Excellent. Hello, everybody. How are you guys doing today? Have a good conference. I know we're nearing end of day. So these sessions are tough late in the day. So I can't see very many of you because of the bright lights, but if you have any questions, feel free to wave your arms and hopefully I'll see you at some point. So for today's session, I haven't planned the typical analyst session that kind of walks through a bunch of things, trying to make this interesting, a little bit entertaining, and then also talk a little bit specific on OpenStack specifically. So I'm Lauren Nelson. I'm a senior analyst at Forrester, and I've been covering Private Cloud for quite some time. So I believe this is year six. I've been writing on the space and seen its kind of ebbs and flows where it's been successful and not so successful over the years. So to kick off today, last year around this time, I had written a report called OpenStack is Ready. Are you sassy title? Guarantees a lot of readership. But more importantly, it was around how do you cut through a lot of the hype and talk around the conversation about OpenStack today and talk about real-time OpenStack usage for enterprises? What are people actually doing with OpenStack? Where are they facing challenges? And a realistic perspective of what you can expect from OpenStack today as an enterprise adopter. Trying to get past the hype of it's great, it's not so great, and talk about it in practice today as it's being adopted by enterprises. And today I've got a bit of an update for that and also some data around where the private cloud market is going. So first off, for those that aren't familiar with Forrester, Forrester is a market research company. And a lot of our research as of late has been focusing on this larger transformation at play. So we may be looking at OpenStack today, but at the ground, at the very basis of what organizations are trying to do with cloud technology is to enable bigger things. We're not just adopting cloud to adopt cloud, since it's the latest technology of choice. We have a bigger picture in mind. We're looking at enabling our big data strategy, trying to figure out how do we make customer data more valuable. We're looking at transforming our IT environment to be more operational efficient. We're looking at IoT, we're looking at bigger picture ideas where cloud just happens to be the platform that that's running on. So as we're talking about today's conversation, take a step back and constantly challenge yourself to put that back in the customer framework and thinking about real-time use cases and how we might be enabling a bigger picture. And that's a great place to start off because that's where private clouds tend to get lost, is taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. Back in 2012, I wrote a report called The Four Types of Private Cloud. And what I kept on seeing in the market is we talk about the journey to cloud, as if it's one solid journey that every organization goes through and just it wasn't resonating with what was actually happening in the market. There are some folks, when you asked about private cloud, they had a very different thing in mind than other organizations. And so I categorized it into four types. Today I've kind of recategorized those a little bit just to make them a little sassier. First off, you've got enhanced virtualization. So today, a lot of people, when you talk to them about private cloud, it still means enhanced virtualization. It means the sphere environment with some chef and puppet. It's the she's all that of the tech space where you take the same product, the same solution, you throw some makeup on it, add in some automation capabilities, and you still have a virtualized environment that's slightly improved depending on who you're talking to. But essentially, not much has changed. It's the same virtualization staff. They're still looking at operational efficiency as their primary goal. They're trying to do things faster, but they're not really leveraging net new technology, and they haven't really seen this bigger vision about really enabling a cloud solution internally. They have no intention ever of passing those reins over the keys over to the developers. We also have the test and dev cloud. I don't know how many people here have seen Mean Girls, but it's the cool mom approach where essentially you've got all these tech staff that essentially are like, we don't want our developers to use the public cloud. The public cloud is gonna get them in trouble. It's like teenagers and drinking. We need to keep them away from that, so we're gonna provide a safe alternative. And so they build this small test dev cloud, very small purpose built environment that is essentially trying to make a small self-service access environment only focused on test dev. Once that app moves out, once it progresses past in production, it moves into your existing system. This is not a journey to cloud story. This is a very purpose built developer focused story with a lot of need for control. We also have the public cloud light model, which takes the public cloud as the innovator and tweaks it. I don't know how many of you here have Steve Jobs known by some as the tweaker, taking good ideas from the competitor, the public cloud, from other things in the market to change it to be purpose built for themselves. And if you look at some private clouds today, they are very much about how do we take the fundamental characteristics and components of the public cloud market and bring that internal and make that our private cloud story, focusing on green field and net new applications only. And that is the public cloud light model. This is most open stack use cases today. And then finally, we have the transformational cloud model, where they view it as the Superman, the great old purpose being of clouds. This is your journey to cloud story, where it is going to do everything and it's going to be magical. We're going to transform everything we've got. It's going to be operationally efficient. We're going to standardize. We're going to implement automation. We're going to fix everything we have and we're going to enable self-service access, enable all net new resources. We're going to connect it to the public cloud. And this is what a lot of IT business cases have centered their private cloud story around, is here's the laundry list of all the benefits you can get from private cloud. We hand that over to the IT team and say enable our journey to cloud. And it sounds great. It sounds wonderful. It's a lot of benefits that we all would love to have. The challenge with it is that it's slow. And a lot of the early private cloud implementations had this as their vision. They saw this transformational cloud as what their whole private cloud would eventually become. But fast forward three to five years, there's no self-service access. We're still getting through the internal political channels of, you know, we need to reduce the number of touch points from actual idea to provisioning of a resource, in some cases from 95 different steps to six. And then look to automate. And within between all of that, there's a ton of political battles at play. There are cultural shifts needed. There's technology expertise to gain. You're asking your IT team to become a cloud specialist. When you look at the full list of all the challenges that lie ahead, typically at this point, and when I'm working with customers, I bring up the Lord of the Rings slide where Frodo is just about to leave the shire with Sam and he says it's the farthest we've ever gone before. And so much more lies ahead. That's what a lot of private clouds feel like for organizations, that there's just so many different things that they have to learn. They have to become a service provider. They have to enable a cultural shift. They need to become a manager and connect all of these different clouds together. They have to think about the developer experience. They have all of these things stacked against them and in the meantime have to deal with all the social challenges of this as well. And so it becomes very difficult. And so a lot of the early implementations of private cloud were not very successful. In fact, you saw a lot of the public cloud providers out there publish articles being like, private cloud is filled. It's not successful. And when we looked at a lot of our own data, when we asked those that identified as having a private cloud in place, if we asked them about basic characteristics, self-service access, automation, tracking and modeling of resources, back in 2014, 96% of private clouds fell short of basic capabilities. And today that picture is much more promising. But you still see folks stuck in this transformational cloud mode where they are doing the leg work trying to do all of these different tasks at once without focusing their efforts. And in the meantime, having a ready-made public cloud alternative that is providing self-service access for their developers and business units today. So it made it very difficult to be successful with private cloud. OpenStack, as a community, has greatly benefited from this. OpenStack was the public cloud light model where they provided a community, they provided a technology that fed in and provided a way forward for that particular vision where private cloud was a public cloud environment internally and that if you were going to be successful you needed to provide the same fundamental characteristics of what a public cloud provider does internally. You need to be worried about licensing costs. You need to be worried about the infrastructure and the cost you're paying for that infrastructure resources. You can't be looking at best-of-breed infrastructure if you're going to be keeping these costs down. You need to be thinking about your user, your customers that are going to be interacting with this and prioritize that over fixing what you've got. And yes, many of these applications will connect into what you've got. But OpenStack really benefited from bringing these like-minded individuals together to change the private cloud model as we know it today. When we look at the data in terms of what people are doing, back in 2014 when we asked people which of these models that they associated with, that they felt matched their private cloud vision, you saw that 32% admitted it was advanced enhanced virtualization. Or she's all that model. 29% saw it as the Superman, the journey to cloud story. With only 26% looking at Test Dev, the cool mom approach, and public cloud light at only 12%. When we look at that journey just one year later, we see that the numbers change. We see those looking at it from an enhanced virtualization and transformational cloud story goes down. And we see a substantial amount of increase in these smaller, more purpose-built clouds. So when we look at the 2015 data together, you see that the most popular approach to private cloud is Test Dev. Followed by still enhanced virtualization and transformational clouds. You still see a lot of organizations focusing on these bigger environments. But you see a huge increase in public cloud light vision.  This is OpenStack starting to reach the enterprise audience. When we look at the actual initiatives that are on top of mind for organizations, whether that's continuous delivery for their development teams, whether that's expanding globally, operational efficiency, IOT, you name it. They've got a lot of things top of mind. And one of the interesting things that myself and my colleague, Paul Miller, had recently discovered in one of our surveys where we asked software decision makers about their futures, their priorities in the next 12 months. One of the things that came up is that 41% said that increasing the use of open source was a critical or high priority for the next 12 months. So everyone in this room is probably pretty bought into open source. You should probably be like only 41%. This is a duh moment for some. But for a traditional enterprise audience, this is significant. This is a wider enterprise-offing audience. The software decision makers, do we build, do we buy, seeing that open source has a substantial amount of value, that it's going to increase the rate in which we can innovate moving forward. And this is a huge change. Today, the fact that enterprises are considering open source to be a huge component of their plants, moving it from the idea of open source as being some kid in his basement developing code to a place where there are 50-plus developers at some of the largest tech companies in the world contributing to these open source projects makes a huge transition and is being recognized by enterprises today as a very viable approach. Today, we saw a few things in the keynotes. We talked about some of the numbers about Fortune 100. So I think OpenStack claims the 50% of Fortune 100s using OpenStack today. We recently did our own count and found that there were 12, at least 12 out of the Fortune 50 that were using OpenStack today. And it had public examples of doing so. And we started to see other open source technology taking off as well, whether that's Cloud Foundry with eight publicly using that today within the Fortune 50. And when we look at their developer responses within the organization, a substantial amount using Cloud Foundry, Red Hat OpenShift, or various other Cloud Foundry implementations like Pivotal, or OpenStack today. We saw a substantial amount of interest in that large enterprise class audience. That is yet another win for the OpenStack community.  This was inevitable. This is a huge win for the OpenStack foundation to get enterprise adoption at this level, where we're seeing recognition at this level to being a central part of their private Cloud strategy, to being a central part of their software strategy. Now, when we look at that, whoops, in context with OpenStack today and where it's at, there's some interesting things to look at. So, first of all, OpenStack for the most part today is very centric around Greenfield use cases. That's part of the original success of the OpenStack foundation in that it targeted its efforts. It focused on NetNew. It focused on delivering NetNew value today. We're starting to see this change a little bit. I know there's a keynote this morning and some other examples where they're expanding this into the existing. But for the most part, a lot of organizations are still focused on that NetNew Greenfield story for OpenStack. And a lot of these enterprises are starting to understand that. Starting to understand that there's a place for OpenStack, regardless of whether they're using other large players today for other parts of their stack, for their traditional systems. We're seeing that there's a big interest in OpenStack in terms of potentially reducing hypervisor licensing costs. And this one's big. For NetNew applications, this makes sense. We'll expand our future footprint on KVM instead of expanding that future footprint on our hypervisor provider of choice. We're also seeing some early examples of people converting off their existing hypervisor for some existing workloads. Some of the earliest use cases where they actually are using private cloud as a cost-saving story in a very realistic way. A few years ago, I wrote a report, Top 10 Things I Know Leaders Should Know About Private Cloud. And one of my top things is you won't save money with private cloud. This is an opportunity, this is one of the rare choices in private cloud where there is an opportunity to do so. Where there is a potential cost savings that you could see on top of what you're already experiencing today. We also see that distro costs have scared away some organizations. One of the original value pitches they give you for open sources. If you use open source technology, think about how much cheaper it's going to be. When you actually look at the software licensing costs, a lot of the major distros today are actually quite comparable with some of the proprietary solutions today that are outside the OpenStack community. Enterprises are willing and adopting OpenStack regardless of the fact that it's an equal cost. There's enough value pitch in the community, enough value add in this kind of six-month release cycle and shared innovation center that they're paying it anyway. One of the biggest reasons why I see them making that decision is the peer-to-peer opportunity. And I am definitely not the first one to state that. But if you talk to a lot of the user groups, I know Tim Bell has been saying this for years, one of the biggest advantages of being part of the OpenStack community is the peer-to-peer learning resource you have. A lot of groups out there in order to get the exposure to that level of kind of peer-to-peer conversation, you have to pay a substantial amount of money to do so. To belong to some membership group or to try and get access to the right level of folks that are in the same conversations as you are today. OpenStack provides that in a much more cost affordable way. To those that have bought in, that have drunk the Kool-Aid, they are essentially adopted to that cultural shift. You also see that OpenStack not only serves different groups, but they are targeting a specific developer group. So how many people here have heard the term cloud developer used synomously as one particular skill set where cloud developer is defined as cloud developer with no nuance, no descriptions about how they interact, and just talked about them as just one person, one skill set. Few people can kind of make out the hands. But essentially, often times when it's referred to in the market, it's just one person they're describing if in reality cloud developers are very diverse today. They interact in different ways, they have different expertise. Those who are writing your infrastructure config, your application templates for other developers to use are going to interact through a drag and drop interface. Those that are going to essentially do tweaks on your website on color and very minimal incremental changes that don't require a lot of development background. And by classifying cloud developer as just one person, one skill set, we're doing it to service for enterprise audience today because it means that we're telling them that their enterprise audience is just this one person, this one role, and that what meets the demands of one organization should apply to your entire development workforce. And that's very different from the truth. Your developer is going to interact in very different ways. And if Amazon AWS does anything, well, they do many things well, but one thing they do particularly well is understand the developers that are interacting with its solution and understanding there are multiple types and different abstraction layers that are good for different developer types. And OpenSec today has done a really good job with DevOps professional. And I use the term DevOps to describe a developer with operations experience. Someone that's probably sitting in your tech team that is going to be innovating and developing some of your most technical, net new applications that are customer facing for millions of simultaneous users. They are some of your top talent in your group. It's very different than somebody that wants to do hands to code that's doing very lightweight development capabilities. And this morning actually during the keynote session, we talked about the different tiers. We talked about the infrastructure services. We talked about application services that surround that. And then finally an abstraction layer for developers to interact. Platform as a service offerings target that top layer, where you're talking about consolidating and optimizing that developer experience at the right abstraction layer. For a lot of DevOps folks, they don't want to interact at that layer. That's where they're most valuable. And so OpenStack really targets a lot of that community. And a lot of its more recent projects and integrations with some external projects focus on other classifications of developers to expand its usage beyond just that one type. We also see that there's essentially more cloud enabled use cases being rolled out in OpenStack today. So particularly if we look at some of the use cases that are being used today, you see a lot of production. I think the latest survey said 65% of all OpenStack users are using essentially OpenStack in production today. You're also starting to see applications that are customer facing, internal. You're starting to see heterogeneous environments being implemented, and you're starting to see a lot more traditional workloads coming about. All speaks very highly to enterprise use cases regardless of what industry you're in. Greater consistency between vendors and the platforms. So behind the scenes and most open source foundations is this interesting political play of how quickly do you provide standardization without pushing away your audience, without pushing away the vendors that differentiate with your solution. And so part of the dance that foundations like OpenStack have to do is figure out how quickly to do that standardization. How quickly do we make sure that we have consistent APIs across those and compatibility tests across our vendors and our community without pushing them away too quickly. And so that's part of what OpenStack has been doing over the years is slowly trying to increase the consistency between its platforms. And so we've reached a point where we have an API test. There are scenarios, there are ways to increase that standardization even more, whether that's scenarios, whether that's some of the integration points around containers, whether that's increasing the core or having another layer of BigTent where there's increased compatibility as well. And around those application services layers as well. We also see that there's greater insight into infrastructure resources today. So a lot of organizations, when they're looking at OpenStack environments, they integrate with solutions like vSphere, like Hyper-V to provide a level of integration and capability so that you don't have to rely on those element management monitoring tools directly as much. And so that gives some freedom for business users to interact and run their OpenStack environment without feeling like they have to work for that central IT team up to a certain point. And that has certainly benefited a lot of organizations that were trying to build a private cloud within their business units for large enterprises that may have had multiple private cloud environments at play, but being able to essentially enable a smaller private cloud that's more purpose-filled for a particular business unit's need. One of the big questions I get a lot is, is OpenStack ready? So I talked about a little bit about why OpenStack is unique and kind of why organizations are being driven towards it. In terms of the big question, the elephant in the room is always, is it ready? And one of the things I keep on talking about organizations on is that number, 65% in production today. I also talk a lot about organizations primarily using it for Greenfield. I mentioned that before, but that is a huge thing that a lot of enterprises don't understand. They'll look at the maturity of neutron. They'll look at, you know, some of the questions around whether you can do quality of service or HA or upgrades while skipping a version. All these components that are typically talked about about being shortcomings of OpenStack today, and they'll kind of quickly skim over the fact that a lot of the usage today is for net new. A lot of these capabilities and shortcomings of OpenStack are enhanced by the community that surrounds it and have drivers and capabilities that are in advance of what the actual solution provides today and plans to roll that into future drivers and implementations they have long term. The other big thing that we typically talk about with folks is the concept of low cost. So looking at an organization that's thinking about their future, about whether they want to be in the data center business, whether they want to invest in becoming a cloud provider, one of the top conversations that come up is the cost story. About over time I'm going to be developing a certain number of net new applications. Do I invest in building a private cloud today to do that for the bulk of those workloads? Or do I leverage an external provider? And there's a lot of organizations today that look at this picture and think long term it makes sense for me to invest in this because I'm going to have so many net new applications and the need to continue this development process over time that it makes sense for me to invest in this. And if I'm going to do that, I'm going to do that in a low cost environment that is built on KVM and is not built on my proprietary solutions. They're thinking about it, about building it as if they were a public cloud provider. When we look at interoperability and portability, that's a big thing that comes up in terms of is it ready? We talked a little bit about API standardization and steps towards that. But the other big question we get with folks is can it be interoperable and portable to AWS? And there's certainly places that it's more interoperable and portable today. I did a report a few years ago about state of the cloud, portability, interoperability, and migration capabilities. And I've updated in this past year where essentially looking at the state, can you move an application that exists today in a platform, pick it up and move in another platform? The answer is yes. One-way migration is available. There are tons of tools out there that allow you to migrate from one environment to another. The only challenge is it's mainly a one-way migration in that you can't go back and forth. It's not actual portability of moving wherever you want, when you want. It is essentially a, we made a bad investment. We want to try and switch solutions. It's very much enabled. There is some challenges around network configuration. It takes some custom work around that. And the big challenges is you lose the services that surround the application. Some of the more interesting parts of your application are typically the services that surround the offering. It's your use of the surrounding products of OpenStack that we'll tie you in or a particular vendor's set of services that they provide. Or AWS's large list of services that are surrounding it. And that's something that's not going to change anytime soon. There's certainly the potential and the hope of containers helping us with that over time. But there's a lot of challenges with the management today, with applying context to containers and being able to do so in a way that's going to leverage the same type of services in multiple platforms. Today's services are very proprietary to a single platform. They surround the future of portability and it's not yet solved, but that's okay. It's not stopping a lot of organizations. Organizations are realizing that there's value that comes with vendor lock-in. Interoperability, almost any vendor out there today, exposes their APIs to some extent. You should be able to build up those integrations. The big challenge, it is time intensive. So a lot of organizations, that's where they spend the bulk of their time. Once they've got their private cloud up and running, they spend a lot of their work on the weeds. The key value adds that we definitely see when we talk to folks, open means choice. So you're starting to see a lot of the market provide critique of vendors in the space talking about who's purer than the others and who's truly open and what open means. But in general, when you look at the concept, open provides a lot of choice. You have a ton of innovators, innovating together and providing development in a cohesive manner, especially in the way foundations are run today. And this is a big advantage for a lot of organizations. They feel that the decisions and choices aren't tied to a single vendor's future and that they're not, and it is above that of the interests of one particular vendor or another. That new launch point, a lot of people love that. What I've talked about before is essentially starting Greenfield. That's a huge value add that not many other solutions in the market really target today. Cost of minimization potential, we already talked about all these active and engaged communities, but this is the most common things that are listed out when we talk to enterprises about why are you even thinking about OpenStack today.  So this is the what is, the questions and the concerns from those in the community. The running list. So a lot of challenges around upgrading, especially if you're skipping releases or if you're going to upgrade one project but not the others. It's certainly doable today. Many organizations do this without issue. The only challenges is you've got to prepare. You've got to test. You've got to essentially make sure that you're not doing anything incorrectly. There's a lot of folks that do a ton of testing before they actually are able to upgrade. So this is going to be time intensive. But many people have done it successfully today. Provisioning more than 50 VMs at once. This has been known first quite some time. Most people just do batch provisioning to overcome this. It's not a deal breaker, but it's something to be aware of if you're a new OpenStack user. Keeping up with releases and updates. So this one's a cultural challenge. So there's a number of organizations out there that don't like six months release dates. A lot of organizations keep six months behind the latest release. There's a lot of pressure to essentially delay. To not have that six month release cycle to delay to one year release cycles to essentially encourage stability within a project. And that's a tough one. A lot of these enterprises have never worked with an open source community before. A lot of these enterprises are used to putting their feet down and saying we're not going to do this and having open source communities change their practices because of it. And this is actually fundamental to enabling continuous delivery within an organization. This is fundamental towards moving us closer to a SaaS-based model where we are trying to have updates pushed frequently and constantly. And a lot of enterprises, this is their first foot in the door when it comes to open source projects like this. And it's something that's going to be hard for them to try and get used to. The other big one that comes up a lot is networking. And this is no surprise. There's a report coming out in a couple weeks about this. But Neutron. A lot of folks have concerns. There's no shortage of press releases out there about the challenges and soundfalls of Neutron. Neutron's had a tough history. It essentially, we started off with Nova Network which was a flat network design. We then had Neutron. We had it renamed at one point. It's been slow in progress and it's matured much less rapidly than some of the other projects. But the other challenge being that the SDN market is quite immature as well. So these combined have really made it difficult for Neutron to progress as quickly. And that's a known factor. As the user survey results show, there's a substantial amount of usage of Neutron today. I think the latest stat is 90% using Neutron today. A large portion of those using it in development instead of in production today. But many folks are enhancing their Neutron use because of the drivers and ecosystem solutions that surround it. That are working on the integration points between vCenter and Neutron. That are delivering quality of service for Neutron that's not available in Neutron yet today. That is looking at service chaining. That is looking at all of these very basic capabilities that should be in a networking solution today. But today you do need these ecosystem solutions to supplement Neutron. They're being added in and they're in the pipeline of our future capabilities that are coming. But today is delayed. And so as organizations are thinking about getting into the OpenStack community, that's certainly something that they should be aware of. SDN is immature. One of the biggest complaints I've heard from OpenStack adopters is, well, you start off with a certain amount of SDN technologies, whether that's a little bit of Cisco ACI or a little bit of NYSERA. And you've got some sort of mix of hardware slash software combined, SDN with a true software-only based SDN solution. And the right mix of those two offerings at any given point in time is going to change as your OpenStack environment evolves. And so it's very difficult to set out with one plan, with one structure and have that consistently develop and build over time. You're going to find that that map to what SDN solution, what assortment of SDN solutions is going to evolve over time. Direct adopter competency takes four to six months. And that's a tough one. I know that there's a lot of appliances, a lot of managed services, hosted private clouds, public clouds, a lot of things that are trying to accelerate your journey to get there faster. But when you talk with those that are adopting OpenStack today or previously, they say over and over again, do not put it on yourself to have a production level workload in OpenStack within the first four to six months. And if you have a certain amount, I think there was a session last year where some gentleman said if you plan a certain amount of time for design, times that by five and that might be a more realistic estimation of how much time it's going to take you for design. So that's something that organizations getting started should be aware on and should build into their pipelines. In general, enterprise roadmaps are far too aggressive for what they should be expecting in a realistic manner, and OpenStack this applies tenfold. Vendor participation is not altruistic. This may sound obvious, but a lot of organizations sometimes struggle with that. They realize they forget about the incentives behind a vendor in an open source community. That if there's not some sort of direct value or differentiation or market perception of them being a big player, very rarely do they invest in that. One of my biggest examples of this last year was reference architectures. The reference architectures for OpenStack were severely out of date and no vendor really wanted to contribute to that because that was one of their proprietary things. Their reference architecture was a way in which they could draw on customers and essentially differentiate themselves in some small way. That has since been updated post my report. So that is not as true of an example anymore, but you'll see that where there's less money, where there's less incentive for vendors, you're going to see less participation. So with the potential of SDN and the fact that every SDN player is participating in the OpenStack community, you see that there's a substantial amount of interest and contribution to the projects associated with that. Same thing goes with containers since there's a substantial amount of opportunity in the container space for OpenStack and OpenStack tends to be a community of very early adopters, you see a substantial amount of effort towards that. So something to be aware of vendor participation is certainly not altruistic and the desires and the contributions are going to follow that. Some other things to keep in mind. The user community encourages to upstream your code. If you're building custom code today for a functionality that doesn't currently exist in OpenStack, upstream it so you don't have to redesign it in the future. It may sound like it's tough for some organizations legally speaking, some organizations are not allowed to contribute their code but fight through that, try and advocate for your organization to truly upstream that code. Not only are you participating in a community far more but you're also going to be saving yourself a lot of legwork. Don't fight the community. This is a big one, a lot of the users that participate in the OpenStack community.  Has been the general advice from a lot of the users in the community. A lot of the user community say spend your time on things that you're not fundamentally fighting however many people that are in the OpenStack user community on trying to change. It's very difficult to change especially as OpenStack has gotten bigger. You're dealing with huge vendors that may have taken one approach and have a lot of marketing muscle behind that and said a lot of the users recommend you to put your efforts elsewhere. Don't be alarmed by transparency of bugs. For those that are familiar with OpenSource communities, this must be a duh for many of you but for a lot of enterprises today, that is new. Even though every vendor solution out there has bugs, the fact that they're not exposed or shown a list of them makes them feel for some reason more safe or that the solution is more stable or better in one way or another rather than looking at a list of bugs that are known and documented and saying I like this transparency. The fact that we know these bugs exist and we're working on them and we have full transparency about what might go wrong but that in itself is a very difficult change, a very difficult thing for a lot of organizations to kind of accept and buy into. Embrace the community. I mentioned this before is about one of the biggest drivers to use OpenStack is the user community and essentially all of that value add you get about being in this community with everybody else that's working in on the same type of initiatives and have drunk the Kool-Aid but you've actually got to take advantage of it. Some of the users say that have been in the community for years and years say that is by far the number one thing they get out of OpenStack and that has not diminished over time. That going to not necessarily these summits but the user community events has been huge for their organization to keep progressing and keep talking and learning from others in the community about how to leverage this technology better and how to take on other tech initiatives. Just like the SDN vendors are getting into the OpenStack community because it's a great place for early adopters those early adopters are part of this community and as a user in this community you're going to be able to leverage that group that same group of early adopters that same group of innovators to progress tech projects even past and beyond OpenStack into the future. Go to the user events. I mentioned that summits are nice but the user events people say they learn so much more from and they get way more peer to peer interactions from. So leverage those in your particular groups. And then finally the last thing I'll kind of end on today is this concept of services. Earlier today I mentioned that in the keynote there was this articulation of infrastructure services, surrounding application services and abstraction for your developer types. One big thing that a lot of the public cloud vendors are trying to emphasize with your public cloud focused cloud strategies is the value of the services in their communities. The fact that they maintain these list of services to enhance your cloud adoption over time such that you don't have to maintain them yourself. When you look at providing a cloud for your developers you need to be thinking about that same thing the competition for your private cloud and you may be leveraging both types of services but your stacking your environment up against is something that has a ton of services that surround it. And as we look at these projects that surround OpenStack and the core projects, as we look at other solutions that are being built out by vendors and by users that is where you're going to provide a better developer experience. And I know that Boris from Morantis earlier today mentioned the challenges of going through provisioning and the user experiences that go along with that. And that if you have a poor user experience or there's a lot of challenges or roadblocks in the way you're going to quickly lose your audience. And I would very much encourage you to think about that developer experience and the services that surround it that make them more productive. This is going to be the single biggest thing that happens in 2016 about differentiation for the private cloud versus public cloud space. The success of the private cloud market very much depends on vendors in this space, users in this space having confidence in these services that surround the offering similar to the way that the public cloud space does today. So strongly encourage you to take a look at that as part of your private cloud story, as part of your journey. And with that here's my information. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me via email or catch me along the hallways. Any questions while we are here? I don't know how we're doing on time. Do we have a time check anybody? Was it? Five what? Five 24? Okay, we're a bit over. Can I take one question? Anybody? If we're over, okay cool. Alright, well if you have any questions please feel free to catch me, reach out to me via email. That's my Twitter hashtag. Everyone good? Alright, thank you guys. Have a good day.


Hello everyone and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler. I'm very happy to be here today with Patricia Farah I've read and enjoyed all of her books. She is a historian of science at Cambridge University Her next forthcoming book is called Life After Gravity Isaac Newton's London career She's also well known for her writings on women in science and she appears often on BBC Typically on topics related to science Patricia. Welcome. Well, thank you very much for inviting me. I'm very glad to be on the show Let's start with Isaac Newton. How was it that he died rich? He earned his money from several different ways when he went down to London He are far more than he ever did as a Cambridge professor because he was running the London Mint So he got a fat salary for that He also got a premium a reward for every single gold coin that was minted He invested in global trading companies like the East India Company For example that was sending guns and textiles out to Africa and then shipping enslaved peoples over to the Americas and He also invested in other stock market companies. So there was this famous occasion It's the anniversary this year of what's called the South Sea bubble when he invested a small fortune in a new company the South Sea company and He watched the levels rise and he stayed in there and he sold when the stocks had gone up So he made a small fortune, but then he made the classic beginner's error He invested in again at a higher price and he watched the value crash So he did lose several million in today's currency On that particular venture but in general when he died He was an extremely rich man and you can tell that the inventory of his possessions Runs to a vellum scroll that's 17 feet long And what was it that he collected so obsessively to have all these possessions? Well a lot of it was equipment for catering I mean he's got this reputation for being very anti-social But he had hundreds of plates and sets of cutlery and things like that He also had that ultimate Georgian luxury he owned two silver chamber pots He spent money on having a good number of portraits of himself painted that he would send out to other people as sort of bribes or as rewards for Their allegiance to him. He had furniture. He had decorations. He had a carriage He had a sedan chair tucked in in the stables He had he had lots of servants Now as you know Newton spends what over 30 years working at the Mint What's your model of why he did this? How much was it for income? Did he think he was done with major contributions say to physics and optics? What how do you think about that decision in his life? I think he was very frustrated With being at Cambridge. He applied for several positions there which he didn't get he was in theological terms He was rather odds with everybody else at Cambridge because he was a very very Devout believer in God, but he didn't adhere to the traditional to the orthodox Anglican theological belief in the Trinity. So that was difficult for him So he'd been trying to leave Cambridge for some time and he had a very close friend Charles Montague the Earl of Halifax Who was Chancellor of the Exchequer very influential man and he managed to find Newton? It's very prestigious job at the Mint that paid a good salary and the minute Newton heard about it He down tools at Cambridge rushed down to London and he'd moved and started a new life within a few months Now why was the Mint located next to the weapons ordinance in London? The Mint was traditionally located right inside the Tower of London and if you go to London now as a tourist In normal times when you go you can be shown around the Mint and it squashed into the Inner and outer walls of the fortifications of the Tower right on the edge of the river so it's in an ideal location for all the gold coming in from Africa and It was close to Westminster and royalties and Parliament. So that was also a convenient location Newton didn't like being physically in the Mint He was given a house that had walls all around the garden so you couldn't see anything But the worst thing was that it was very noisy at that time there was a zoo in the Tower And so he was kept awake all night by the roaring of the lions and the other animals in the zoo There was also the clanking of all the Mint machinery and there were also Because it was the Tower. It was a military fortification There were many soldiers there and they were riding around on horses and doing all their drill and all the stuff that soldiers do So after a few months he left the Tower because he really didn't like living there and he worked there one day a week But he did most of his work at home And what do you think about Newton's basic idea on the silver recoinage bring in all the silver coins Melt them down reissue at a lower value. Was he right about that or not or do you side with John? He actually didn't want to do that So there was big consultation when he was still in Cambridge and that the trouble was that coins in those days Were made of valuable metal So if you've got a silver coin that was worth a pound the silver in it was itself worth a pound in money It's not like dollars or cents at now where it's a bit of paper Which a bit of paper a dollar bill is in itself absolutely worthless and what criminals did was a File bits off the edge of these silver coins So they had lots of little silver shavings which they could melt down and turn into silver and get rich that way But that meant the currency the coins were getting lower and lower and lower in value and Newton's first job when he got to the mint was call in all the currency Every single coin was meant to go to the mint Then he melted it all down and he started again with new coins that have milled edges like Modern coins do so they're much much more difficult to scrape or or to forge and then he Reissued those but quite a lot of things went wrong and like all those stories It was a tale of the rich got richer and the poor got poorer But why I think that melting down the coins and reissuing them will solve the problem Don't you just re-enact the same scenario each time all over again? No, you don't because he he changed the way that coins were made He modernized it He kept the dyes the the molds for making the coins were highly secret and that made the coins much more difficult to forge But also the fact that all the coins have this milled edge the little ridges Round the rim of the coin meant that you couldn't shave a bit off because it would be noticeable So nobody in a shop nobody would accept that coin because they'd immediately see that it wasn't worth its full value Now new and as you know was very interested in alchemy was just was this just craziness on his board Or is there a way to read him that this is early nanotechnology and he was ahead of his time or is he just out to lunch? No, he was definitely not out to lunch Alchemy was a very serious pursuit. It's had a very bad press. It's always associated with people who are cranks or magicians If you think about that the classic example of alchemy is turning lead into gold That's changing something that is base. That's low. That's valueless. That's dirty Changing it into something very valuable When alchemists looked out on the world they could see everything around them changing so for example acorns were growing into trees or Babies were growing into adults or wood was buried forest was turning into coal So this idea of change seemed to make a lot of sense to them And the idea was that just as a base metal lead can be transmitted into gold So if you pray you can cleanse your own soul and get nearer to God And it was that sort of spiritual alchemy that Newton believed in but He'd pursued a huge amount of alchemical research. He was very expert in alchemy and many of his Alchemical beliefs actually got carried over into his natural philosophy So you can't draw a hard line between alchemy that's rubbish and science that's legitimate and that science is right It's not it's not like that at all You have this very difficult problem of explaining how it is that gravity operates because if you think about it It's something we still really haven't resolved if you've got two Lumps of matter like the earth and the moon is made of inert material How is it that somehow they they can attract each other that they've gotten in innate power? And that's the sort of question that science has never really been able to answer and He drew on his alchemical theories to provide different mechanisms to justify And to explain his theory of universal gravity So in many people's view of the world God created the universe and then God disappeared and left it to run itself like a clock Newton's idea was that God was constantly present throughout the universe. He used the word imminent He's imminent throughout the universe and when the comic comes in Comets in his view are sent by God and they've got fiery tales that have got vegetative a live matter in them That reanimate the universe so this very Vibrant vital living view of the universe was one that's absent from modern physics and one that he developed from his alchemical research Now Newton's notion of the ether in his optics. Was that crazy? Was that a precursor of dark matter is ether God? What's your take on that? So in the optics is as it suggests the name suggests it's a book about optics But at the end he added 31 questions or queries as he called them And that was a really good opportunity for him to float some really outlandish ideas and because they put a question mark at The end then nobody could accuse him of actually believing that he said oh, I was just speculating So he had in the queries of the optics he formulated two different views of gravity One is the one that there's some sort of invisible power that Stretches out through empty space and attracts the Sun to the moon or the apple to the ground The other version is that there's something called an ether and that the ether is made up of Tiny tiny tiny invisible particles that you can't weigh you can't see them You can't smell them, but they pervade everywhere and then gravity can travel through that ether Just like sound is transmitted through air or through water And that basic model sounds really weird now, but throughout the 19th century Regular scientists very eminent prominent scientists all believed in ether and they developed models of it And it only finally disappeared in 1905 when Albert Einstein introduced his theory of relativity and one of his aims in doing that is to dispense of the ether to say it's a hypothetical Substance and it's no longer needed Did new to never have sex? He when he died He told His doctor that he was a virgin, but of course that can't be proved He certainly had a very close emotional relationship with at least one young man But the concept of homosexuality is a 19th century one So he might well have had a very very intense emotional relationship with young men without actually having had sexual relationships with them Why was Newton so productive during the London plague? Was he self-isolated was he to sending letters back and forth earlier in his career before your book starts? Yes, it's in your other book about Newton. Oh, that's right. So so during the pandemic Which which we might now call it. Oh, except it wasn't caused by a virus Yeah, he retreated to his country cottage Which but now is about an hour by car away from Cambridge and that's when he supposedly Sat beneath a tree in the garden and watched an apple fall to the ground and conceived the theory of gravity We can never know whether that happened But it was a story that he only started telling about five years before he died And he did tell it to four separate people so it sounds as though he was creating a mythological version of Scientific creativity and the story was unknown for decades It was only really in the 19th century that the story of the apple tree came back and now of course It's so he was secular saint. He has an attribute like St. Catherine has a wheel. Well Isaac Newton has his apple Now looking to the history of science more broadly Investigators have known about static electricity for a long long time right since the ancient Greeks If it wasn't Benjamin Franklin, who is actually the researcher who deserves credit for discovering What you might call the full power of electricity How does that happen exactly? I think the person who deserves Most credit for identifying it was alessandro valter the italian researcher because the people you're right people had been able to generate um Static electricity for a long while there was a big argument Is the electricity generated by By a machine by human beings. Is that the same sort of electricity as exists inside our bodies? And what valter was able to do he created a thing called a pile which is a precursor of a modern battery And he he managed to produce a current of electricity and he showed that it It's the same as The electricity that's in our bodies. So I think alessandro valter is the most important person in the creation of current electricity as a static electricity So many factors seem to lie behind the origins of the scientific revolution in england but also in europe more generally Which do you think is the underrated or under discussed cause of the scientific revolution? I personally don't think there was a scientific revolution. I think it's a very inappropriate label and if you Meet historians of science on the european continent. It's something they haven't really heard of It was a term that was really introduced during the 20th century And it became particularly important after the second world war when Science was compared with religion And the sort of rather idealistic view was that there could be a universal Language of science. I suppose isic newtons prankipia would be sort of like the bible of the new science And that could spread internationally and it was Uh, it went along with a very pacifist aim to reduce international tensions And this concept the label the scientific revolution became really important during the second half of the 20th century But since then a lot of um historians have strongly challenged it. So I don't personally Don't think it's a very good label But isn't there something to the notion that say boil cavendish and hook what they did which was quite significant Typically multifaceted it couldn't have happened in the year 1500 But it could have happened and indeed it did happen in the years they lived in there was additional Amount of wealth there was some institutional support for science. There were royal societies There's the beginnings of professionalization. Why shouldn't we see that as a discrete break in the history of science? Because you've just given precisely all the reasons why I think It was a continuous effect and you're quite right It couldn't have happened in 1500 because the other social factors weren't in place But the the name of a revolution suggests that something changes precipitately and very quickly I think it's quite relevant to remember that the word scientist Wasn't even invented until the 1830s and in this country It didn't become common until late 19th early 20th century. So science as we know it Didn't exist in the 16th 17th century, which is where the scientific revolution is usually placed And the term scientific revolution Implies that you go from a non scientific state to a very scientific sort of position And that actually didn't happen and there was a long process of continuity And you could see the 18th century as being extremely important for developing the idea of careers outside The church and the law which were the traditional careers Developing different sorts of careers and making science into a professional activity and that's what happened in the 19th century Now you've written a book on four thousand years of the history of science How well do you feel we we understand the scientific understanding of the ancient world? I Looked back on that book which I wrote about I think about came out about 15 years ago and when I wrote it I was trying extremely hard to get away from a euro centric approach And to write an international history of science and since then I think history of science has become still more global and international So I think we do know a lot about the ancient world. I think Unfortunately, we still don't take sufficient account of um Other cultures outside Greece and Rome are seeing seen as being particularly important And I think the more and more we have to look at what was happening in other parts of the world and recognize that not everything originated with europe If we look say at the breeding and origins of corn, which happens in central mexico By a group of people now misleadingly called the Aztecs How much do we understand about how that happened? How much do we know about their science? Do we think they just got lucky if we knew everything? How many big surprises would there be? Because it's a remarkable achievement, right? They take a weed and they make it into a food stuff that later fuels the industrial revolution Yes, but you could say I mean the same of the egyptians They cultivated a weed and turned it into something that we we use used to print books on and use for transmitting Knowledge, I think a lot of ancient cultures Ancient civilizations had very advanced levels of knowledge, but they weren't Directing it to what we would call science. They wanted Uh, they wanted to live better. They wanted to be more healthy. They wanted to grow more crops They wanted to get from one place to another. They wanted to become rich That's doesn't and to do all those things They developed techniques that later got taken over and were adapted and are now seen as being part of science Some number of years ago researchers discover what's called the antique theory mechanism from the ancient world It seems to be a kind of computational device Do we need to revise everything we had thought about the ancients with regard to science? Or is just this just a marginal change in our understanding of what they were able to do? What else haven't we discovered from the ancient world? I think uh the anti-kithra device which um was a sort of ancient um mechanical clock from the greek era Which was discovered in the early 20th century. It's an absolutely magnificent example Of the sort of thing that i'm talking about because according to the standard Historical works such an elaborate set of gears and such an intricate Understanding of what's going on in the heavens, but particularly the mechanical work that was involved couldn't possibly have happened before the middle ages and here there is this clock that's um Long long preceding the middle ages and the fact that one has been found which is so technically proficient suggests I mean all sort of really confirmed so there must have been many many others as well and what Historians have started doing is rereading ancient texts and reinterpreting different references To pick up indications that this sort of technology did exist long before we thought it ever did What should undergraduate science students know about the history of science? Oh, I think um, I would like to make history of science compulsory For all science students, um, I think one thing that they learn they obviously learn about debates of the past a lot of the Ethical considerations involved in previous debates are still very very relevant now So I think that's very useful for them another reason for them to learn history of science is that they if they're scientists They're taught how to carry out calculations and how to advance from a certain base of knowledge and to produce new knowledge What historians of science do is argue and interpret and find ways of expressing their own points of view So we teach Science students how to write essays how to present their own position And that's a skill that everybody is going to need if you're writing a grant application You you need to be able to present your ideas clearly and the other reason For why I think every science student should learn history of science is that the students I teach absolutely love it because they have an opportunity to Argue and to express their own ideas and think for themselves And it's something that students really really enjoy as well as learning a lot from How valuable is thomas kuhn for understanding the history of science? So thomas kuhn introduced. Um, he didn't introduce it himself. He developed Earlier ideas and it has come to represent this idea that science doesn't proceed in the straight lines of up the mountain of truth That it proceeds Through revolution so that people get hold of a fixed idea like for example They they they know they know in their absolute hearts that the sun goes through the earth goes around the earth They know that the sun goes around the earth But then more and more evidence comes up that really argues against that belief and then that becomes a sort of a crisis When the evidence overwhelms the previous belief and you flip into a new paradigm and Go for a different different belief that the earth goes around the sun I think An enormous number of Holds have been picked in thomas kuhn's book the structure of scientific revolutions And I think thomas kuhn himself would agree with many of those on the other hand It was a key book in the way that it influenced people and persuaded them To think about the interaction between science and society in a different way So it's been enormously influential Although I don't really agree with all that much of it And what is it from philosophy of science that you find most valuable in understanding the history of science if not kuhn? um I suppose discussions about the nature of Truth and objectivity and whether you can ever attain truth and what does that mean? um Yes The sort of relationships the theoretical the philosophical relationships between an observation and a fact And the theory it's much more complicated than uh Most people are led to believe In the history of science is the abacus overrated or underrated in its import In the is what the abacus the abacus I don't think it is rated particularly highly in the history. So I mean it's a it's um It was it's a good example of something that wasn't invented For scientific purposes, but was developed by merchants for when they're trading You need to add out the bills and work out. Um, I don't know how much Six six meters of cloth that ten dollars a meter is going to cost So it's a good example of an instrument that was not developed for scientific reasons But for other reasons in this instance trading and marketing Why is queen christina of sweden an important figure for the history of science? So queen christina is that well, she's important because she was a very very intelligent woman And she was lucky enough to be rich so she could study science and she Collected an intellectual quarter around her and she attracted Rene Descartes the french philosopher to her court To come and be her tutor so she learned maths and physics from Descartes one of europe's leading philosophers at the time But um, it's quite cold in sweden. I'm like france and he got very chilled and he caught some illness and he died While he was in sweden with her. So that's that's what she's best known for But she was also revered in her own age as Athena as Minerva the goddess of wisdom And that became a very common emblem. There's various busts and pictures of queen christina Dressed like Minerva with a wearing a helmet because she was also the goddess of war wearing a helmet with an owl On the top So I think queen christina was also important for launching a tradition of learned minervas of women who were capable of understanding scientific ideas Which is to you the most interesting city in northern england? um, well if I can extend northern england of south a bit to the midlands um, I would say lichfield Uh, because that's where erasmus darwin lived who was charles darwin's grandfather lichfield is near birmingham And in the 18th century, birmingham was quite small and insignificant and lichfield was very important And that's where darwin developed one of the earliest theories of evolution to be expressed in britain Do you think that charles darwin noticed his own genetic resemblance to his grandfather erasmus? Oh, uh charles darwin was very impressed by his father for one thing physically Uh, they both had a large nose. They both had a stammer. That was something that charles darwin commented on He also inherited the family aversion to alcohol Uh, when charles darwin was a medical student in edinburgh He had to read erasmus darwin's medical textbook, which was called zoonomia And it was in zoonomia that in the pages at the end that erasmus darwin first suggested evolutionary ideas And when charles darwin went on the beagle voyage, uh, when he started taking notes about all the flora and fauna that he saw He had several notebooks and there's one notebook that's got his first sketch of an evolutionary branching tree And that notebook is called zoonomia. So I think that's just one example of how influential his grandfather's Intellectual ideas were but also his general approach to life is his aversion to slavery for example Why do you think it took the world so long to unravel the geological insights That were behind darwin's theory of evolution. So you need to see that the earth has changed You see fossils in a historical record. You see sediments of earth corresponding to different eras of time You would think something like that could have been figured out by the romans But it's it really comes quite late in the history of science Why uh, well it comes late one one reason why it came late in europe was uh, because Of christian believes i mean what it says in the bible it says in the bible that the earth um Was created in six days and on the seventh day god rested but more importantly I think for the idea of evolution that god created the world Just as it is now and I think it took a long time to overturn those ideas But long before child's darwin formulated his idea of evolution by natural selection That view of the permanence and the unchanging nature of the earth had been overturned a long while previously And all all the geological information was already in place by then Uh, so if you go back for example even to robert hook who was a contemporary of isaac newton uh during the plague when isaac newton was in uh in his country home that was thought Robert hook took refuge at a country house in surrey and he went for long walks over the dams And he found lots of fossils of marine organisms. So already in the middle of the 17th century Robert hook was arguing that there must once have been a sea That lay over that land because he was finding all these marine fossils So it's a long slow process. I think it's easy In retrospect. It's quite easy to say. Well, why did it take so long for people to discover that? um One reason is that they had other things to do another reason is that during the 90 18th and 19th centuries When all the new canals and the railways were being built Then people started slicing down Inside the earth and they could see for the first time they could see all those layers all those geological strata so So again, it it was a different activity improving transport That stimulated the scientific insights Linnaeus comes up with this system for classifying plants in what 1730 1740s that also seems quite late We've had plants around forever. Christianity is not an obstacle there Why does that development take so long? Plants had been classified for many many centuries. They're just being classified in a different way There is not with unique identifiers, right? Everyone would have their own system. There were multiple dimensions What do you use plants for or is the Linnaean system? It more or less did uniquely identify plants almost like a search engine in a way that other researchers could work with And that's what took so long Because people classified plants According to why they needed to use them our plants mostly used for food and for drugs There were in John Ray in the 17th century did introduce a classification system It was a different classification system By the time Linnaeus proposed his there was several others and his was strongly opposed. It's got Several important defects. I mean, it's completely arbitrary The way that it counts The sexual characteristics of the flowers is also Roughly half Flora don't have flowers that you can count the sexual characteristics in that way So it's a it's a deeply flawed system that was much criticized at the time And it was like all new scientific ideas. It had to be promoted They had to be almost a sort of public relations exercise to make sure that Linnaean botany was Accepted rather than another one and it's now being replaced I mean, there's a lot of debate about whether it is the best and the most useful classification system So it's not absolutely right. It's just one system of doing it If we look at 18th century portraits either of scientists or of patrons, they rarely seem to be happy. Why is that? Perhaps they don't look happy because they have to sit still for a long while being painted That's certainly true of the early photographs that people had to pose for a long while Because portraits were painted But if they were painted of a man It's different different for a woman But a portrait was painted of a man Was to show his importance and his seriousness and his gravitas and so They didn't necessarily show him as unhappy In the 18th century they were shown mainly as being sort of noble and austere It was in the 17th century a lot of them actually were given very melancholic expressions Someone like the Daerys John Evelyn for example or Isaac Newton himself Because being melancholy was associated with scholarship The idea that you would sit inside in a darkened room and you had very white skin and fine bones So your physical attributes reflected the brilliance of your brain Who is the great underrated British visual artist? In all of British history Well One of my favorite pictures Is is not she's not particularly underrated is by Maggie Hamlin And the reason it's my favorite pictures is because she shows Dorothy is a portrait of Dorothy Hodgkin Who is the only British woman to have won a Nobel Prize for science and very very few people Have heard of her so I would like I would like to see Maggie Hamlin more represented But also this particular portrait Dorothy Hodgkin She won the Nobel Prize She identified the molecular structures through X-ray crystallography. She identified insulin Vitamin B and penicillin. She was also A very very affable Lovely person who campaigned for maternity leave for women in the universities who was who was very supportive Of other women and she doesn't have this glamorous Sort of heroic tragic tale like Rosalind Franklin, for example She was just an ordinary woman who got on and she did her science and she had four children and she was Supportive of her peers and everybody liked her and she seems to me that she is the ideal role model For a scientist and Maggie Hamlin has Painted a very very sympathetic portrait of her as an elderly lady Borrowing amongst her papers and she's painted her with four arms because she's she's so busy that her arms are dashing around All over the place and she's got a big Model of a molecule in in the middle of her desk to show off her achievements Now on the role of women in the history of science Launda Shebinger has written that early women scientific contributions were most prominent in and I quote illustrating calculating or observing Do you agree and if so why was that the case? Science was being carried out at home Not before the 19th century and not much was happening in universities or in public laboratories So a lot of women were at home and they were essentially Working with their brothers or their fathers or their husbands. They weren't allowed to go to university So unless they were very rich and could afford a private tutor They didn't have the opportunity to learn all the scientific theories that Men could because men were allowed to study those sorts of subjects But if you think about the history of science, of course, there are individuals like Newton and Einstein Who made great discoveries, but science isn't just about that You have to be able to communicate ideas from one person to another from one country to another And if you think about that sort of model of science, if you think of science as being continuous Not not as a sort of range of mountain peaks with individual geniuses standing on top of them Then women played a very very important role because teaching illustrating drawing editing Running museums collecting different sort of specimens Those are all absolutely crucial. So if you think of Isaac Newton He, um, he wrote his Principia in a very complicated geometrical language And he said he deliberately made it very difficult because what he said was I don't want to be bothered by little smatterers in mathematics So ordinary people even quite skilled mathematicians found his book impossible to approach So it was only when other people Translated it or explained the ideas in it in simpler terms that his vision supposedly under the apple tree Managed to spread around the world And women played a very important role in that sort of communication and spread of science So I agree with launder Scheminger But I also think that we need to rewrite How we think about the history of science and what's important about the history of science Science is about collaboration. It's about cooperation Uh, it's not about unique effort And women were very important in that process Between 1650 and 1710 14 percent of german astronomers were women Arguably higher than is the case today. How did that happen? Because astronomy was It is a subject now that you study at university, but it was also it was a craft the um To to study astronomy to study the styles you need to make instruments and the instruments were being made at home The guild structure was very strong in germany and a lot of women in england as well Who were working in instrument making shops inherited their father's business Or they were trained up from when they were small children to work with their father Um, and that sort of structure was stronger in uh, germany than it was in england But there were also some important female astronomers So for example, the first astronomer royal at greenwich when the observatory was built in the 17th century The first astronomer royal was john flamsteed and his wife Uh, joanna was also a good astronomer and she was very good at carrying out all the mathematical calculations That are needed to transform the data the readings of the stars to transform those data into Measurements that can be recorded in a star catalogue another excellent example of that is caroline hershal Who came over from germany with her brother william and they set up in bath together And she was going to be a musician and she started on her musical career But then william hershal Got the astronomy bug and he persuaded her to devote her life to helping him And she was out there all night observing on the telescope also carrying out this this work of translating raw data into Figures that could be recorded in the star catalogue and she also Discovered on her own she discovered several new comets and she became very well known for that in the late 18th century Why are women today so prominent in vaccine science compared to say theoretical physics? I'm glad they're prominent in some science. That's absolutely excellent Um, I think the problem with theoretical physics I think there aren't enough good teachers in the girls schools. I think that's one problem I also think we still have a cultural bias, which is very unfortunate Which suggests that women Are not clever enough to do physics. I personally really resent that because I got a degree in physics from oxford Um, I think a lot of men in physics Unfortunately are still unwilling to recruit or to promote female scientists So those are some of the prejudices that we have to smash down What do you think of the literature on the paradox of gender equality and STEM? So for instance, if you go to many of the muslim nations Where women are quite oppressed. They're quite a high percentage of STEM students If you go to the Nordic nations where women really have pretty strong rights They're quite a low percentage of the STEM students. Does that suggest it's really about preferences and not about social constraints Yeah, I think those data are very very interesting and I unfortunately don't know enough Uh about the situation in muslim countries and as I understand that it's different in well, naturally It's different in different countries, but that does very strongly confirm what I was saying that it's it's a sort of social Social prejudice a set a set of cultural beliefs rather than an intrinsic inability of women to do physics And as I understand it a lot of women in Arab nations who go in To to science at university level then end up teaching Other women and I think that's something that we could benefit from in this country Whereas where a lot of a lot of the problem starts at school That girls aren't well taught and they're discouraged from carrying out subjects like computer science or physics In your path to getting a physics phd as a woman, what was the greatest barrier or obstacle you faced? I haven't got a physics phd. I graduated In physics and that was at a time when because I got a good degree result I was offered a position as a phd phd student which would be Fully funded by the government life was much better back then And I turned it down Because I didn't want to spend the next three years in a laboratory Fine-tuning instruments and working out some number to the 10th place of decimals So I made a positive decision that I was bored by physics I wasn't very good at the practical aspect anyway And I wanted to get out in the world and I wanted to do something different Now in one of your interviews you said the following. This is a quotation For example, when I first finished reading george elliott's middle march in my early 20s I resolved to live by her concluding insight that even Unhistoric acts small ones that seemed within my grasp could have cumulative beneficial effects How has that decision shaped your life? Oh, I think I still try to abide by that So for example, I was what's called the senior tutor of a college Which is sort of rather like a dean in in America, I believe And I was responsible for the pastoral well-being and the educational welfare Of about 700 students. I think something like that At each year And the aspect of that work that gave me most pleasure and most gratification was When a student was in deep distress for some reason or another And I managed to help that individual student and Help them sort of regain their life and get back to work and become a happy student again And that's just I sort of think that's the sort of thing that george elliott was talking about that I had hope That I had a big influence on individual lives And that was the most rewarding aspect of my career Who first spotted your talent in science? Oh, when I was at school a teacher And I was I I think in retrospect It was I was at a very competitive girls school And I was very very good at science and maths But I was pretty good at English and history as well And I was always sorry. It sounds like I'm boasting, but I was always no you're supposed to boast That's the purpose of our last segment Okay, well, I was always top of the form. There's lots of other qualities which I don't have but intellectually I was a year younger than everybody else and I was at the top of the form. So I was a very clever person Uh intellectually, I was very clever not in all sorts of other ways And because it was a high powered girls school I think all the teachers and my parents were absolutely delighted that they had a girl A teenage girl who was very very good at science and obviously could succeed And I was sort of steered into studying science without anybody including me Seriously questioning whether that was what I actually wanted to do And I was very intellectually competent. So I passed all my exams and I went to Oxford and I got a very good degree Uh, but I'm far happier now um now that I'm I've undertaken a historical subject and I'm more on the sort of art side and perhaps that's what what I should have done When I was at school, but no one ever knows that at the time Why is it you think you didn't suffer from so much of what is sometimes called a gender confidence gap? Oh, I did enormously Um, I mean, I'm much older now. I've sort of slightly had time to get over it. But yes, I was hugely Unconfident not so much when I was at university, but after I left university what I discovered was that um, I should never ever admit That I had a degree in physics from Oxford Because if I was at a nightclub or a party or something There would soon be this big empty space all around me and I I felt I at that time There was a double image. I I was being encouraged to succeed intellectually as a scientist But I also there was still that older role model That I had to be the perfect wife and the perfect mother and I had to have my nail varnish all sorted out And so there was this double role model And I was sort of trying to fulfill both and I felt that I was fulfilling neither And I don't think it was really until my 40s or 50s that I started feeling confident Are you a fan of segregated single sex education like girl schools? No, I'm not and there are still a couple of colleges at Cambridge Which are single sex and I have been quite consistently outspoken about saying that I personally think that that's wrong For junior high school Um, I know I think um, I think education should be mixed all the way up. I think we've just got to We're never going to get away from gender discrimination if we keep separating People and we've got to bring them together. I mean, I think achieving gender equality isn't just a matter Of improving the position of women We've also got to change the attitude of men And the attitude of men and women Towards their lives and towards work. And that's one of the things I find it wonderful when I walk around Cambridge now And I see young fathers taking their children to school or playing with their children And I think that's a Cooperative parental approach Towards their children is fantastic. It's wonderful for the children And it is also very rewarding for the parents as well For both parents, particularly the father And I think we've got to get away from this idea that work is what really matters because it's life that matters and How happy you are that's far more important than what work you managed to do How did your startup experience teach you how to write? My startup experience Yes, well you talk about this in one of your interviews that you Had a small sort of within the family tech company of sorts and you had to do writing for the company Right. Yeah. Okay. So I um, I My husband and I Very foolishly probably in our early 20s Uh, both left our work and we set up a small company making educational material about statistics and about computers And my role in that was to write the script. So I had to translate so quite complex ideas about computer programming and about statistics, which I already knew about them But I had to translate them into very simple phrases And each one had to be matched to an illustration And I think that's probably why I have so many images in my book because we were making what They don't exist now, but they were called take slide programs the 35 millimeter slides That was synchronized with a tape cassette So you had to present an image and an idea together in very simple basic terms And I think that was fantastic intellectual training What do we need to do then to produce more highly intelligent popular writers on science? Um, if you needed to learn to write that way that suggests it's pretty hard to get more through the pipeline well, um, my remedy naturally would be to teach teach them all history of science and The latest book. I don't know. I assume it's come out in america Merlin Sheldrake's entangled lives Yes, he was one of my students and he did history of science when he was at Cambridge And he is an excellent example of how someone who studied history history of science can also be a brilliant scientist and a brilliant writer What do you find most rewarding in the visual arts because your writing is suffused with images as are your talks? um, I think Pictures are very important pictures include a huge amount of information There's a many types of information can only be communicated visually It's just personally I love going to art galleries and I found I found it a very rewarding way of teaching because if you um, if you at the beginning of the academic year You've got a group of students and they're all very nervous not just of me They're nervous of each other. They don't want to embarrass themselves in front of the other students So if I show them a picture Everybody can say something about a picture they can say well That's a man and a woman sitting at a table And by encouraging them to explore the picture more and more ideas Come out and I think it's a very helpful way to start a to start a conversation about what's happening and what all the Subtex are and what all the symbols are and it And it's how if you go back to the Renaissance the 17th century It was traditional that the frontispiece of a book The image at the opposite the title page the frontispiece carried a visual Summary of the arguments of the whole book. That was true I suppose the latest famous example was in the middle of the 19th century child's Lyles Famous book on geology it had um a frontispiece about the temple of Serapis and that summarized his whole theory about the Temple sinking and rising so on the pillars of the temple You could see boreholes from the marine organisms where it had been submerged below the below the waters So I I think that's a an old tradition to summarize an argument in pictures And I think perhaps it's one we could valuably get back to Who is the greatest female illustrator of science? Oh, uh, madame la voisier She was marie la paulse la voisier She was married to Antoine la voisier who was the french chemist who Introduced a lot of the symbols that we've got today He introduced the idea that you have an An equation in chemistry and all the weights have to be the same on both sides And when they got married she was only 13 And the first thing she did was learn english Which he never did so she was absolutely essential in his work with all the english chemists and the People like benjamin franklin from the states and joseph priestly from english And he published a big book. It's sort of a revolutionary book of chemistry. It was published during the french revolution and there's Go on now, please. Okay Uh, he he published a book which is commonly regarded as a revolutionary book It's regarded as a foundation of modern chemistry And it's got 12 plates in it and Each of those plates Is shows an instrument and takes it apart so that Somebody who reads a book in berlin or new york or london could replicate la voisier's results Precisely and build an instrument that was exactly the same as the one that he was using and she drew all those plates But she also there's a famous portrait of them. It's in the metropolitan in new york A big portrait a double portrait of the la voisier couple And on his side of the picture there's lots of glass instruments and bowls and tubes and on her side of the picture She's looking very beautiful and glamorous But on her side of the picture there's a big portfolio and she was an art student And she learned from david the man who painted the double portrait And all her illustrations her sketches still survive at cornell university in the archive And there's pictures of her Made by her showing her husband's laboratory and she shows herself Sitting in the middle of the laboratory and she's writing down all the observations And she's very very much involved in the scientific work So there's two different kinds of illustration that she did one one was Technical illustrations for the book and the other was this illustration showing showing science not as a sole product of la voisier's brain But as a collective work there's about 10 people in the picture And it includes her as a woman right at the center of la voisier's science And for botany who is an important illustrator? Who who was sorry who was an important illustrator for the development of the science of botany? Oh for botany Um forgive my american accent. Sorry. Sorry. Um an important illustrator uh, well, uh one of them, uh was a 17th century dutch woman called, uh maria sabilla marianne And she was an extraordinary woman who went out to the east indies On her own either on her own or with her daughter. I can't remember and she painted the most wonderful pictures of butterflies and plants and Insects so she um, I think she was a very important illustrator Her works were collected by queen charlotte who was the wife of king george the third And she did a great deal to promote the science of botany amongst women at the end of the 18th century Last two questions first. What is your most effective unusual work habit? My most effective unusual um, well someone People who stayed with me have In my house have told me that I have a habit of which I was completely unaware That I sit upstairs where I'm sitting now in my study and I sort of work on my computer And then about every half an hour there's an enormous bang and I stamp around the room swearing And the people in the house are terribly worried that something has gone awfully wrong And then I get back to work and everything resumes as usual for the next half an hour And then it all happens again I was completely unaware that I did that until several people have told me that I do but it seems to work Last question your book about isaac newton and again the title is life after gravity. That's coming out soon. It is finished Uh, I recommend it highly but after that, what will you be doing next? Um, I've got several projects one is I would like to write a book about caricatures um, so my ideal project would be to have a um a set of about 50 caricatures by people like william hogarth or um, um, gilray Which are satires on science and to accompany each caricature with about a thousand words Explaining what the joke is because we've lost touch with it So for example, one of the most famous is which is seems relevant today Is that when jenna introduced smallpox vaccination at the end of the 18th century Everybody was absolutely terrified The what about what effects that would have on the human body and gilray did a very Famous caricature of all the patients in the clinics sprouting horns and turning into cows because the vaccine was taken was based on cow pox So that's just one very obvious example There were a lot of caricatures about charl starwin for example Representing him as an ape because what he dared to do was bring together animal life and human life so um, or there's another famous one of Marie Curie who's And she's with her husband and it's so typical that her husband pierre Is holding up this tube of radium chloride and it's shining out on his forehead as though he were the genius and she's Dressed very demurely and timidly and she's hiding behind her back So it's giving him all the credit for this discovery whereas actually it was her work It was her project. Um, and she was in charge of radiation Patricia farra. Thank you very much. Well, thank you


This is the start of a beautiful friendship. I don't remember how I first heard about the conversation. I've been receiving your daily email newsletters for some time, and it did not take long to discover that I opened every email from the conversation because I always find something interesting, incredible in those emails. It is merely refreshing enough to happen upon an unbiased, scholarly-oriented, thoughtful analysis of current world affairs, all in a handy newsletter. Just a note to tell you how much I appreciate your articles. Interesting, intelligent, well-written. You are doing an excellent job at a time when it's badly needed. As a committed overseas reader of the conversation, I want to express my appreciation for the efforts of you and your editorial team in providing well-researched and factual articles about a wide range of social, political, and other topics. I look forward to each day of your articles. I tell everyone about your work and how much I enjoy unbiased stories. I believe I have found the place to get my questions answered and perhaps reduced my frustrations with not being able to find the explanations and advice I see. Your approach, using reputable academics and other experts to write articles, is a tonic in today's world of misinformation and bias. And I don't like to get anything so valuable free of cost because I know that there are costs to be borne to do what you do. I do share your content with like-minded friends. So I applaud thee and bid a great thank you to the entire team for the conversation for their due diligence. It's immensely appreciated.