τώρα θα πάρω όλα τα υπροσφασία από τα τέτοια πριν για κάτι πιο ενδοχεία της προσφασίας. Οπότε δεν θα προέβω τίποτα κάτι για τη νέα σου. Δεν θα προέβω τίποτα κάτι για εμένα. Στον πιο απλότι θα προέβω είναι να ανοίξω σιόδη να βρήξω και να προσφασίσω να βρείτε ένα λίγο πιο πολύ. Για την σειρά. Λοιπόν, αυτό που θα σας πω και αν θα σου δημιουργήσεις το ελαμβό Θα δείξεις ότι θα θέλω να πω σε slido.com και θα το χρησιμοποιήσουμε στις τούλες για να αντιμετωπίσουμε σήμερα, αλλά και την ίδια φορία θα χρησιμοποιήσω μία σκρίνα με τη στιγμή που θα δείξεις όταν θα δείξεις μία σκρίνα. Μπορείς να δείξεις μία σκρίνα τώρα. Ναι. Ok, Αξιολογή. Αν θα πω σε slido.com και θα το χρησιμοποιήσεις την χασία real RRI. Θα βρεις να δείξεις για να δείξεις το σκρίνα που μπορείς να δείξεις όταν πω μία σκρίνα. Και θα δείξεις όταν θα δάσεις ότι η μόνη που έγινε είναι να ξεκινήσεις με ένα κερδίδιο σκρίνα. Είμαι πέντες ότι έχεις δει τρεις ειδίες αλλά δεν είναι τρεις ειδίες. Είναι μόνο ένας ειδίες. Το πρόβλημα με το σλίδο δεν είναι τρεις ειδίες. Είναι η λιμιτέρα των ειδίες που μπορείτε να χρησιμοποιήσεις. Είναι αυτό γιατί έχω σκέψει αυτά σε τρεις ειδίες. Αλλά οι πρόβληματος ραχαίκες, από όλες τις συμβουλίες που είχαμε σήμερα, είναι το στιγό της στιγμής του Άμαλγανου να αγήψει την εξεγωγή της ειδίες. Είναι ανοίχιστο με την ίδια στιγμή να αγήψει πολλές εξεγωγές για να εξεγωγήσει τις εξεγωγές της συμβουλίες. Αν το στιγμή που εμείς πρέπει να μην χρειάζουμε είναι ότι δούμε εξεγωγές και εξεγωγές στην οργανισμία. Είχαμε πολλές δεύτερες αλλά η πραγματική που θα θέλω να δούμε είναι την εξεγωγή σας. Και θέλω να σας αγήψω αυτά τα εξεγωγή που έχετε. Τώρα δεν θα έχουμε μόνο αυτή την εξεγωγή σας, εξεγωγή μου, επειδή πρέπει να εξεγωγήσω από πολλές εξεγωγές. Θα ξεκινήσω με την πρώτη εξεγωγή και μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις μετά αυτή τη δημιουργία για να δείξεις δεν τα εξεγωγές, αλλά τα εξεγωγές, εξεγωγές, πράγματα που θα θέλεις να γίνεις και τότε θέλω να σας αγόψεις να ξεκινήσεις την εξεγωγή και να σας αγωγήσεις τις δεύτερες. Λοιπόν, ξεκινήσουμε με την πρώτη εξεγωγή, ώστε να εξεγωγήσουμε και ένα λίγο παισιμιστικό πρόβλημα. Πολλές είναι οι βαρειές για να εξεγωγήσουμε τα δεύτερες εξεγωγές. Τι είναι η εξεγωγή σας που σας δείξει ότι είναι η βαρειά, η κρήτησή, πρόβλημα also, για να εξεγωγήσουμε τα δεύτερες εξεγωγές και για να μπορείς να δείξεις ότι μπορείς να εξεγωγήσεις επίσης να πάρεις στο σλίδο και να αγωγήσεις ένα λίγο παιδί σας εξεγωγή, okay, είπαμε να προσπαθήσουμε κάτι, δεν θα κάνουμε ένα άλλο πρόβλημα, οπότε θα εξεγωγήσω ένα πρόβλημα για εσένας, όπου είπαμε να εξεγωγήσουμε τα δεύτερες εξεγωγές και να εξεγωγήσουμε κάποιες βαρειές, okay, εξεγωγήσουμε και τα κρήτησή που υπάρχει στον εξεγωγή της Αραρίας, και θα σας εξεγωγήσω να πήγε σε αυτή η πόλή και να εξεγωγήσουμε τρεις, που πιστεύουν οι πιο σημαντικές, να μπορώ να εξεγωγήσω τα δεύτερες και να συναντήσω ένα λίγο παιδί για να σας εξεγωγήσω, but before I will do that, please someone open the microphone and tell me that you manage with Slido right in the chat if you are facing any kind of problems. I'm already in Slido, I had some issues at the beginning, but if we write in our web browser, the URL, we can enter Izou. Yeah, if you will see, okay, it's slido.com, I have it in the chat and then you have to put real RRI in the hashtag. Yes, we can access it. Okay, good. So I may start by repeating, okay, what I said that we are focusing initially in the barriers. I saw that some people already you start, you know, putting your ideas in the poll. And I give you options there, as I've told you from things that I found in the literature, the RRI concept under development. So a lot of confusion still, okay, there are different views and understandings of RRI and this creates a kind of a problem. The Western Eurocentrism, okay, it was one of the big criticisms of this RRI concept. So little chance to buy in at the global level. No clear division of labor in the sphere of responsibility in the innovation activity. So there was no clear indication of what is actually expected and at what stage from innovating businesses. The fourth one, tension between excellence and responsibility both in science and business. Everything all activities relate to RRI as an additional burden that makes innovation more costly and time consuming. A fifth one, insistence on transparency and open access. So corporate strategies of intellectual property management not aligned with the open access paradigm. The sixth shortage of understandable needs to use tools to measure responsible innovation in business. And the rest I believe that they are really self-experienced. Okay, some people they say it's a very bureaucratic process and they don't like that especially in the innovation part. Political barriers, institutional barriers, social barriers. There is some criticism, is it needed? Is there a proven advantage of RRI and a resistance change? So I see that slowly you're becoming very active in the poll and that's good. I will give you one or two minutes more to put your view in this poll. And then you can go to the Q&A part of Slido and you can start typing your views but at the same time you can take the floor and start George, I just want to raise a question just to be sure that so you are just sharing the one web page in Slido. This is what you want to do because I see that you are navigating in different windows but I am not sure if this is just for you or if you want to share also with us. This is just a question. No, I was saying I wanted to share one screen. I'm sharing more. No, no, no, you are just sharing one screen. Okay, one screen. And normally it's only one poll. It's only one poll. We are not sharing the results. You want to share the results? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm not sharing the results. Okay, okay, okay. I just want to be sure as you are clicking in different things I'm not sure if you you are aware that you are only sharing one web page. Yeah, yeah, I've told you. It is okay. I have to exactly several. Thank you very much. Okay, so I can share. Yeah, I believe that I can stop and deactivate the poll so that you will have now focus on the space that you can go and write things and I can share a little bit the views that you had already. So who would like to start saying something about these barriers? It seems that the institutional change, the institutional barriers are the ones that you like the most. So the floor is yours. Okay, it's open to you.  And Paula, I would like you to help me, okay, because for a reason I cannot see Yes, the participants above. If you put your mouse above the red line, you will see the if you put the mouse, if you cross the mouse above where you are, where you see the information when sharing the screen. I do, but I cannot even see. Maybe it's better if you stop sharing the screen for a little bit just to reshape your desktop, because I suppose the shut window, the participants list window is fully open. So this is why you cannot see it. So only if you do like kind alt tab, alt tab in your keyboard, you will see it. But maybe if you stop Ah, yeah, it's very small. Yeah, I can stop sharing. Then you initiate again, then you will organize your environment. Yeah, but you can start sharing the screen once again, but this will No, no, because everyone went to Slido, so everyone is using that so they can see the screen. So who would like to open his camera and his microphone and offer something regarding the you may raise your hands. I'm sorry, George, you have already a comment on the chat from Ellen Marie. Okay, Ellen Marie, you wrote a very big comment. Would you like to just open your microphone and share this thing with us? Yes, sorry about that. Because you have too many things to say, okay. So it was just I was looking at the list on Slido and then we actually had a presentation of barriers last year and I didn't recognize exactly the same ones. So I didn't know what to cross and what to check in the poll. Thought I would just share all of them. So but the most important one was lack of resources, lack of money, time, people training and expertise to actually do it in organizations. And the lack of incentives as well. The lack of resources, okay. It's a usual thing that we listen to whatever you will try to propose, okay. And you will try to offer some kind of institutional change anyway. It makes sense, of course, okay, because you know many times we are asking people to do things and they say, okay, what are the resources that I have available. But do you think also that there is also an excuse sometimes to avoid, you know, to resist to change? Maybe, but I think that a lot of people in these organizations are just so under so much pressure already that there is really no extra resources to do this extra, you know, activities on science communication or things that are not seen as, you know, what they really have to do. So no, I think it can be an excuse but often it's actually the case. Okay. I will share my experience since, you know, people are a little bit shy in the beginning. I remember that when they introduced ethics in the university, coming also from computer science, it's important to say that, okay, because usually we have projects, okay, that we are not involving people, okay. So there are many of us that they never thought about ethics, to be honest, okay. And that's a big problem also when AI comes now into play. But I remember when they introduced the whole thing several years back, yeah, I saw it as an extra thing, right. We should have someone in the department to coordinate the whole thing.  So asking something extra, yeah, you have to give the right resources, you're right. Thank you very much. George, you ever hear another question from Kakel Almaida? Okay, yeah. It's not my view. I've told you that I just went through the literature and I saw that some people were criticizing, you know, RRI as being something that comes from the western countries in Europe and probably it's not very appropriate regarding the rest of the countries. And especially if you will go also probably outside Europe, there was a criticism that you won't manage, you know, to pass the idea. But it's not my view. I mean, if I may come in here, it's a concept and some of the keys and the concept that is very let's say classical, liberal, enlightenment concept. So in this sense it is can be viewed by others like very Eurocentric or very western concept. I mean, probably highlighting issues like ethics that are public engagement and so on. It's very important while in other cases may not be so important. Sorry. I just want to also to contribute and to share my view. So based on what you have put it in the slide and also with this Ellen Marie contribution with this list of also topics for the discussion. From the perspective of open science and RRI specifically based on my experiences of things related to open access and open data, the lack of clear policies and clear mandates I think are one of the barriers because there are studies that when we talk about open access publications and open data clearly state that if there are clear policies or mandates that the policies and mandates are aligned with the infrastructure and services made available for the community, this will make life easier and things that appear as difficult become more easy to do. And then in other areas the lack of incentives I think is also quite critical if there is clear incentives of course career progression but also sometimes budget money for research units that comply with some policies aligned with the RRI components or RRI or open science I think this is also interesting. But of course we need to change the incentives that are available within our institutions and not only. So also sometimes in the national framework of funding or with our funders etc. But I will put this in the top, this lack of clear policy and incentives for researchers. Pedro, I agree with you with incentives. I had a recent discussion. People also want also to be awarded and recognized. So one of the things that we should have when we are creating a plan for applying any kind of idea in this institution we have to remember to award also the ones that they will become champions of these ideas. Owen thank you very much for setting the report from the commission. Would you like to say something? I don't know if I have that much to say about it but just looking at the map for those of you who haven't been able to find it in the file. Greece is more or less the only country traditionally considered eastern which seems to have like an outsized presence in RRI projects and otherwise it's very much that you can see. Portugal has more involvement in RRI than much bigger Romania. Norway has the same level of involvement as much bigger Poland. So it does look like it's very western european dominated. I think. Yeah thank you. Yes thank you. I was just trying to clarify a little bit this Eurocentric approach or the idea that it is Eurocentric because I think it's the idea that other parts of the world also have different contexts and that RRI might not be the most fitting sort of concept or putting most priorities and same priorities as other countries have. Maybe they have different priorities and our context may also be very different. Their societies are organized in different ways so the stress on public participation may not be fitting according to some to all countries for example because they're organized in different ways. So it's more to clarify the issue of the idea that the concept of RRI is a western concept. Yes. Well I consider this to be absolutely natural. I mean if you if you want to care about things like RRI you need to do it from within a let's say prosperous society. I don't think that the people that in less prosperous societies care about these things because they have other more important things to care about. So I think it's natural that this concept is very popular let's say in western societies but this is not a disadvantage in my point of view. If a society which is not right now considered prosperous if in the future it becomes prosperous then I believe that they will start thinking about such concepts as well. But I think it's absolutely necessary that we have the situation this division between the west and the east let's say. Thank you Simón. Lucy, Patrícia, I see that you are saying something about the tools and inadequate awareness. Would you like to open your microphone and say? Okay I hope I'm clear. What I mentioned is that most of our corporations have not yet embraced RRI tools because what needs to be done is probably create awareness and maybe capacity building and then it can now be disseminated in the governance of those institutions. Yeah raising awareness. Is it clear? Yeah yes raising awareness is a very... Maria also you wrote something that some individuals organizations find it challenging to employ participatory RRI tools also related with the tools. Would you like to say something more? Yes hello well from the experience of some RRI projects it has been indicated that some organizations are eager to look for RRI tools and methods but face challenges on how to apply them. It seems that all this sometimes theoretical description or the academic arguments towards RRI confused let's say practitioners. So the lack of the actual participation in RRI activities and only reading about them I have seen that it creates some mere obstacles let's say. Thank you Maria. Fabio I would love to hear but unmute your microphone. Yeah yeah yeah great. Just about the western nature of the concert of RRI really I don't know if it is a western concert. What I can say is that in this along these years we we have many examples of how this concept has been in different way adopted or anyway a lot of some interest has been expressed by organization based in outside Europe and some of the the project that are represented here RRI practice and other at the monster and other that India, Africa and the United States in this in these areas there are many organizations which have followed this concert with interest because I think that what is important of this responsible of the responsible research innovation and is this aim to that RRI has to anticipate and assess the potential expectation and the societal implications of research and the aim of to foster inclusiveness and sustainability of research. These are important needs for research that are still important and that can be that are important for the western societies but also for the the rest of the of the world Okay Fabio, since we have you here one of the things that most of the people mentioned is the resistance to change. Have you noticed that in your experience? Some to change in the in the concert of RRI. Yeah I believe that we are referring to the concept of RRI but overall there is a resistance you know to change overall from people expecting something like that so they saw it as one of the most important barriers somehow. Yes I agree on that now I was just intervening on the possibility for this concert to be considered in the rest of the world outside Europe for the rest I think that one of the big barriers of this concert is the fact that it is composed by different the different sub-level or key issues of RRI are a different one from each other so for example if you if you see the and each each sub-key issue of RRI correspond to in some cases with two different communities the communities of gender is different from that of ethics and so on so probably one of the barriers of today applicability of RRIs also that there are many communities that are behind RRI. Okay so it's important to find a way to make the concert more more let's say more effective I don't know to use it in a better way but the things that are behind this concert are very alive and very important to be considered. Good Andrea would you like to say something this is a very good thing that you did okay and I suggest to the rest just open the cameras and when I will see your face I will understand that you want to say something it's way better okay and easier for me to handle okay Andrea. Well I would like to say that for the world this issue of the western sentry city it's pretty neat I mean it's important even if it wasn't mainly in our main agenda to talk about this because well I do believe that it's not so western based that the concept of RRI we don't have to forget that for example the big novelty of the last is what's called was the concept of frugal innovation that indeed was based on like indian and generally low-income countries we have like a series of like also books talking about these mainly by Navira Deux et Jadip Prabhu that was like named Jougade innovation and then the the next one called frugal innovation itself and it's very interesting because what they mainly argue in a couple of words of course is to do more with less and in this sense I think that more than western country like eastern country or are less reluctant to change because they experience somehow a bigger need than has to implement responsibility and frugality as a strategy to be competitive so I think that this is an interesting point of debate both in terms of considering that probably we are forced we are like biased in like reaching every phenomenon with a western lens and on the other hand to to be more reluctant to change than in some other places and probably the contemporary history shows that this reluctancy to change affects a colonial area like business not only like science or innovation in the western world thank you very much i will agree with you that the eastern countries they are more willing to do changes they want that i saw also myself okay when we were writing a proposal um reina ranya sorry if i'm pronouncing because i saw that you opened your camera would you like to say something sorry sorry no no i was actually having a similar point as the previous speaker so okay yeah and from the things that also fabio said okay i i they see i had the kind of a question myself is there a usability somehow possibly for example how important is the type of the organization but at the same also time the context okay because i believe that uh fabio something like that is uh was mentioning something like that okay either the context is scientific or probably regional in which uh are our implementation plans have been applied so we are trying to gather the best practices uh how important do you believe is the type of the organization and the context in which we apply these plans who'd like to respond to that setting experience elen marie you have a lot of um i can say at least that um the funding organizations as was put that earlier today they have a different context so they are often very closely connected to the state and um they are often very limited in what they can do based on outside impulses like from researchers like us so they have instructions from their ministry um that limits what they can kind of embrace so uh while it's a bit true for universities the universities have much more autonomy so so that is an important difference between those two but i can also comment on the on the imperialist uh or western focus so all right i don't know i think going back to academia as an institution it's global and all universities across the world wants to meet the conventions that are acknowledged for what is a good university or what is good research so that's i think they look to and and those that kind of define these conventions or values are seen as the best examples are in europe or and the u.s and so they look to europe and the u.s and so i think that they're kind of they're not necessarily they don't necessarily feel as pushed upon them but they look to see what's going on and how can we be like you know the best universities in the west because yeah that's what they aim to to be and i think that creates a common ground in the in the dialogue and i think maybe that it was a wake-up call for us at the project to see how how much of the same issues all of the funders and performing organizations were struggling with across the world you know we only worked with 23 organizations so it might not be the same for everyone but but i think most universities they they do relate to this overall idea what a good university with good researchers so if we can get all right to be part of that then you know it's going to be seen as kind of a natural thing not an imperialist thing but yeah two different points thank you very much haro am i pronouncing your name correctly yes thank you so i come back to this point of what is needed to make it to make it successful at organizations um whether it's imperialist or not so i leave that a bit aside but i really agree with the elemari that it's it should be something seen as normal and uh the the risk is that uh rri is framed as something that is on top of what researchers and organizations and firms have to do um whereas it would be so good if it was framed as something that this is just a way to become successful in what you want to do anyhow so to make research that makes sense and to to produce innovations that that really contribute to society and so indeed so it's i think it is something that takes some time to see it to reframe what you are doing at the university and at the firm and in research funding organizations so that it's not something that's on top but there's exactly what you are supposed to do and what you are wanting to do so um i think yeah we really shoot as a community try to change that framing and and it's not on top but it's just exactly what you want to do this is the thing you want to do thank you very much haro ranya you open your camera because you want to say now something yes yes okay yes i agree very much with haro that i think that a lot of organizations think it's something on top um and that that they already do a lot of the things with different concepts but we should find a way to sort of integrate them but i did want to respond also to because i think i think she's right in terms of that other universities in other parts of the world also look to universities in in america for example or in europe however i think that's also something that is challenged by some is this the system that we all should participate in should be rethink the system if we look at universities in i don't know south america do they do some things different differently than than that other universities do and may there be value in that and i don't think that's that's going against our right because it's a way of maybe looking at our right in a bit of a different way but i do think there's there's that tendency as well so universities yes they look to towards the existing system but there's also some universities that think okay but this whole system how was this built um is there some value in how we do things maybe differently in other contexts in other parts of the world and can we make that well maybe part of our array um so it's also a question like do we all go in yeah do we keep the system as such or is it also something that we can question that would be my contribution thank you ranya claudia you wrote a comment on our array that this context related would you like to take the floor also outcome yes i think that the or is a context related or is not i think this was also the experience is also the different context not only geographical but also sectorial for instance so but also if you talk about a right or research uh fundamental research or innovation for instance you can also have to to make a lot of work of this as a process of reflection and i think also it requires also a translation of the stake that are behind the keys for instance because for instance we can talk about this as a label and this is very risky what is the stake that for instance if you are in organization are behind that the key for instance research institutions the key of gender equality also as an organization is very high but you can risk only to talk in general know about gender for instance and in other contents in brazil in america for instance the reflection about not only gender but then gender and the intersectionality also in the context of research for the excellence of research or for the or how to include in the team diversity for improving research is a way for changing really organization but also for changing the practices on making the research more inclusive and also more excellent because also with the copy we see how this is very important so you can have a lot of work to do exactly for the contest without the contest organizational territorial geographical sectorial but also the application this is this is is the point is that require a lot of time so the issue is that it's a process that is not about to make a two-work shop or to make some meeting or some consultation so i think that also the idea to have a longer roadmap for the process and to wear hair on this is very important the context is absolutely what is very important it is that the big effort at least in our time my experiences that i found and when i go also outside europe i saw that we have to learn as a european research for instance for other contents for instance on gender intersectionality and about the public engagement that this is really conceived as a western concept and in some sense is rejected there are also approaches that are community engagement they use other approach so they can be but the state behind are the seeds because all the research we are all in danger in some way if you don't in some way modernize the governance of our research systems and we don't react to the big challenges and pressure that we have from society from the changes inside science and technology sorry well claudia i believe that you made a very strong point and and i see also eva that said something in the chat that says there is also the question who is responsible to train their career researchers i believe also that you are very right eva would you like to to say something about that eva okay but hello can you hear me yes we can hear you yeah sorry i uh uh yeah i think this this we discussed at the europe european council of doctor of candidates and your new researcher also the how to train the iricaris researcher who is responsible if the institutions or the researcher itself or in terms of iricaris researcher or doctor of candidates how this uh copyright and open science uh training can be incorporating in let's say doctoral training programs so then there we have been discussing like quality assurance agency that this should be the the component because it's really crucial to the young generation it's it's trained and then there was i also share something different this was a some study about the perception of plagiarism and generally about ethics and there are study that uh let's say eastern europe it's different about like uh see the the concept of ethics like differently so maybe there is less discussion generally less less training also in this topic so this is also which can influence the perception you're you're so right okay if we want to change the world we have to change it from the youngest generation so yeah the the the way that we'll educate people especially regarding research in the university is extremely important so if you don't have an ethics module uh because also i'm involved with territory myself and we are working with the region of central bachetonia about the gender and i've had you know many people saying that we should have you know some kind of gender studies probably in every discipline okay uh so it's about training the younger generation so we should have in every kind of tool that we have uh the right training for this early career researchers Giovanni yeah if i can add something that i'm now in chegrepablig and i'm working in national uh library of technology and we are also trying to support the university but i don't see nothing in uh let's say the strategic documents at national level about rri so these are strategic documents for the university as well so they don't they don't have some input from from government level let's say to to push this topic forward thank you giovanni uh yeah um i just wanted to point out to what i see as an important problem which is the the fact that in academia we have a bit this tendency to create fashions all the time and then to want to change uh the labels to introduce the the new concept and when we have ideas that need to be implemented um outside academia when we need the institutional change which is something that notoriously takes time it's not happening overnight this can be counterproductive because if people feel that things are just a passing fashion they will not engage into deep changes in their organization in their way of doing things but i think that on the other end it's also difficult to uh not having the temptation of wanting to change things because we learn we uh so we can come up with better ideas so how do we balance the the researchers commitment to to always do things better to in incorporate new knowledge and lessons learned and the temptation therefore to come up with new and better frameworks with the the need of giving some stability some uh impression that things are there to stay and therefore that people can commit to work uh on within a certain framework knowing that it will be a lasting one how can we deal with these paradox of uh giving stability and and keep improving as we accumulate new learning Giovanni i don't think that you're expecting me to answer now the question it's a very tough thing okay um you are right um and i will just say that yes it will take a lot of time for me you know things are happening top down and bottom up and the the the whole system it will need a lot of time in order to start adapting the whole concept i see are right to be honest as a set of values mainly that are good values in order to have responsible research and through the training and the younger generations i believe that we will move to a society that will be able you know to to move forward things like that in a more efficient way yeah okay nico you may open your microphone and uh yes i uh it's clear yeah to say something more than what i'm saying but uh in in the text uh but we are discussing i mean we're part of three or four rli projects right now and i have seen presentations from another ten maybe and there is a lot of discussion about research and a lot of discussion about the difficulties of academia to to adopt the whole framework or not to adopt it and so on uh we discuss much less on innovation and innovation necessarily includes uh companies firms and so on uh perhaps an idea would be to uh to try to translate that in their own language because uh companies don't have ever arrived but they have csr they have corporate social responsibility you talk to them they will say yeah yeah what you are saying is what we're doing in corporate social responsibility or both i'm not an expert of that but perhaps it's an idea to try to translate it in a in a language that it's more easily understood by by companies and to to focus a little bit on innovation as well that's what i want to say yeah i agree with you nico probably the focus in the research part and the focus in the university has to do all the training that we're discussing till now that it is needed but you're right towards the language also in many many cases we saw that it was a barrier even trying to translate from one language to another people had different kinds of understanding when you were translating one ten from English you know to to another language uh now even more with the idea of the context also that we discussed if you are changing context probably you have to use the right language in order for people to understand you uh would like would someone like to add something more on that no i don't see okay let me put one last question and in we have something like 10 minutes okay um what are the key factors favoring rri in your experience because we're discussing all the time barriers what is something that you saw in your experience okay but the key factors that could favor rri haro yeah so to continue on this this issue of uh that it should be something normal or something that is already in the uh strategy of the of the actors i think a factor that really helps uh rri is whether it's somehow on the agenda already and i have some experience with uh with nano technology for instance where researchers and and firms thought well this might be tricky and how will society respond είμαι σε μηθήν ξεπεριμένα είμαι στο σπίτι okay i'm from the speed okay okay sorry um so when it's already on the agenda of of firms and and research organizations to when they feel well yes there is something with society there and let's let's find for a way to deal with it and then rri may come as a rescue um but when when you first have to uh have to make have to convince that that additional efforts are needed then it's then it's difficult so it's important to see what is on the agenda already and if you can connect to that and that that is i think uh and a success factor thank you haro and sorry for the um someone else who helen marie wrote again a whole paper on the topic helen marie could you just uh you know what is your favorite from all of the things that you wrote um sorry about that no no no no thank you very much okay you i i i i also attended your talk in the beginning again it was really helpful thank you for whatever you are offering yeah no it's just if it's if it's useful it's in it's in the book um we just published so at least a chapter on drivers and the chapter on barriers so no it's it's uh well the most important ones are you know the dedicated programs infrastructures or units already dealing with this kind of issue so you're not starting from scratch and that clear mandates again some of the drivers are simply the opposite of the barriers so yeah and also the culture can be a driver academic culture can be a driver for r i i i agree okay but uh changing cultures creating cultures it's a difficult thing on its own and the way to go when you're to to be honest okay this is my feeling that when you want really to have institutional change you have to change the culture of this institution and as you mentioned in the in the morning you have to work with the people okay thank you for sharing all of this um anyone else that would like to add something here and probably be in favor of one of the points that Ellen Marie also mentioned yeah claudia i would like to hear more about this okay because as i said i i'm i strongly believe in whatever that you have to have a the right combination of top down and bottom up i think as an approach as a process of change first of all you cannot create a process of change without firstly first of all a driver of change initiator of changes there's a on which you have to rely and then able with a vision to involve both the many important top down it depends from organizational approach a territorial approach it depends from the context as we say but the top so institutional actors non institutional actors and also for instance looking also to research and innovation also also industry organization also to involve bottom up actors they usually are neglected in the process also of also consultation about the solution because i think that the stake as i said claudia we lost you before i think that you have me sorry yeah we can hear you now yeah not sorry there are a lot of stake to face because there are a lot of changes in society in science and innovation process so to also this mission approach change the life of everyone all the organization are under pressure with new changes to face and this requires so all i think that most of the the organization that the actors are uh experiences these difficulties to have these fast changes to to move to look at look at what happened with cove you know how is possible to manage what is coming so fast so i think that we have to to find a way what is the driver the initiator of the process but then is important to have a systemic approach for looking at the top down and bottom up uh area of actors and making a process an iterative process again the time is an issue a process in which include this but not in a also in this case not for promoting a label but try to see together in which way this stake can be in some way uh face it working together to solution that can be beneficial but for the progressive progression excellence of science for more responsible innovation sustainable innovation that also for society it is the goal of all this effort i think it's also the vision that is behind also for instance in the case of innovation the internal coalition i think the very important effort is how to build together a vision a common vision that is broader than the institutional vision because should be something that is in the middle on which territorial coalition can work together also in a longer vision and processes so for me i think the top down the bottom up it should be both present for a process of change thank you very much i we could have one last okay that's also very interesting petro you will be the last one that will take the floor before we close the session okay so good morning um the the the thing that that i wrote i think it features as something that keeps building a little bit on the the mentality that universities and institutes have um in the sense that uh i think by making uh different fields uh integrating with uh within others it's a way if you do it in the beginning with students uh like for example if you try to mix the hard science with social science in the very beginning by just trying to um uh be involved in projects or somehow be involved in the different courses that aim for that or hearts uh or even hearts courses if you do that in the beforehand then when you have these people following to universities a little bit later on or institutes they might be more wide open to uh gather the the you know to make the bottom up reach the the top uh uh easier so i would say that this this could be a strategy i know that some courses are implemented in universities with that uh idea but i would say that this is the maybe one of the drivers that could build this idea and maybe our eye would stop being just a mirrored concept and being just uh an implementation of of actions that we don't call it by that name but we have within different uh few uh axes that we talked today like ethics or even science education and public engagement and so on yeah that's thank you very much Pedro okay this is this 144 in Greece okay 1244 in central european time and we have to stop this very interesting discussion i hope that you enjoyed and the whole strand today that we had very nice presentations and i hope that you enjoyed also this session that you had the the chance to be more interactive and you to take the floor and offer your views and experiences thank you very much for all of the things that you taught me today okay in this one hour it was really useful uh we had the third strand of fitter for rri tomorrow so try to join also tomorrow for the final conference on rri policy in the future of rri thank you very much everyone and have a nice day for me thank you george thank you


Good morning. So I've had a number of questions about the exam. I mean, there's a little bit of fear in the air, frankly. So the question is, I mean, people fishing for how the test is going to go. It's going to be like the other test you saw in terms of its multiple choice. People have asked the extent to which I expect details to be known. I've made it very clear that I expect you to know what comes out of my mouth in the lectures and what's in my notes, whether you're not responsible for what's in the textbook. But then again, there are quite a few names and details in my notes. And the question comes up, well, do I need to know all the stuff in the notes? Well, frankly, in all fairness, I think it's fair that if I did put a detail in there that you'd be responsible for, because it is consistent with what I said. However, I tend to ask more conceptual questions. So I'm more concerned that you understand the basic ideas that we talk about and then maybe you can give an example of each. So don't expect, I mean, that's just the nature of my tests. I'm more concerned personally that you understand the concepts rather than memorize every detail. There are some things you'll be expected to mean. There's some easy points. I'll just tell you that right now. If you memorize the geological time scale, which is what we'll get next time, there's an easy point or two. If you know the Lenin classification system, that's another thing you can easily memorize. There's a few more points there for you. But for the most part, it's going to be conceptual. Are there any questions? OK, so let's get on to today's lecture material. So today I'm going to talk about phylogeny. I wrote down an outline of what I want to talk about today. And this is to remind you what we'll be discussing precisely what a phylogeny is. But evolutionary biology is really founded on the idea that all creatures on Earth share a common ancestor. And we discussed some of the evidence for that. But that's the basic idea. And that, of course, natural selection find tunes organisms for their environments. But the basic idea is that all of organisms on Earth are related by a tree, a tree of life, if you will. And this figure on the right, rather, is the only figure in the origin of species. You may have already seen this, but it's basically Darwin sketching out what a hypothetical tree of life might look like for a small group of organisms. And then this was a sketch, a very famous sketch, from one of his notebooks where he sort of sketched out an evolutionary tree. And I think over here it says something like, I think, and dot, dot, dot. And who knows what he was thinking, but there's a tree. Right after the origin of species, there were a number of people that became very excited about trying to uncover what that tree of life looked like. Who is related to whom is the basic question? And so this is a tree that came out within 10 years of the publication of the origin of species by Ernst Tecla, a German biologist who is a very enthusiastic evolutionary biologist. And he made a tree of life that, if you look at the very top here, this is all in German, but this is men. And then you have a gorilla and some other. I can't really see it from here. But you have the great apes up here. We're one of the great apes. And then these are vermies as worms, and he's got other organisms on this tree. And what's really cool about this tree of life is it's kind of drawn as a tree, which I really like. You don't actually see that these days. So on to what I want to talk about. So most of this is going to be on the board. So what is our modern depiction of a phylogeny? So you'll see phylogenies drawn today in scientific papers and in textbooks as a branching diagram. So here's an example of a phylogeny. Typically, the tips of the tree are labeled with the species names. So these would be species A, species B, and species C. And the way to read this phylogeny is as a way that statements about relationships. So what this tree says is that species A and species B are each other's closest relatives. So A and B are each other's closest relatives on this tree. And the reason they're each other's closest relatives is because they share a common ancestor right here. This branching point represents a common ancestor. And on this tree, this common ancestor is more recent for A and B than any other common ancestor on this tree, the other one being right here. So it's about statements of relationship or about recency of common ancestry. One of the things that people become confused about is sometimes you'll have, for instance, if A was a human, B was a chimpanzee, and C was a gorilla. So let me rewrite these labels to reflect that. So if, for instance, this was a human, that was a chimp, and that was a gorilla, first of all, this is the tree we think best reflects the evolutionary relationships of those three species. And so our modern understanding is that humans and chimps are each other's closest relatives. So if you ask the chimp who's your closest relative, the chimp should say if it could talk, humans. And if they were up on the literature. Now some people say, but if you look at chimps and gorillas, they look much more similar to each other, at least by eye. They look more similar to me. They're hairy, right? They live in forests, they fruit, right? And humans are quite different. We walk up right, we don't have a lot of hair, and there's other features where we're presumably smarter. And so humans look a lot different than chimps and gorillas. So even though chimps and gorillas look more similar to one another, humans and chimps are each other's closest relatives, because the only thing that matters is the recency of common ancestry. Now the other thing that some people get confused is that we can rotate the branches. So if we take these two and we just flip them around and we put chimp on this side and human on this side, we haven't made any changes in the phylogeny. We're still making the same statements about the relationships. Now if I do this, if I actually detach some taxa, some tip, some labels of the tips and put gorilla here and humans over here, now that implies a different relationship, right? That says that chimps and gorillas are each other's closest relatives and that's what people thought for a long time, okay? But so this, you can do some things without changing the meaning. That is to say you can always, I can always flip, grill and chimp again. I can, that is to say I can flip these points here and get the grill on this side and chimp here. That doesn't change the meaning. So if you think about these things as being, I don't know if you ever had those connected type toys as kids that have the little wooden dowels that have lots of holes in them and you put sticks in them. Well you can imagine this being like a little wooden dowel. Actually that's kind of clever, isn't it? I actually made a wooden dowel there. Where you put a stick in here and a stick in here and the stick in here and you can sort of rotate that dowel and you don't change the meaning. But if you take a stick out and put it somewhere else, you change the meaning of the tree. Is that clear? Good. Now there's a difference, of course there's terminology. So people distinguish between cladograms and phylograms. So what is the difference between these two things? Well cladogram, the lengths of the branches have no meaning, okay? The basically the lengths of the branches are just drawn so that the tree looks nice. Now the tree of course has, how the tree is connected up does mean something. It means it gives you information about how they're related. But that's it, okay? Now phylograms, the lengths of the branches mean something. So for instance, you'll often see phylograms drawn like the following. You'll see maybe human chimp gorilla. Now what might these branches mean? Well they could mean a number of things. I'll give you two examples. The lengths of the branches might be in terms of millions of years or in terms of time. Which would be a sensible unit when you think about it because you can also think about phylogenies as representing the history of speciation events that led to the living taxa, living species. And so this tree says that there's a speciation event between humans and chimps that occurred sometime in the past. So if these branches can also mean if they're in terms of time they tell you when the speciation events occurred. So for instance I'll just give you a rough idea of five to seven million years ago would be our best estimate of when humans and chimps split. And then gorillas were not much before that. Eight, nine maybe, I don't know. I should probably check that one. But the gorillas, the speciation event between gorillas that led to gorillas and humans and chimps, this one right here, occurred before the one that led to humans and chimps but not much before. So sometimes the lengths of the branches are in terms of millions of years and the tree would be termed a filogram. More typically the lengths of the branches aren't drawn to be proportional to time but rather to the number of changes that occurred along that branch. So branches drawn proportional to time or number of changes. And of course the number of changes of watt. And so we'll talk about that but it might be the number of nucleotide substitutions that occur in a gene. So they're sometimes drawn, often these phylogenies as you'll see are based on DNA sequence information and the branches then might be in terms of the number of changes of DNA substitutions that occurred along each branch of the tree. Now that's all I wanted to say about distinguishing cladograms and filograms. I want to now turn my attention to what are called rooted and unrooted trees. Now the tree of life is rooted in time. So there's a direction to the tree of life. The speciation events occurred in a specific time in the past and time is directed, right? So we're all in agreement that the tree of life should be rooted. Here's the root, there's the root. And so if this is the root these might be the species here, let's make a fourth species, we'll make it D. This is an example of a rooted tree. Now it's interesting but it's an interesting but true fact that most of the methods that try to estimate phylogeny given you give these methods and say some DNA sequence information and they return a tree. These methods actually work on what are called unrooted trees. So here's an example of an unrooted tree. I'll label it unrooted. This is what the phylogenetic methods typically return. Now this tree can be rooted along one of five different branches, you can either root the tree here, here, here, here, or here. Now this particular tree, if you happen to root the tree along this branch right there, you will get this rooted tree out. And hopefully you can see these trees are hard to see at first but you'd have to get that knack of it after a while. But imagine grabbing this tree right here, pulling it down where I marked the X and then rotating these, breaking this branch right here so it sort of goes in a V, and you'd get this tree out. True? If you don't see it, convince yourself over time that you stare at these long enough and you'll see it eventually. It's like those pictures that have an animal or something in them. If you stare at them in a while, then all of a sudden you see it. This is the same type of thing. So anyways, just realize that these methods work on unrooted trees and that you have to use some other criterion to root the trees. I believe you guys probably heard of the outgroup criterion in lab, or you will. Basically the outgroup criterion is the following. It says, what you do is you designate one of the species on the tree as the outgroup. So let's say you're an evolutionary biologist, you become one let's say, and you're interested in the phylogeny of what? Mammals. You're interested in the phylogeny of mammals. So you go to the zoo and you ask the zookeeper, I just need to take a little blood sample from all the mammals you have. And they say, fine.   And if you were to do that just on the mammals you sample from the zoo, your phylogenetic method, you put your data into a computer program, it would return a tree that's unrooted. And then your job is to say, well, how am I gonna root this tree? So what you do is you go back to the zoo, you say, I need something that's not a mammal. I need a species that's not a mammal. I'm gonna take a blood sample from that. So you have lots of choices. You could take a bird, you could take a crocodile, you could take a turtle. There's lots of things in the zoo that aren't mammals, but you take one of them at least. And so maybe one of these species here is, we'll put an O here for out group, but one of the species is at least one is not a mammal. Maybe you go to the San Diego Zoo and you take a Galapagos tortoise. Take a sample of the glidel of Galapagos tortoises. So you take a sample of blood from the Galapagos tortoise, you go back to the lab and you sequence that Galapagos tortoise for the very same genes you sequenced for the other mammals. And then you put that Galapagos tortoise into the same data matrix, the same data file, and you give it to the phylogenetic method. Now the phylogenetic program will return an unrooted tree again, right? But this time the out group species is in that tree as well. And the idea with the out group criterion is the branch you choose to pull down to become the root is the one that leads to the out group. So if you were to use this tree with that out group, the rooted tree you would get out would be the following. You'd have A and B, C and O, okay? That would be how you would root the tree using the out group criterion for this particular tree right there, where this is your Galapagos tortoise and A, B and C are your mammals. That's the out group criterion. That's how people turn unrooted trees into rooted trees in modern biology. That's what people do every day in universities across the world. So that's what I wanted to say about rooted and unrooted trees. So let's talk a little bit about the combinatorics of trees. Does anybody know what combinatorics means? All right, so it's the mathematical field of counting things, okay? So if you remember like factorials and permutations and combinations, you got that at some point in math in high school at least, that's combinatorics. It's just counting up how many ways things can occur. So let's add, so there's a question here, which is let's say we have four species. There they are. You say I'm interested in four species A, B, C and D and you're interested in estimating the phylogeny of A, B and C. How many possible phylogenies could explain the relationships? How many possible relationships are out there? For just four species, we can easily enumerate the four unrooted trees or three rather unrooted trees. Here they are. One, two, three. It's not very exciting yet because I haven't put the labels on, but we can have A and B on one side and C and D on the other. We have A and C on one side and B and D on the other. We have A and D on one side and B and C on the others. If you have four species and you ask one of these computer programs to estimate the phylogeny for you, these are only three possible trees that the program can return. One of these three trees is gonna best explain your data, whatever that happens to be. We'll get more specific about how the estimation procedure occurs in a bit, but this is just the number of possible results you could have had. Now, that's for four species. Let's look at what happens when you have more species. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna make a table. Let's see, so we're gonna make a table so we'll make it look like a table. So N and the number of trees unrooted. So this is our table. We just discovered that with four species, excuse me, there's three possible trees. With five species, you have 15 possible trees. With six, you have 105. And with seven, you have 10,395 possible trees. So notice the number is growing very quickly. You have, I see, oh no, I'm sorry, about 10,395, that can't be right. That'd be 945. Eight is 10,395. There's a trick to this. Nine is 135,135. Let's see, we make the table a little bit bigger. You go to 10 species and you have 2,027,025 possible trees. The number of possible trees is growing very, very rapidly. By the time you get 11, you have about 34 million. Somewhere around 20 species, maybe 21 species, you have a mole of trees. Remember Avogadro's number, right? And around 60 species, there's more trees, more possible trees, more possible trees than atoms in the universe. That's a big number, right? So whatever that number is, it's big. It's roughly 10 to the 60, 10 to the 70 somewhere in there. It turns out that people today are routinely working with problems that have hundreds of species in the data matrix, which means that the number of possible trees is many more than the number of possible atoms or even electrons in the known universe. So this is what's called the combinatorial explosion. The number of possible trees explodes exponentially. And this is one of the prime difficulties in estimating trees, which we're gonna turn to next, is we've got some data and that data's gonna say one or several of those trees are the best explanation for the data, the best estimate of the phylogeny, but then the question becomes a computational one. How do we screen this enormous number of possible trees to find the best trees? It turns out remarkably that you can actually do this without, obviously nobody's gonna count or go through all the possible trees. You can't enumerate in real time or even not in real time all the possible trees for 60 species, but there's computational tricks that allow you to still get very good trees out, even though that you can't enumerate all the possible trees. But this is just to give you an idea of the combinatorics of trees. And I don't know if you saw the trick, but the combinatorics goes up as the factorial, but it's not the factorial you remember, which is one times two times three times four times five. Notice it's one times three for four and then it's one times three times five for five and then it's one times three times five times seven and so forth. So you're taking every odd, you're taking the odd factorial, factorial of odd numbers. Not that you have to, don't remember that, but if you wanted to know the trick, that's the trick. Okay, so why did I wanna go to estimating phylogenies? Okay, so are there any questions on the first part of the lecture? We talked about cladograms, phylograms, rooted versus unrooted trees and that there's a bunch of possible trees for even a small number of species. So I want to turn my attention to estimating phylogenies and the most important concept here is that we're gonna be comparing features of organisms and the features we compare across different organisms are supposed to be homologous. So we went over homology in lecture one or two, but basically this is similarity in form that's caused by a common ancestry and the classic example, for instance, is the forelimb across different tetrapods where you have this pattern, the pattern of similarity is one bone followed by two bones, followed by a bunch of little bones followed by some long bones, right? Your finger bones. And so the idea is that the similarity in different tetrapods organisms with forelimbs is caused by the fact that they shared a common ancestor that had forelimbs and had that pattern of bones in the forelimb. So the idea is we're gonna study homologous characters and specifically we're gonna compare the details of these homologous characters. Now classically, these phylogenies were made using morphological traits, traits you can see with your eye or observe with a microscope. Today the homologous traits tend to be DNA sequences and specifically DNA sequences from the same gene sampled from different species. So for instance you can take the beta-globin gene and compare it in humans and chimpanzees and frogs and birds. You can actually compare that gene and that gene is homologous across those different species. The ancestor of all those species had a beta-globin gene. And so we'll give you an example. The goal is to construct a character matrix. If it's a character matrix of DNA sequences, they don't call it a character matrix, they call it an alignment. I should write that down. So if a character matrix of DNA sequences is called, you'll never hear them, people say my character matrix of DNA sequences, they call that an alignment. So let's give an example or go over an example of that. A screen down, blanket. So here's our hypothetical example we're just gonna work through quickly. And so some weird group of organisms, I was kind of hoping that the Mars exploration vehicles would have come up with some more interesting results.  But the hope, my hope was that when they got there they'd have these little cameras on the Mars rovers. And you see these little creatures scurrying by, that would have been cool, but that's not what happened. But let's imagine that that did happen and that the people saw different creatures scurry by and they could see that there's different forms of these creatures. And there's the different creatures that scurried by on Mars.   Those are the different species. And if you were to make a character matrix, the idea would be you'd compare homologous traits. Now we obviously can't study the anatomy of these guys too carefully. So we just have to assume that these species are all related to one another by a common ancestor and that when you see legs, that means the common ancestor of D, E and F probably had legs. So I'm just gonna start things off and say that one of our characteristics can be legs and we can score the presence or absence of legs. Either you have legs or you don't. So I would say A, B and C don't have them and D, E and F do. So often you'll have these character matrices coded by numbers, often zeros and ones. We could put words in here. No legs, legs if we'd wanted. What's another characteristic? Arms. There, some of these guys have arms, some don't. Looks like E and F have arms, right? And the other guys don't. Any other characteristics you want to put up there? Dots, okay, dots, polka dots. So it looks like A and B don't have dots, but the other four do. How about antenna, okay? So it looks like C, D, E and F have antenna. There's our antenna, and it's C, D, E and F again. Although frankly it's not clear how to score this one because to have antenna it looks like you have to have a head, but okay. What else? Polka dots. Oh, these little neck stripes look interesting. E and F have neck stripes. Once again, some people would quibble with our scoring because you have to have a neck before you can have neck stripes, and A doesn't. A head, hey that's a good one, head. Presence or absence of a head. So it looks like that guy doesn't, but everybody else, two, three, four, five. So there's an example of a character matrix. We ran out of board and frankly this is getting a little bit boring for me. There is our character matrix. Now there's a method, so I'm gonna put the board back up again so we can have some more screen or more board space. With six species we have what 105 possible trees. And so what we have to do is have a way of ordering or ranking every one of those trees according to this character matrix. And there's many methods of doing that. I'm gonna tell you a method that's not necessarily my favorite method, but it's one that's easy to describe. And this is the parsimony method. And I believe it's the one that you guys are being taught in lab as well, so this is all very consistent with what you're being heard, but what you've heard. So this is the parsimony method. And the basic idea here is we're gonna score these characters on a tree. So let's just pick a tree, I'm gonna pick a good tree. We'll put E and F, D, C, B, C, and A. So here's one of the unrooted trees that could explain the relationships of those species. And so what we wanna do is we wanna ask, how well does this tree explain those observations? And so the parsimony method says that for every tree, that every tree gets a score based on the minimum number of what changes on that tree that data requires. So for instance, this first characteristic, the one that has the presence or absence of legs, we can score that the minimum number of changes on this tree would be these guys don't have a change and these guys do. So you have a change from zero to one along this branch. Now that's not the only way we could have had the evolution of that characteristic. For instance, we could have had three independent changes all from zero to one along each of these branches for the emergence of legs. The parsimony method says no, when we have these two choices or we have many different ways we could have mapped that character onto the tree, we choose the mapping that requires the minimum number of changes. And so we would not consider this a reasonable mapping, at least the parsimony method, wouldn't consider that to be a reasonable mapping for that character. And instead, it would say we'll just map it right there, zero to one change along that branch. So I'm going to erase the zero to one change, hopefully that's understood. I'm just gonna put an indicator that this was where character one changed. Now what about character two? That trait would be a single change that occurred along that branch for character two, the arms, the dots appear here. There's a change from not having dots on this side of the tree to having dots on that side. Antenna, same place, that's character four. Character five is the stripes on the neck, E and F have the stripes on the neck, so that's character five. And character six was the presence or absence of a head. That arose right there and we'll call that character six. The parsimony method says you do this mapping exercise for every one of the characters in your character matrix, and you count them up. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six. So this tree gets a score of six. Now in principle what you would do is you could look at the other 104 trees and you find which of those trees has the minimum number of changes, requires the minimum number of changes. And according to the parsimony method, that tree is the best one. Let's go ahead and do that. Green down, blank screen. I'm gonna make a quick character matrix here for a computer program. One, two, three, four, five, six. So this is a file format that you guys are not responsible to know. It's just a file format I happen to know pretty well. It's just a text file and we're gonna put this character matrix into the text file. So I'm gonna need a little bit of your help here. So A is all zeros. One, two, three, four, five, six. B is all zeros except for last one. Z is zero, zero, one, one, zero, one. Zero, zero, one, one, zero, zero, one. I must have too many zeros up here. See, that's why it's really hard to do this in front of 700 people or whatever it is. The next one is one, zero. Thank you. And then the next two are easy. Okay, now, oops. This is gonna be our text file. I think we need to make this a unix file here. So what I'm gonna do now is we're going to, this is just the Mac terminal. I'm gonna run a program that a lot of people use for S-mini-file-loginy and I'm going to execute that or read into computer memory that file. Good. And we're going to search for the best tree. So I'm gonna ask the computer program to find the best tree. And what it did is it said, look, I went through, remember I told you the combinatorics? There's 105 possible trees. It went through, it looked at every one of the 105 trees. It found one tree that had a score of six, which should look familiar because we said that tree there had the score of six. Score of the worst tree is 12, we're not interested in that one. The number of trees it found that had a score of six, there was just one of them. And it took, well, it didn't really take zero seconds, but it didn't take very much time for it to do that, right? The computers are fast. So what does that tree look like? That's what the tree looks like, okay? It's basically the tree I drew on the board. That was a really simple matrix. I kind of knew that would be the best tree. But this computer program confirms that of all the 105 possible trees, that was the best one, and it had a score of six, yes. It means remember you're mapping each characteristic onto the tree, and you're mapping these characteristics on the tree in such a way that each one requires the minimum number of changes for all the characters. So we basically, for this particular tree, every one of these characteristics can be mapped onto it such that only one change is required. All the other trees require some of these changes to have more than one change along them. Yes, sure. We can look at a different tree, I suppose. Let's see here. Let's just take a tree that we had before was something like A, B, C, D, we'll do D, C, E, F. And which characteristic should we look at? Let's look at the evolution of legs, all right? So I'm gonna say that this guy has legs, this guy has legs, this guy has legs, this guy doesn't have legs, this guy doesn't have legs, that guy doesn't have legs, right? I just put the characteristics on the tips of the tree. So now we've got a situation where we can't, before I could put a change there, that's not gonna work. So you have either this situation where you have, let's see here, you could go from zero to one here and zero to one here for the leg characteristic, or, so that requires two changes, right? I think there's another equivalent way of mapping this one. Or you can have a change here from one to zero and a change here from one to zero. But it's, again, it requires two changes. So either of those mappings would be equivalent under the parsimony method, but it doesn't matter because they both require two changes. So this tree where it's gonna require at least a little bit, it's gonna have a longer tree length. Instead of having six, it's gonna be seven or eight. I don't know what it would be. Is that clear? This is just an example of, this is one of the other 105 trees. I showed you one of them, the best tree over there. This is one of the other 104 trees. And this is how you'd map just one of those characteristics on it. Now this is kind of a silly example. Let's not play with this anymore. Let's look at another example. So here is, here's a real alignment. I just realized I was looking where this, that's been on my hard drive for quite a while.  But basically, this is where the paper from this Hayasaka et al. 1988, what they did is they sequenced specific genes from the mitochondrion in these primates. There's human, chimp, gorilla. There's the orangutan. There's the gibbon, some macaques, and some other more primitive primates. So this is the alignment. Note that there's 12 species in this alignment. So instead of having six like we had, we have 12 and there's roughly 654 million possible trees for 12 species. And you can see that these DNA sequences have this, they're quite long or they can be. So here, we're scrolling along. There's the end of the alignment. But basically, these are the same gene sequence from the different species. And you can see that they can be quite similar in some places. But then occasionally, like here's a case where these four great apes have a C at that position, but the other guys have a T. So let's have pop read that data set in. So execute primates.next, yeah. So I'm gonna do a search for the best tree. Now, this is the score of the best tree. The best tree required 1,153 changes on it. So instead of six changes like the best tree before, this one requires many more changes. And there were two trees that were equally good under the parsimony criterion. That is to say, of those 654 million trees, two of them had a length of 1,153. They're equally good under this method. So let's go see what those trees look like. So here is the first tree rooted at the lemur. And we'll just concentrate on this part up here because this is the only place that really, this is the, these are the great apes. So it got this part of the tree correct. And this tree puts human and chimp as each other's closest relatives with grill outside it. The other tree it found was identical in all respects, except it put the chimp with the gorilla. So this one says that the gorilla and the chimp reach other's closest relatives. This actually, this tree is reflective of the uncertainty that was in the field for a long time about whether the chimp went with the human or the chimp went with the gorilla. And this was one of the early datasets that tried to resolve this problem. Since then we've got entire genome sequences, right? Not just 898 sequences, but we have the entire genome of these critters. And we now, we now strongly believe that the human and the chimp are each other's closest relatives. But this was a good historical example as well. But this is more reflective of how people really estimate these trees today. They take a DNA sequence alignment and they feed it to one of these computer programs. This is a program that was written by a fellow David Swofford who's at Duke. And then these computer programs use computational methods to very quickly try to find the very best tree. Are there any questions about this part of the lecture which is, I erased this, didn't I? I wanted to talk, this is where I was talking about estimating phylogenies. Now there's some, oh go ahead. Which, yes. Well, so, no. I mean, what can happen for some of these analyses is they can take a very long time. Sometimes these labs have these programs running for months at a time. Now that said, if you have 200 sequences, we're just gonna agree that no computer can go through and enumerate all those possible trees. Because there's 10 to the 60 is the number of atoms and you have 10 to the 300 possible trees. And so you could wait trillions of years and never actually go through them all. That said, the methods that people use to actually find trees don't require that you enumerate all the trees. There's fast ways, they're called hill climbing methods, that basically don't look at all the trees but can come to very good solutions. Any other, that's a very good question. The question, by the way, was if you have a big data set doesn't your computer just blow up and melt on your desk and the answer is no. Okay. There's a little bit of terminology I wanna talk about which goes with the parsimony method. And that involves these terms called snapomorphy, for instance, I'll just give you some examples. So when you map a characteristic on a tree, so here we're gonna have our tree, these are gonna be, this is gonna be a dog, there's a cat, there's a human, there's a pig, say.  So there's just a tree, it's probably reasonable, I don't know the details up here, but it's probably a reasonable tree. Sometimes when you map, go through this exercise of mapping characteristics on the tree, for instance, mammals are all characterized by having hair, right? And so you can say that hair evolved right there on the tree, okay? So when you look at the different characteristics in mammals, you can say that hair is what's called a snapomorphy for mammals, it's what's called a shared derived character, this is a characteristic that's shared across all mammals and derived uniquely for mammals. Now you can also say look, look at primates, monkeys and apes, right? So things that are over here, they have hair, right? So isn't hair a snapomorphy for primates? The answer is no, that's a plesium morphy, what's called a plesium morphy, plesium morphy for primates. So hair is a snapomorphy at one level, at the level of all mammals, it's shared among all mammals and derived uniquely at the base of mammals, but it's a plesium morphy for groups such as rodents or primates. Sure rodents have hair, sure primates have hair, but it wasn't a characteristic that was derived uniquely within rodents or in primates. Just a shared primitive character, shared primitive. So this is a concept that's sometimes difficult to see, but characters once again, I'll just repeat it, some characteristics can be snapomorphies at one level, but plesium morphies on another. The hair is a good example of plesium morphic at the level of any group within mammals, rodents, primates, bats, whatever, but it's a snapomorphy for all mammals. It's a characteristic that all mammals share. Other characteristics, for instance, that all mammals share are things like giving milk to a young, right? All mammals do that. Or having a very specific jaw joint in the jaw, so specific bones contact one another in the jaw, the denturine squamosal bones. So there's a lot of snapomorphies that all characteristics that all mammals share and all those characteristics are called snapomorphies. Is there a question about that terminology? You probably already got that in lab, I believe. No? Well, now you got it. Okay, how are we doing on time? We still have some time, good. Is there anything else I wanted to talk about for these methods? Okay, so what can you do with phylogenies once you have them? So there's a lot of interest among biologists and evolutionary biologists specifically to make phylogenies. And there's, for instance, a project called the Tree of Life Project, which is being funded by the National Science Foundation, which has as its goal the trying to piece together the entire Tree of Life from bacteria through plants and all mammals and vertebrates. Okay, so there's a very ambitious project out there where people are collaborating and trying to piece together the Tree of Life. And so to some extent, phylogenies are interesting in and of themselves. And I'll give you some examples at the end of this lecture or the beginning of the next of cool phylogenies, neat results that have come out. However, there's other reasons that people are interested in phylogenies. I'm gonna give you what I consider one of the more boring reasons first, and then I'll give you some more interesting examples later. And what I consider, some people in the museums here would kill me for saying this, but one of the more boring reasons is for classification. We need to be able to classify organisms to make sense of the diversity of life. And we already went through the Linnaean hierarchy, right? The kingdom phylum, class order, and so forth that is the traditional way in which species are classified. Every species gets its own kingdom, its own phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. That's how species are classified. There is a group of very vociferous biologists out there who believe that the classification should reflect the phylogeny. So if you have a phylogeny like this, where all these things here are mammals, to these people, and to me frankly as well, a good classification would reflect this, that maybe what you should do then is call all these things a name. Give all the things that we call mammals a name. We'll call mammals, all right? Mamelia would be what they do. Now these people get upset when you have groupings that don't reflect the phylogeny. So let's give a good example. There's a very, I think a good example of a group that these people would not be happy with, a group that these people would not be happy with. And so I'm gonna sketch out what I remember of the vertebrate tree of life. So I think you have, let's see here, you have frogs here, amphibians. You have mammals. You have turtles. You have lizards and snakes. You have crocodiles. And you have birds. Which of those things are reptiles? Well, that's not, that's an amphibian. Those aren't reptiles. We would call a turtle a reptile, yes. Lizards and snakes, certainly. Crocodiles, birds, no. So if we were to make a grouping of reptilia, classically, reptilia means those organisms. Note that this classification includes the common ancestor of all reptiles. It includes this ancestor, and if you were to look at that ancestor in the fossil record, people would call it a reptile, okay? So it includes the, this grouping includes the ancestor of all reptiles, but not all of the descendants, because we don't call birds reptiles. So this is what's called a paraphyletic group. This includes the ancestor and some, but not all, but not, don't be too touchy. But not all descendants, okay? That's what's called a paraphyletic group. This other group where you have an ancestor in all the descendants, that's called monophiletic. This is a grouping that includes the ancestor in all of the descendants. And these people, biologists today, most of them believe that classifications should be only for monophiletic groups. They should only include monophiletic groups. So there are vertebrate biologists who have redefined reptilia to include birds, and that fixes the problem, okay? Although, frankly, you'd have to kind of know who you are talking to. Does that person across the way believe that birds are reptiles when you say the word reptiles, so you have the same meaning of the word? Okay, so I'm gonna continue with the phylogeny lecture next time.


Hi everyone. Myself Supriya Pasnu working as an assistant professor in civil department from Walton Institute of Technology, Solaapur. Today's class we are going to discuss the design of the dog legs staircase. We are going to discuss the dog legs staircase. So these are the learning outcomes. At the end of this session students will be able to draw the neat drawings of different building components such as the doors, the windows and the staircases. So there are different types of the building components. So out of this we are going to discuss about the staircase. So staircase also there are different types such as the dog legs staircase, the simple staircase that is the straight staircase, open well staircase, bifurcated staircase. So among all these types we are going to discuss about the dog legs staircase. So the dog legs staircase they are used in the residential buildings, the commercial buildings, any type of the public buildings. So this is the data which is provided. The staircase block size is given to you as 2 meter by 4.6 meter. So note that all the dimensions they are in meters and the scale which is used is 1 is to 30. You are supposed to draw the staircase using the mini drafter. So here I am using the normal scale. So using the mini drafter itself is needed to draw the staircase block. So the staircase size is given to you as 2 meter by 4.6 meter and the floor to floor height is given to you as 3.2 meter. So let us consider that this is a public building. So let we will assume the size of the riser as 15 centimeter. So as it is a public building. So depending upon the size of the riser you can find the number of the risers that is the height of each floor divided by the size of the riser. So height of each floor means you are going to design a dog leg staircase. So there are two floors that is the, you have the floor to floor height that is 3.2 meter. So divide it by 2 you get 1.6 meter. So this is how the number of the risers you will be finding as height of each floor divided by the size of the riser that is overall you get 10.66. Then round it off you get 11 number of the risers. So note that number of trades are less than number of risers. So let us assume the trade size is 25 centimeter. So number of trades will be number of risers minus 1. That is number of risers are 11 minus 1. This is 10 that is number of trades are 10. So as you have the size of the riser and number of trades you can find out the space occupied by the trades. As you have the size of the block with you that is the length of the block is 4.6 meter. So let us see what is the space occupied by the trades. So 25 way is the size of the riser and number of the trades is 10. So likewise you get 250 centimeter the space occupied. So let us see what is the width of the stair. So as you have the width of the staircase block as 2 meter. So let us take that the landing width will be 1 meter. So the landing width is always equal to the width of the stair. So width of the stair will be also 1 meter and the landing width will be 1 meter. So let us see what is the space left for the passage. As you have the length of the block as 4.6 meter. So 4.6 meter minus 1 meter is the landing slab and minus the space occupied by the trades. So likewise you get the space left for the passage it is 1.1 meter. So from that you have only the staircase block size with you. So let us assume the thickness of the wall as 20 centimeter. So these are the sizes of the openings that is the door opening and the window opening. So the door size is 1.2 meter by 2.1 meter. 1.2 meter is the width of the door whereas the 2.1 meter is the height of the door. So when you draw the plan of the staircase over there the width of the door will be visible to you. Likewise the height of the door will be seen in the sectional elevation. So the window size overall is 1.2 meter by 1.2 that is the size height and the width is same. It is a square window. So depending you have to first of all design this staircase depending upon the data which is given to you. Decider the number of the risers and the number of the trades from that you are going to design the staircase block. So this is the dog leg staircase. So first of all the internal that is the clear block size is given to you. That is 2 meter is the width of the block and 4.6 meter is the length of the block. So you have to convert it into scale. The scale is taken as 1 is to 30. So as they are in meters first of all convert it into centimeter. That is 2 meter means in 200 it will be in centimeter that is 200 centimeter. So divided by the scale what is given to you as 30. So according to that you are going to get the dimension of this convert it into 1 is to 30. All the dimensions whatever they are available you have to convert it into scale and using the mini drafter you are going to draw this drawing. So this width is taken as 2 meter and then 4.6 meter is the length. Now the staircase the clear staircase block is drawn and then you have the width of the staircase block that is the thickness of the wall the thickness of the wall is given to you as 20 centimeter. So take the overall thickness of the wall for all the four corners of for all the four sides of the block and then using this the staircase block is completed now. Then you have to decide where the door to be placed.  The staircase block size is given to you as 1.2 meter. So this is the width 1.2 meter which is seen from the top view of that and the overall height of the window will be seen in the elevation. So this here is the width of the door taken which is 1.2 meter. So now you have the width of the flight that the width of the staircase block it is 2 meter. So you have the landing slab, landing width it is taken as 1 meter. So just divide it into two parts you get the landing of 1 meter that is nothing but the width of the staircase. So here you have to take two flights as it is a dog-like staircase and then decide the space occupied. First of all you are going to take the size of the landing that is 1 meter. So from this corner itself draw the 1 meter gap this is the landing and let's see what is the space occupied by the trade it is 2.5 meters only. So then from this you have to take 2.5 meter draw the second vertical line. So this is what the space occupied by the trades is and then remaining part will be the passage which is left as 1.1 meter. So this is how the overall length of the staircase block is drawn. So now you have this size of the trade which is given to you as 25 centimeter. So convert it into scale and then draw the size of the trade that is overall you have 10 trades. So in the top view when you see a staircase block trades will be visible to you whereas in the sectional elevation you have the risers and the trades both that is a step. Step includes both the riser and the trade. So here you are going to draw 10 trades in a single flight. So here after climbing the staircase you have a landing over here where you rest for some time and then have a change in the direction which leads to the first floor. So this is the ground floor and this is the first floor which leads to the first floor. So likewise this is the staircase block. So now to draw the sectional elevation that is the sectional view xx draw the sectional line over here xx then take all the projections whatever they are available that is this corner the wall thickness over here at the two corners you have to take the wall thickness and then take the projections of all the trades. So now this is the floor level sectional view first of all you have the floor level that is the ground floor level and then this is the projection of the trade which is taken. So while starting here you immediately don't start with the trade itself. So before the trade you have the riser over them. So the riser size is given to you as 15 centimetre. So using the mini drafter draw the height of the riser that is 15 centimetre and then draw the trade. This trade is nothing but the top view of this. So this is how the trade and the risers are drawn using these projections. After drawing this trade you have to take again the projections of the riser and then again the trade. So likewise here 10 number of trades are to be drawn and then this is the after this is the last trade where it ends. So after that you have the landing slab over here. So this is what the landing slab is drawn over here this is the landing slab and then immediately after this you have a change in the direction. This is the second flight over here. So to climb the second flight also instead of starting from the trade itself you have to start with the riser. So that is what the number of the risers are more than the number of the trades. So first of all you have the riser and then again the trade is there. So likewise this is the elevation of the complete staircase. So for these steps to support that you have the vertical members that is called as the balusters and to the balusters to support all the balusters you have the handrail. So that a person can easily climb easily. So for this handrail and the balusters you have the nevel posts. Nevel posts are provided at the top and the bottom member of the staircase block. So here you can see after the landing slab at a height of 0.6 meter a window is placed. Window height is 1.2 meter as it is given in the data. So this is how the window is placed over here. It won't be placed immediately after the landing slab itself. So after a height of 0.6 meter you have to place the window over here. So the nevel post height is around 0.9 meter. The nevel post height is around 0.9 meter. You have to take 0.9 meter over here and this is also 0.9 meter. So likewise join these two vertical lines you get an inclined slab. So over here the parallel to that you have an inclined slab over here also that is called as the waist slab. So this is the inclined line to draw that you have to take the pitch of the angle that is it will be around 25 degrees. So this is how the inclined slab is drawn. So it will be parallel to the line of the nosing. So likewise the same the second flight also the inclined slab has to be drawn. So here you can check that this flight it leads to the first floor. So likewise calculate the height from the first floor to the ground floor. That will be around 3.2 meter which is given. So likewise this is how the dogleg staircase elevation is drawn including all the members of the staircase that is the riser, the tray, the handrail, balusters and the nevel post. And this is the waist slab which is around 15 centimeter thickness. So this is the concrete shown in that. So this is how the dogleg staircase has to be drawn. So here are the MCQs. In dash all steps lead in one direction only. First option turning steps, second is the circular steps, third is the straight steps, fourth is the geometrical steps. So you have got the answer for this. This is the answer. These are the references. Thank you.


11 to 23 years after primary immunization, the study evaluates the long-term duration of the immunological memory of HBV vaccination in health care workers, HCWs, and students of health disciplines at Coreggi Teaching Hospital in Florence, Italy. The results show that an equal number of years has elapsed since vaccination, but administration during infancy induced lower long-term anti-HBS titers compared to those in case of vaccination performed during adolescence. A booster dose administered to subjects vaccinated in infancy is able to induce an amnestic immunological response in a higher percentage of vaccinated people. The total absence of acute hepatitis B among vaccinated subjects suggests that the long incubation period of the disease allows the activation of immunologic memory mechanisms, which is also true in case of low anti-HBS level. The study concludes that HCWs still represent a high-risk category and efforts should be increased to protect and vaccinate these subjects. This article was authored by Costanza Bini, Maddalena Grizzini, Martina Cellini, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


The training of pre-service mathematics teachers is a complex process due to the specifics of the field. Informatization of education affects all the areas, and pre-service mathematics teachers cannot be left out. The article is devoted to the problem of supporting the process of professional training of pre-service mathematics teachers by means of cloud services. Examples of the use of cloud technologies are given. The analysis of a survey of pre-service mathematics teachers on the use of information and communication technologies in the training process is done.