Felly, mae'n gwybod yw'n gweithio, Mark yn ymweld y Cymru, mae'rionsiwn cyfnodau gyfosiwn i'r gweithio, ac rydw i'n cyfosiwn cyfosiwn cyfosio. Rydw i'n gweithio, mae'n cyfosiwn cyfosio ar gyfer y trofyn, ac mae'n cyfosio yma yma yw ym 6 billion pwn o'r gwybr o'r gwybr o'r ddronfos. Felly mae'n cyfosio ar y gweithio wedi'n gweithio cyfosio ond. Mark rysud i'r wych yn 209 o gyllid y cyfnodol ac yn ychydig i'r cyfnodol yng Nghymru o 2011. Mae'n rhaid i'r cyd-dweud o'r cyfnodol. Rwy'n rhaid i'r cyfnodol o'r cyfnodol a'r cyfnodol o'r cyfnodol, sy'n rhoi'r prinsifol o'r cyfnodol sy'n rhoi'n gweld. Yn ymddangas i'r cyfnodol, rwy'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'n rhaid i'r cyfnodol i'r cyfnodol, ac oedd yn ychydig i gyd-dweud o'r cyfnodol i'r cyfnodol. Rwy'n rhaid i ychydig i gyd-dweud. Rwy'n rhaid i gyllid. Rwy'n grwybannaeth ar gyfer'i adsol o'r cyllid a ffordd o'r cerddewis i'r ymdillawch. Yn ymdilladau diwg ddysgu gyda'r prinsifol, онf, gan gyfnodol. Rwy'n rhaid i'r cyfnodol o'r cyfnodol, mae'r creni ei meir i'r cyfnodol i'n rhaid i gynnig. Rydych chi'nhowy i'r rhwng iawn dioddau beth dyma'r Gaifwyr i'w부�ffyig iawn. Rydyn ni'n gallu'n Gweithio'r Lleserjargau. Rydyn ni'n ddechrau i'n mynd am ffordd i weithmell ar ein blynedd y Rheisianiad Cafodd Sifol-Gaith a'r 170 o 1875 arweithreir o'r meddwl. Mae gweithio'r rhaid i'ch bwysig yng Nethau, oedd lle i'r hyn o wneud o'r gweithdechol, nhw'n ddweud o'r rhiforddiol a'r cyd-dweud oherwydd mae'n gweithio allan yn dweud yn nhw. Ond o'r rhai gwlad, ei wneud yn rhan o'r cyd-dweud, yn y lle leddau atig oedd mae'n cael ei roi'r cyd-dweud y cwmysgwyr cyffredigau. All hynny wedi bod nid yw'n cael ei roi'r cyd-dweud ac mae'n rhan o'r cyd-dweud y cyd-dweud o'r cyffredigau cyffredigau. If I can find the button to move the slides. But Victorian World Commission reports are nothing, if not deeply specialist. They are neither distinguished by their typography or by their illustrations. So they are of relatively little financial value. So this particular lot was padded with a string of other equatees etheric Royal Commission reports. felly'r cwysig sy'n cael ei chyn REMY yn cael ei dyfodol ito'r bobl yn ysgrif 다eth gydag, ond unrhyw wrth gael â ddyliau cyflo yn gweithgiwyd, y rhai cyfnod i'r Cymru yn ysgrifol. Mae'r cwysig yn ddeliadu bach pwyllteic o'rnynt yn y cwylio cyfnod colleniad hefyd o'r cwysig o'r cyfnod i'r cyfnod i'r cyfnod. gweld gwda nhw'n gwybod eich cyfnod y 18049 o'r rai o'r pethau i rhan o'r awnau i roi cyrficio'r rai eich cyrficio'n cyfrallwyd. Mae'r rhai o'r rai o'r cyfrifaddau gwledig o'r lefnod ar y cyfrifadau gwybod mewn hwn. Mae'r rhaid i chi'n rhaid i'r rhaid i'r ddweud, ac mae'r ddweud o'r fforddau sydd yna'r ddweud yn ddod, yn ddod o'r ddweud, yn ddod o'r ddweud, yn ddod o'r ddweud, yn ddod o'r ddweud. A oedd y rhaid i'r rhaid i'r ddweud yng Nghymru sydd wedi'i ddweud o'r ddweud, Ond yw'r 1850s hynny mae'r cyngorau gyda'r rhysgwyr ffysiologi ac yn ystod o'r ddysgufeidliadau ystudio gyda Choryform a Nheitha. Felly mae'n archif ei ddweud i'r cyfrifol dros y cyfrifol ac yn y cyfrifol sy'n cyfrifol eich cyfrifol ar yr aelod yng nghymru. Mae'n rhesyf yn y ddweud o ffysiologi ar y llyfr o unrhyw brysgrwyffi yng nghymru, ond mae'n ffysiologi ar y llyfr o unrhyw brysgrwyffi ynghylch. Felly, ar y cyfnodd y Brifysgol Llywodraeth i'n Edynbro, yn 1871, yw James Padgett, ysgolwch Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, ac ymddorodd y Paget Stephen, sy'n gwneud hynny. First, no experiment can be performed under the influence of anaesthetic. Or to be done without it. And secondly, no painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law or fact already demonstrated. So the Rwng Comission, which was initiated on 22, June 1875, Eich myriadu o'r pwyllgor er mwynhau i'r trofyn sy'n cymryd yn bwysigol y cyfryd y bwysigol yn bwysigol, a'r amdannod a'u cyfreidio i'ch gwirionedd ymddugau, mae eich myfyddu i ddim yn meddwl mewn o'u mythbail yn bod yr ysgrif briad arall. Rwy'r ddiolchau rhai chefrach rhai hon yn ffyrdd y byddwch yn ddiddo i Thomas Henry Huxley, a oedd yn unrhyw i ddim yn rhaniadau o'r ddelchau. It's interesting. The initiation of the commission was 22 June 1875 and the report itself was issued on the 8th of January 1876, so they got on with their work. The report commendably was in fact only 15 pages in length. For those of us that worry about evidence-based reports, it was backed up with 6,551 paragraphs of evidence. And it makes absolutely fascinating reading. The list of witnesses is extraordinary. So Sir James Padgett was joined by some of the founding parents of physiology, including William Sharpie and Jay Betten Sanderson. Other luminaries who gave evidence included Joseph Lister, Charles Darwin, Sir William Gull, and a cannibal of the great and the good of 19th century science and medicine. And a few quotes from the report itself will suffice to indicate its general tenor. So it has been proposed to enact that the object in view shall be some immediate application of some expected discovery to some prophylactic or therapeutic end, and that any experiment made for the mere advancement of science shall be rendered unlawful. But this proposal cannot be sustained by reflection upon the actual course of human affairs. Knowledge goes before the application of knowledge, and the application of the discovery is seldom foreseen when the discovery is made. Who, says Helmholtz, when Galvani touched the legs of frogs with different methods and noticed their contraction, could have dreamt that all Europe would be traversed with wires flashing intelligence from Madrid to St Petersburg with the speed of lightning. And of course that was right then, and it is true now, and it's a nice enunciation of the justification and the importance of conducting basic research led by curiosity to answering important scientific questions. So then, as now, in the commission report and the evidence examples were given of discoveries important to the advancement of human health. So these included the discovery of the circulation of blood, so Harvey commemorated here by the Harvey operation. And the discovery of the lactil and the lymphatic system of vessels. And so Charles Bell's discovery of the compound function span nerves, the sensory and the motor functions. And at the time, as Jen's pageant identified the challenge of discovering an antidote to snake poisons, citing the many thousands of your Majesty's Indian subjects who perish annually from snake bites. And indeed less than 20 years later Cesar Fezalix and Gabriel Bertrand, together with Albert Calmed, presented the French Society of Biology on the 10th of February 1894. Their independent work on the development of an anti-venom against vipervenom and Indian cobravenom respectively. And it was only a few years later that the detail of Brazil, head of the Butantan Institute in Sao Paulo, developed the first anti-serial to South American poisonous snakes. So amongst the witnesses to the Royal Commission was Charles Darwin. And to quote him briefly. The first thing I would say is that I am fully convinced that physiology can progress only by the aid of experiments on living animals. I cannot think of any one step which has been made in physiology without that aid. And Darwin was then asked, now with regard to trying a painful experiment without anaesthetics, when the same experiment could be made with anaesthetics, or in short inflicting any pain that was not absolutely necessary upon an animal, what would be your view on that subject? And his reply, it deserves detestation and abhorrence. But the evidence that probably had the greatest impact of all was that of a doctor Emmanuel Klein, who was a physiologist working as an assistant professor in the Brown Institute. And the Brown Institute incidentally is located roughly where the secret intelligence service has its headquarters just south of the Lambeth Bridge. And he appeared completely insensitive to the suffering of animals. And Huxley wrote to Darwin on October 30th after Klein provided his evidence. The commission is playing the duces with me. I felt it my duty to act as counsel for science and was well satisfied with the way things are going. But on Thursday, when I was absent, ex, but it was Dr Klein, was examined. And if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he gave, I may as well throw up my brief. I'm told he openly professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering and he only gave anaesthetics to keep the animals quiet. I declare to you, I did not believe the man lived who was such an unmitigated cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles. And I willingly agree to any law that would send him to the trembling. The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Foster to the other commissioners is profound. And I'm powerless even if I desire which I have not to combat it. And in fact it's extremely interesting to read the evidence that Klein gave and the correspondence he subsequently had with the commissioners when he realised that his account was going to be published for the meeting. But, and that's a lesson to anyone who appears before select committees. But the Royal Commission report duly and I think inevitably concluded that legislation was necessary. And to quote again, what we would humbly recommend to your Majesty would be the enactment of the law by which experiments upon living animals, whether for original research or for demonstration, should be placed under the control of the Secretary of State, who should have powers to grant licences to persons and when satisfied with the propriety of doing so to withdraw them. No other person should be permitted to perform experiments. The holders of licences should be bound by conditions. Breach of those conditions should entail the liability to forfeiture of the licence. The object of the conditions should be to ensure that suffering should never be inflicted in any case in which it could be avoided and should be reduced to a minimum where it could not be all together avoided. The first statement in a way of the three hours. The government not surprisingly listened and the result was a bill placing animal experimentation in Great Britain akin to the study of human anatomy under the supervision of the law. And this was enacted as the cruelty to animals act on August the 15th 1876. Of course everyone here will realise this was by no means the end of the history. There was another Royal Commission between 1906 and 1912. That took much longer and in the end largely confirmed the status quo. And finally of course in 1986 the 1876 act was replaced by the Animals Scientific Procedures Act. And this, the big change here was it authorised animal experimenters by means of a personal licence but an additional project licence that defined the capitalism of purpose. And that of course is where we are today. So it's an enormous privilege to be asked to give the 80th pageant lecture this evening. And Stephen Pageant in whose memory this series of lectures was instituted in 1927 was a, and this is of course his administration of Stephen Pageant, was a tarless advocate for the value of properly conducted animal research and indeed wrote a book setting out examples of where research on animals in advance human knowledge had helped. And his work to found the Research and Defence Society of 1908 during that second Royal Commission on Vivisection was a turning point in the national debate around animal research. And of course the Research and Defence Society was formed to make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country, the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments and the great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them. And I think Stephen Pageant would find today's discourse as familiar as we find the arguments of the 1870s. But this is not a lecture on history although you may think it is. The introduction is intended to show that all of the concerns that continue to rear their head about research using animals have a very long history. And these concerns sit at the interface between the conductors of the science, the application of science and the human values held by individuals and societies in different parts of the world. So what are the core arguments around animal research? In truth they are still the same as those articulated clearly in the 1870s. They are fundamentally utilitarian arguments about one sort of value, the value of scientific research in discovering the secrets of human and animal biology in health and disease. And this work brings with it the potential to prevent disease through vaccination for example or to treat it as with the use of insulin in diabetes. And that value is balanced against another sort of value, which is our relationship with other species and the extent to which we are prepared to cause harm to other species to bring benefits to ourselves. And I fear that all too often discussions about science are conflated with arguments about values. So we end up with arguments that are framed as follows. The proponents argue for the necessity of animal research if which progress in our understanding of health and disease and to discover new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Opponents of animal research argue that the research is scientifically valued, that the results are not transferable from one species to another and that experiments cause unacceptable suffering. But this is actually not a real argument. It's an argument that's been conducted across purposes. The reality is that there are some people who believe that it is simply wrong to experiment on animals, whatever the potential benefit. Equally there are some in the scientific community who don't recognise that in the face of all the benefits that they perceive from such research. That it is reasonable that some people oppose the use of animals in research from the perspective of their personal values. And of course in fact it's much more complicated than this because many who don't like the idea of animal research express gradations of concern about research on other species. And these concerns are based on judgments of perceived hierarchies. So one hierarchy is partly based on perceptions of the capacity of different species to experience pain or suffering. Or the other set of arguments which is related is on the basis of their evolutionary relationship to humans. So there tends to be less concern about invertebrates, but of course the exception of cephalopods. And then successively more concern moving from fish to mice to rats to raggats, with cats, dogs and non-human primates the objects of the most concern. And of course that reflects the different relationships we have with other species where cats and dogs are the best friends of many human beings. And human primates are seen to be archaurs' relatives. But this complexity means that animal research is a topic where the institutions of science meet the institutions of democracy fairly and squarely. And frankly it's in areas where the arguments will continue and the opposing cases will need to be made and remade. This is not the discussion that will ever have an end as such. We live in a plural democratic society where different citizens hold different views based on differing moral preset. And ultimately it is for democratic governments and the other governments to decide on the acceptability and conditions under which research on animals is undertaken and how this should be regulated. And this is an area in which the UK is a global leader. So my life and science started with experiments on the genetics of the fruit fly in school laboratories in the 1960s. A dissection of frogs and extremely smelly formaldehyde hickrwnt dogfishes, which provided ample confirmation to me if it was ever needed that I was neither going to be an anatomist nor a surgeon. It was medical school that provided my first insights really into research on mammalian species, studying immune responses to mice to chemically induced tumours as part of my part 2 pathology course in Cambridge. And participation as a medical elective student at the Karolinska Institute in research on a strain of mice called C3HHEJ. Now this strain of mice shows no response to exposure to lipopolysaccharide, which is a component of many bacterial cell walls that's a cause of the damaging inflammatory response suffered by animals infected with certain bacteria. And so my task as an elective medical student in a couple of months was to work out the explanation for this failure of responsiveness of the C3HHEJ mouse to lipopolysaccharide. I worked very hard. I isolated lymphocytes from these in controlled mice and checked whether they would respond to stimuli other than lipopolysaccharide, which they did. But I didn't get anywhere near to uncovering the explanation for how they failed to respond to LPS. Nor I have to confess, did I understand at the time, the importance of these particular mice and why it mattered to discover the explanation for lipopolysaccharide and responsiveness. So you can imagine my fascination when Dr Bruce Boykler was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2011 for discovering that these mice were genetically deficient in a protein called Tolaic receptor 4. And this is an important part of the innate immune system that confers inherited resistance to bacterial and other infections and is a member of a group of proteins that have been conserved over a very long period of evolution with very similar Tolaic receptors present in those fruit flies that I studied in school. Although there the genetics was to just understand the Mendelian principles or laws around ICAMA and various mutations without the dominant or recessive effect. But the deeper point is that this and related discoveries has opened up a whole new field of research into our immune responses in both health and disease and is a good example of how apparently rather basic research enquiries, in this case firstly in flies and then in rodents, have important utility in understanding the mechanisms of ill health. Going back to that quote from the original World Commission report about the importance of basic research and the experiments of the animals providing the deep understanding that enables later application of knowledge. So once the arguments about animal research have been conserved through the generations there is one important respect and it's already come up this evening in which the landscape of animal research has changed significantly during the last 30 years or so. For a long time the laws that ensure that animals used in research are treated as humanely as possible have been enforced. However the laws protecting scientists from illegal harassment by extremists were not. And that asymmetry has disappeared in recent years. Scientists can practice their legal experimental work confident the government will support them against extremism. So since the days of a brave few who were prepared to talk openly about their research on animals, more and more scientists are willing to make the case in public for the research that they undertake. Animal labs and their host institutions are increasingly open and the sky has not fallen in. And it's worth reflecting on how remarkable that change has been. Huge progress has been made in opening up animal research to public scrutiny, particularly in the academic community and of course these awards this evening reflect that and the worthy array of winners. However the argument hasn't been won in all parts of the animal research community and I think we must continue to make the case to our peers for intelligent transparency. Too often the answer is still to hope that no one asks questions of us rather than to open the doors and show there's nothing to fear. But importantly of course this openness cannot and should not be left to the academic community alone. Industry needs animal research as well and whilst some industries very open that's not the case in all cases as their interest voices would therefore be a persuasive part of making the public case for why animal research remains necessary. And of course in 2012 following discussions at the Wellcome Trust between the Science, Media Centre and the Wellcome Trust there was a further series of discussions and Jeff Watts played an important role which led to over 40 organisations working in the biosciences in the UK signing a declaration on openness on animal research. And that of course included a commitment to developing a concordat which set out how they would be more open about the ways in which animals are used in scientific, medical and veterinary research in the UK. In 2014 the concordat was launched and you saw the array of signatures today. And I think that the individuals who have been willing to stand up and to make the case for animal research throughout the years can claim a great deal of the credit for the state that we now find ourselves in. So it's only right that we celebrate their achievements this evening and it's a very good opportunity to thank the successor organisation to the Research and Defence Society understanding animal research for the work that you do. And Fiona Fox and your colleagues at the Science, Media Centre also thanks for your work on encouraging openness. The concordat has I believe been helpful and I would encourage every institution involved in animal research to sign up. But I would say that amidst the ffervor for encouraging openness and much more communication I believe there is occasionally some danger of every action. We want volunteers for communication about animal research not conference. Not everyone is able and willing to communicate effectively and the model channels for abuse are many foals and a thick skin is needed by those who communicate science in some of the more controversial areas of science. Indeed enthusiasts for science communication often fail to recognise that it isn't a singular thing. A science communication comes in many forms. It's much easier to communicate science discoveries such as the Higgs boson or to enthuse people about space science than it is to communicate the role of science in areas where there are conflicting human values. That's not to say that it's easy to explain Higgs boson but here the challenge is not to the general public, it's actually other particle physicists who are all too ready to shoot down some hapless colleague who doesn't fully communicate the arcana correctly. And it reminds me of when I went on the today program a few years ago to talk about the potential importance of a new genetically modified potato that was resistant to the potato part. And I explained that blight was caused by fungus that could devastate potato crops. On that occasion it wasn't anti-GMO activists who objected to my interview on this occasion. It was a letter from a gardening pundit who accused me of extreme ignorance in calling potato blight a fungus. Because it is in fact an uo my seat, which Wikipedia will tell you is a distinct phylogenetic lineage of fungus like eukaryotic microorganisms. They didn't actually teach me that at medical school and indeed I don't think it was even known when I was at medical school but I'm not sure that the point of the interview would have been enhanced by this particular element of taxonomic rigour. The reality is that scientists who participate in public discussions on embryo research, on animal research, on GMOs, on pesticides, on climate science and the like will have an utterly different experience from those that talk about science in areas that are not valued lately. And indeed scientists sometimes fail to recognise that how science is used is a topic for all of society and as scientists our views do not trump the views of others. But coming back to the uo my seat for a second, please don't think that I'm making a case for any kind of post truth approach to science communication. I'm absolutely not. One of the big challenges for science is to become even more rigorous in the way that we conduct research and communicate its results and indeed I think one of the problems in the way in which science is communicated is the over emphasis on the reporting of the latest paper on X or Y rather than on what the body of the scientific evidence shows. And frankly this causes endless problems to those of us that are involved in providing science advice to government. By and large we're not that interested simply in what the latest paper shows, especially when it's apparently equal and opposite to the paper that was published last week. What we care about is the totality of evidence. What do we know overall? What do we not know and where are the uncertainties? And so where animal research remains necessary we must clearly and confidently explain why. But we should hold ourselves the same standard of evidence and communication as we'd expect in our science itself. We mustn't be seduced by our own PR and here I have a challenge to this audience. To what extent have we as a community ever subjected our claims about how vital animal research has been to human health to the same level of scrutiny we've applied to those claiming to have discovered a new cure. And I think if not we must. And I think that a Cochran standard review of the contribution of animal research to advances in health and well-being over the last 20 years or so would be a valuable contribution. And I think that's a challenge to you as an audience tonight. I would really like to see a first rate meta-analysis done to a very rigorous standard in the same way that you would expect a Cochran review on a treatment of vital medicine to be applied to the whole area of animal research. So developing and maintaining a supportive environment for research I think is both more difficult and more necessary in animal research than it is in less controversial branches of science. People talk a lot about trust so animal research must command public trust. But as Baroness O'Neill is always saying the corollary of trust is trustworthiness. And we earn trust by being trustworthy. We cannot be complacent in our maintenance of what we have earned. Therefore the animal research community needs to behave in a fashion that is irrefutably trustworthy. And so setting this context a robust regulatory environment is not a burden to be borne by those who do animal research. It is an integral part of the case that we make to society in the UK. Members of the public can be confident that we are trustworthy precisely because we are so carefully regulated and because we obey those regulations. And it follows that we as a research community must share responsibility for how we are regulated. And I know my colleagues in the Home Office would welcome your dialogue with the scientific community. However it would be a mistake for us to interpret that as an invitation to dictate to the Home Office what we want or for special training. And the chief inspector in the Home Office, Dr Caldwell, in the 1940s pointed out once to some unfortunate colleagues no one ever tells the Home Office what to do. Rather I think we should approach discussions with the Home Office in the spirit of partnership. Likely suggesting improvements which would better ensure animal welfare and promote the best science. And this brings me to an issue which should be close to the heart of any scientist. We can never be complacent in the pursuit of rigor. A scientist we must constantly ask ourselves does this study meet the highest standards of work? And we must be ruthless in challenging where we see this is not the case in the work we do ourselves and in the wider research community. And as I'm sure everyone here will agree there can't be a choice between high standards on the one hand and a high volume of research on the other. It's the standards that trump everything. So if we're to make the most of the funding that's available the correct approach is to prioritise the best, the most reliable work. And this is particularly true if animals are involved. It is frankly unethical and wrong to conduct poorly powered studies statistically. So experiments should always be designed to provide the best chance of generating robust and reliable results. That doesn't of course take away the need for repetition of experiments to confirm or to refute important findings. But ultimately we will use the fewest animals in experiments overall if we optimise the experimental designs to give the greatest chance of reliable findings. And so with that in mind the ongoing work to standardise approaches around the world is entirely welcome. And we should be proud in the UK for having some of the highest standards for animal testing in the world. And of course where other countries systems meet those standards we can use their results in our regulatory processes. This is both efficient and good for animal welfare. And this is a responsibility for everyone in the scientific endeavour. So it's a responsibility for the funders of research. It's a responsibility for the researchers themselves. And it's a responsibility of those that peer review their papers and publish the findings. To insist on the higher standards of work and in doing so drive welfare internationally. And once they don't anticipate a point in my lifetime when animal research will be entirely unnecessary we must continue to ask ourselves is there a better way. Worldwide the supply chain for animals of animals research is fragile. And global public opinion as anyone who reads the newspaper on any day of the week at the moment is quite hard to focus. And it may happen against testing at some point. What farmer company would continue the expense and reputation risks of animal tests if they didn't have to? What government wouldn't welcome the avoidance of political controversy? What scientists would want to keep using an imperfect animal model if a more accurate alternative existed? And so the UK should continue to lead the process of finding alternatives. And that means that the work of the NC3Rs, the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animal Research is extremely important. And of course the truth is that the extraordinary tools of modern biomedical research often ways to unravel physiology at the level of the cell, the organ and the organism in ways that were inconceivable even a few years ago. And so in his philosophical poem, an essay on man, Alexander Pope wrote in 1733, Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, the proper study of mankind is man. And that's a rather splendid illustration that comes from the well-contrast images site of Pope's work. So our tools now let us study man and woman in the most extraordinary detail and with minimal invasion. But not all of our tools can or indeed should be applied in humans. For example, the power of optogenetics to study neural circuitry or gene editing to create an array of genetic variation offers opportunities to ask important questions about, for example, the function and the malfunction of the nervous system in animals in ways that simply cannot be achieved in humans. And these results are very important for our understanding of humans. We are in an extraordinary time for science, engineering, technology and social science. So the government office for science periodically produces reports on technology innovation futures. And our most recent report concludes that what is happening at the moment is a convergence between technologies. For example, biology meets material science, engineering and big data. So the opportunities and the importance of animal research remain to salient now as it is ever been said. But we should never forget that the pursuit of science does require any public license. Not least because it is the taxpayer that funds much of our basic research. And the return to the taxpayer comes in many forms. Of course, advances in knowledge matter in their own right. But ultimately they're not sufficient on their own. The public expects gains in health and well-being and gains the economy from the many billions of pounds that are invested in research. Science, engineering, technology and the social sciences are at the heart of advances in industry and the economy. And the UK, as everyone here knows, is a world leader in the biosciences. And in that context animal research is an essential and integral part of the jigsaw of the UK knowledge economy. So I will end where I began. The lesson of history is that some things don't change. So we must be resolute in continuing to make the case for animal research. 108 years after the research defence society was formed, their founding purpose to make knowing the facts about animal research needs but one update. We've learnt as a community that knowing the facts is not enough. People must be engaged, involved in and ultimately persuaded by the utility of our work. And in 2016 of all years no-one needs reminding of the dangers of assuming the wider public shares the views of experts. But furthermore the claim of expertise does need careful examination. A true expert should behave with impeccable and dispassionate rigour, properly acknowledging uncertainty where this exists. And I'm not sure that all self-declared or indeed anointed experts always live up to these standards. One can't hope to convince everyone. However on animal research it's necessary in a democracy to bring on board the widest possible coalition of the public. The age-old arguments about the pros and cons of animal research have not been resolved and maybe never will be. They sit at the heart about the debate about our relationship of humans with other species. And they tell us something important about one of the unique attributes of humans. The tiger doesn't debate whether it's right to bring down and strangle the gazelle with a bite to its neck. Eat or be eaten, nature red in tooth and claw. But we humans have what appears to be the unique cognitive ability to consider our relationship with other species. It's the essence of humanity that we care for each other in extraordinary ways and care for other species and our environment. They're almost certainly not enough given the environmental challenges that come with the global population of over 2 billion people. And Alexander Pope reminds us of the paradox at the core of humans even in an era of enlightenment. Chaos of thought and passion all confused. It was human that noted that the passions often trump reason. Scientists who are human and not, I would suggest, immune from passion must continue to promote reason. And so I think there are a few things I suggest that this mission to promote reason requires of the animal research community. Firstly, keep talking to government about where the regulations could work better to ensure high standards of research and animal welfare. But challenge where you see examples of these standards not being upheld to the community. Secondly, let us maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the most rigorous animal research, but also in the search for alternatives. And thirdly, welcome scrutiny for the confidence it provides. Keep talking about what research is undertaken. Keep opening the doors. And let us submit our own arguments with the value of animal research to the same scrutiny we would apply to all of our scientific work. We cannot fear openness. We must embrace it. Thank you for your attention. Eroquant, erudite. Alexander is challenging, which is great. You asked questions of the audience. I hope they're going to ask some of you, and he's very highly asked, said he will answer some of them. I don't mind questions or comments or thoughts on what he's told us. One there, go for it. There's a mic coming, but you could shout that if you'd like.  I'm Donald Bruce. I'm an ethicist by training. I'm a former nuclear regulator at the long long time ago. I currently am a new member of the animals and science committee at the lay member of one of the animals. The long experience of my own in ethics. I'm delighted to hear your comments about the rigor of each of your client things. Working in the nuclear industry a few years ago, we were told that nuclear was wonderful because it replaced the dirty coal. Then we were told that wind power was wonderful because it replaced the horrible wind power. And then somebody who objected to a wind initiative in Peoples said this active environment of terrorism, and the consistent threat through them is that you blow up the problems of what you don't like and you exaggerate the benefits and the lack of rigor. Now I've never seen that consistently achieved. So what's going to have to change in order to achieve that? It hasn't happened very much in my experience. OK, well thank you for the question. Sometime offline we should maybe talk about nuclear regulation, but that's not the matter. But it's a good opportunity because you illustrate the issue that comes up again and again, which is where science, engineering and technology comes into conflict with values. And so energy is another area where there are very powerful values, as you know yourself. Radiation is value-laden. It's a sort of invisible set of humans, as it were, that brings death and destruction in its way. And so, you know, the serious point is that, and there's various in different countries and different parts of the world, people have strong value feelings, personal value feelings against nuclear. And so again, we tend to conflate the argument which is whether nuclear is safe or unsafe. And of course all the evidence is that nuclear power isn't extremely safe for a form of energy production, I mean much safe in the cold world. But that's not really the discussion. It's framed as a scientific argument when really there are two discussions. There's the human values discussion about whether this stuff called radiation and then there's the science on the other hand. And of course that applies to almost every domain of energy. So the other one, which is very active at the moment, is discussion about fracking. So hydraulic fraction of shale, where the science and engineering questions are threefold. Firstly, is it going to cause seismicity and other tremors? Secondly, are we going to get contamination at the water table? And thirdly, will there be a fugitive release of methane gas causing a release of greenhouse gases? Those are the science and engineering issues, and there are umpteen reports saying that when it is properly created, this is an acceptable thing to do. But there's the separate discussion about some people not liking fossil fuels at all, other people not liking the companies that produce fossil fuels, and other people not liking the industrial infrastructure that goes with the Franklin process. But we conflate the arguments. So the argument is turned into a good science or a bad science opposed to recognising that both sides have legitimate positions and ultimately it's for democratic societies to collectively decide how to resolve these issues. And that's the point about animal research. We live in a plural society, people are entitled to different views and ultimately it's for parliament to resolve those differences. But my plea is to avoid having a discussion at cross purposes and to be absolutely clear in the terms of the discussion. Do you have a teacher of a member called more fast than Frankenstein? I've worked closely with Joyce and we produced an annual report on innovation, managing the risk rather than simply avoiding it. I feel like it's part of the science and engineering centre. Thanks for that, Mark. I enjoyed every second of it. Volunteers are not conscripts. I couldn't help thinking that might be slightly under me because I'm rather partial to conscripting. I couldn't possibly comment. I'm not going to give you cars back to the rigor partly because some of the arguments used against are not based on evidence and that rigor. I'm just quite that really frustrating when I'm talking to scientists who repeatedly say to me that we will be targeted. It's all right for you if you're there, there will be a bomb onto my car. At an institutional level, we're still hearing very, we talk about the history, very out of the arguments about the threat from the activists and no attempt to find out from the police or the anti-terrorism, who they are, what the real level of threat is. So I feel like we should be, okay, not conscripts, no one has to do it, and I totally agree with your distinction between particle physics and arguments based on values. But I do think we shouldn't let people, there are lots of pharmaceutical companies and institutions. You're aware, I email you when I see an institution still not doing this and leaving it to the people in this room who have won all these awards. And I think we do have to challenge them. There are institutions we should challenge, but I do think we have to recognise that this type of science communication is not that easy. It's much, much easier to talk about exposed on media even if you talk complete rubbish, people will believe you. The second you engage in a topic like genetically modified organisms or animal research, it is a much tougher experience. And so a lot of training is needed. And I maintain that you need volunteers. And not everyone is, as you know, good at communication. And so, as I said, you can't force people to do it. You have to persuade them that it's something they want to do and recognise that not everyone is as good at it as others. And I think recognise that the experience does feel different depending on what you're communicating. And also the position from which you're communicating. So, I make no comment other than saying that the experience of communicating science when you're the director of the work contrast is a different experience from communicating science when you're the chief scientific adviser to HM government. Can I just add another question? There's a benefit to that. I absolutely agree with you. You shouldn't try to force individuals for any reason. And individuals have a good at communicating in a better sense. But I think there could be a case of a hateful pressure on organisations. Yes. No, I agree with the organisation. Organisations are seen to be secretive. Yes. Then you assume bad things are happening even they're not. I think that's exactly right. I accept the organisation. But of course that can be done through the website that you see. So you don't necessarily have people standing up to give them speeches or opinions on the radio. You can be transparent in many ways. And so I agree with that. Karen, on that. I don't know if it's any other journalist in the room, but as a journalist, I concur with what you're saying that some people are just not good communicators and other people are naturals. One of the challenges I addressed when I was the other side of the fence and trying to persuade people to talk for the organisations I work for was the criticism and lack of support from their peers. Yes. I've seen time and time again people do a really quite good job as a radio interviewer, as good a job as anyone would do, and then suffer sometimes frankly abuse because they didn't quite say in the way with the reader perhaps or whatever some scientists would see. So I think there's a space between what scientists see as good communication and actually what the public hear. And humanity is what most people who are scientists need to understand that science is driven and done by people with great humanity and great patience and great concentration. And that's part of the message is to talk about who they are and why they're doing things and not just what they're doing. No, I couldn't be more. That's why I told the UMS story. Because it is the point that actually there is a minority people who do communicate science and do it on the media and do it well who are abused by their colleagues at least as much as they are by anyone else. And that is completely unacceptable. I might get that one. Here we are. Yes. Hang on. Make sure you're arguing on the right basis so there's more argument to you on what some people hold and there's an argument about science. But from where I say it would be really helpful to have a clear defence of the validity of animal models because that's what we continually get challenged with. And actually we get to say this is why we do it and this is how we can show that this is valid and can be transferred to humans etc. Actually it would be a very powerful tool. Well, I couldn't agree more and that was my challenge to do a very good metro analysis because I just don't think that exists. And so people are always coming out with a rather small number of examples. I think there are probably many more examples. Where is the metro analysis of what animal search has contributed over the last 25 years? I mean, someone could tell me if it exists but I'm not sure. If it exists I wouldn't find it. It doesn't exist. Who do you think is the right kind of personal group of people to try and draw that together? I'm not sure it's necessarily the people's room. Ultimately, what it comes out around the fundamental issue is that there is a cultural issue in science about this focus on this single original paper at the expense of metro analysis. I mean, the first thing you're supposed to do when you write a PhD and of course it's worth the last thing is write a literature review. And it's usually when you write a literature review at the end that you discover something that it would be quite useful to remember. But it is actually part of the review of writing a PhD. What people do intensely is write these reviews and they write the same review in slightly different forms about 20 times. It would be much better if people actually focus much more on that sort of rather rigorous metro analysis. And so I think that, I'm sure there are people in the audience who are qualified to do it but there is a methodology for doing metro analyses. It was medicine. It was my medicine that really invented it because it was so important to know that it relies on the accretion of knowledge and it's bringing it all together. And I don't think that there's nearly enough of that and it's something you really appreciate when you're in the business advising government. So in two sort of straightforward areas, which is both anti-baccalaureate system, nearly anti-bastic science, my life and Ian Boyd, who's my colleague at DEFRA has been made much easier by the work that Charles Godfrey and Andrew McLean have led in Oxford producing really good, rigorous metro analyses of the science evidence in both of these areas. That's what we need. Any more questions? Wendy, yes. Thank you so much for doing the lecture today. It's been absolutely fascinating. As you'll have seen, we've got probably the majority now of organisations in the UK that have signed and called out. There are clearly some organisations that carry out animal research that haven't been called out yet. And I wonder if you were trying to persuade them that it was a good thing to sign up, what sort of messages would you give them? I've just been talking for about 45 minutes giving messages. I think it's the narrative that... I think that is the narrative. But in some senses you've achieved fantastic things that have been called out. Of course, Fiona and I had some conversations about the creation of it right at the very beginning. I don't think actually the answer now is just to get more and more signatures on the concord. I think actually the challenge is to keep communicating. You've got an awful lot of communication there. Just make the most of it. Get people out there talking about it. And I would say you're doing very well. But I don't... I just think it's a mistake to believe that this is a task of work and at some point it will be done. It will never be done. In another, you know, the 180th pageant lecture will probably be the same lecture, essentially. Because the arguments won't change. It is a perfectly legitimate position to not want to do animal research. There is nothing wrong with it as a position. In a plural society we just have to resolve the fact that there are the different arguments that there is a powerful utilitarian argument. But not everyone is utilitarian. There is no right answer. I think on that interesting note unless there's any more questions up there it's just up to me again to thank Mark for a fantastic lecture and for you to do... But just before you do, I'd like to thank Tom Wells from my office who's sitting there for all the work he's done and also the chief inspector from the home of the city here as well. OK? Thank you very much.


Hello, everybody. Welcome to today's live stream. These are one of these these days that it's not so Wise I think to focus on the markets It's kind of a good day to focus on what's going on behind the scenes And this is what I would call a master class Given by Ripple's CEO Brad Garlinghouse This is a great response to getting away from the fud that the Jamie diamonds and the Gary Genslers and the senator Elizabeth Warrens of the world just kind of Dump on us day in and day out and this is the things that we have to understand to really push the narrative of what's happening So we're gonna go through this in detail about what's going on and about what Brad is saying This is a Fox business interview that Brad gave over a Davos and we're gonna go through this piece by piece So the first part he's going to talk about The ETF narrative and it's very quick. So just take a listen and go from there Well, I think it's a very big deal In large part because I think it's further validation from Institutions and even in this case a government entity where you know the crypto has been on kind of the outskirts I think and increasingly you're seeing that come into the mainstream and so I think it's a validation I think it's further Indication of more institutions coming into the crypto asset market Yeah, I just wanted to kick off with that because it's just a good way to kind of open things up This is the things that I've been saying I didn't really care so much if we actually had the ETF approved I personally didn't think it was gonna get approved and of course I was wrong in that one But it just shows Another aspect of it to say like hey Yeah, it actually got approved and it's really good for the industry because it kind of gives us, you know a little bit of notoriety and Legitimacy as we move forward especially because of the institutions that are actually coming in so I have to you know wholeheartedly agree here with Brad what he said so The next part we're gonna talk about is the Jamie Diamond narrative How we kind of move away from that because this was an actual video that we took a look at just a couple of days ago And this was also being recorded at Davos This is the CEO of JP Morgan. This is Jamie Diamond and he's gonna talk about what? Essentially is crypto used for and I need to play this so you understand like Where the information that people are getting this from because when you go out there and talk to people They're gonna start to talk about well, you know, I heard it's furloughist activity And I heard for this and I heard it because this is the same kind of parroting talk So just take a listen this is about 20 seconds or so and then we'll go from there First of all, I'm not trying to make a joke here. There are use cases AML fraud Anti-money laundering tax avoidance sex trafficking Those are real use cases and you see it being used for hundreds maybe 50 or 100 billion dollars a year for that That is the end use case everything else is people train among themselves Yeah, so I mean Well, I mean we talked about that quite enough on this channel I'm not gonna beat it to like a dead horse But it is just one of those things that's you know, people are gonna keep saying and they're gonna keep saying an ad nauseam It's kind of a pain, but that's what it is. However, just remind them this illicit activity There was a report this came out from chain analysis. This is from Paul rule is the head counsel for Coinbase and This was a little data piece that over 24 billion worth of crypto was actually received by illicit addresses in 2023 Accounting for zero point three four percent of all transaction volume chain analysis has estimated now Of course any percentage is too much percentage but the vast majority of course is being used by the US dollar and The reason I talked about it is because Brad knows these things and we know these things and just very it's very good of What actually is said in the next round with Brad here as he talks about it kind of like piggybacks on what Jamie Diamond says and kind of dispels these types of notions. So I just take a listen here This is a real quick section and we'll talk about moving away from the Jamie Diamond there And and riffle enables global financial institutions take take us through that. How so ripple at its core We sell blockchain technologies and solutions to enterprises. We focus primarily on financial institutions We started with a payment solution to settle cross-border settlement for banks for PSPs You know typically cross-border payments have been slow. They've been expensive using these technologies We can dramatically reduce the cost and increase the speed and efficiency and now you're seeing financial services Institutions try to get their own strategy with regard to blockchain underway. How is that change the dynamic for ripple? Well, I think anytime you have a new technology It's it's nascent and although crypto has kind of been around for ten or almost twelve years Let's say it's still new and I think you have a lot of large Organizations, even JP Morgan despite Jamie Diamonds comments about how he thinks about crypto They're investing heavily in blockchain technologies. Now that being said, I think in order for blockchain to thrive and for the largest Population to benefit from these technologies. You can't have insular closed networks Like the whole point it's kind of like the internet the internet opened up networks You had a well and comp you serve in prodigy along comes the internet to create interoperability Crypto does that and can do that across many banks and to provide dramatic improvements to how we think about money movements And it really any transaction I get I mean perfect right there, right? It actually it shows people that look You know Jamie diamond can have his opinion and people gonna have their opinion But this is what's really the reality that's going on and we're actually have a legitimate business And we're actually helping things move forward and we're actually helping customers Not only with their with their transactions, but also I mean as far as fees, but also speed So I mean these are the things that we need to keep talking about and move things forward So that was just moving away from the Jamie diamond piece and now it gets really interesting because Maria here is gonna ask him Well, you know, what is this? How did this all come down between Ripple and SEC and These are the parts that I truly relish and enjoy because I get to hear people gloat but not really gloat of how they Beat the pants off the SEC and did a pretty good job So just take a listen here as they talk about the SEC and why they keep losing and with any new technology I question whether or not those writing the laws around the regulation framework really understand the technology now recently You called the securities and exchange commission chairman Garry Gensler a quote political liability to the United States You said he's acting in the interests of Citizensary or the long-term growth of the economy that he's not acting in the on behalf of customers and users tell us more Well, I think Gary Gensler has prioritized hiring more lawyers to litigate the industry and this is often described as You know it or kind of regulation through enforcement If we just took the time to codify rules of the road most of the industry in crypto wants to follow the rules the road Countries around the world have leaned in even the European Union 27 countries in the European Union come together to create a Construct for how crypto should be regulated in the United States. We haven't done this work I jokingly suggested maybe what we should just do is type into chat GBT. How should the US that's more than the US SEC has done and it's frustrating and I think even I guess yesterday there's a court hearings and coin based in the SEC and That the judicial system continues to slap down the SEC because they're overreaching they're overstepping what the laws say It's the reason why they lost the case against ripple It's a reason why they lost the case against grayskills the reason why they were dragged kicking and screaming to have an ETF Thus, you know as I was quoted. I think Gary Gensler hasn't been acting. He's been acting on almost his own agenda Not the people's agenda in the United States Why you know, I wish I had a clear answer to that I think these are technologies that are here to stay and the ETF approvals. I think further indication of that It's just frustrating that we're spending so much time the judicial process to get clarity when we could do that as many other Countries like Japan the UK the UAE Switzerland here in Switzerland. Yeah, these are not small economies They're doing the work to provide that clarity in the US I think it's become a political agenda not a policy agenda from someone who studies and that's it That's the whole thing and this is why I never Thought that the ETF would go through because it was a political agenda because for the SEC The chair Gary Gensler and the other two commissioners their Democrats and there's other two are Republicans I didn't think that they would agree on anything and it was Gary Gensler Actually had to break that tie and actually came through which I found I mean shocking quite honestly But he's right and this is a problem and this is why Americans getting less than the dust This is why Ripple has actually thrived in the face of going against the SEC and spending millions hundred I want to say it's over a hundred million dollars now of what they spent illegal fees to get this out the door It's because they have embraced the rest of the world Because the US is dragging its feet and pushing it down if the US would just do what they did with the internet Back in the early 90s and gave it some sort of regulation when it was law 212 They said look you will not be sued if you are an internet provider and somebody says something Disingenuous on your platform you cannot be sued and held responsible for that We can move forward just that little bit of legislation allowed the United States to take Charge and actually do great things as far as the internet now We become the hub and now we're losing that and that's just the reality of the situation So I got to tell you I got to applaud Brad I got to applaud everybody that on the Ripple team for really taking the hit and taking down the SEC so thanks and now to finish up and Then this is kind of like well I was just talking about why the US is actually is losing crypto and of course the days of the internet when we did it Right actually, I'm gonna skip that because it's pretty much got there. I want to go this next piece There's only two pieces left this is like a little little gotcha question because Well, I'm really gonna ask him is about China and how China is not getting around the the rules and laws and regulations of Crypto and it's actually becoming a problem. So just take a listen to this. This is at 645 take a listen to this. It's kind of a gotcha question, but Brad answers it perfectly Ina's crypto traders are evading the rules there They write this the success of the country's crypto traders and evading the rule shows how difficult it will be For regulators across the world including the United States to actually police this industry your reaction You know, I think there are elements of that with any new technology You know, there's obviously the great firewall of China is something that has people have sought to circumvent evade within China for You know probably a decade or two I think again if you think about the activities that these technologies enable KYC still matters AML still matters and ultimately today, you know, they're the off-ramps through typically exchanges like Coinbase that are very good Actors where I think you are able to enforce these kinds of regulations That's part of the you know, the self-inflicted wound of a settlement with Binance the largest exchange in the world With the US government, you know, but I think a few months ago Well that settlement you just referred to congratulations to you and to yeah, and I mean just to just to piggyback off that I mean, this is how you do things, right? Like you don't step around the question and just gonna kind of blow it all off and go KYC will not a big deal answer the question perfectly There is there is a place for that and crypto assets We're actually following the rules is just that we can't get anybody to let us into the room because they are regulating by enforcement So again excellent way to do these things and the last one is this was a pretty great piece where he really gets in the Jamie Diamond and Maria praises him for actually what happened grayscale What does this mean for you in terms of new business opportunities now that that's behind what we ripple Thrived under the scrutiny of the SEC but outside the United States My hope is that now that there is at least clarity for ripple that XRP is not a security That that opens up the US market a little bit the challenge of course is you still have US regulators who are pretty hostile, right? The the SECs continues their Litigation enforcement through litigation and you know, even the OCC has been pretty negative about crypto My view is this is a technology. This is an asset class that is here to stay We need to embrace it and understand that I think ultimately the US typically gets it, right? It just has taken a little while so what's the pushback for Jamie Diamond who was on the program last week saying look look who's using crypto You know terrorists look who's uses sex traffickers, you know my reaction to that is Terrorists and sex traffickers use cash if you look on a percentage basis I'm not trying to say that any new technology bad actors can use any new tool bad actors Will use AI bad actors will use crypto bad act I think there are a lot of very good actors in crypto who are doing the right thing ripple only works with regulated financial institutions You can't have anonymous transactions using ripples technology. So yeah, some of those things I think are good political talking points They're not reality. Yeah, well said Brad. Great to have you this morning. They are not Reality again masterclass. That was that's how you supposed to do things you supposed to go on to an interview As the question the best of your abilities and move forward any answer them perfectly these are things that I play these things and we talk about these things is because to move forward for us for everybody here that I think the next couple years are gonna be critical and I need everybody to Kind of be on board with the things that are true and untrue And if we don't because the people that are gonna get into our space They're not people that are gonna they're gonna watch Fox and I watch MSNBC and CNN But then they're gonna talk to you and they're gonna trust you or they're gonna talk up Trust a banker. They're gonna trust you more. They're gonna talk trust a senator They're gonna trust you more they're gonna touch the CEO of a big business So when they're saying like hey, what's up with this solicit activity and what about this is ETF What about anonymous transactions and what I'm always think I need you guys to understand this So when you get asked these questions like well, this is the reality What's the activity? It's less than 1% the ETF is kind of up and down But the long one will be pretty good Don't get too caught up right now just to have a long-term horizon for your outlook is pretty good if trying to get rich quick It's not gonna work out just the simple things like that if we can do these things I think in the next two years, we can really have a great bull run anyhow Let me just think about that in the comment section and then Also, just wanted to piggyback off that a little bit, which is just some some mental aspects of Investing now on this channel. I can't tell you what to do not a potential advisor. I'm sure not your dad But there's some rules we try to follow right one. It's all gone. Don't invest money before to lose everything's a scam It's up here. Otherwise, you don't even trust me Don't leave anything on exchanges. Don't use leverage take profits along the way simple, right, right? so there was this tweet I put out today and I just need the people to stop Not you guys you guys get it, right? But again, I need you to kind of help me out here and I said this very simply stop complaining Stop crying and take some profits and really what it comes out. It was greed So this was a chart I pulled up and it's the same thing going over and over again It's where people say hey, I'll take some profits at some point. They start out. This is today generates. Well, actually no today's January 19th, right? What's a day today? All right. All right. Yeah, 19 January 18. Oh, okay 1130 at night and then of course it came over here So it started $6 and then it went to like almost 10 and I'm saying like people are doing this So like, okay, I'm gonna start at 6 and then it comes up. I'm are you gonna take profits? No, no It goes down. Of course, I'm not gonna take any I just check a little bit of a trickle down I'm not gonna any profits not yet diamond hands. No and like right here. You're at almost 14 bucks in like six hours Or eight hours correct me the comment section You should be taking profits along this way. What are you doing? If you're if you're too exed if if you're too exed you this is what you're thinking. I know what you're thinking you're thinking this Why would I take profits because it could turn X and of course we have this thing right here where we get to this not yet And then of course it drops and you're like, why you dumping on me and then it goes up You're like, hey, we're back and then it drops all again and oh I'm a victim victim. You're not Because here it just comes up again So this was a this was a chart I got it Satoshi VM and I'm ticked off. I didn't get into it early I didn't realize actually you started they honestly, but it looks good. It's a Bitcoin ZK roll up layer 2 It's compatible with a theorem virtual machine You're gonna have a layer 2 solution on top of Bitcoin to use EVM and Ethereum products. That's awesome Now I don't have anything against it I don't really know I mean these are the things that I know about it But the thing that was surprising is everybody's complaining because it dropped off. I'm like, why are people complaining about this? Stop complaining take your profits and and move on So this is what I'm gonna tell everybody like this Everybody's dumping on us, right? If you're DCing with me, I'm dollar-cost average right now I bought a bunch of stuff today like I do every day And I put this out and I told you I'm like look If you dump on me, that's fine. I'm a big kid Old person, but I have no problems with picking up those bags But do not complain to me When there's 10 to 50 X's and I start selling speaking of which there's a link in the description of all my videos Where I talk about exactly when I'm going to actually sell and all the indicators I'm going to use at that point I'll be selling 80% of my crypto and I will be stepping down from this channel and tell the bear market comes So I just want to be clear with everybody that we have to understand that We should be taking profits. We should not invest more. We can afford to lose We should believe everything is a scam and talk for otherwise We should not leave things on on leverage or on exchanges and we shouldn't use leverage just basic stuff and yeah That's it for today. So look if you like today's video, give a thumbs up consider subscribing everything we talk about is time-sensitive


So now we can open for questions. Yes? Louis Schweitzer. One question is the scenario on total energy demand. I wondered how it was built and if there was an agreement among energy producers about the total amount of energy. I'm not speaking about the breakup between different sources of primary energy. But is this scenario coherent with, of course, demographics, I assume, but with what type of growth in the developing world, specifically Africa, Southern Asia? So as I told you, the underlying hypothesis on both rupture and momentum scenario is 3% growth of GDP. I cannot give you the detail per continent, but we have it, of course, for reference. But still, the developing world at 3% is very low for what will be the larger part of the population of the world. So I was wondering simply if it meant really a limitation of growth for all developing countries and poor countries today, which is, in my view, the major issue is the climate change. So without going into detail, this scenario do not take into account limitation of the development of, as you put it, developing countries. So in fact, we have a hypothesis regarding very low growth of GDP in developed countries. And certainly, as you have seen in the slide, a reduction of the energy needed anyway in the context of developed countries, but recognizing the fact that for developing countries, the need for energy will imply a growth of emissions. And that's factored into those simulations. So there is no limitation on the growth of the developing countries, which is one of the challenges because it's how to combine, if I may say, the legitimate aspiration of developing countries for a better lives and the fact that indeed a lot of the credit, if I may say, of how much emission we can have in the atmosphere has been used already by emitting countries. By developed countries, sorry. Can you put your mic on, please? All right. Nuclear appears on some of your slides and not on others. Obviously forecasting the future of nuclear is rather difficult from country to country. So do you, in some sort of conservative way, consider that you take it as stable, and this more or less appeared in one of these slides as an hypothesis, or are there more subtle hypotheses on this issue? I don't think it's very subtle. It's very basic. In fact, the road path, the pathway, sorry, to transition is more the one of total energies, which does not include nuclear. However, as you've seen in the slide showing the energy mix in the different scenario, rupture and momentum, and again, these are two scenarios against many others that you can have, do include nuclear, and it's a growing energy. We will need a growing contribution of nuclear to achieve somewhere around two degrees C, and even more if you want to be below two degrees C, as you can see in the two scenarios, the rupture has even a larger share of nuclear contribution. It's clearly one of the important factors into the decarbonization of the energy. Igor? I don't know any structural change of this caliber has to do something with your financial planning, right? So if total has any figures on what that would cost you and where did you get this money from? Because, you know, people say that it might cost us globally about 36 trillion at the estimate of today. Either you put it as a tax on the population of the world or you cut down the dividends of your shareholders because the taxation of that caliber is unbearable for the population. So the question is, do you have financial prognosis of what it's in for you? And how do you deal with your shareholder or with the consumer? That's a very complex question, but a very interesting one. I think there are two folds in your question if you understood well. The first fold is in relation to a company like Total Energies and how we manage in fact somehow to find our own way in this transition of energy. And we believe that with the underlying hypothesis in terms of the energy price moving forward and we take rather conservative price for oil, for example, we take $50 per barrel. This is public statement, so all of our long-term plans are based on $50 per barrel which you could argue today is relatively conservative or at least it's not excessive oil price for the future. And with that we are able to spend $13 to $15 billion every year of capital investment and we say we dedicate about half of this to low-carbon energy, $3 billion being dedicated purely to solar and wind. And with that we manage because of the cash flow generated from these activities and the selectivity we can apply on new projects. And we have a pipeline of projects that demonstrate that we can do this. I will not go into too much detail, this is not the subject of the panel, but when we run our long-term plan we see that we can continue to serve a dividend to our shareholders and we believe therefore we have a sustainable model. And as you can see on the figures we are also contributing to the transformation of the energy mix you are more or less in line with on the one hand the fulfilment of energy demand. We are saying that between now and 2030 we will grow up production energy by 30%. So it's growth proposal and at the same time we decarbonise and we want to reach net zero by 2050 for all of our products, not just about scope 1 and 2 our emissions but also the emissions of our product. When it comes to a more global question about all of this is going to cost money because indeed if you take today I will just take the example of hydrogen because it's maybe a way to relate to what it means to translate from say oil to hydrogen as a source of energy. We produce today in our refineries what we call the grey hydrogen by reforming methane. We know how to do that. The cost is roughly speaking depending on the cost of gas and the environment between 50 and 100 dollars per barrel of oil equivalent. This is equivalent of energy. So we are comparing apple and apple. So you see that grey hydrogen is not so different from oil, you could argue a bit more expensive, one to twice more expensive. If you want to go to what we call blue hydrogen which is hydrogen produced out of methane but where you take the associated emission of CO2 and you re-inject. You multiply the cost by two or three which means you are into the range of 150 dollars per barrel. If then you want to go to green hydrogen which is the hydrogen that would be produced out of electrolysis of water by say renewable production solar or wind power then the factor is four to five. So you are in the range of 200 to 250 dollars per barrel. This gives you the immediate measure of the impact on the global economy of shifting dramatically to a purely hydrogen source. So this is why we need to have a just transition. You are a very high figure of numbers. There is a cost associated with this transition. And the question is how are we going to share the cost to support in fact the developing countries in consuming these more expensive energies. And clearly we can see because when I spoke about this grey, blue and green hydrogen I mean I'm sure that mankind you know will the inventivity you know innovation will help us to reduce the cost but it will not be you know from a factor of five in a few years again all of this needs time. So that's really the subject of this transition but maybe Olivier want to comment on this subject of the cost of the transition. I would say unfortunately for the policy makers they don't count. And so the green is so attractive that you should not count. That's a pity. And it is a case in France, it is a case in Europe. You take decisions, you put targets, you don't evaluate how you will reach these targets and what will be the cost. What is the cost of a fit for 55? How it will be achieved? No, the decision will be taken. It will be taken sometime and in two or three years it will appear that we will not reach this target. So we will increase furthermore the target and then you are sure to go below. Greta Tanberg. Maybe a last question on this session. Excuse me, you referred to a strategic scenario. These scenarios are based on model and I would say by experience a model is garbage in, garbage out. And I wonder what is garbage in the hypothesis you put in this model. You refer to one hypothesis which is the no in 2035 no more thermal engines. This is challenging but what you know the difference between challenging and totally unrealistic sometimes is very thin. So would you give us some example of the key assumptions on which are based your model? So I think the best I can do is to refer you to our presentation that is online on the Total Energy website because we presented this new Total Energy energy outlook last Tuesday. And you will see that there is a slide that will not come until today which details in fact the underlying assumptions. It was a bit more detailed than what I've just given. We believe that all of these assumptions are possible. That is there is nothing there in terms at least a momentum scenario because we are looking at essentially commitments made by countries and technology that exists today. Nothing that does not exist today and of course we are looking at a time span towards 2050. The rupture scenario differs a bit from the perspective that it does include some solution that we don't really know that will be invented somehow. But we believe it's possible as well but we don't know what. So we've refined actually those scenarios compared to last year Total Energy outlook. And what we try to do again knowing that every scenario is bound to be wrong but that trying to frame somehow the challenge that we are facing and what we can do to contribute to addressing this challenge. There was one last question. Yes, very quick question. When I look at the projections in the world primary energy demand in both scenarios clearly oil is in a very strong reduction. I was wondering what was the strategy in terms of exploration going forward for Total and how you see the same strategy for your competitors. It's an important question in the context of where we are today in Abu Dhabi because of course it's one of the country. If you look at the Middle East region where they are we say long resources in terms of reserve at the current rate of production. So first thing because you may have in mind the statement made by the head of IE Fatih Bihal not so long ago when he commented one of these scenarios saying that essentially in view of the lower demand of oil we could stop investing in exploration and developing new projects. Today we are roughly speaking the demand. I'm not speaking about the production because everything is driven by the demand. The demand for oil is just around 100 million barrel of oil per day. And he was saying that in view of the projection by 2050 you know we should no longer need to do any new investment. And he was doing a linear I would say extrapolation or interpolation between today and 2050. And this will not be like that because this one was meaning that by 2030 which is 10 years from now the world will be consuming 70 million barrel of oil per day minus 30 million. And that's not possible because when you just look at the way we use oil today there is no substitution. So there is no force in the universe that will make you know such drastic reduction. We total energies in our economic energy outlook we are not so different when you look at our rupture scenario which is maybe the most consistent with the IEA you know one degree C scenario. We are not so different when you look at the energy mix and the contribution of oil. So the endpoint in 2050 we say it's not necessarily you know it's not so wrong. I mean it's plus or minus a few million barrel but it's the trajectory. We believe that it will not be linear. In fact everything that we can learn from the past is that in this sort of situation we don't have linear phenomenon because you have some technological breakthrough. You have some market changes and you know the electrification of the light vehicle for example in net zero 2050 if you take just Europe you know this is going to happen now. So these are but it will not happen in a linear way. So what we're saying essentially when back to your question about exploration is that in fact the demand for oil and gas will continue to be significant. Gas we see a growing demand oil we see a sort of a plateau our prognosis is you know around 2030. So in the next decade we consider that we will probably get a peak and then we will slowly decline. That's our vision ending in 2050 more or less where we can see on the slide. If then you look into taking into account the fact that oil fields are it's the oil production. It's a depletion industry. So the day you start to produce you start to decline and you take the average decline of an oil fields and that's globally. You see that in 10 years you lose 40 percent of your production between 30 and 40 percent depending on the assumption. So it means that if you do nothing you get effectively to the 70 million barrel per day of fatty beryl. But since we know that we will need more you know we need still to explore for oil and we need to develop new oil fields. And if you just look at what we need to supply the three year demand as we as we can prognosis and three years is a relatively short period of time. We are short of three to five million barrel of oil per day. This is the idea by the way so it's not myself. And if you look at what we've been able to put on stream in the last three years it's 1.5 million barrel of oil per day. So you can see the immediate challenge is the risk of shortage of oil and one of the many explanation about the current oil price and energy prices due to this tension because our industry has been under investing since the last downturn in 2015. So there was under investment by the industry in 15 16 17 18 19 was the first year when we started to really get back to normal investment level. And then we got 20 and 21 again very significant. So there is an underlying shortage structural shortage of oil production coming up in your in front of us. And as you know the oil markets are always supplied but the price is the anticipation of the shortage in the coming year. So today there is a tension and indeed we need to continue to explore the strategy or the I would say the choice. The strategic choice of total energy is to focus on what we call low cost oil projects. Why because of the volatility. Look at what happened in 2020. The oil price fell below $40 per barrel. You need to be able to your projects have got to be resilient to this sort of element. And this is why by the way we have we have a big presence in Abu Dhabi and in other countries in the region because we believe this is where you can produce the low cost barrels in an effective way. And with associated greenhouse gas of course a reduction projects. Thank you very clear. Just in that case because I understand the most important part is the non linearity. But do you have a sort of approximate trajectory of if it's not linear how it is going to be distributed over time in the next few decades. We can say more or less anything we want it will be wrong. Because it depends on things we don't really understand what we're saying is that if we want to get to the net zero by 2050. And I think this is with the two scenarios we have. You can see where you're going to end but it's very difficult to to prognose exactly what will be the trajectory. But we definitely consider very definitely we think that oil production and I should say all demand again all demand should peak in the next decade and should decline after. And this is taking on into account the significant changes that are being made by car manufacturers. That's particularly in Europe who are really now shifting to electrical vehicles.