, you jumped too fast. Yeah, I did jump too fast there, okay. No, no, the idea was to use as a mechanism to learn the mathematics and the thinking that goes with probabilistic reasoning. Right. Jeff Hall, you are one of the three laureates for the prize in medicine or physiology. And talking about, as I say, you know, the psychological aspects of economics and in behavioral economics and how the mind works and the impact it might have on economics. But you won your prize for what makes the body tick, our body clock. Jeff, why don't you just perhaps spell out for us what we mean by our body clock? There are many kinds of revealed daily rhythms that can be observed and measured rhythms. But there's long standing information from studying a whole variety of different kinds of organisms that these revealed rhythms are underpinned by biological clock. Michael Rosbash and Mike Young, through your research on fruit flies, we discover that we have these body clocks, you know, we humans as well as all other animals. And you discover that by isolating genes in fruit flies. In fact, I think the fruit fly is featured in so many Nobel Prize experiments, it deserves its own little Nobel Prize, wouldn't you say? Tiny little prize. Teeny little thing, yes. Mike Young. Once you discover the components of these clocks, you can look for them all over the organism. And as Jeff and his colleagues showed, in Drosophila, you find different parts of the organism. That's the fruit fly. The fruit fly. You've got many different body parts that display these rhythms using these clocks. So it's not just behavior, it's many aspects of physiology. The other thing that became clear was that you could start with the genes that we found in the fruit fly, and lo and behold, you have relatives in all the other members of the animal kingdom, including us. So can we ask questions that would help shift workers, you know, people who work in the emergency services, deal better with the kind of work that they have to do at night? Can it help us understand why babies don't sleep during the night? I mean, I always find that expression, oh, I sleep so well, just like a baby, must have been said by somebody who's never looked after a baby, because we know they don't sleep at night. So, I mean, you know, does your work help us understand these common experiences? Well, in many cases, what it reveals is there's much more complexity to what's wrong or what we think we're observing when a baby's not sleeping, for example, or take jet lag. When we go from New York or Boston to Stockholm, what's really going on? Most of us think, well, in a few days, my one body clock will get to Stockholm, and until then, I'm going to be in a state of malaise. In fact, what happens is that since you have clocks all over your body, there is disagreement that starts occurring between the cells in different parts of your body about what time of day it is. And so, in fact, at the end of a flight from New York to Stockholm, for the next few days, you're really occupying, your body is occupying multiple time zones simultaneously, depending on which clock you look at. Interesting. I believe your research says that there's good and bad times during the day. Where are we right now? So, it depends. It depends that there's times which are more favorable for some things than others. So, I think what you're alluding to, perhaps, is that this is a very successful nap time, for example. For example. For example, especially for gentlemen or ladies our age around this table, where in fact... Who were up late last night. Who were up very late last night, exactly. That was when you received your awards during all the festivities and so on. What happens to an astronaut that has no resetting mechanism? Well, so, aren't the cabins... My impression was that the cabins have very intense artificial light dark cycles to mimic the external environment. Yeah, that's pretty primitive. So, is that all... Even if they didn't. Yeah. Even if they didn't, if they were in constant darkness, they would show these rhythms and in fact, that's how they were originally revealed in these models. But people do often have these... The reality is that if you put an organism into cycles that are different from a day, like seven hours, seven hours, that certain organisms, depending on the organism, can synchronize to occult cycles. But at some point, you're so far away from 24, when you do these tests, they snap. We know here in Sweden, actually, a lot of people do say they have these lamps that mimic daylight, don't they? Because they have such dark days at this time of year. But some of your colleagues working on the body clock have benefited from the work of our chemistry laureates. Because of course, gentlemen, you won your award for developing a technique called Cryo-EM, which for the first time captured images of molecules that were not visible using standard techniques. And of course, we know that the world of molecules is the core of what we call life. So Richard Anderson, in a nutshell, what is Cryo-EM? I think our area of interest and expertise is the easiest to explain in this group. We basically freeze a thin film of the molecules of life, take a picture of it, and then you look at the picture with your eyes, it's magnified, and you can see all the molecules. The computer helps you to interpret what they are. But the methodologies are the tools that were invented by the others, particularly Jacques Dubochet. All right, well, we'll go to Jacques Dubochet then. So this tool that enables you to look at these molecules, I mean, its potential, its possibilities of how it can help human endeavor, cure illnesses. We are physicists. We work in biology and we get the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Don't confuse people, please. Because we see atoms with the help of those people. And when we see atoms, we do chemistry. And chemistry is a very powerful science. Because if you have a biological object, you see how the atoms are interacting one with the other. You see how Alzheimer filaments are attached to each other. Perhaps you see a drug which will separate them or will prevent them to associate. You see anything with chemistry. It's an extraordinarily powerful method. But I mean, in the case of what you won your prize for, for instance, in the case of the Zika virus, cryo-EM was used to generate 3D images of the virus, which meant researchers could try to work out what kind of drugs would help to resist the virus, for instance. I don't know if you want to pick that up, Joachim, Frank. The Zika virus is a perfect illustration for this combined technology that is now available. So we do know the structure of it now. It doesn't mean that we immediately find a way of combating the disease, but it makes it possible, you know. So the potential... Richard Thaler, yeah. I was just going to say that this links up to the conversation we were having a bit earlier, which is whether choice architecture or nudging is good or bad. It just depends on who's using it. So all the scientists here have created knowledge that can be used for good or evil. The same is true for behavioral science or behavioral economics. And many companies nudge for evil. Last night my toast was to nudge for good, but that's a hope. Richard Henderson, I mean, all of you have worked, you know, for many, many years on your endeavors. And I think it was one chemist who said, you know, miracles sometimes occur, but you have to work terribly hard. I mean, it's part and parcel of everything you do, isn't it? Failure is part and parcel of that, that you'll carry out lots and lots of experiments and expect many of them not to succeed. I think we are aiming to find out completely new things. So if when you're thinking of an experiment in any area, if the choice that you make is close to the knowledge that you have already, then you're likely to have a successful experiment, but you won't have learned very much. So if you make a bigger jump, take a bigger risk, and then most of the time the experiments will fail. But when it succeeds, you make a bigger jump forward. So I learned from Fred Sanger, who had two Nobel Prizes for his work in sequencing protein and DNA. He used to say that you should aim for a very high failure rate. My interpretation was 99% failure rate, but the 1% that succeed takes you with a very big step forward, which is worth all the effort you've spent on the other 99%. I would say that leaves out one important component, especially for young people who like science, and that is the discussion of high risk, high failure, or very lofty goals leaves out an element of craftsmanship to our profession. In other words, I think the chance of having tremendous success is very small for any one individuals. We are the progeny, we are the beneficiaries of also a lot of luck as well as hard work and perhaps a tiny little bit of talent. But the fact is that most of us here love what we did. And so that carries you through failures. Sure. And you have to really like to do experiments. Interesting, Michael Rosbash, because when you were young, you were marked out as a potential failure at school. You were very unruly by your own admission. You've known each other, I know, for many, many years, for 30 years. But you also, Jacques Dubochet, you say that you were dyslexic at school and Richard Thaler, you were mildly dyslexic. I mean, I think it's interesting that your path to this success now. I think you're worrying about the wrong thing. Has been, you know, it's just inspiring to people, isn't it? Listen to Michael. He said something very profound. And that is people like to work on things that are fun, that are a pleasure to work on. That's absolutely fundamental. None of us, at least I certainly in my life, didn't think I'm going to win the Nobel Prize. It was never in my mind. My life was not dedicated to winning a prize. My life was dedicated. I enjoyed this thing I was working on. It was fun. My buddies with me, we had a great time. The whole project, the LIGO project, isn't based on the fact that, oh, God, we fail, we fail. No, no, no. I wasn't saying that. No, wait a minute. Just listen to me. You gotta listen to me. This is important. Because that destruction, he said it right. And asking, oh, oh, God, failure, failure, failure. That's not the way you think. And so the consequence is that you do things which you get a kick out of. And luckily, sometimes they turn out to be important. Sure, but just going back. There you are. They like that. That brings me to Kazuo Ishiguro, universally known as Ish, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature. And I know that in your writing career, you've had some false starts and works that you've discarded and started all over again. But you are now amongst the giants of the world of literature. You've written eight novels. And to be honest, a lot of your novels seem on the surface to be quite different, set in different countries and so on. But there does seem to be a common theme, the relationship between the present and the past, would you say? Yes, I mean, the surfaces of my novels are kind of deceptive. People think I keep moving on. Truth is, I keep writing the same thing over and over again obsessively. And people don't realize it because they have very different settings. But I think perhaps there is a parallel between the kind of way I make progress and the kind of way that the guys around this table have done. I dig around some sort of piece of ground. Sometimes somebody comes up with an idea or a topic that's somewhere out there. And I think, well, that'd be great for somebody else. But it's not on this little thing I'm closing in on. I'm digging away in the dead of night, expecting to sort of uncover something strange down there. You mentioned the scientists around the table, but you are interested in a discussion about science. And one of your most famous books, Never Let Me Go, looks at scientific advances in a world that's kind of gone mad, perhaps set in the future, where society expects that all illnesses can be fixed and they don't want to turn the clock back to people dying of cancer and so on. Is that something that really concerns you, the misuse of science? These are very important things, I think, for books, films, plays to address. But that isn't essentially what literature is for. It doesn't have to directly address these questions. I think what literature does is allow us to understand each other across cultural barriers, linguistic barriers, so that when we come to have the debates about how we order our society, what is important, we understand how other people, not obviously like us, feel. Most discoveries, I think, are two-edged blades. And this is at the heart of the Nobel metaphor, if you like, a man who invents dynamite, which can do great things and very destructive things. We have to have a debate in society. We have to think about what we do with the great breakthroughs. And the scientists have the responsibility the other way to make sure that what we do is understood enough by the public. It doesn't have to be exactly what we measure. You know, this famous problem. C.P. Snow made such a fuss over it, and I think he did a lot of damage with that, is this cross-fertilization of people who do science, people who do music, people who do arts. That's got to go. And it isn't that... I mean, I'd like to have, for example, if in our country right now, I'd like to have the arts be able to know a little more science. Barry Barish, I know you're a great fan of Kazuo Shigeru's work. What do you think about this conversation between science and art? You wanted to be a novelist, didn't you? I mean, I think what... As I said, I eliminated several professions and ended up in physics. The earliest one was being a writer because I read all the time when I was a kid. If you write a novel and it's read by 100,000 readers, you're really writing 100,000 novels. That's why there's book clubs, because it's not that anybody, the guy next to you doesn't read well. It's that how that novel is interpreted by them is different than how you interpret the novel. So it's a fantastic thing that you can write something that actually is 100,000 stories, I think. And why the movie's never as good as the book, because the movie does too much. It doesn't really have the same partnership. That's my view. Did you like the movie of your book, Never Let Me Go? Yes, and I loved the movie of The Remains of the Day. I don't, myself, make a huge... I don't disagree with you, but I think all the art forms have their special powers. There are things that I can't do that the filmmakers can do very, very well and vice versa. I'll just go to you, Akin, Frank, because I know that you are a writer. You've written short stories which have been published and you have a novel which has been unpublished about an astrophysicist at a university that it might get published now that you are a Nobel laureate. Any publishers listening? Let him know. Thanks for the plug. Well, for me, the English language became a medium of reinventing myself. I mean, it was a very challenging thing. And when I discovered that I could write dialogue and got something across, it was an incredible experience to me. I'm sort of daunted by the idea I'm sitting next to a Nobel laureate in literature and talking about my little production. Oh, well, why not? One small point about that in the interest of young scientists, which is I think a lot of young scientists don't pay any attention to the writing. I don't mean writing a novel. When you do research, the end product is something written. And until you've written it down, you haven't done anything. That concerns me as well, very much what you just said, as somebody from the world of the arts. There seems to be some sort of disconnect with your great discoveries and your breakthroughs and then what the rest of society gets preoccupied about in popular culture, in popular debate. It seems to me the Western world, anyway, is very well prepared for a zombie attack on our major cities. But we don't seem to be addressing how we reorganise our society as a result of some of the staggering breakthroughs that are being made in science and technology at the moment. And one particular aspect of science which really has captured the public imagination, popular imagination, of course, is the world of science fiction. I come to the physics laureates because you won your prize for the observation of gravitational waves. It was the first time that a passing gravitational wave has been observed directly on earth, a huge scientific sensation. So Kip Thorne, why don't you just encapsulate for us what this was all about? So a black hole is something that every child knows from comic books. But a black hole is a spherical hole in space that has such intense gravity that nothing can get out, not even light. And what we discovered was that 1.3 billion years ago in a galaxy far, far away, two black holes circled around and around each other, spiraling together as they emitted these gravitational waves, losing energy to the gravitational waves. The holes came crashing together at half the speed of light and they created a veritable storm in the shape of space and time. Time slowed down and sped up, oscillated wildly. If you can imagine time there speeding up and slowing down relative to how time flows here. And that process produced these waves in which space is stretched and squeezed, stretched and squeezed, that traveled across interstellar space, intergalactic space to the earth and were captured by the, or were monitored by the instruments that were built by the experimental team that I'm associated with. This is a whole new way to study the universe, to study aspects of the universe that we've never seen before. It's a way by which we will, in due course, watch the birth of the universe and for the first time really come to understand through a combination of this with theory, the birth of the universe. Ray and Barry, I mean, what kind of, it's a window on the world, on our universe. What kind of things might we discover about our universe that we don't know now, Barry? We've worked for decades developing an instrument, much like we heard the chemists talk about, that's just astounding. I mean, I can't imagine that we could do what we could do, except that we learned very early that you couldn't prove that we couldn't do it. So we kept making steps. And as I think Ray said earlier, people keep asking us, how could we stay at this so long, persistence? No, it was really a lot of fun because we've broken new ground all the time, much as you have, without maybe making a discovery, but just to experimentally go further than people have before. Black Holes, of course, really are very much the stuff of science fiction films. Kip Thorne, you were scientific advisor and executive producer of one such film, Interstellar. How important is it for you, do you think, that science fiction should actually be based on fact? There's no necessity. There are different genres of science fiction. And my partner in Hollywood, Linda Obst, who, together with me, wrote the treatment from which Interstellar sprang, she calls this science faction. I contrast with science fantasy. Harry Potter is science fantasy, Interstellar is science faction. But the beauty of this, for me, is that a film like this, where the science is embedded right from the beginning, it's capable of inspiring people about science. How else could I, as a professor, succeed in providing some inspiration for 100 million people, except for a blockbuster film like this? One particular thing that a lot of people like to know about in science fiction and so on is are there other universes out there, parallel universes? Could your work in any way help us discover whether there are indeed other universes? Barry? Well, it might. If we had an easy and straightforward test to see if this idea was right, we'd probably be going after it. There's various ways that we might get clues whether it's right, and some of them are through the kind of work we're doing. It's not very direct. It's one of the ideas that kind of springs from what we don't know about the early universe. So discussing here, you know, the success of films like Interstellar and science fiction, two contradictions there, you might say. I mean, how important, sort of just thinking about this issue in general terms, do you think that evidence-based discourse is in our societies today? Let me get a view from all of you on this particular issue. Perhaps you first, Jeff Hall. People don't know much about science and technology. Electricity, a miracle, for example. Day-to-day things that never existed centuries ago and now are taken for granted. The proper American in the United States is not only ignorant, but is actively, belligerently, pugnaciously ignorant. I refuse to go away from secular humanists for the life. So who thinks that there are these irrational influences and that you will seek the triumph of reason in the face of all this? Michael Rosbash? A lot of this has to do with educational landscape. We've seen circumstances, most starkly in the US, but in Western Europe as well, where politicians, ambitious people, take advantage of the situation to exploit for their own benefit, for power, gain of power. It's not something that's unprecedented. It happened in the 20th century to disastrous ends. And so it's a very worrisome concept. Mike Young? You can have an attitude that you're not interested in science and you can't benefit from science. These wouldn't exist if there hadn't been discoveries 50 years ago that invented the technologies. Just about every minute of the day, everyone depends on some form of technology. So the notion that it's over or we have enough or... Or it never happened. That this is brand new and created from whole cloth is such an incredible mistake. Richard Thaler? We have a fact-free administration in the United States. Worrying about science, it would be nice if there were scientists in the administration. I would settle for some people who are collecting facts. Right. But Barry, it's interesting. I mean, you know, talk about... We've heard anti-science bias from Jeff Hall, for instance. But your LIGO project for the observation of these gravitational waves, would you think that kind of support would happen today? For something like we did? Yeah. Well, I'm worried not... You can't do science and move forward without taking risks. Yet we have a system that's become more and more conservative. I personally, knowing the funding situation pretty well in the US through the National Science Foundation, don't believe that right now you could fund something that was equivalent. We as scientists have a job. It's not just that we... We have a job to make what we do more intelligible to people. I think that that's why... I mean, Kip's movie is an important thing. I think you also have to go and talk to people who are not at college levels. You have to talk to high school kids and grade school kids. Yeah, I agree completely with Ray on this. I think the one key aspect I'd like to emphasize is the importance that the general public, that the majority of the populace, and a democracy particularly, understands how science works, understands its powers, its limitations. Jacques de Brochet? The remark by Mr. Ishiguro that it would be easy to develop and make great a story about zombies coming on Earth and destroy everything. Easy, but why is it so difficult? Why does it work to make a terrible story about our climate going astray, going about as bad as the zombie on Earth? Why can't we make a story of that? Well, Joachim Frank? We talked before about the difficulty of getting science even across to the public and that there are no existing forums. The problem is we have all these forums, the media, and the media chop everything into pieces. People are completely incapable of getting some kind of a coherent story out of this. Richard Henderson, do you think that the role of the scientists is to explain their science to society, but also beyond that, to actually say we want to raise the level of knowledge-based comments and debates? I'm completely with you on that, actually. I think scientists are... I am an optimist about this whole discussion. I think scientists particularly have to be optimists. You couldn't have worked for 50 years to look for gravitational waves without being an optimist. To differentiate between rational, irrational, fact, and fiction, better education, I think, is the answer, actually. And lots of people want better education for their children. Some of them take their children out of school to give them a better education of home. Some people take them out of school to avoid it. Exactly. So we need to improve the general... To indoctrinate them. Yeah. So that's right. Better education is the bottom line. Better education is good, but what's a lot? You have in the past said, yes, I mean, you're sticking with scientists, people who deal with facts, but are you going to make a plea for also... Fiction has a place in society, obviously. We like reading works of fiction. Well, fiction, culture, I mean, I think one of the issues is that the business model behind the media and journalism and reporting is currently broken. The traditional ways in which newspapers and periodicals used to spread knowledge and debate and they were rewarded by and large for accuracy is gone. What is important at the moment is that it is eyeballs on websites, clicks. There isn't a good economically viable business model by which we can have these debates. Because people are driven by the fact that you have to get, maximise the number of clips on the website. Right, well, I hope you have found... Well, Ish, I hope you'll make an honourable exception of this programme at least and that you have had the chance to interact with these great minds as well as adding your great mind to our debate here, our discussion. I think everybody has found in the audience and beyond everything that you've said, really absolutely fascinating. I've certainly enjoyed talking to all of you. Thank you to all our Nobel laureates, to our audience here in Stockholm at the concert hall, from me, Zeynab Badawi, and all of us on the Nobel Minds team. Thank you very much indeed for watching. Goodbye.