In a small town during the decade of the 90s, there was a computer programmer named Alex. Alex was known for his exceptional skills in coding and his insatiable curiosity for exploring the depths of technology. One day he stumbled upon an old hard drive at a local thrift store. The hard drive contained a mysterious operating system known as Windows Code named Daytona. Eager to unravel its secrets, Alex brought the hard drive home and installed the operating system on his computer. Little did he know that he was about to unleash a malevolent force that would haunt him for the next 30 minutes. As soon as the installation was complete, the screen flickered and a chilling message appeared. Welcome to Windows Code named Daytona. Enter at your own risk. Ignoring the warning, Alex proceeded to explore the operating system. Everything seemed normal at first, but soon, strange things began to happen. Icons on the desktop would move on their own, files would disappear only to reappear in unexpected places, and the sound of distant whispers echoed through the speakers. The once sleek and user-friendly interface of Daytona turned into a nightmare. As the minute ticked by, the haunting intensified. The computer screen would flicker with disturbing images of ghostly figures and eerie landscapes. The cursor would move on its own, typing cryptic messages on notepad files. Alex's heart raced as he found himself trapped in a virtual nightmare. Desperate to escape, Alex frantically tried to shut down the computer, but the power button wasn't responsive. The operating system seemed to have a mind of its own, determined to keep him trapped within its clutches. Panic consumed him as he realized that he was running out of time. With only seconds remaining, Alex's computer emitted a deafening screech, and the screen went black. The room fell silent, and he found himself staring at his own reflection on the dark surface of the monitor. The nightmare was over. Shaken, Alex disconnected the hard drive and vowed never to speak of his horrifying encounter with Daytona. The hard drive was buried deep within his backyard, a reminder of the powerful and malicious force that lurked within the realm of technology. To this day, the legend of code named Daytona persists, cautioning computer enthusiasts to be wary of delving too deep into the unknown. The haunting tale serves as a chilling reminder that there are dark secrets hidden within the digital world, waiting to be discovered by those who dare to venture too far. But beware, for once you enter the realm of code named Daytona, there may be no escape from its malevolent grip.


So Martin looking forward to yet another Donegal senior club championship final. What's the weight been like for you guys because you've had to hang around for a long time 11 months now since you're going to get this 2020 decider played and now it's here. What's the intervening time been like since the day it was cancelled up until now just days out before you get to play the county final Martin. So this is the time when it was called off it was difficult of the first month or two like for Christmas it was difficult and not known when it might be but it was once you knew that it wasn't the middle of the summertime and it made that bit easier and the boys stepped away themselves and they got themselves in good shape over the early period of the month and it was once it moved on time moves fairly quickly at the same time once we got to the summer the league game started made things a little bit easier and we focused on the league games for the first month or two and once we got the county boys back then we started zoning on the county final so it was a time as it's 11 months is a long time waiting for a game but it has gone quick enough and we've had games in between so we're looking forward to the next week down to Pernford. Yeah, speaking of those games that you had in between you won the division one league title. Is that good enough preparation do you feel now ahead of a county final, Martin given the fact that there's been no other sort of championship games or games rather a championship level to be played. It's difficult to know it's difficult to say is was we know that answer with a good enough preparation, we know that answer Saturday night but I suppose we've, a lot of teams were weak in the league as well and a lot of the games do one fairly easy something is one fairly easy and so some not as easy but I think we do we train very well we're very good at level training wise and some more training sessions and in house games have been very competitive as well so we've got loads of uprope with some of the boys are sharp we've looked after ourselves really well and we feel we're in a good place but I suppose you won't know that until 9.30 or something even if you're having the steps and you'll hope you're in a good place with us. Yeah, your preparations I suppose from the point of view of one of your key man picking up an injury and a serious injury that too has been very very disappointing and it's been hugely disappointing for the club and for the team but for the young man himself when we're getting and picking up that serious injury and his years down which is just hugely disappointing so it is. It's very very tough and all and I said that last week he's he's obviously got it missing the final and that's what's annoying him more than Anthony and like I said that last week it's him I feel sorry for and you know he's not accepting that he's is not the finalist the finalist playing this final but it is look at he's missed a lot through injury and he wouldn't have played much football this year he was in the county and didn't get too many games we didn't get many games this year so he missed the championship and he's unbelievable the talent is just oozing out of all and and we just haven't seen it right he's the best shape he's ever been in this year and it's just as point he was ready to explode on to see that field this year and from to pick up that injury it's it's very disappointing for him more than obviously he's a huge loss to us there's no doubt about that but I really do feel so sorry for all that he's missed the guts of a year now through that injury and it's just unfortunate but look at that sport deals up these horrible blows and we're not the only club to be affected by bad injuries and he's not the only individual to be affected by bad injuries but it's how he recovers from it and gets himself back on track and he will I know he will look at it he bothered before he's out a year and a half with had trouble before and he came back from that there brilliantly but it's tough it's a hard pill to stomach for him but he will I know well he'll come out a bit again and he'll be the better player for this time next year again. Cruciate was it that he'd done last week? Cruciate yeah. Yeah which is a horrible injury I wish him all the best with his recovery but to be cheering you guys on I'm sure from the south and making himself very vocal. Oh big time look he's been down training with us even since that there he's been down training and talking to the lads and he's brilliant lad to have both the place he's full of energy and like even that he was down two days later and crutches him in a strap and seeing him by the place it was a huge lift for the boys and really encouraging to see him down there. What about the rest of the squad how you shaping up then Martin? Yeah we're happy enough with whoever we're at now at the moment with no other injuries we had a few injuries throughout the summer and then leading up to Saturday evening so hopefully we pick up no more injuries this weekend. We have a full deck to pick from. Yeah. I suppose going into this final and back to the point that you haven't played a championship game now comparatively in 11 months but given the fact that you were involved in so many finals in recent years three of which happened in the one year with this current squad that you have Martin do you feel that maybe with that experience of playing and all those games particularly in 18 and 19 that it'll stand these at the weekend? It does I think that experience does stand here when it comes down to experience and it comes down to the last 5-10 minutes and the games there to be won the last 10 minutes. It does stand here in them cases. And still look at them get over games they're brilliant and they brought the team on so much and they held us in good stead with a doster but in like nearly two years away now since them games were played so they're really in the back of our minds completely in the back of our minds like you know injury own picked up last week like two weeks is a huge amount of time and get it up in about two years. So I think you're writing that there's to learn from experiences like that they're in tight games and see our tight games and hang in games like that there so I think that will stand us but look at the car note if they've been a lot of big games during the years as well. We've played in county vinyls, county semi-vinyls and big Ulster games and games was doing all they're all county players so yes we're experienced but I think the car note are different if you look at all the big games. We've played all air in the vinyls and Ulster vinyls so they're no different to us really they're a well experienced and it's not going to count for much inside or even. Yeah and the fact that you know each other so well as Martin is there any surprises here is there any rabbits set to come out of the hotness game at the weekend or is it a case of you boys know each other that well since you have played so much in recent years? No but I suppose the personnel has changed a bit in the last couple of years as well and we've played each other a lot but like even in the past we would have played the car in the past. Their pace was frightening we could never live with their pace and I think we have kind of caught up a wee bit in that regard and that we've added the authorities and boys like that there the boys with their pace, Jack and Caleb, Ethan they've added a bit of pace to our team so we can probably match them in that regard whereas in the past then we would have felt that physically we could dominate them in the past that we were bigger than them. But then you look at Andrew McLean boys with that that have really filled out Ryan McHugh they've all filled out they're physically they're really strong as well so when we feel we have caught up with them in terms of pace they both feel the same that they've caught up with us in terms of physicality so yeah we've played each other a lot we know each other a lot but they're two different teams like even to the car team we would have played in 2016 and 2017 most teams have changed a lot even our inside players like we've gone for more physicality inside whereas we've had small players back then and the car are no different teams have changed and we know each other well but I think the styles of play will have changed a bit in that time as well. And is it the sort of game, Martin, that you can't be found chasing in the early stages of Kjavis to get a bit of an advantage on you? Yeah, I suppose going back to 2016 where you found yourselves behind the car have, we know the pace they have and when they get into the lead they're very hard to crawl back and more you push on they can really kill you on the counter they're a really good counter-packing team so it is a game you don't want to find yourself too far behind of course you don't, I guess the team made that there but I can't see it going that way I can see it being a really really tight battle, there will not be much and it will be score for score both ways both teams can score both teams can defend really well as well and it will be tight battle, I can't see it in a four or five point game either way and any team chasing it will be Kj, it will be tough and it will be tight. But we're not expecting one of these all out attacking matches then we've seen it under county level where all these Harlins scores were put up in football matches then Martin? No, I think it's kind of a sign of the respect teams have for each other as well but I know they respect our forward line as much as we respect their forward line as well and it will be a case of keeping the score down as much as it is of trying to score to kind of the other end Like even in county level games are ten minutes longer as well you know them ten minutes you do add on more scores as well it's not, it is a different game the county game and the club game but look at it I don't know it's not all about scores either it's you can get a great low scoring game as well where you're physicality and tackle and defend it's an art in itself so I've no doubt it will be a close game whether it's high score or low score I don't know but I've no doubt it will be close anyway regardless. Can you see that the hunger still in the group from which was there a couple of years ago? Oh big time, yeah big time, and it's a different group but a lot of the individuals are still there and some of them are even there from 05 but when you're bringing in new players all the time you see a lot of new players there introduced into the squad this year they may not even see game time at the weekend but they have added a hunger as well to the whole thing. Yeah and I suppose as well and I spoke to you earlier about this, about keeping the young players involved and you've got a squad now that has got a tremendous mix of youth plus experienced players and you've got a good spread of county players there as well Martin. What is it that makes the Connell special around the Paris that you're able to keep these young players there? Obviously you've got the likes of Nathan Burns one of them, Karen Gallagher's back with you as well. What is it because other clubs struggle to keep players but what is it about me Connell that you're able to keep this very talented group together, Martin? I suppose it makes a difference they're coming through and they see a bit of success at the end but for them and they're coming in, it's very competitive, they're coming in trying to nail a place and a lot of the young lads that would have brought in this year, like there's seven right of them would have joined the training panel like Zabor Michalniak, Neil Francis Boyle, Daniel Gallair, Robbie McDonald, Joel Shanky, there's lots of them would have joined the panel and then boys would have been on the terraces in 2019 when they won the championship and I suppose that added a bit of hunger, some of them would have been playing a lot of soccer then and we've managed to get them over to the Gaelic side of things but their friends are playing too as well and they want to be part of it They're coming down and I've said it in the past and I always say it about some of our older players and our more experienced players, they're great individuals and great men as well as being great footballers, they're really good lads, really good role models and they take a lot of them players under their wings as well and encourage them and they're delighted to see, yes they're looking to get their places but they're delighted to follow that competition and encourage them and coach them along a lot as well so I think there is a good camaraderie there between young and older than the club. Would you agree that you've boys are seen as favourites? Not if you look at the betting on Paddy Power or not, I think Calcaro, the favourites are going to be that there but I look at it on the date, it means nothing favourites, the tag means nothing really. You know get over rage and hot favourites against us in 2019 and we felt within our camp, we had every chance of turning them over and whoever would be favourites I don't think it'll matter, Calcaro going to the scheme conference, we're going into the scheme conference, we'll not be paying too much heed now to who's favourites and who's not. Only 500's allowed in, the crowd's going to be split between Calcaro and Nick Connell between the two parishes, it's going to be a different sort of final, what's the build up like now, what's the buzz around Glenty's like Martin? Yeah it's strange, you know there's going to be a final round the corner now definitely, there's a lot of talk about it and a lot of colour going up, I suppose the demand for tickets is huge which is incredible come up to a club game, obviously the circumstances too with only 500 being allowed in, it's difficult, a lot of people are wondering about tickets, will they get a ticket, won't they get a ticket or they don't, where will they watch it, that's a lot of the talk, so you know there's a big game coming up now, there's a huge buzz about it so there is and obviously within the two clubs are within Nick Connell and Nick Connell, they were both football mad, communities really it's all Gaelic in both clubs as well, so there's nobody within Glenty's and Fenton and Nick Connell that doesn't know the final's coming up and everyone's tuned in and they've been talking about it the last couple of weeks. Yeah, this is a very exciting time once again for Nick Connell, listen Martin thanks for talking to us and all we can do is wish you the very best of luck this weekend and then I'll come to you final. Thanks very much.


We have to be in super hyper growth mode.  If you take that out of your mind, right, because you're focusing on that and start focusing on, you need to do this so that you provide the best life for your family. So who cares about what you think and your feelings and, you know, if you're around other agents or if you need camaraderie, the universe doesn't care about that. Your family cares about you making calls and that should be all that matters. That should be like a non-negotiable, I'm going to do this no matter what. From now on we're not thinking about we need camaraderie, we're thinking about we need to make calls because we need to provide the best life for our family right now. That's not going to make your business grow, right?  Unless you're in that boat, you're like just the traditional, like average person's sphere is nothing that's going to grow your business at all. That's just going to like get your foot in the door into the market and like let you close one or two deals here and there. You know what I mean? Exactly. We have to be in super hyper growth mode.  And none of those things, like I don't see the fire in your eyes, guys, where you're wanting to take your business to another level. And like, I want you guys to say, I got to go and I'm going to just crush whatever I have to to make my business explode. And the only way to make your business explode is to talk to the most people. That's it. I don't care and I don't care if you're doing it through cold call for sell by owners, Facebook, Zillow. I really don't care the method. What do you do on Saturdays? Volunteer work part of the day and then I'm being lazy. Okay. Can we not? Can we scratch the volunteer work on Saturdays and keep that during the week? We can. Okay. Listen to me. Keep your Saturdays open. I want you to call from sun up to sundown every Saturday. Okay. I mean, listen, I'm just telling you this and you can tell me you're going to do it. You know, you tell me you're going to do it means nothing to me. I only go by what people do. You know what I mean?   Ricky's right. I just need to talk to more people. So what am I going to do? I'm going to talk to more people. I'm not going to make an excuse that I need to be around other people. I'm not going to make an excuse that I have a nine to five or eight to five job through the week. If all I have a Saturdays, I'm going to take advantage of every second. All right. So I'm the expired listing. Are you doing old expireds, new expireds? Um, let's do new expireds. Okay. New expireds. Okay. I'm a brand new expired. Just expired yesterday. All right. So ring, ring, ring. Hello. Hi, Mr. Karuth. Yep. Hi, Mr. Karuth. This is Lisa Ponder with ERA King. How are you today? Doing just fine. Oh, it's good. Me too. Just enjoying the good weather outside. Isn't it gorgeous today? It sure is. Hey, listen, here's one of your problems. Okay. You ready for this? Mm-hmm. You're talking too slow. Okay. You got to pick it up just a tad. Just a tad. And that difference in your speed, I'm telling you, is going to get them engaged. Because the way that you're talking to me now makes me want to be like, come on, like, what is the deal? Like, I'm already getting into the mindset of, oh my gosh, this phone call is going to be, like, three hours long. How do I get out of this? Okay. Right? You've got to pick it up just a little bit. Not to where you're talking fast. I'm just saying pick it up a little bit. It's like, hey, Mr. Karuth. They're like, hey, like, hey, Mr. Karuth, you know, it's so-and-so with whatever real estate company. How are you doing? You know, you're talking slow and it's dragging it out. You know, and listen, guys, with my scripts. Okay. This is like deep. Okay. Like, the scripts is not like words on a piece of paper. This is real stuff. This is very, this is psychology of prospecting. Okay. There's three questions in the beginning of this script. Okay. It's by design and it's designed to collect data from the prospect. So I can see which way I need to go with this call and how quick I need to speak, the tone, how I need to make this thing flow and keep them engaged. All right. Understand that everything in the script is there for a reason. See, this is what I'm talking about. You didn't really listen to me when I'm talking to Lisa. Guys, please listen to me. Okay. Everybody listening right now, please listen to me and incorporate this into your script. Tell them that, you know, who you are, the company, right here in Long Island. What's so hard about this, guys? You guys understand the power of telling people that you're in the local market. When Russell says EXP Realty, that could mean he's in Arizona, California, Seattle, Dallas. I don't know where he's at. I'm already throwing up red flags because I don't know this guy's in my local market. If I knew he was in my local market from the moment that the call started, then it's like instant credibility. Too much. It doesn't flow. It's very choppy. It's all over the place. There's no conformity. We're not flowing. We're not connecting. We're not engaging. But you are trying. And that's what I loved about it. I did feel like you were trying to get to me. Let's try this, right? Number one, you don't even know who I am because you just said, hey, this is so-and-so with whatever real estate. And you really didn't tell me where you're at. I'd love for you to say, hey, it's just Mr. Karuth. Hey, Mr. Karuth, this is so-and-so at whatever real estate company right here in Chicago or whatever, right? It's like, I'm right here in your backyard, just so you know. I'm right here with you. We are in this thing together. That's what that tells them when you say something about where you're at compared to where they are, right? And then when I say I'm washing dishes and you hear dishes in the background, that's a dead giveaway not to talk about the weather or do anything weird. Let's get on with it because my hands are wet and I'm washing dishes. See, here's a perfect example, guys. You don't use that every time sometimes. And it's really rare that you don't use it. I don't want you to not use it because you're feeling like they're in a hurry. That's when you do use it because when they're in a hurry and you can throw that in there, it really softens them up. It really softens them up. You need to use it in the moments like that, but then there are moments that you don't use it, all right? And then listen, let's use this as a script instead of what you did as far as like, why do you think it didn't sell? No, let's not go there. Listen, here, go with this. You ready? It's like, hey, listen, man, I don't want to take it too much of your time, but I saw your house was for sale earlier this year or whatever, whatever happened with that. All because they said, I'm not selling my house. I'm like, good, listen, I'm not here to try to get you to sell your house. That's not what I'm doing here. I'm here to let you know something, sold and see if there's something I can do to help you. They're like, no, I'm like, cool, is there an agent you would work with? You know, are you looking to possibly do something in the future? You know? Well, bam. A lot of you guys would have just aborted. Let's be open-minded to all the opportunities that a human in our market could offer us as a real estate agent, guys. Looking for only my listing and nothing else. All right, right, pretend it not to be right. Okay, here we go. Ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring, ring. I don't know if he's going to pick up. Ring, ring, ring. Hello? Yeah, hey, bud. This is Zach Ross with EXP Realty down here on 38. How you doing today? I'm good, but this ain't bud. Who you looking for, bud? Bud who? Okay, no, I'm looking for James. Yeah, this is James. That's weird. Bud, James, I don't know. Hey, James. Yeah, hey, James. This is, yeah, again, this is Zach Ross. I'm with EXP down here on 38. I saw your property there on Fort Panic. Popped off the market about six months ago. And I was just calling to see whatever happened with that. Well, Zach, you can look on MLS and tell what happened to it. It didn't sell. Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely, man. Well, there's always a few. There could be multiple reasons why it didn't sell. But I stayed busy here. I got plenty of buyers. But I love the opportunity to potentially stay in touch. Should you ever need anything in the future? Will that be all right? I think it's pretty good. I think right there, instead of going in that direction, I think you should have dug deeper with, well, what are you looking to do with it? Gotcha. Because I'm like, oh, it didn't sell. And then you went towards, well, I'd love to work with you in the future, whatever. But really, you didn't really find out if I'm still even interested in selling. See, you should have dug a little deeper there and said, said, well, cool. Yeah, I do see it didn't sell. That's why I'm calling it expired. So kind of like, yeah, I'm not a dummy. I did see that, sir. And if at that moment, you would have went a little deeper and said, I got you. I see it didn't sell. Number one, like I said, why do you think it didn't sell? And would you still be interested in selling?


Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe Roe v. Wade was a personal friend of mine. When Norma was near death, uh, within an hour of her passing, we spoke to her. And she asked us to promise, promise me, Janet, promise me, you will work to make sure that sad decision can be overturned. Please. And I promised her, I said, don't worry, Norma. Father and I, we will not give up. We will keep at it. So we see that happen for you. And so when it happened, I got kind of emotional and I, I looked up to heaven and I said, well, Norma promises kept. The promise has been kept. And so I know she was smiling down on us. And for her, her soul can finally rest. Norma, your soul can rest and be at peace.


Good afternoon. We're going to get started. Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you all so much for being here. The name of this session is Standing Up for Science. Thank you to everyone watching on the live stream as well. My name is Alison Snyder. I'm a managing editor with Axias. We're a media company based in Washington, DC, relatively new. And I'm thrilled to be here today to talk with this esteemed panel about the intersection of science and politics. And if you were able to read a little bit about the session, the idea is that through street-level activism and running for public office, scientists are really finding their political voice. And the core question that we're going to explore today is, how can scientists engage in politics without politicizing science? And so I'll introduce the panel that's going to help us do this. Starting on the very end there is Dr. Jean Pierre Bourguignon. He's the president of the European Research Council. Nita Ferhani is the professor of law and philosophy at Duke University, where she also directs Duke's Science and Society Institute. And next to me is Alex Thompson, who is a physicist and lecturer at Imperial College London. I thank you all for being here. And I'm going to come to the audience pretty quickly for questions. So please have your questions ready. And I'll be there in a minute. And you can also read more about these speakers in top link, which I would encourage you to do so. So my first question is, in the context of this forum's theme of shaping innovative societies in the fourth industrial evolution, why is this question that we're here today to answer important? Why does it matter? And maybe I'll start with you. Sure. So it matters because I think everyone will agree that we want to get as much evidence into policy as possible. And at present, I think, scientists are starting to engage with policy, but I don't think they do so as much as they could possibly. So trying to get more expert voices involved in the debate and trying to get more evidence onto the table is very important. So that's the key reason, but I think getting scientists involved goes beyond just getting more evidence on the table and getting more sort of expert opinion on the table. There's also the idea that scientists maybe are trained to think critically about any given problem. So what we do on a day-to-day basis is try and solve problems, try and look at them in an objective, removed sort of manner. And that's totally applicable to policy as well. So looking at a particular policy problem, taking a step back and thinking, what is the best way to solve this, regardless of your political leanings, which way we'll solve it and we'll provide the most equitable solution, scientists can definitely help there. So trying to get more of them involved, but trying to do so without compromising the scientific process is a really important question. That's the line. Yeah. And what do you think in terms of this question? So I think we're at a moment in society where the public has very little trust for the news, has very little trust for science, has very little trust of scientists more generally. And I think historically, scientists have approached politics and approached policymaking with the perspective that it wasn't necessarily their responsibility or their duty to engage, that their responsibility was to produce good science and that policy makers had the duty then to consume that science and to integrate it in ways that led to evidence-based policymaking. And I think what we've learned is that there's this huge gap between the public and between scientists and policy makers. And in that gap, there is a lack of common language and a lack of an ability to understand one another. So scientists haven't been given the skills or the training to be able to communicate the science in a way that is accessible to the public and in a way that can inform policymaking. Policy makers and the public haven't been adequately trained in the scientific disciplines to be able to better understand and engage with the scientist. And the result is that we have this collapse of trust and understanding and policies which aren't based on evidence-based decision making. And so it's a critical moment because I think we realize that we have to develop the skills for scientists and we have to develop the skills for policy makers to be able to bridge that gap, to enable them to come together, to create forums for doing so, to create effective science communication training for scientists, to create effective platforms for the public to engage in and for there to be a way that people are trained and understand how to meet in the middle. For me, maybe what is really the critical new characteristic of the moment is really the speed at which things are happening, which have several consequences. I mean, one of them is, of course, that we are actually practicing ourselves all the time. We want to have quick access to information, but also we are not willing to dedicate too much time to this. And still, if you are a scientist, you know that to get some ideas right means a long effort, sometimes a number of trials and errors. And so therefore, you, to summarize something which really required a huge amount of reflection, a huge amount of effort into just one or two sentences is basically a challenge which you cannot face. That's one thing. The next thing is also on the side of the policy makers, they have the feeling that things are going so quickly that if they don't immediately get solutions, then they are wasting their time, which, of course, is not correct. Of course, some problems need to be addressed quickly, but then if you focus all your attention and all your resources to this short-term view, then you are going to miss the next step. So because of this contraction, I think we have both with the public and with the policy makers a new type of phenomenon. So I don't think I'm sharing the view that for the moment efforts by scientists to communicate have not been enough. It has not been viewed by the scientific community as with of sufficient value, which means that tens in some communities like mine, I'm a mathematician, tend to say that a mathematician dedicated too much time to this is not doing any more real mathematics, which I think is not necessarily true. So one has to give more value to this, but also to accept the idea that the setting is a new one because of the fact that the short things have so much advantage of our longer things. And there are really things that are subtle enough that you cannot make short, make them short. So I think one has to be very careful about a general thing, which is a general problem, which has needs to be addressed in terms of enough attention, enough respect to communication with a large public, but at the same time that we are also in a situation which I think is new. And with this, for example, one thing which probably people have not thought enough about is the value of images over text. And of course, an image, the way you grab it is very emotionally, very globally. When the text, there is really a discourse with a line of argument. And of course, for many young people, images are everything and texts are really secondary. And the long text then is unthinkable. And of course, as a result, I mean, I know that some really serious mathematical papers of several hundred pages and you have to read these several hundred pages to really get to the proof. And so how do you communicate that? I mean, so I think there's two things. The community has to agree on making more efforts, giving more respect to this activity, but at the same time, we probably have to recognize that there are some new features which are new challenges that we need to face. So you mentioned the timeline, speed of science. And this is something that we hear a fair bit about how the funding priorities will change with a different party or administration. What can be done there? I mean, how can funding agencies, I guess, help to steer science through the ebbs and flows of political priorities? Well, I think, first of all, we see many countries in which really short-term funding of research is really priorities are set and with no room for totally blue-sky research, which I think is definitely a mistake. There should be a good balance between short-term vision and long-term vision. And in some system, it's easy. In some other systems, not so easy. Fortunately, at the level of European Commission and European Union, the program for the support of research is fixed seven years in advance and with a certain share. So in the case of European Research Council, the share of the budget we have is 17%. We are, of course, dreaming of a larger share. But still, it's a significant share. And for us, because we have the responsibility as scientists to design the program, it's strict bottom-up. We just respect the project by researchers. There is no priority setting. Of course, in all the parts of the program, there are some priorities setting. But in our case, we are really in this what some people consider a dream world where you just let the scientists propose their greatest ideas and the most ambitious ideas. So I think for governments to understand the need to reserve some space where there is totally open possibility for people to submit projects is fundamental. And China is doing it, by the way. Can you, for some of the viewers in the audience, can you tell us a little bit about what China is doing in that regard? Well, I mean, first of all, the investment of China in the science has been growing very steadily and continues to grow. And I think you see that the resources which are available in labs, if you visit labs, really are substantially better than used to be. And at the same time, the quality of the science produced in China is also growing, at least in my discipline. I can be judging universally, but really very significantly increasing with really some of the institutions here in China among the leading institution worldwide. That's the situation. Can you each talk about some of the, you're interested, obviously, in politics and becoming more active. And I'm curious about, as a scientist, like what that turning point maybe was for you or how the two sort of came together. But then also to all of you, what are the tools that are available today to address some of the issues that you brought up about scientists needing to do more to engage and educate? So I wouldn't know when I first decided I was interested in politics and wanted to get involved. I suppose it was possibly to do with government policies that affect science and hearing about them working in science and thinking about, yeah, the sort of long-term view of funding and that sort of thing. But in terms of tools to engage, I think this forum here, the World Economic Forum, the Young Sciences Community is a really good example of that, but I would certainly say that we need more of those. You need arenas for people to come together and share ideas and discuss things to attract people to do this. Otherwise, if you just rely on individuals to put themselves forwards, to talk about their opinions on policy, talk about the evidence that's come out of their research that can affect policy, then you're gonna limit yourself to a restricted view, right? You're not gonna have many people engaging. You're gonna only have the most interested people engaging, which is fine to some degree, but you wanna expand that as far as possible. So I think working to grow more policies and schemes and forums like this one that bring scientists into the fold and into conversations with policymakers, people in business, that sort of thing would be a really big help. But what it would also do, I think, is it would sort of protect against this idea of politicization of science, right? If you have a large, well-renowned institute that's putting a rubber stamp on something and saying we've had this large group of scientists come together and come to a consensus on a particular matter, that makes it much harder for any critic to politicize that opinion that's been put out there, that policy suggestions put out there. So things like this are great, but I think we can have more of them and I think we should do. So I'm gonna headline this first by saying cypall.org is a thing that we've just launched at the Duke Initiative for Science and Society. I'm gonna come back to that for a second and explain to you why we got there, which is a number of years ago, it became clear to me that scientists who I like very much and appreciate the work that they do for society had some communication challenges when they spoke to the rest of us. And so I started a program called Sycom Training at Duke to train scientists to be able to engage with the public and there are a number of these programs that are happening around the world and I think they're fantastic because they really help scientists who are interested learn the tools necessary to be able to take what they do and explain it in English. Instead of having the 100-page, mathmatic proof that you have to read through all of it and have the scientific training to do so, you can distill it and have your elevator pitch to say this is what I do and how it's relevant to society and why it matters. And so that was great as a starting point and I was able to through a great team at Science and Society reach a number of scientists and we continue to do so. But then it became clear that we needed another step because even once you train scientists to be able to effectively communicate, they still don't know necessarily how to engage in policy and the public more generally doesn't know how to engage in policy. And so we launched this website a week ago, it finally went live, which is great, so check it out, scipaul.org, which is a place to track science policy and to turn it into English. And it's starting just with US federal policy because it's a pretty big endeavor, but we take everything that's happening at the US federal level from court cases to regulations to agency actions to congressional actions to executive orders and we explain in hopefully plain English what it does, what the policy is, and then we create a little link that says, and here's all the ways you can engage with that policy, whether it's to write a comment or call a legislator or do some other thing, whatever the action items are, start, you know, scipaul.org petition, whatever it is, create one. A list of possibilities, and then we realize, of course, we can tell you here all the ways you can engage, but unless we create the tools to train you how to do that, that might not be that useful either, so there's a whole learn section on the website to try to train people how to do those things as well, how to write a comment, how to engage, how to give a talk, how to attend a hearing, how to follow a webcast, things like that. And we hope that this is a tool that will work for scientists as well as the public to bring people together. And on the politicizing science, that's the hardest part. So what, we've been building this site for the past couple of years, and the biggest challenge is, how do you write about science policy in a way that's unbiased? And especially because there's one feature on the site that we include something called SciTalk, it's like a scoring system for each piece of policy to say, what's the science underlying it? Is it emerging science? Is it hotly contested science? Is it junk science? Is it widely accepted science? And you can imagine how tricky it gets to score a piece of legislation in the science under it without being politically motivated, especially because one of the topical areas that we cover is energy, robotics and AI. There's a lot of politics that are built in to the scientific policy making and decision making that's happening. And so it's something we have to check every moment of every day. How do you score it? So we score it by having a panel that we, first it was figuring out, is the scoring gonna be good science, bad science? No, because that includes all kinds of normative judgments. Instead, we decided to score it along, is it emerging science? Is it junk science? Is it hotly contested or widely accepted? Those are the four categories that we're using. But we went through lots of conversations with scientists and policymakers to figure out how could we de-bias that scoring system as well. But even just in writing up a description of what a piece of policy is, it's so easy to have a slant, right? You don't like what it is that somebody's doing. It's so easy to describe it with negative language. The word choice you use is so easy to change perspective on it. And so we have found that that's the biggest challenge which is we want to engage policymakers, we want to engage scientists, we want to engage the public, but we believe that in order to do so you have to build trust and politicizing science, weaponize the science, rather than using it to inform policymaking as evidence. And so it's a delicate balance to encourage scientists to engage in policymaking, but to try to encourage them to do so without manipulating their science to inform the public and to inform policymaking because we all have political biases and views. And so how do you engage without twisting the science when you do so? That's the kind of perennial challenge that we're having as we develop cypall.org and we believe by keeping it at an educational institution we are able to at least have, not have the outside forces that act as much on it, but even academia has political biases and political assignments that are given to it as well. What do you think about the last question she mentioned that Nita just said about how do you sort of keep that balance? Well, it's a very difficult issue because as usual, to build trust is a long effort. So as soon as there is one bad moment, then trust falls. So there is this effort, you take a long time, long effort, and then you can have just one incident which immediately destroys things. So it's a very, very tricky business and we see this as a funding agency that you just need one or two attacks on something which has been absolutely perfect for hundreds of cases and immediately you really have to react quickly and in the right way. So this is always this thing, it's not a symmetric thing. So it's well and then or an incident, you correct it? No, no, it's so you have to be extremely careful with this. There's one dimension which has not been brought forward for the moment which I think is for me extremely important because I think it's very often missed with science which is scientists are many of them are creators. So I think we should also develop good relation with people who are recognized naturally by society as creators, namely artists. So I think also extending connection to artists is very important because first of all, it's interesting to force you to get out of your lab and your usual activity to people who have totally different ways of approaching things but also reciprocally, you also get the artists to get interested and all of a sudden realize that maybe there is something to share. Personally, I have been exposed to two such adventures, a filmmaker who wanted to make a movie on mathematics which I said, what do you want to do? And then actually we did the documentary which has been quite successful, that was one. But the other one was an unbelievable challenge from the director of the Fondation Cartier Polar Contemporain in Paris who wanted to also in the same way build an exhibit on mathematics at the Fondation Cartier which first time he came to me said, what do you want to do? And then it ended up being really some kind of a twinning between artists and mathematicians and the way it worked was that they really just fascinated each other and which I think was in the end a very successful exhibit. So this confrontation with people from another world is also a good way of putting yourself outside of your context. And I know for this exhibit, for example, that some politicians who visited it actually saw another dimension, I'm sorry, it's focused on mathematics for that's my profession, but completely other dimension of something they never imagined would happen. So I think also putting people in a different context and to finish with an example with what scientists can gain from that, an example from ERC, one of the programs we made in order to make the projects of ERC Guantismo visible is we had an agreement with an organization to do what we call ERC comics which are web comics. And so of course there are a number of stories about projects by scientists which are in this. But what I really find interesting that several of them after the project was finished, the artist and the scientists continued to work together which I really found interesting. It showed that the two creating a group really found that there was some value to this which could be actually exploited further. So I think this idea of putting yourself outside of your normal context is also a very good way of creating, you are looking for tools. I think a good tool to really force yourself outside of your own world. And maybe through this way, you can actually get back to the policymakers. Well, and I think this goes back to your point that text versus images, right? Images are a much more powerful way of communicating. When we are working with scientists on training, scientists for science communication, part of it is working with artists, working with people in improv and in theater and in different mediums who communicate in different ways, right? Because I think if you can explain your science to different groups and different audiences but also understand those different groups and different audiences can help you depict what you do in really different mediums, it's incredibly powerful. I'm gonna come to the audience for a question just after one more question from me. And that is, I hear from so many scientists to talk about how scientists become so specialized, it's so highly technical that they have a hard time talking to one another, let alone to the public or to policymakers. How, when we start talking about things like quantum computing and artificial intelligence where the barrier to entry is quite high from a technical standpoint, like how do you go about addressing that? I think that's a really important question. I think you're right, within science we're now very, very specialized, but in any given field, you should still be working towards a situation where you can always explain your scientific work to a lay person, to your own grandmother, whatever it might be. And if you can't, then maybe you don't understand it properly, but we've got a strange situation in the way we communicate in the science community sort of thing, which is where we're moving towards this open access model of publication which makes perfect sense because any publicly funded research should maybe be publicly accessible. And now, lots of research is publicly accessible in terms of you can go online, you can download the paper, but it's not accessible in terms of being able to read it. So I think we need more set ups like Neeta's where we can teach scientists how to communicate their research and more of them should be trying to do it themselves. But I think what it boils down to is we probably need a different publication model. We shouldn't be publishing open access papers that are only accessible, never mind just to the scientific community, but just to a particular niche within the scientific community. We should be publishing open access papers with some sort of additional explanatory aids to help a lay person engage and look at it and find out whether they're interested in it. The way it works at the moment is, my experience at Imperial is, if we think we've got a particularly interesting piece of research, then maybe for that one paper, we will put out a press release and we'll say, let's put out an easily understandable summary of this research that'll be taken up by news outlets. Now, that's a backwards way of looking at it from my opinion, what we should be doing is doing that for all of our research as often as possible and as frequently as possible and letting the public decide what they are interested in. Maybe we're completely wrong to think that they're interested in this new step forward in robotics or this new step forward in diagnostics. They might be interested in something completely different and if we just gave them the information to make that decision, then that could really help this debate become a lot more open and a lot more widespread. It's so interesting what science gets viral. So on our, I oversee our science coverage and it's always amazing to me what gets picked up. It's not the things I always expect. Okay, let's go to the audience for a couple of questions. I would just ask that you please just state who you are and how about right here to start? Yep, sorry, Mike. So thank you for the interesting discussion. So as was mentioned, we haven't been doing a good job of communicating with the public and I think part of that is because there's a problem of incentives and right now we are not incentivized to do this. Actually it can damage our career because we have to spend time publishing and doing other things. So my question is very general. What has been done? Are there good examples of this problem being attacked somewhere? What can be done? What should be done in this regard? It's a great question. And it's a problem that the young scientist here at the forum have been working on as well. I mean, people worldwide are working on this problem, but one approach to that, I had the opportunity to work with the young scientist for the past couple of years on something that they've launched called the Code of Ethics for a scientist, which specifically incorporates as duty, the duty to make accessible research with the understanding of what the principles are that guide that, right? So scientists are enabled by society. They're enabled by society through public funding. They're enabled by society to take risks that the rest of us aren't taking and they give back in terms of the research that they provide, but they also are answerable for the funding and the support and the freedom that they have to explore these things by being able to communicate that science as well. So it's trying to develop a code of ethics, but then trying to have that code of ethics permeate so that it's part of the incentive structure so that we understand that what it means to do science is to do good science and to do good science includes a responsibility to mentor, a responsibility to communicate to the public, a responsibility to be able to provide information that can inform policymaking and by incorporating that explicitly into what we understand it means to be a good scientist and encouraging institutions to adopt that and incorporate it and to change their incentive structures to align with it as essential. So a starting point is to recognize that very problem, which is that the incentive structure is completely designed against having scientists truly engage and to learn to communicate and to spend their time being answerable to the public and engaging with policymaking and to try to change that incentive system and address it at its roots and at the institutional level at journals kind of across the board. That's one approach. There are many other approaches as well, but... I think the incentives are the key there, right? You can have a code of ethics and that's all well and good but people need to be incentivized to follow that code of ethics, don't they? So unless it's incorporated and unless it's part of the expectations of the community and unless it's part of the expectations of journals for publication and institutions for advancements or funding agencies, it doesn't go anywhere. I think with funding agencies it is going in the right direction though and John Pierre will be able to talk about this more but funding agencies are starting to ask for evidence of outreach policies and evidence that you're explaining your research to the general public, that sort of thing. But I don't think that's permeated institutions or journals even close. It will. I hope it will. But they need to take that step as well. Funding bodies are starting to do it but institutions are not employing people based on their outreach work. They're employing people based on their publication record and journals have something to answer for there as well so they need to get involved in that debate too. Great. Just down here in front. Thank you very much. Just a quick question. I am one of the young scientists here in this forum and I would like to challenge the assumption that politicization is something which we would like to steer clear of because it's gonna happen whether we like it or not. So even by such a simple decision as having science outreach, we are generating markets. This can rise to very admirable initiatives such as podcasts, TV shows about science which really popularize science but can also give and it gave rise to parasitic journals which are clearly trying to capitalize on our wishes to reach out. There are glossy journals who sell you for 2,000 to 9,000 pounds per two page article access to European decision makers. So obviously there is a will and people get tricked into that and fork out that money. So obviously the wish to have this kind of access is there. So my question is here really. If we want to prevent maybe the partisanship of science but want to foster politicize, well, political engagement of scientists who's gonna be our lobby? I mean, do we have a lobby? I think in that respect the European Research Council is potentially the closest thing which we have in Europe. You are, you should be our lobby and take care of a soft power trickle down approach of good policy making towards institutions and individuals. I mean like, so my question to sum up with somewhat lengthy elaborate statement is who's gonna serve as the lobby for the scientists? Why do you need a lobby? In order to prevent bad policy making and also bad politicization of science and also to counteract bad developments out of the markets which we generate with our initiatives and actions? So I think those are all good concerns. I would suggest that it's not a lobby that is necessary to address it. It is engagement and tools of engagement of scientists who are able to explain but not politicize their science. When I say don't politicize, I mean don't manipulate or distort the science, right? Accurately represent the science fairly and truthfully rather than having a lobbying for a particular perspective unless that perspective is simply to try to put the facts into the marketplace of ideas so that policy making is better informed by evidence-based decision making. I think that there are lobbies for funding for science at least in the US there are a number of organizations and large scientific organizations that do lobby for funding and that I think makes good sense but they don't lobby for a particular slanted view of science. They lobby for the increase of the part of the pie of money that goes to science. I'm not sure whether to succumb to that. I think maybe when you said lobby, I'm not sure that's exactly what you meant. I think what is true, we don't necessarily need lobbies because that inherently does politicize science, right? But what we possibly do need is support structures. So ways to engage that can back up a scientist if they get into trouble in this sort of situation, right? Because if you're individually engaging then you do put yourself in a position where even if you don't politicize the science yourself you can be attacked by someone who has a different opinion, right? So there was an example of this PhD student in Germany recently called Britt Hermes who is a, I can't remember what her field is but she has a blog talking about naturopathy and exposing the sort of protocols that they have in this field of sort of pseudo medicine if you like but she was sued by naturopath in the United States and she had no one to back her up so it ended up with a charity in Australia trying to bring funding together to support her legal costs. So I definitely don't think we need lobbies but perhaps we do need more forums that people can engage through so that if there are, okay this is a particularly bad problem but if there are situations like that then there's a support structure to back them up and say look this person's not manipulating evidence we've got 50 people to assess that and back that up and maybe we can pay for a lawyer for them if it really comes worst comes to worst. My hope is that institutions whether they're educational institutions or others in which scientists are practicing have this support and to the extent that the incentive structure is aligned with them actually engaging that means also standing behind them, right? Yeah, that's true. And providing the tools also providing the legal support if that's what's necessary to do so. You want a brief comment, yes? I want just to give an example of a result of a lobbying by scientists. You know for a number of years research was not a shared responsibility of the European Commission at the European Union level and at some point people felt that so this prevented for example the possibility of funding directly researchers. People were supported either through a network because it was contributing cohesion or through joint work with industry because it was contributing to wealth creation but the support of research was not possible at the European level. So scientists got together in the 90s to create initiative for science in Europe which was really a lobbying structure of many different groups of people, scientists and in the end of 2007 the European Research Council was created. So it took 12 years to get it off the ground and in particular a change in the treaty which really made research a shared responsibility at European level. So of course in the US these things existed for many years because the country exists for many years but in the case of the European Union which is under construction or under threat at the moment but under construction or deconstruction. Definitely there was a need for a group to organize itself and finally bring this up as a collective issue and we won. We had to be patient but it worked. In the back here, the gentleman in the back. Thank you very much. My name is Karsten Otto from Germany, Keisen Institute and I'm an associate professor in the University Heidelberg. My question to you is following. I value it here, the international experience in the front. More than in the past politic influenced universities in Germany In the last three, four years I have a question based on your experience. Is it serious and allowed to use science for transportation of political messages or and emotion or is it strictly to split? It means should science absolute neutral without emotions, without transportation of political messages in the universities? What's your experience, please? Who wants to take that one? I'm happy to start. You know, if the question is it's almost impossible I think for people to truly put all of their biases aside, right? I mean, the more we learn about implicit biases the more we understand that implicit biases come into everything we do. They inform scientific work as much as they inform any other kind of work. But my own personal opinion is that the way to increase public trust of science is for scientists to do their best to reduce those sources of bias, to not use science to try to achieve a particular outcome. Now, I say that with one caveat which is if you know, for example, that some piece of policy or the direction of policy the way it's going is based on bad science and you wish to try to create good science to change the direction of that policy and do so faithful to the scientific process of finding truthful facts about the world and try to sway policies in that way. I think that's terrific. I'm all for more facts and more evidence to be able to create better outcomes. But I think my hope and my understanding of public opinion is the less politicized science is, the less that it's used to manipulate outcomes and the more it remains true to factual discoveries about the world the more likely the public is to accept it as facts rather than opinions. And that I think is an essential starting point. We need public trust in science in order for policies to be based on good evidence rather than simply discarded as yet another piece of political fiction designed for particular outcome. I think it comes back to communication again, doesn't it? My experience of particularly universities is that universities, certainly in the UK are at pains to not be influenced by governments and by lobbies and that sort of thing. And we have a lot of checks and balances in place to make sure that the research is not affected by a particular policy, right? We have peer review. If you publish a paper that is not based on good science then you'll get found out pretty soon by another research group. But the problem is that perhaps the public don't necessarily trust that. And so that comes right back to the communication issue. We need to be communicating more frequently and in a more open manner and in a more accessible manner with the general public so that they have that opinion as well. They think, well, if this science is standing up and saying this and I trust him and I believe that he may have particular political leanings, but at least the science he's talking about, the evidence he's talking about is real and it's true and we can trust it. Can we take a question from over here? Hi there, thank you. I'm a science writer based in the UK and I don't know if this is a UK thing or whether it's across the board but I find whenever I'm asking a scientist for a comment for an article or something most of the time met with some kind of real trepidation or fear and kind of a real reluctance for making any actual statement even if they've done the research and even if there is fact. So how can myself as a member of the media better, I guess, encourage scientists to be happy to comment on things when I'm writing something about artificial intelligence. You get millions of business people giving you their opinions and they're the ones that get heard because they're happy to give them but scientists tend to not want to or even retract them after you've written. Part of it I think is effective media training for scientists and part of it is better training of science writers to not sensationalize the science. I think that scientists have pretty regularly been burned because really boring science doesn't sell good stories and so a lot of times if they're unused to talking to the media they don't realize that they have to be careful whereas a lot of people who are in business are pretty careful about the words that they choose because they're more comfortable and used to speaking with the media and so I think there's trepidation because they see other scientists being burned by sensationalization of the science and I think it's kind of on both sides. We have to figure out a way to not have to sensationalize science in order to sell good science articles and we need to provide better media training for scientists to be able to carefully engage in a dialogue that allows a good middle ground to be found. So we have time for one more question that is down here in the front. I think we'll see, good, yeah. Thank you. Greg Engel University of Chicago and one of the young scientists at the forum. I'm very curious about this approach to building trust with the science community. It's been very clear from the talk what scientists can do to build that trust but trust is obviously a commodity in politics and if one builds this sort of trust it will be consumed by politicians who are thinking of interest balancing beyond merely consuming the evidence and as soon as we encourage scientists to engage in policy and policy makers have an obvious incentive to try to wield that trust and suggest that science is on their side. It seems like that creates a lot of risk and I'm curious about things like change.org, buttons on Cypole and trying to get scientists engaged at the policy level. One example in the US where we see some bitter partisanship is climate and pulling out of the Paris Accords and one could argue, some did, that that has to do with different standards being applied to different countries. Others could argue that it's ignoring the science and it's ignoring the evidence but unfortunately that then quickly devolves into one of the types of incidents that destroy the public trust in science because some people will say that one party or the other is ignoring science, another will say they're making a policy decision. How does one create evidence for politicians to consume without actually politicizing the science because when it gets picked up by someone with a larger megaphone, clearly the science ends up being tainted or the scientists end up being tainted and if they've participated in things like petitions, it sure will look to the public like they are biased. I think there's a bit of an elephant in the room here with this question which is that promoting engagement of scientists with policy and policy with scientists obviously very important, right? But what you also need is engagement of the general public with evidence-based policy and that's a real challenge. You have to be really interested in politics to hear a guy on the news at a speaking event, talking about a particular policy and then to think to yourself, okay, you know what I'm gonna do next, I'm gonna go away, I'm gonna research that particular policy, I'm gonna read three different articles on it and I'm gonna make a judgment as to whether or not that is a policy that will be beneficial to me and my family. So I think we need to promote engagement in politics as well because if we don't have people voting based on evidence at least to some degree, then there are always gonna be politicians who will ignore evidence and go for a populist policy if they know that that populist policy will get them reelected. So while engagement of the science community with the political community is important, promoting broader engagement with politics across the general public is possibly much more important and I think if we don't do that, then the whole debate about evidence-based policy, science engagement, this sort of thing, science communication is a bit of a moot point. So we've got two minutes left and I wanna just take those two minutes to ask each of you for your key takeaway from this conversation. Do we start with you on the end there Jean-Pierre? Well for me, I think as I try to say in my introductory words, one has to be careful about some things which are really general features which the one I mentioned about the fact that scientific community altogether has not paid enough attention to some of these issues and something which are really very peculiar specific features, specific characteristics of the present situation which requires new thinking and new tools, new approaches. And I think we have to be careful that if we just confuse the two, probably something which would be a good solution for long-term may miss some new dimension which at the moment is appearing and for which not much thinking has been put. I just gave this example of the overwhelming importance of the images over text which I think for me in the long run is going to be extremely important and I don't think a lot of attention has been paid to that. For me the biggest takeaway is that we need new tools to be able to engage the public, to engage scientists and to engage policy makers at the intersection of science policy. We have created one such tool, scipaul.org to the gentleman who asked the question. We have sought to try to create that as an unbiased opportunity for people to come together and I think it's important that we create checks and balances. One of the checks and balances we created on scipaul is the sci-talk score. To say one science is incorporated into a policy, how does it look? Did it become politicized so that it's actually junk science or is it something where it's based on good science so that as the public looks at any particular piece of policy they can have a kind of assessment and a way of being able to understand the science that's underlying the policy itself. It requires that we be creative about this in society and come up with new tools besides scipaul as ways for people to be able to engage and learn to trust and communicate across these different divides. Yeah, in a similar vein I think certainly from the scientific side of this debate I think we need better communication and we need more frequent communication of science at every stage of the scientific process. We need to be building trust in science amongst the general public so that if they see a particular scientist talking they don't immediately distrust that person. They do the exact opposite and bringing them into the sort of scientific journey from the start talking about the science that we do at all points through the process is the way to do that and that needs to be thought about. Great, thank you all so much. I will give my one parting thought as neither a scientist anymore or a politician and that is that the thing that I heard from you and you called the elephant in the room is that the importance of the public sort of seeing science as a civic understanding science as a civic duty and not just as education and sort of shifting into that realm and the need for ways to engage people to do that. So thank you all. Thank you very much. Sorry I didn't get to everyone's questions but thank you and have a nice rest of your day. Thank you.


I really really really enjoyed this board Hey, what's up guys, it's Josh here today. I want to review my first ever electric skateboard purchase ever I was going through a lot of videos and there was a few boards that I was interested in that ended up being sold out So I ended up settling on the backfire g2t and I kind of wanted to give you guys my full overview What I was expecting versus what I got without waiting any further Let's just jump into what I noticed about this and again, this is um somebody who is pretty decent at snowboarding I don't do really any skateboarding at all and this was just something for me to stretch my legs in the summer and Kind of have something that's high end but also fun and something to do while i'm not snowboarding Although I like skateboarding. It just has a very grungy simple feel I don't know something about snowboarding just feels so premium and so quick And that's kind of what I was trying to replace with this So this was a very very easy to use out the box I actually ordered a free board which is a it's like a skateboard that feels like a snowboard while you're on Like the concrete and the asphalt and that kind of really wasn't for me You had to build that board this thing came fully set up You literally take this out the box and you take the controller right here and you press two buttons And it works right away when you're paying a lot for a premium product I paid $550 for this normally 600 You're really going to want it to just work right away and to Eliminate the fears that you're going to have of trying a product that you've never tried before that you have All this expectation for you spent all this money. I'm just so glad it came right out the box working They came at 60 charge on the board and the remote so it was good to go So people said that there's large wheels and small wheels These ones did come with both sets of wheels But I'm pretty sure the large wheels have been installed and that's pretty much the only wheels that I've been riding If I do kind of like a six month or a year down the line review on this I will let you know how the wheels lasted and it's kind of nice getting two sets of wheels Because that was the first thing I was thinking I'm just gonna have to replace It's nice to get two and by then I probably will have tried both And I'll give you guys a nice early assessment, but so far this is based on the bigger long board wheels So the turbo mode is noticeably quicker. It was pretty nice But I will say that the whole kind of board slowly loses performance The board has eco mode sport mode and turbo mode And sometimes the sport mode will be faster than the turbo mode If say you try the sport mode right off the bat and go to max as fast as you could go And if you're somewhere around half charge and you go to turbo mode That actually may be a little bit slower than sport mode When it's fully charged turbo mode is noticeably faster And it is nice to have something if you want to say race somebody or go uphill and just have a little bit of extra power You have the ability to use it and it would be nice to have it like 24 seven or have it be a little bit more smooth But so far I really really enjoyed it There is a momentum jerk pretty much with all aspects of the board when you're first taking off and when you're first slowing down It will kind of shift your momentum, you know a little bit either way this again This is coming from somebody who's never owned an electric skateboard So I can't really compare it to the other ones that has more or less jerk I will say that it definitely is noticeable right when you get on but After a day or two of riding I don't really notice it much at all And I usually use the sport mode because the sport mode mainly are the reason I use the sport mode is because of the brakes That's another thing I'm going to wrote down here I didn't like using eco mode mainly because the brakes were very very slow And eco mode it gets you going pretty fast So if you're used to how sport mode breaks and you use the eco mode and you're coming really close to somebody And you're planning on having the same braking power It's not going to be there with eco mode So I kind of just didn't really like that because I feel a little less safe If for some reason I have to stop I have a lot less time But also at the same time like I was saying it does have a little bit of a jerky motion So if you use the eco mode somebody can push the controller up and down really quick It won't really have as much of a jerk effect Whereas the sport mode kind of have the inch onto the brake and inch onto the gas Yes, usually how I do it. It's a thin long design with a spoon shape. So it's kind of like a very narrow board That's why people probably want to tighten the trucks if you look at the reviews on this Everyone says they tighten the trucks right away. I have a size 11 and a half foot So my foot kind of overhangs and on top of that the board has a little bit of like a spoon in the middle Which is kind of nice because it helps you hold carves a little bit better Provides less of like a straight riding feel because the board isn't flat So by tightening the trucks it just provides a more stable feel because the board kind of naturally wants to go on edge Because it is very thin and it is spoon shaped But like I said, once you tighten up the trucks, you're fine. I really enjoy the screen and the information I know the backfire g2 did not have the screen and information. I actually really really like it When you look down you can see if you're in sport mode If you're in eco mode you check the miles per hour and it also has an odometer I think I'm around 200 kilometers ridden right now Pretty good amount of time to test this and I'm actually glad that I kept testing this over and over and over But kind of got a more well-rounded opinion by trying it for a longer period of time I wish I could swish off the kilometers into miles per hour, but that's fine I think other boards you could do that, but it's not a big of a deal. You could always just convert it over On a side note, the fastest I went on this was 41 kilometers an hour I'm not sure how much that is in miles per hour. Maybe I'll put it on the screen That wasn't necessarily the max max and like I tried it a bunch of times and that was the fastest I could go But the fastest I got was 41 kilometers per hour I've had no issues and I've had no falls with it I've had literally no lag at any time with this remote never at any point Do I hit it and it just doesn't really work like I said, you're used to sport mode you go to eco mode It's going to perform differently besides that It's been very very very flawless and you kind of need that with something as dangerous as this could be If the remote was not working correctly and it's just absolutely flawless And like I said, I've had no falls which is just a blessing I should probably wear a helmet more often when I wear this So it's got decent stability, but half the terrain isn't really worth riding If you've got something that's really beat up or any sort of rough area, you're not going to want to go fast To this it's not going to be healthy on the board. It's not going to be that fun of a ride But at the same time if you do go over minor bumps minor little things it is going to go over them pretty well So I would say this is kind of in the middle. This is definitely not an all-terrain board I have a lot of streets around me that I just really can't go on about half the streets I can have the streets I can't and we get a lot of heat down here in southern california So the heat definitely messes with the road So I just definitely want to say there's a lot of terrain that I could see someone buying a more expensive board to Make it easier for something with maybe some more like bike tires on it or something like that Lots of people noted the stability of the board versus other boards I haven't really tied that out because this is my first electric skateboard I would say it's right in the middle There are there were sometimes where it just kind of went over problem areas with ease which I really really liked In my opinion, this is very very very bad at tight turns Which is to be expected because it's a long thin board but For how often you run into traffic or if you're like say on a bike path that turns at a 90 degree angle You're pretty much going to have to get off the board and move it really frustrating because you know Sometimes you're doing stuff the board's heavy Sometimes there's traffic and things like that and it just you need a like a little bit of a Curve to get into the turn if it's really abrupt. I haven't been able to do it So turbo mode stops working at about 40 battery. That was kind of annoying But like I said around 50 to 60 the turbo mode wasn't really that strong anyways It's really best for long straight pathways like public walking areas that aren't too crowded To me I didn't like I said, I wouldn't really want to ride this too much on streets Unless they were very smooth the turning You're not super super agile at turning So there's so many traffic, you know issues that sometimes you just want to avoid riding on the road And then it is kind of a little bit annoying Riding it on the sidewalk because you kind of have to deal with the bumps over and over and over So it's really best for a long smooth path and kind of just getting from a to b if it's somewhat smooth I think it's supposed to be like 15 miles per charge and I get at least like 11 or 12 I would say Just you know doing all sorts of speeds and all sorts of stopping things like that I'm very interested in getting a small board or maybe even a more urban board. I would state about this I really really do enjoy this board does a lot of stuff But I was thinking I really would like something a little more nimble and easy to get around corners And then I also would want something that I could go on all the rough terrain if I really really wanted to So in that case if I did buy a small board and I did buy an all-terrain board I wouldn't have as much of a use for this But it is so great and so solid and covers so so many bases as a first board That's kind of what I would want the turbo mode lasts for 30 seconds And maybe on the screen it tells you when it's going to turn off But you're kind of just guessing when it's going to turn off and when it does it vibrates the controller and kind of jolt The board and one time I was trying out the turbo mode when I went 41 kilometers an hour And I was kind of coming up against a wall But I was trying to max out my top speed It's breaking really aggressively kind of more aggressively than I have at all on this board And I was like cannot kind of struggling to maintain my balance And while that was happening the turbo mode kicked off and the board like jolted while I was really out of balance on this turn And I almost like crashed twice. So that turbo mode really needs some tune up I think it either needs to be a smooth entry way back into sport mode Or it needs to kind of buzz the controller a little bit letting you know it's about to turn off So it doesn't just jump off right when you're doing something insane or You know because you have to put your momentum in a certain way when you speed up and when you slow down So if the board just jolts randomly, you know, your weight's completely not where it should be My overall thoughts is that I'm very very very happy with this purchase I've had so much fun with it so far getting from a to b if you know how to skateboard you pick this up It's just fun right off the bat Everything worked better and easier than I expected. I really really really enjoyed this board I'm very interested to see what you think of this board or what board you'd recommend If you tried this board versus other boards, my buddy's just getting the meeple v3 So I'll probably do a little bit of testing on that It's supposed to be a little faster than this but overall very very good And I was kind of knocking the stability but in recent times riding this I was really surprised how smooth and stable it was Although it, you know, you can't go on the roughest things ever. It's just really nice Let me know what you think of backfire g2t Let me know what you think of electric skateboards Do you skate? Do you snowboard? Do you electric skateboard? I'd be very interested to see down below. What board should I look into next or anything like that? I'd be very interested to see down below We're on the road of 25,000 subscribers and I couldn't do without any of your guys's help You guys are the best. I'm having a great day out here. Hopefully you're having a great day at home See you all in the next video. Peace


Please make your questions very, very precise. Okay, thank you very much. Let's go to the back. Or okay, let's start here, and I'll get you in second. For South Africa, you indicated that you were not considering border tax adjustments, and you didn't say for Australia whether you were or not, but a lot of the literature suggests that for a highly carbon-intensive economy, it can be economic and political suicide if you don't have border tax adjustment. So I just wonder what your rationale was for not considering them. I've got one question for Mr. Adams and one for Mr. Pan. For Mr. Adams, what's the story of Australia's change politically to embrace carbon taxes? Because I know that even the first labor leader, Kevin Rudd, didn't at first enact a carbon tax. So I know you could say government change, but even within the government, within the Labor Party, something had to give. So I'd be curious about what made it politically acceptable across Australia. And for Mr. Pan, your initial slide had tremendous increase in China's emissions, and yet the carbon-intensity targets suggest quite significant intensity reductions, but it's not quite clear when the actual emissions will peak, because even a growing economy with lower carbon intensity will continue to grow in emissions for some time. So I'd be curious what your thoughts are about when you or the government thinks the emissions will peak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Augustin for UNU-Wider, very simple question to the first speaker. I was very surprised to learn that the carbon tax effect on GDP was small, quite minimal. That seems to fly in the face of the usual Hexholene and Stoper-Samuelsson framework, and that seems paradoxical, consequently. So could you please help me, and maybe others understand why the carbon tax is small? Maybe I should be asking James, because I think you're quoting from James' model, and given the last speaker's comment about the black box, perhaps James can open the black box for us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was a question just in front of James. Oh, okay. Ignoring Augustin's question. It was to Dr. Pan. I was wondering whether or not you have very ambitious targets that you laid out, and Fundi was talking about in South Africa, how some of the efforts there are gonna lead to very large increases in electricity prices and energy prices. Do you know what your initiatives are going to do to electricity prices, and have you had a pushback or a resistance from the private sector, from industries, or how is that being managed? If that's the right of questions, that would be fabulous. We have one more here, and then we'll stop, because these are excellent questions. Okay, thanks. We have a question for the last speaker. Would you please introduce how your model's interaction between the climate system and the CGE-based economic system? Thank you. Especially it's a dynamic CGE-based model, I think. Thank you. Let's, Dr. Pan, why don't you start and take whichever the questions you feel are relevant for you? I've got two very simple questions. The Chinese target for 2020 is set as intensity target, and then after 2020, it is very likely, probably by 2030 or so, some sorts of, you know, quantitative limit might apply, and then later on, probably some absolute reduction may apply. So this will be a process. If you look at the historical records, and if you look at the current and projected demands for energy consumption and emission, and then this will be a process. And then when actually the peak will arrive, as you can see from the first slide, the U.S. and the U.K., their peak appeared, you know, some 20 years earlier, and then after their peak, there has been some, you know, at the same level for quite a few more decades before reduction was the case. So in this case, I think that, you know, for China, not only peak is a problem, but also after peak, we have to reduce emissions very fast and very substantially. So we have actually not only one challenge, but two challenges that's, you know, the earlier we have, we need to peak, and then the earlier we need to reduce emissions. So these are the two challenges quite different from the, you know, the path from the developed countries. And then with regard to the incentives for emission reductions, well, in China, we have a portfolio of policies, regulation that's, you know, many of the target, you know, the measures like buildings codes, like energy efficiency standards, they are mandatory. So this is, you know, even if you have the money, you cannot go further beyond the requirements. And we also have the subsidies for renewable energy like, you know, fade-in price for wind power, fade-in price for solar PV. So this, we do have the incentives. And then in terms of, you know, electricity price, if you look at the absolute amount, the price is somewhat, you know, higher than the electricity price in the United States and certainly higher than the electricity price in Australia. So the price has been higher already. If you look at like the oil price, the gasoline price is also much higher than, you know, the price in the United States. But still, you know, we do have some pressing mechanisms which is under design and implementation. That is the emissions trading scheme is being piloted in quite a few provinces. By the end of this year, we would have a few programs initiated. And then by the end of 2015, some of these two or three regional emissions trading schemes would be somewhat, you know, operational. And then the next five years, this 13th five-year plan that's between 2016 to 2020, a national emission trading scheme would be experimented. So we do have a portfolio of instruments for emission reductions, not only one. So I think that my answer may give you some, you know, explanations, thank you. Board of Tax, you might... Sorry, yeah, Board of Tax. You can use whatever word you wish. The motivation could be good or bad, but fundamentally restriction on trade, which would be the view that the Australian government would take and it would never be considered in Australia and certainly hasn't been in any of the policy debates so far. The political system, I'll leave you to try and work this out. Five years ago, Kevin Rudd was elected in a landslide on a platform which included as the number one issue, climate change in Australia's mitigation obligations. A year and a half later, having done nothing, he declared for reasons which are still not understood that he would not be enacting the carbon tax policy. Public sentiment swept him away and he was replaced by a new leader, Mrs. Gillard, who had for some time been proclaiming a platform of no action unless the globe takes action. Six months later, she put in place legislation for a carbon tax. That's how politics works in Australia. The interaction of the environment with the CGE, well, the problem is that there isn't much at the moment. And that's a issue that we need to deal with, in my opinion. I think the issue of a border tax adjustment in South Africa is still being debated. Of course, I have to come here and give you the official position. I think that in terms of the current design, we will not have the capacity to be able to have border tax adjustments immediately. The one area where we might be able to consider border tax adjustments would be for energy products because those are fairly easy to work out the values for. But currently, it's not there in the documentation that we're going to put out, but it doesn't mean it's something that we've dismissed because we have decided to take a phased approach. So we might consider it over time. James, where are you? He ran out that way. Yeah, he ran out that way. Do you want to respond to? Okay. I can say the number is pretty standard for this literature. You'll notice, for example, Phil goes all the way out to 2050 and he gets 1.4% and this one's only going out to, I think, 2025 and we're getting around that. So there's more happening in a shorter period of time, partly because we don't have permits to buy and so forth, but the number is right in the range of what the literature tends to pick up. If there's only time, yeah. Well, I agree entirely with what Channing has said. You'll see in the literature, whatever the literature means, because it needs to cover a whole host of economies, some of which are very different. You'll seldom see GDP effects of more than 7%, 8%, even under the most stringent of targets. Now, you can get some intuition behind that, say for Australia or indeed South Africa. As my slide showed, about 33, 35% of emissions in Australia come from the electricity sector. The electricity sector in Australia represents around about 2.5% of GDP. Now, this is very, very rough numbering. Get rid of the electricity sector, you get rid of 2.5% of GDP and you achieve 35% emission reductions. Now, there's a lot more happening, obviously. We're reshaping the electricity sector. We're not getting rid of it. We're moving it away from increasingly cheaper, sorry, we're moving it away from fossil fuel towards over time, increasingly cheaper renewable alternatives, including PV and in Australia, geothermal, let me tell you about geothermal one day. And so in a sense, the costs are far less, even though the reductions in emissions still remain around about 30%. And similar stories apply to transport and so forth. So even back of the envelope, we'll give you a sense of roughly 50% reductions in emissions with fairly small cuts in real income or real GDP. I'll emphasise one point yet again, at least for my, or for our set of results, a lot of that emission abatement did not come through real GDP cutting changes in ways of producing. It came about by buying permits overseas. So the actual fall in real income, the true measure of welfare for the incumbent population was significantly more than the 1.5, but nothing like some of the dire projections of 20, 30% that I've seen with some of the more extreme studies. Well, we're ending near the session. Let me just take the opportunity to thank our panelists for giving us a stimulating discussion. Thank you.