Closing Panel Discussion (2015) - Science Education (Panelists Godino, Kroto, Satyarthi, Schütte; Moderator: Alok Jha)

Dear Laureates, dear young researchers, dear Minister Bauer, your Royal Highness, dear Excellencies, dear Dr. Barroso, dear Representatives of Parliaments, ladies and gentlemen, a very, very warm, indeed warm welcome, to you all on behalf of the whole Bernadotte family of Mainau, the Mainau company, and the Lennart Bernadotte Foundation. Every time my father, Count Lennart, and my mother Countess Sonja, talked about Lindau, they talked about the Lindau spirit. They were so happy and so fascinated, what's happening in this week in Lindau between the Laureates and the young researchers. And I had the big privilege and the big pleasure to join the meeting for several years to help in the team there in Lindau. And I had exactly the same feeling that the Lindau spirit is one of the most fascinating things I was able to see in my life. I wish you, that you all felt this spirit, while you were in Lindau. I wish you, that you can take a piece of it with you home. And of course I wish you to feel this spirit today while you are on our wonderful island even when it's a little bit hot. So I wish you a wonderful day on Mainau, a good farewell ceremony and now it's my big pleasure to welcome my sister Countess Bettina here on stage who will have some words for us. Thank you very much. Dear guests, I'm not going to greet you all over again because my brother has done so, you are very warm welcome on Mainau. It is my pleasure to welcome you to this closing panel here on Mainau Island. This closing panel is traditionally one where we discuss - not I, but all of us - where we discuss issues that are important to science and society and where we think that science and society should meet more than they usually do. And it's particularly wonderful to do this this year because I think we had a wonderful panel yesterday in the city theatre on communication and how important communication is. So, it's my pleasure to now welcome our distinguished panel. They are going to speak about education and representing the panel, I want to welcome our moderator Alok Jha. You will introduce the panellists to all of us and I wish you a very good discussion. And later on a good interaction in-between the audience and the panel. A warm welcome. Thank you very much, thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the final session here, in the week-long Lindau discussions. I hope you've had a fascinating, I'm sure you've had a fascinating, stimulating week. And this discussion today about science education, will, I hope, top off some of the wonderful discussions you've been having. None of you would have been here if it wasn't for good science education and the challenge that faces all of us who are interested in science is how to make more people study science, if not to become a scientist, to at least have a more science literate public population. As a journalist myself, who has done science at university, it's amazing to see even in places like mine, where there are very few people who understand science and therefore they get tricked by all sorts of strange stories that you see flying around. And it's up to all of us to make sure that we have an educated informed democratic population. Now I am just here to introduce the panel. They will speak for ten minutes each on some of their work in this area, and then I'll interview them on stage here, for about 10 or 15 or 20 minutes. And then it's over to you to ask questions. We want the discussion to go in the way that you want it to go. You ask whatever questions you need. These all four of the panellists I'm sure will answer any of the things that you would like to raise. Let me make some introductions, though. I mean I barely need to make the introductions, but I just want to just give some context as to who our panellists are so that we know where they're coming from. Georg Schütte, who is third on my left has been State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research since December 2009. Before that he was Secretary General of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Bonn since 2004. An organisation that helps foreign scientists and scholars spend research time here in Germany. Before that he worked as Executive Director of the German-American Fulbright Commission in Berlin. And in that capacity he was contributing to the academic exchange and better understanding between Germans and Americans. Dr. Schütte, like me, was a student of journalism at the University of Dortmund in television and radio, and at the City University in New York. He was also subsequently a visiting fellow at Harvard University in 1992. Second to speak is Lucia Prieto Godino who is on my left. Lucia is a developmental neuroscientist by training, and currently works as a post-doc at the Centre for Integrative Genomics at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. Her current research focuses on the evolution of olfactory circuits in fruit flies, Drosophila. Outside her day job though, and this is why she's here today, she's the founder and director of the not for profit organisation, "TReND in Africa", which is dedicated to fostering natural science education and research on the African continent. Our third speaker, two down on my left, is Kailash Satyarthi. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014, which I'm sure you know. He's the founder of a movement that promotes universal education and combats child labour, trafficking and slavery. He and his colleagues have physically liberated more than 80,000 child slaves. He pioneered the global march against child labour in 1998 and has toured the world before descending on Geneva, Switzerland, to petition the International Labour Organisation along with thousands of children. Mr. Satyarthi has addressed many august institutions either the United Nations General Assembly, the International Labour Organisation, many government committees in Europe and the U.S. And he specifically argues that child labour is a human rights issue responsible for poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, the rising population and many other social problems. He continues his work at the sharp end of child exploitation. Maybe he'll share with us some of his stories about how his small office in Delhi, he and his team conduct raids on sweat shops, brick kilns, carpet factories, other firms using child labour, often putting themselves at great risk of personal attack. And last but absolutely not least is Sir Harold Kroto on the far left. Now Sir Harry is a chemist who received the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in the discovery of fullerene carbon compounds. He was working with colleagues at Rice University in the United States trying to simulate how carbon chemistry in the gas around carbon stars worked, when he unexpectedly, one would say, made the first spherical carbon 60 molecules. Something he later named Buckeyballs. In 1995 Harry set up the Vega Science Trust, to create educational science films and on his website there are loads of these films available to everybody to watch. He presently carries out research in nanoscience and is a supporter of Amnesty International and the British Humanist Association, and he says he's an atheist or free thinker, a humanist and a humourist as well. So we're going to get some of that too. Now I'd like to invite Georg Schütte onto stage first, for his comments. From here? Let's do it from here. Why be formal? Well thank you very much. Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here and I'm always delighted to participate in debates like this. Let me start up front by saying that education is always embedded in cultural context. Education endeavours unfold themselves in specific settings. If we talk about Germany, for example, Germany is a federal state and the German Länder, the German states do have prime responsibility for primary, secondary, tertiary education. And so if we discuss this now on an international level we always have to reflect regional, national specificalities and see how they relate then to a common understanding, what education is all about. If I were to talk about these common implications, education is about participation. Education is about participation in economic lives of society. It's about skilled labour. It's about life opportunities, but it's more than that. Education is about participation in political life in public life. So it enables young people to lead a fulfilled life within all realms of society. So why should we bother then about STEM education? About education in the natural sciences, for example in the technical fields, in engineering and mathematics? Given the complexity of today's world, given the complexities of global challenges we do need at least, solid and basic understanding of these processes. And we need the basic skills to understand how these challenges develop, how different opinions develop, how conflicting opinions come into being, and to make solid and profound judgements. I suppose it's common understanding that we do need people with a proper understanding. When I talk to colleagues in different countries, especially in countries of the north of our world, of the globe, very often I'm being asked the same question. What do you do to further promote STEM education? And we all come up with similar answers. What do we do in Germany? We start very early on, early childhood education, kindergarten, We formed almost a national alliance of German kindergartens to support what we call, houses for little scientists. That is promotional efforts to train educators in kindergarten to reach out to the very young people, the very young kids over there to lay a basis for what science is all about. And then we do support national competitions in various fields of the hard sciences. For example, in order to come up with examples, outstanding examples of gifted young people who are eager to enter these competitions to perform, to be successful and they lead then to international efforts, comparisons, competitive competitions for example, in mathematics and other fields of research. A key element I suppose, is of course school education. And the federal government together with the state governments in Germany got together to launch an initiative to improve teacher education. Teachers are the multipliers. They are the ones who can motivate young people to enter various fields. And I'm not only talking about the hard sciences. If we talk about science education, we also need people who have a basic understanding of what social sciences are about, of what cultural education means as well. So we all have, we all follow similar aims. But I come back to teacher education at the very end. Let me make two points first. If we talk about international education, we also have to see what we can do in common. How we can reach out to the respective younger generations in the various countries. And I very much look forward to Lucia's statement later on because she's engaged in science education on the tertiary education, on the higher education level, in Africa. Germany is supporting an initiative on the African continent which is called AIMS. African Institute of Mathematical Sciences. We do support professorships in African countries to educate students in mathematics. Why mathematics of all fields? Our understanding is, and this is an international initiative, it originated in Canada and South Africa, it is an initiative that tries to educate students in mathematics. Why? Because this is one of the bases for natural sciences in general. And to start with mathematical education seems to be one of the cornerstones then to promote careers in science. So science education can be a win-win situation, and I will close by just one figure: 180 million. Why 180 million? I promised to talk about teacher education. My guess is: I read that we have about 600 participants here in this Nobel Laureate meeting. So I'm talking about you. My very conservative assumption is that every one of you will spend at least a career of 30 years in science and research. So if everyone of you were to talk to 10 teachers per year, So if those, well probably my calculation goes wrong to some extent. No, no, I'm wrong. Times 600 is 180,000. So the total of you, in your career will talk to about 180,000 teachers in your lifetime and if those teachers reach out to 1,000 students each, it's 180 million. So the potential to reach out to young people here in this tent is about 180 million students at school. So if we talk about public obligation and the societal role that scientists can play, if you live up to that challenge, your potential is to reach out to 180 million students in terms of science education. So here's the challenge to you. Thank you, Georg. We'll hear from Lucia next. Hi, thank you. I'm very grateful to be here. To me I think that the main goal of science education, it should be to promote people's curiosity, and then to provide the tools to help them ask whichever questions they might have, this curiosity might have brought to them. And I think that when we teach about science education we should teach that the most important thing in order to be able to do good science is to be able to ask good questions. And I think that many educational systems nowadays, they are killing this curiosity and this creativity, by trying to fix into students brains some figures, some facts, that may be very important, but I think that they are not as essential as transmitting the excitement of doing science, and excitement of discovering how the world works. And I think that this curiosity comes very natural in kids so it should start really early because kids are naturally curious, but it is never too late. For example in the schools that we teach in Africa, we always start with big questions. We ask our students, Or "What is the disease that you want to cure?" What is the big question? And then from there we work our way down into the particular techniques that we might need, that we need to master in order to answer that question. Because if you start teaching people about programming or genetics that can get really, really tough if you don't have a final goal as to what is what you want to teach. Then on the other hand, I also think that science should be a more integral part of society, and this has been mentioned before already. And I think that we should aim at living in a society in which families, parents, and kids they can discuss about science and which political decisions can be made based on scientific facts, and in which every day life decisions of people, of what should we eat, or to do health wise, it can be based on some type of scientific solid base and for that what we need is what I call a global science literacy. And there are many ways to achieve that. Like for example the videos, that I'm sure you're going to hear from Harry. And from TReNd, what we do, this counts as well for the teachers approach. In our courses we teach at the higher levels. So the lowest that we teach is people that already have a Masters, and from there PhD students, post-docs, professors even. At this, woops, at this, (laughs) sorry. And these people, they have created what is called, a trained outreach group. They are African scientists working in Africa. And they go to the schools and they go to the public, and they teach what they've learned at our schools. And they try to focus a lot on the teachers. Because like this we can bridge this gap, and we can reach into society. And by teaching teachers and students at the same times, or parents and kids at the same times they can share this curiosity, and they can share these questions that they might have. And that is a very beautiful process. In fact, we do the same at the University of Lausanne, where I work. We have an open day over there. And we do the same. We bring in teachers and students together, or parents and kids together, and I think it works really, really well. Then particularly as a biologist that I am, I think we live at a very exciting moment. With all of this biohacking and open biology initiatives, now people can do in their kitchen or in their bathroom, experiments that before we could only dream about doing in the lab. And I think this is extremely powerful, because now as educators we have a chance to inspire curiosity in people, and they can go through the scientific process themselves. They can teach themselves to do experiments and they can do experiments themselves. I think this is very powerful as well for schools because now even... Well actually schools educators in general... Because now doing practicals, doing practicals in biology for example, this would not be a limitation of equipment anymore because with all of this biohacking and all of this open biology it is really cheap to get good equipment that allows you to do experiments basically anywhere. And we are using this a lot both here in Europe in our own labs to have cheaper equipment that is adapted to what we need. And certainly we are using this a lot in Africa, where in many places the resources are very low. So just to finalise from the organisation I founded, that is called TReND in Africa. We do a number of things and I'm happy to talk about them later, but there are two main principles that are behind what we do. One is teach the teachers. As I mentioned before, we think that if we teach at a higher level, then these people they can teach at the school level. And by this you get what we call sustainable developments, something that will prevail, rather than teaching an individual primary school student. And the other thing that characterises our courses is that we always do them in Africa. In different countries in Africa, but always in Africa. And the reason why we do that is because there are many programmes that bring African students to Europe or to the states. And I think they are great and they're essential and they should not stop. But the problem that these programmes have is that sometimes the students come, they learn to do science with great equipment, and then when they get back to their host institution they don't have this equipment. So they cannot put into practise the experiments that they would like to do, and they cannot do the science that they want to do. And we always go there and do our courses there because that forces us to bring the infrastructure, to either become inventive with all of these open approaches, or to bring equipment and build an infrastructure there so that the students learn with what they have. And then once we leave, this is again sustainable. People can do experiments there with everything we brought. And then of course we have follow up programmes as well. So just to close up, I would like to put two ideas I think. Inspire curiosity. This should be the main goal of science education and then everything else will come easily. And second, I think, this open biology approaches and open hardware and open software approaches are really going to revolutionise the way in which we teach science. Thank you, Lucia. Kailash next. I agree with both of you. You brought very stimulating and thought-provoking ideas. I see 4 major challenges in the world, which could be addressed more effectively and powerfully by science education. One is the social challenge. Another one is cultural challenge. The third is ecological challenge. And fourth is moral challenge. There are several ways to find solutions to these challenges. But the conventional outlook to see these challenges begins with "full-stop", with some sort of bias attitude, political ideologies. And they think that they know the solutions of these problems, that begins with "full-stop". But the scientific outlook begins with a question mark. So when we start questioning each of them, and don't start with answers to begin then perhaps we can look into these problems in a more scientific manner and a more effective manner. I'm amazed to talk to some of the young scientists. They've already entered into the future of science. Since yesterday I was talking to them. But it brings back me, to some of those challenges, some of those harsh realities which I face I see in the world. We have rescued a child some years ago in India. He was not able to speak, he was so much traumatised. And we slowly gave him some counselling. A six year old boy. And it was shocking for many people that his story was so shocking. When he was about six year old or even less than that, his village people and family members wanted to sacrifice him, a human sacrifice. There was drought in the village. His mother was not keeping well. So some ghost doctors, or what you call the witch doctors, they came to the village. And they started convincing the whole village that it is because of this evil soul. And until at last he's sacrificed before some goddesses, at the so called sacred time then the disasters, and more disasters are bound to happen in the village and family. So even the parents of that child agreed to make a sacrifice. He was taken to a temple in the middle of the night and the butchers were called and they wanted to cut his neck. Somehow the boy woke up at the very moment, that fraction of seconds. And he raised his head so, instead of the butcher's sword went to his neck, the half of his skull was cut. But they thought that he's dead. So they threw him away. But somehow next morning some villagers saw, some blood was coming out of a small box and they took him to hospital and he was saved. Still the villagers in many parts of the world believe in these kind of things. They have no knowledge of science. They have no knowledge of some sort of scientific approach. I was sitting with a group of girls. They were having pains and other kind of things, also mental trauma, in Nigeria, in a village in Nigeria. And the whole group of those girls were genitally mutilated. Still they believe that it is good for the betterment of society. Because there was no reach of any kind of scientific knowledge to those villages. We also know that many of the young people are brainwashed in the world. I never met any of them but we all read that they become suicide bombers considering that they are going to go to heaven. So we have to ask ourselves that whether we have been able to reach out to those communities and people across the world. As I said that we have already entered in the futuristic science and knowledge, but on the other hand these communities all across the world are still languishing or struggling in fifth or tenth centuries, centuries behind. This is a big challenge. Other social challenges include poverty and hunger. How is science going to answer? How do these 800,000,000 people get food tonight? How are we going to address the malnutrition of children? How is science going to address it? Other big issues are unemployment and inequalities. In the recent past, 48% of the world's population was controlling, no, 1% of population, sorry... But early next year that 1% richest population is going to control more than 50% of the wealth of the world. These growing inequalities are creating much more tensions in society and they are reflected in many forms, political, or religious fundamentalism and so on. So how are we going to accept these challenges as science leaders and students? Then comes too, the cultural aspect as I was referring to. We still live in superstitions. We still live in blind faith. And how to reach out to those communities is a big question. Then we all know the ecological challenges, including global warming, including food crisis which sometime loom on us. Including water issues, contamination of water, but also other pollution, air pollutions as well. So that is not possible without involving the society as whole. And we cannot make them partners unless we give them education. So education is key to make them equal partners for the protection of societies and for protection of the environment. And if we people who... Somehow morally we should think that the technology, the science has been manipulated and misused or abused in one way or other to destroy the earth. And now we reached to a societal state and we are trying to find a solution to these problems. But we cannot find the solutions without involving the larger sections of the society in the remotest areas in the world, and that is very, very important. Other, moral challenges include, that how... We have seen one thing, that earlier 20, 30 or 50 years ago, there were some sort of moral checks and balances when the pure science is converted into technology. It took some time. And the technology transformed into industry, and then industry into commerce and commerce into market and consumerism. But now this process has grown so fast, there's no time. These things are so intermingled, there's no check and balance. The pure science is immediately converted into technology and then industry and market and consumerism. And not only that, the demand from the consumerism, the demand from the market, demand from the politics, demand from the industry, is so vital that it is trying to pressurise the pure science the other way around. I was talking to some young people yesterday that I'm carrying an iPhone. The latest iPhone. And I was still thinking that it is only having something like two MB ram, or something like that. Or memory is limited, 16 gigabyte memory. And I was thinking that why not it should be 160 gigabyte in my small phone and why should not be 1 gigabyte this random access memory, etcetera. So I started thinking like a consumer, and that pressure goes to the technology and science to invent those things which are the demand and greediness of consumers. So how, when we think that society is a melting pot of science and ethics both, and if science is driven by the pure knowledge, and the ethics are driven by the universal moral values, then perhaps we can keep the balance in society. But if the science is driven by industry and commerce, as well as the ethics are driven by the political greediness of certain people, then it becomes quite difficult. Which we see for the society and for the ecology both. So the greediness of human beings has destroyed the planet now to this extent. So these are certain very vital questions. So what I strongly propose, and I have been urging everyone, democratise knowledge, democratise science. It should not be the monopoly of some people. It should be the people's knowledge so that the power could be transferred to the people. The empowerment of people can come to the knowledge. The scientific knowledge can help in enhancing employability. Scientific knowledge and science education must help in creating more entrepreneurship among the society. And help in creating equitable society and the balance in society in different ways. And science has to go further on that. The crimes against children for instance, the crime against human being like trafficking, has grown multifold. And the traffickers have got quite faster. How can science and technology go a step further in mapping it out that what the trafficking routes are, what the trafficking ways are and methodologies and things like that. Science would think about it. Science would think beyond the crimes against humanity. Similarly, how can we use the power of social media and technology in favour of masses. I was reading somewhere a few days ago, that was a release from American State Department, or I think Defence Department, that the ISIS people or other terrorist groups are much more faster in using the social media. And very smarter and quicker than the U.S. Department of Defence. So we can think on those things, that how we can bring about technology for the betterment of society and how we democratise science, how we democratise knowledge and make science for all, science by all. Science of all, not the science of few people. And young people can definitely play an important role. I was talking to some of you yesterday and today also, that I am planning to launch a massive, and I would say the most ambitious campaign involving young people in the history of human kind. And I am confident that we will do it. We wanted to engage 100 million young people. Young scientists, young engineers, technogrades, teachers, students, etcetera. They should become the voices, and the spokesperson, and work in aid of other 100 million left out children in the world. Their power of knowledge could help in advancing the cause of those children who are left out, who are abused, ignored, exploited, and even held in slavery, and living in violent situations. So I am launching it soon and I hope that the science community sitting over here and especially the laureates who have tremendous moral power, I think that this moral of authority and power is still not properly tapped. It is not properly harnessed, the moral power. Others, your intellectual power, your academic power has been used by the world and you have made the world much better world. But how you moral authority and power, you also have emotions, you also have hearts. You also have souls and why not your souls? Why not can the soul of science make this world a better world for our children, so that the generations to come will say that this was the generation who has made this world better and beautiful for them through science. So science is important. Harry. Okay, yes. It's a pleasure to be here on a fantastic day in this beautiful place. And as Henry the Eighth said to his wife, "I shant keep you very long." Okay. I think the first thing we ask is what is education for? And that for me it's to be an enlightened person. That means that you can think for yourself as I discussed yesterday. And that hopefully the environment in which you are, allows you to speak your mind. Unfortunately, as we know in many countries that is not possible. There's not enough freedom of people to actually say what they think and what they mean. And I think also in many places, they can't wear what they want to wear or they have to wear this, that and the other. I think these are things that we need to inject into the education system, so that you're an individual. Kant said you need this freedom to speak your mind and also to act on your own thoughts without another's guidance. Not to take the dogma. The first point of science is not to accept what any other scientist says and particularly not Nobel Prize winners. Number two: I think a teacher has to uncap the creative potential of every student. And that's a big problem. In the U.S.A in Florida they're always changing things, in the U.K. they're changing things. And so there's a problem. And what is it? Well, how many of you got brothers and sisters? Your brother or sister is very different from you. And a teacher has 30 kids in the class. They're lucky if they have 25% of those kids interested in what they're talking about. And you know, I mean I know, I wasn't very good at French, so I came 31st out of 33 and my dad gave me a French dictionary for my birthday. So that was a good incentive to do better because I didn't want another one. But I wasn't very good. But two and three year old kids in France are fluent in French and we start at 8, 9, and 10 and I wasn't very interested. Because I didn't need to communicate. I'm not bad in German because my parents used to occasionally speak German, not always, only when they want me, they talked about me and they knew i didn't speak much German so I didn't understand. But I learned enough, I mean, especially when my dad said: "This boy is eating like an ape." I speak a little German, but only very basic German. But I didn't have any lessons in German. It was in the environment. So our whole approach to language teaching is ridiculous, because I go to school, I get a paper with a lousy drawing of a dog and it said "chien". I can't even say it. The whole input process in language later on in schools in general is unnatural and we have to recognise that. So I didn't even want to learn German, but it went in automatically. Now the other aspect of science or philosophy, natural philosophy, is I think it's Socrates who said something like, And the biggest problem today is that we have people who go to war because they don't agree with these other people. If only you could sit down together and we have to teach our young people that when they don't agree with someone they have to discuss it and try to understand why there are differences. And I think the other thing that really bothers me is competition. I don't like competition. And we have the top of the form and the bottom of the form. We are actually neglecting in general, the two-thirds, those that can't be in the top 10 of the 30. And we have to recognise that by and large, in many cases there are people like me in French, who you know who were sitting there. I don't need, no one spoke French in Bolton Lancashire in 1946, okay. I didn't need to know that. But my father insisted that I needed to know some science. And I found that more interesting than learning a language, which was not helpful for me in everyday life. And if we recognise that I think that's good. Now it turns out there's something useful, and I think, my final point is, that the teacher has to not say, "you do something you enjoy". Because I enjoy a glass of wine with my feet up. I don't enjoy hard work anymore than anybody else does. But we have to create children who are so focused on something that interests them that hard work is easy. That is what they need. I mean to say do something you enjoy... Well, I do enjoy science I suppose. But somehow you get so focused that it doesn't matter. And finally we have new tool. It's the internet, and I hope maybe we'll discuss it then. You have to do what you think is important for education. And I'm exploring the way that the internet can help individual kids who are probably are near the bottom of the form. Well thank you very much to all our panellists, and thank you as well. You all kept perfectly on time. With all of your comments. This gives us lots of time for questions. And I'm going to ask a few questions now, while to give you some time to think of your own as well. And I'm going to start with you, Georg. We've heard about the range of possibilities of what science can do, what moral authority it might have. We've heard about the challenges in places where there is no science education, and the sort of places we have nothing. But I want to start with the science education in Germany. So Germany is in many respects already achieving many of the greatest things to do with science. You have a great well educated population. Many, many scientists and engineers, an enviable economy based around those subjects. I just wonder if you could talk us through why you think Germany particularly likes science? I'm not sure whether Germany particularly likes science. We try to motivate the young people to enter, at least to develop an interest, in science. We do have about 40% of the student population being enrolled in STEM disciplines. That's good. We do see that the number of women students, female students is probably lower than in other countries. So that seems to be a challenge. So we try to develop special incentives for careers of women in the hard sciences. The number of women students graduating in STEM disciplines is increasing. We had about 20,000 in 2005. We had about 46, 50,000 per year now, in these years today. But it still seems to be a challenge. And so if we talk about democratisation of science and education, I suppose access wise we are doing quite well in Germany. Everybody is entitled to a decent education. We are a fairly wealthy country. We can afford by tax payers money, public education on a fairly high level opening up opportunities for many students. Are they good enough? There still is, as you said, each and every country has those two-thirds and we not only have to bother about those who are over achieving, we also have to bother about those who are under achieving. And the question is how can we broaden opportunities for those who do not find their proper place in the educational system. There is one point in which I do not agree. And this is democratisation of the science as a process by and in itself. I am very much in favour of democratising access, democratising opportunities. But if we talk about the outcome of science, that is not a democratic process. The outcome of science. The hardship to come to the right conclusion can never be democratic. It's a completely, it's teamwork in some disciplines. It's isolated work in others. But it's not a democratic process, it's a quality driven process. That has to remain the tyrannical process that it is inside labs and the fighting and all of that. Harry you wanted to come in for just a second. I think that if you look at the developments in science and technology, it started in Europe when the enlightenment took over. Like Kant was saying, you think for yourself. And I think what one reason is that in Germany it's one of the more enlightened environments for young people to grow up in. And if you look at education and in particular my favourite president Madison. He really was very influental in making sure that dogma, particularly religious education, that these people were not involved in public education. And that there is a conflict. And that is a conflict as far as I am concerned, is that you have to be open to thinking for yourself and not accepting the dogma which is around. And I think it's not an accident as they say, that scientific education, science's first law is: don't accept what you are told. And how can you decide what you're being told is actually true. Not that things that are not true are not important. And many people believe many things but they're not in the scientific area and one of the things about science is, it's not what you want it to be. It wasn't created. It was the way it is, the physical and actual world. And we look at that and we check whether our ideas are correct. But if you have an environment in a country in which you don't allow openness and questioning, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to act. And you make that dangerous for individuals like Malala, not allowing education, then you're not going to have an environment in which young people will develop a general, natural philosophical approach because they'll be frightened of the results they're going to end up with. That is the motto of the Royal Society in fact. I can't remember it in Latin. It is ingrained in those hallowed halls, too. I'll come back to you actually, Harry, in a little while about the attitude of society in America from what you've seen. Because I think that's also interesting. Well, America's not homogenous. Well this is the... There are smart guys are in California, and Chicago and Boston. Well I don't want to ask you now. In the middle, you've got science teachers who don't believe in evolution. Well, let me ask you this right now then, since you brought it up. America in many measures, is the number one country in the world for science, but also you have the largest number of people who almost refuse to believe any of the results of their own science. You've been working there for a long time. It's only 3%, 2% percent of them. You only need 2% of smart Americans to make them number one, because there are a lot of them. And half of them come from Europe anyway. Well they do. And China. I'm curious, as someone who's worked in America for quite some time, as someone who's been based in America for some time now. Does that sort of, does that disparity between what America and its scientists and its international reputation has achieved, the disparity between that and what happens at school in primary level where in many places, it's still wrong to teach evolution as a fact. Does that bother you? Oh, absolutely. Because America has a fantastic education system in religion. From the age of the one year old, to they go and learn about this thing. The religion you say? Yes, then they come with the evolution. which is a problem for young people, and for teachers. We've got teachers. A teacher came to me and said, I asked him how old is the Grand Canyon. And she said 10,000 years old and she's a science teacher. And I said well, pfft. We can show that it was carved in 6 or 20 million years and the rocks at the bottom are 200 million years old. And then she wanted my autograph. Well it's funny with, and I won't talk about creationism for any length of time, but those people who believe that, certainly you've experienced I'm sure, they like the clothes of science. They like the reputation of science. They just don't want to actually have to do the hard work of the business of it. So they've come up with intelligent design as a way of creating a scientific explanation for all these things. But let's not discuss that, that makes me too angry as well. Lucia, I want to talk to you about a bit more of the work you're doing in the African countries. You've already talked about the infrastructure problem there. So you know, you don't want to teach people necessarily in well-equipped labs, then to go back home and it's difficult for them. But what kind of infrastructure do you need to answer some of the big questions that you ask? What is an example of one of the big questions you've asked? Ooph, that's a hard question. So well, so that's one thing that we try to teach in the courses. We try to teach that in order to do good science there is a minimum that is required, but a lot of the fancy stuff is not needed. And also, as I was saying, with these open biology approaches for example, you can build your own PCR, with off the shelf electronics. You just need to go on the internet, look for the plans and do it. So what we do is a combination of these two things. On the one hand, in Europe we are really lacking... We get for example, I'm going to use an example that is quite recent. The university where I work, we had a confocal microscope. Most people will know what this is. It's a very expensive piece of equipment and it is very useful for doing a lot of, for answering a lot of questions in science. It worked perfectly fine. We bought a new one. No one wanted to use the old one anymore. There was like the new one is oversubscribed. The old one noone used it, so the university said, well it's not working, it's not being used anymore, but it works perfectly fine, we are happy to donate it. So actually just this week, the confocal microscope we sent it to Kenya. So it has been now installed at ICIPE. It's the first confocal microscope in Kenya. It's fully working now and this was second hand. This is one thing that we do in terms of infrastructure. On the other hand, a couple of months ago, we had a course that was called, And basically every group of students that went there, they build their own 3D printer, then they took it with them. So that now they know how to build it, so they know how to repair it if it breaks. And we told them how to make the designs and how to build a number of things. So of course to do good science, sometimes you don't need the latest, but you need the minimum. And what I think is great is that by us doing the courses there we can either bring the equipment that we need or teach how to improvise and how to create. But I'm curious, when you said you have the big questions and you start from there. And then you ask, and then you give them the tools to understand the answers to that. Which is a great way of teaching people something. Because it's already something that they're interested in. You know that. But I'm curious, what kinds of questions you get. So for example, one modules in our... We have several courses, and the one that I organised myself, personally, we have one module that I teach together with a post-doc from the Rockefeller in New York. And we are teaching about olfactory, so we, we are teaching about olfaction. That is what I study, in insects. So we study how olfactory receptors work. And this is interesting because we did it in the context of, if we understand how mosquitos, how Tse-Tse flies find ourselves, then maybe we can find intelligent ways of fighting that. For example at the moment the best antimosquito that we have, and I saw that there were some put over there, it's called Deet. This is like more than 50 years old. It's not particularly good. It dissolves plastic. It's not particularly good to put on your skin, for example. But if you have good understanding how mosquitos detect humans then maybe we can design something intelligently that is better. Also many people probably know about the CRISPR/Cas9 technology that it is a new genome editing set technology by which we can edit genomes very easily and very cheaply as well, as opposed to how it was before. So we start by the big question, because many of our students for example, might be interested in finding ways to stop or to make slower the propagation of vector-borne disease. And so this is for example a big question. And then we bring the tools. And like many cases you just need a PCR machine a manipulator, a microscope. Okay. Kailash, I want to come to you now. You talked very movingly about the ability that science has to answer these social, cultural, ecological, moral questions and help people through these things. No one here can argue that actually knowing more science or being educated in those things would've meant that someone in that village would've said, And I just wonder, do you think that science itself has some specific role in that? Or is it just knowledge in general? I mean, would a knowledge of history or politics or art have similarly helped in that case? Yes. It's a combination of several things but when we talk of science education then how are we going to disseminate the very fundamental knowledge of science to the people to change their outlook in society? So some of the basics of science, can be most powerful tools in changing the mindset and fighting the superstitions and all these blind faiths in the society. That is important. Coming to your question also, when I'm talking about the democratisation of scientific knowledge or science it does not mean that we are going to establish laboratories in villages and so on, and all these big bang theories and these things would be understood by everyone easily. But some section of society, people like us have reached to the future of science, as I said before. But millions of people, hundreds of millions of people, rather billions of people are still lagging behind. So how are we going to connect with them? How are we going to make them more logical? Or open up their mind? So the fundamental values and principles of science could be most powerful to reach out to them. And also some simple techniques to educate them. Through media, through digital education and so many other ways to do it, will bring them to the age of knowledge a little bit. Not the futuristic knowledge, but somehow they would be connected with education. So how can we impart education by using knowledge? And how can we impart scientific education, or logical education through the science? That was my contention. The second thing is that when... As scientist generally think, when I was studying in engineering, I was always thinking. I was specialising in transformer design engineer. I was a transformer design engineer and my specialisation was to save energy while transmitting high voltage through the transformers. So things like that. So I was thinking more and more about it. And I understood that when we get some sort of achievement in science and technology, both, we look for the next level, and next level, and the higher level and higher level. And we go on like that. Sometimes we have to look at whether the benefits of that achievement have trickled down to the masses and to the society or not. There are many things which have not gone to the society so far. Right from the fundamental principles of scientific knowledge up to the technological accomplishment have not been democratised. So those things are important when we talk of democratisation of knowledge and democratise of scientific knowledge, to involve the society as whole. And they should also feel that they are the partner in the growth and development of society, and protection of ecology and environment. So my notion about democratisation of knowledge was to make them partners. Make the entire world partners in advancing the values of science which will help in making this world more safer and better. I've got one note I'd like to just raise and Lucia wants to make a comment too. But just before that I want to say, it's as much knowing facts about science surely as thinking scientifically. So what Harry was saying about questioning things all the time. So thinking does that make sense why are you saying that in that way, rather than "here's a scientific fact that someone's given me. I'm going to employ it in some way." Although that is important as well. I mean there's a balance to be, I suppose, struck between there. But Lucia you had a comment. Yeah, actually two things related to what we are talking. One is related to this thing of how science can help make societies better. For example, something that our outreach, the TReND outreach team does when they go to villages and to schools to talk about science, they talk about, a lot of them they are neuroscientists, so they talk about the biological cases of psychiatric disease and other brain disorders. Because these are very badly stigmatised in many places in the African continent. And the reason why they are so stigmatised is people really, it's very mysterious, the human mind, and people don't know where these things are coming from. And well, they tell me, I don't go there. It is the African team who does that. But they tell me that when they go they explain what are the biological causes, when they go with these electrophysiology amplifiers that we build, we taught them how to build in our courses, and they teach the students about how the brain works and what happens when something doesn't go well. In a way it gives tools to people to think more critically. And to have new information that may allow them to be more gentle on others. This is what we were talking about before. Okay. I'm going to come to all these questions in just a moment. But if you... I think to ask questions that you might have to line up at these microphones. Is that correct? So if you have questions, please can you start lining up on these microphones now. I'm going to ask a couple more on the stage and then we'll come to you, so please feel free to get there and I'll come to you in a moment. Harry, I want to ask you the final question on stage just now before we go to the audience. You mentioned your tools on the internet. And I've seen some of these films and they're fantastic. Can you just describe what the films are, and what you're aiming for, what kind of things you're experimenting with? Well, I said before that we've been trying to educate for thousands of years and we've still got a problem. But we have this new tool, the internet, and I've been exploring just how... Ways of using it. And finally starting somewhat here, because we did recordings of Nobel Prize winners spouting wisdom so called and put that on my Vega website. But then I realised very soon that I couldn't get any money. So I thought there's another way around and that is to create a website where young people who are students, undergraduates, teachers could actually put on the web, their ideas, their creativity. Some of the best are high school students. Margaret and I have just funded a prize for high school kids to create material about things that they're interested in, and in fact, Wolfgang helped me get to pay for that prize. So we can now fund another prize. And so and it turns out that this is not a passive thing because what we're doing is, we're getting kids to actually create educational material that they're passionate about. One kid got something on YouTube with 6,000 hits and I said, And it turns out that you can use this in a different way. The internet is not just about thousands of hits, it's individual. You can put up your ideas there. And so it's democratising teaching of individuals who have got good ideas. And in fact, it turns out even better than that because what we are doing is creating nodes all over the world. In Japan, in Croatia, Brazil, UK, US, and other places. And hopefully in Germany, too. Where these nodes are going to collect the ideas of individual people. This is something I'm passionate about, I want other people to know. Altruistically and sometimes anonymously. And they can put it there and we can link to that to a gateway site to say "Here are some ideas." But the best thing in some ways is the individuality of it. And we use those as URL's in the references. And therefore you have a reference. And you put the URL in and it goes to someone, a young Indian girl in Japan. A researcher wanted to go back to India. She made an eight minute presentation, sent it back to Maganda University and she got a job there without an interview. So we can give you the best... The internet can give you an interview effectively in which you're in control. You can present yourself and scientists have already got that method. They're all doing presentations, you can put that up there. And if we get this kid who gets a job, then we've won. Of course, thousands of hits are wonderful, but if you get to postdoc and our kids who are doing that through FSU, they got Goldwater scholarships, post-docs by return, four tenure track offers on eight minutes of presentation. You spend hours on your resume. If you spend eight minutes in our studio making a presentation the way it's done here with a dual window, you can see you and your PowerPoint. And they get jobs as I say, win competitions. Which I don't like competitions, but nevertheless you've got to get a job sometime. And then we can help you to do that. Well I think if you're wanting to set up a Germany port you are next to the right person. It's called Geoset. G-E-O-S-E-T. Global Educational Outreach for Science, Education and Technology. I'm changing it STEAM, so it's, Science Technology Engineering Arts and Math. GEOSTEAM, is that's what it's going to be called? Yeah, the STEAM all white and then we all end up with GEOSTEAM. That's my new logo. That's fantastic. Let's go to audience questions now. Obviously we've got lots already prepared. And what I'd like to do is that I can take one from the front and one from the back at the same time. And if you've got specific members of the panel you'd like to answer the question, please do say so as well. The front here, if possible. Do you want to ask your question? And then we'll take the one at the back as well. Good morning everyone. My name is Miriam Pümmen and I just started my PhD as a member of the International Panda Collaborations a month ago. Because this is precise to probe the Quantum Chromodynamics with its unique physics programme. It is the only experiment worldwide working which will work with an antiproton beam at a specific energy range able to do so. This project used to be funding core project of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research of Germany. Because well established experts repeatedly emphasised it's meaning and high importance for the progress in hadron physics. But recently a review committee surprisingly ranked the discovery potential of this experiment low. And thereafter, our funding proposals were rejected by the Ministry of Education and Research. Sorry, I'm quite nervous. Do you have a question? Yes I have a question to the state secretary of the Ministry for Education and Research. I would like to know if there will be further funding for our collaboration? Since the science education of promising and eager young scientists is endangered in Germany. And this is like the only place in Europe where this kind of experiment is based. And I think we have a great chance to do world class physics at this experiment. Thank you very much for your question. And one just to the back as well. I've not a question exactly, I have rather a comment. I really like the concept of tech-talks or science-slams, where somebody tells, or explains, our research in a very original and simple way to the non-expert audience in only 10 minutes. I did this myself and I can just encourage everybody to do this. It really broadens your horizon to try to explain the specific topic you're working on in a way that even grandma could understand it. So yeah, I think science education starts when you can explain your science to everybody. Thank you for that comment. That was your comment, you didn't want to... It was just a comment, no question. Okay, so thank you. Georg, maybe you should address this lady's question first if you can. Well, as to science slams, they are wonderful. As to Miriam's question, maybe we should talk about it afterwards just to give you a brief overview. It's all about a large research infrastructure in the physical sciences. A particle accelerator to be built in Darmstadt, current cost estimates are about 1.5 billion euro. And the project will be delayed by four to five years. And there is an estimated cost overrun of 350 million. And so the international community has to get together to find appropriate funding. We had an international council meeting two days ago, and I'm going to visit all European and international partners to see whether we will be able to at least find part of the money. And so the question then is, to what extent will we be able to fund this large research infrastructure? Just a minor clarification. There was an international expert panel and the expert panel did not downgrade the physical insight potential of hadron physics in general. But it compared it to other fields of science and to time. And the committee's conclusion was that in 2025 when the machine will be in full operation, what insight potential do we still have in hadron physics? Or will talented young people, just like you, will they have gone to different places already? And will they already have published the nature paper by then? And the rest we should talk about... I think you should maybe take that discussion elsewhere, but thank you, Georg. You have an audience for the education secretary, which is wonderful. Can I have some more questions? And just because we don't have a huge amount of time for questions, can I just ask you to keep your questions short if possible? I would like to give two comments. First Mr. Satyarthi and Mr. Schütte. I'm very thankful Mr. Satyarthi, what you do for children. But I think that you should think more strategically now and raise the question on how to build or change a system, where such children abuse will never happen. I am personally coming from the Soviet Union and I was an absolutely happy child in this system. Because I got for free the education, medical system, the total social security. It was the best education and so on. And I think it's extremely important that you address to the experience of the Soviet Union because such abuses are selling children for prostitution or burying them alive. They were unimaginable in the Soviet Union. So these problems were 100% solved. And this is a real experiment that you may wish. This was a real system which worked and worked perfectly. It is extremely important that you address to this experience. So this was my comment. And to Mr. Schütte, you said that science cannot dictate, as I understood, or cannot be democratic. Yeah, you said. But from my point of view the scientists, I have quite experience. I think that the scientific point of view is most objective and optimised which you can imagine of. Because it is based on the laws of nature, which is objectives I think by the definition and experience. Just like I said, one simple example: If you live in a communal house with other families and if you would like to make some changes to such a house, change something, German law obliges you to talk to the engineers first. Otherwise because the house will collapse. You know, this can be also interpreted as a dictatorship of this engineer. So I think here, you must separate the sense. And so adequately understand what the science is. Okay, thank you very much. I don't know if either of you want to just quickly respond to. I mean there was no question as such but. Well there are many experiments in the world where the societies are changed. And one of the fundamental things, I would say the most fundamental thing, was those governments in societies invest in education. Turkey is one example. South Korea is another example. Some parts of India are definitely a good example. Where the government and society has put more emphasis on education. And that has helped. And that education and knowledge was converted into economy growth, as well. So the distribution of the growth and development, more inclusive development, more inclusive education, these challenges still remain. But definitely education has played the most important role in changing the societies and bringing on the part of growth and development. In Russia now, I'm not talking about the old Soviet Union. But now in some of the former Russian states, we see the huge problems of child trafficking. A number of girls are trafficked from Ukraine, from different parts of the... Exactly because this is a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. So they are brought and sold to western Europe as well as to other parts. Even to India. Some of the young prostitutes come from from Russian states, the USSR states. Yes exactly, because it's a consequence of the collapse of the social system which was so strong of this country. I feel like this is a conversation that perhaps you should have elsewhere. We can talk more on that. We're getting away from the main topic here. So investment on education is the most important thing for any country. And inclusive, equitable and quality education with some sort of incentives for the poor children will definitely help in solving some of those problems. As preventive measures, strong preventive measures. Did you want to say something very short? Two remarks about the relationship between science and politics. Social scientists describe politics as a system which ascended around power. It can be power of a single person, then we talk about dictatorship. It can be power of the many, then we talk about democracy. Science is a field or a system which is centred around the search for truth. And now we are discussing how do those two spheres interact. And of course, my argument is, and that we do also as a federal ministry of science and research, we try to build bridges that science agendas are laid opened, that as many people as possible can participate in setting up the agenda of science. Or as one scientist and minister here in Germany and former minister of the environment put it, he said: "out of the trillions of questions that scientists may ask, maybe the scientist to some extent should also address those which are of importance to other people in society and not only to themselves". And so we have to strike this balance about what is the inherent engine, the inherent drivers of science and scientific insight, and what kind of social responsibility does science have to answer the questions of society. And to build adequate bridges between those two realms is one of the challenges we have to face and we have to address. All right, Harry. Just one comment on that. I think we also have to recognise that basic science which you can't actually predict what the applications might be, must still be supported. And one thing that is in your opinion, we need to be at least between 10 and 20%, maybe offer 15%, aimed at the young people. Just do what they are interested in and come up with the big surprises. All right, let's have some more questions please. Thank you very much for your comment. We'll go to the back and the front and please can I ask you to keep your comments or questions as short as possible. Hi my name is Florian, I'm from Germany. And I actually have a quick proposal for the Nobel Laureates. We learned in the following days that science education is really important. And we felt that we are really privileged. We're all on top of our science. And we heard yesterday and the day before that around the world that it's not the case. That education is a major problem. And you talked about the moral authority of Nobel Laureates and also maybe the young scientists in a sense. So I was thinking this year we have a new declaration in Lindau. So I was just thinking maybe next year there could be a declaration for the furtherment of education in the world. That's a great idea. I'm sure no one will disagree with that. Is that for all the Nobel Laureates here, not just the ones on stage? Definitely, yes. This year already, two young ladies have come out and said they want to initiate just that sort of thing. If you now get together with Wolfgang, I'm sure you can actually start to build the foundations of an alumnus. A Lindau alumni for humanitarian Act. LAHA, okay well I made it up. I made it up last night or two nights ago. But in fact, you are the people who can work together synergistically to create a much more humanitarian enlightened global community. Well you got a challenge for next year already. Let me say that since yesterday I met a number of Laureates and they have shown a lot of interest in education. And I have given a call and urged them to help in demanding two simple things. One is that the global community must invest more on education. So far only 4% of the development aid goes for education sector. So just minimal, I'm not going into those technicalities. But one simple thing is that the world needs more financing for education. And there is the summit going to take place next week in Oslo. The "Financing for Education" meeting. So a number of leaders from all across the world will be coming there. Including the U.N. secretary general. So maybe a number of Laureates who have shown interest can sign up on one simple thing that more investment should be made on education. And if you as a young man can volunteer to do it, we have some note about it or we can prepare some note and some of them can sign and we can... Definitely. Would you be ready? Of course. Good, so you can meet me and then we can see that how we can work. And others also can join with that. It's incredible how much action is already happening from this stage. Please, question in the front. Thank you, so my name is Alex. I'm from the central United States, in St. Louis, Missouri. At Washington University in St. Louis we have a 20 year old programme called "The Young Scientist Programme." And very similar to the programme that Lucia talked about. We basically pair graduate students with high school students, we create kits, we teach teachers, and my question is we've come across two separate challenges. And based on your sort of experience in trying to further science education, I'd love to hear your thoughts and how to sort of address these. So the first comes to teaching teachers. So in this case what we ended up seeing, we had to stop. And these are inner city high schools, which basically bring, excite the teachers, bring them into a lab and get them to excite their students. Update them on their science. And what ended up happening is they left teaching. They went into science. And so as a result we had to stop because getting teachers, particularly good teachers in inner cities across the United States is difficult. So that's the first challenge. And then the second challenge is, often these students, we had to explain the value of learning science. They're not getting that from their families. They're not getting that from their social structure. And one of the ways to do that of course, is to say what happens. Why put in all the time now rather than going to work for McDonalds. It's very easy to say you should do medicine, you should do engineering. It gets tougher to say you should be a scientist. And that's primarily because as scientists we know how much of almost it's like a pyramid scheme. So you have a very small percentage of people... Sorry to interrupt you, can you see the people behind you? There's such a big queue, we've only got a few minutes. Can you just get to your question? So those are the two questions. One is how did you guys deal with keeping teachers teaching? And the second is, how do you motivate people to do science in spite of the climate? Thank you very much. Lucia's going to answer that question in just a moment. But we'll try and get some more because we won't get a chance to ask anymore. So let's go for as many as you can. If you go at the back. Thank you, my name is Sergei Kosloff and I'm a postdoc in Barcelona. And I'd like to ask you about the issue of complexity. The science we can present it to public in a simple way but it's inherently complex. We do not discover many things. We show that at certain particular conditions results may be interpreted in such a way. It's complex. When we try to address issues in problematic contrast with very complex situations, again, we need to know a lot to operate efficiently. And of course we can nominate some experts and delegate their expertise for them to take care of these problems. But again, some experts would be qualified, some not, some biased, some will be frauds. So it seems to be really hard to engage people to address this problem that's inherent in immense complexity. How do you think we should proceed in this way? Very good question, again, hold that thought everyone. And I'm going to ask you next. And see this is your way of asking a question in about 15 seconds if you can. This is a great challenge to clearing your thoughts. Go! Hello I'm Caroline, my question is will you support us? And this is a question to everybody in the tent. We're setting up an international network of young researchers to collect informations on their troubles in their individual system. In order to create a political network. One can contact governments all over the world to better situations in legislature. And you know, draw examples from other people. That's my question. If you want to talk to me I'm here all day. I've got a list of 50 signatures. I'm hoping to leave with a list of longer signatures. I bet you will as well. One more from the back. Okay, hi my name is Roman. The question is the following. When we talk about science education we have to sharply distinguish between educating the new generation of scientists and educating the broad variety of people in interpreting the information bus that is increasing around them. I think our educational system at the moment produced too much of the one and not enough of the other. Would you agree with that? Which one? Well we have way too many PhD's. The answer is yes. And not enough people who can interpret whatever is around them. I'm going to have just one more in the front and I'm going to remind you of all the questions, don't worry. You here at front. My question is also about education and jobs, as you know probably very good. So currently we have this in Germany and USA, situation with the opportunities for post-doc rising like 75% last 12 years. And opportunity for having permanent job if you're not professor, but a fellow or similar level also dropping back another 80%. So it's very unbalanced; if you can comment on that. Okay, so the questions are, the first one was to you Lucia. about how do you make sure that when you're teaching the teachers they don't go off and do something else? Maybe they want to. Second question was about complexity. Georg maybe you can answer that one. How do we teach complexity? Everyone's going to join your international network. Wherever you are, and that's great. Make sure you stand up at the end. Educating people versus scientists, that'll be interesting to hear. Harry, what do you think about that? And then the final question, all about this combination of like "is there too much at one end and not the other"? Let's all ask all of you. But Lucia you go first. Well, to be honest we have never had this problem. Normally the teachers are... Well, maybe the setting is a little bit different. But teachers are happy to be teachers, and I feel that so far we have only managed to empower them. I'm sorry that I cannot answer that question really well because I haven't encountered that situation, at least within the African context. And then there was a second question from the same person about the pyramidic scheme, was related to how science is structured. Well, I could talk a lot about that. Yes, I think it is a problem and it is a problem everywhere. Harry's going to talk about this, too. The complexities, Georg. How do you talk about complex science? As to complexity, the challenge is all yours. You're certainly an expert to talk about your field for one and a half hours. Now the challenge is be prepared to talk about it for 10 minutes to a benevolent audience like the one here and prepare a 30 second dinner speech. And explain to them in 30 seconds why it is important what you do. It's your challenge. And if I may, this is what we have to do as journalists all the time. And it is absolutely possible to take any complex piece of science and make it understandable in less than 30 seconds. And in that 30 seconds you're not intending to explain absolutely everything. You can't possibly do that. It's merely to incide the curiosity for them to give you their time. For us, it's all about earning the time to then explain some more. You've got to earn that time, it's not expected. That's the one thing that was always in my mind. Harry, about the education in science pipeline. There's too many PhD's, there's too many professors who are old and not doing anything compared to the PhD students. My close friend and colleague John Cornforth, Nobel Laureate, deaf since the age of 18, yet overcame that. He said: "Scientists do not believe, they check." And so I think the most important thing of scientist education to non-scientists, the general public, is to really tell them about the scientific methods and actual philosophy. That when they're told something by a politician or somebody else, that it's this way, why is it this? Climate change is a good example. Why does the scientific community think climate change is a problem? Well, don't tell them that. Say look, is this climate change? What do you think would indicate that? Temperature rise, sea level rise, glaciers shifting, animals moving. Take the 10 points and you say "Well what do you think? What conclusion do you draw?" And then you show how the scientific community thinks about it, and why the scientific community is worried. And I've told this as I said to an astronaut. I said: "What evidence do you want, would you require for this?" And he said "I'm not interested." And I think that's awful. And astronaut people listen to them. And my final observation is that really it's true, scientists make mistakes. Knowledge isn't actually a guarantee of good decisions. But definitely its common sense that suggests that wisdom is an unlikely consequence of ignorance. One of the questions was about whether... Whether we're perhaps focusing on educating more scientists rather than just educating people in science. And this is kind of your argument. Well, maybe it's not your argument, but this is one of your themes, is to educate people about science. Not necessarily to become scientists, isn't it? Yeah yeah of course. Do you think it's an imbalance? Actually, it's a whole sort of outlook. If we are going to build a scientific outlook in society means science education could be one of the enabling factors in the society. It does not mean that everyone should study science and forget about culture, and art, and other things. Literature, etcetera, etcetera, economics. But the basic fundamentals, or basic knowledge of science must be part of education everywhere, whether it's the religious education, or moral or ethical education. One of the core elements should be the scientific outlook towards societies. And that should be developed through education everywhere. And when we talk of, for instance teachers, I think the biggest followers of the teachings in the world are from the faith leaders, faith teachers. And I think there's a serious disconnect between the faith teachings, and the scientific teachings, and scientific outlook. I don't know, is there any process where the interfaith dialogue and the scientists dialogue can merge together at one point? Where the top faith leaders and the top scientists who can discuss each other's view points, and try to reach out some of those things where we can influence. Not influence, I would say somehow bring the elements of scientific education in the moral teachings or faith teachings and vice versa. How the scientists can also gain from the morality of those people. So I don't know if there's any process, institutional process of dialogue between the faith leaders and the science leaders and so on. I think the Pope's encyclical on climate change is a very good example of this. Given that it was very heavy on scientific fact. And then he used his moral authority to talk about it publicly. It's causing all sorts of problems with Catholics in America of course. But that's I think an example of that. The pontifical academy is filled with scientists. Senior scientists advising the Pope on quite sensible things actually it seems. That seems like what you're talking about. I think it's a good example. Nowadays the politicians, the presidents, the prime ministers, everyone is talking about the climate change issues. It has become quite an important challenge for all of us. But when it comes to change the outlook of society and make them to think more scientifically and logically to get it off all kinds of fanatism and fundamentalism, perhaps it could be one way that there should be regular interaction between... I'm not just talking about the Pope... There are other faith leaders from other communities and there should be some sort of interaction between the two different communities. Well if that organisation is going to happen it's going to spring from someone in this room, I'm hoping. I'm so sorry, we have to actually finish our session now to be on time. Can I ask you to thank our speakers first of all. I'm sure that all of them will be available to answer more of your questions in the picnic afterwards.

Closing Panel Discussion (2015)

Science Education (Panelists Godino, Kroto, Satyarthi, Schütte; Moderator: Alok Jha)

Closing Panel Discussion (2015)

Science Education (Panelists Godino, Kroto, Satyarthi, Schütte; Moderator: Alok Jha)

Content User Level

Beginner  Intermediate  Advanced 

Cite


Specify width: px

Share

COPYRIGHT

Content User Level

Beginner  Intermediate  Advanced 

Cite


Specify width: px

Share

COPYRIGHT


Related Content