The public should trust science. He spoke at the History Museum in los angeles at an event hosted by the public square. This is just over one hour. Now it is my great pleasure to introduce tonights moderator, an awardwinning science journalist reporting on the diseased state of the world oceans earned her both a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting and the award for public understanding of science. She regularly contributes Opinion Pieces for the Los Angeles Times as a Senior Editor and writer at the huffington. Please give a warm welcome. [applause] thank you. Its great to see such a robust crowd and energetic crowd. Ive been a fan since its inception. Its actually my anniversary ten years ago i moderated my first panel on Climate Change so im thrilled to be back and with this wonderful panel i would like to introduce eric conway, historian of science and okchnology and the coauthor ofa a book merchants about how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Next to terry funk joining us from watching nbc. Shes the director of science and Society Research at the Pew Research Center and is also offered numerous reports focused on the public trust in science including views ranging from energy and climate to vaccines anvaccines andediting and last t we have jeff from ucla sociologist Whose Research integrates how life works. He studies why people care about what they care about and how the concern relates to issues of science and religion. Im going to jump right in. We are gathered here during the week of the anniversary of one of humankinds greatest celebrated scientific achievements you really cant escape it thiss week. The apollo moon landing. Just got this important issue of whether and why americans are turning against science, so i would like to start with asking is this a new phenomenon or something that has long been nsth us . Has americas relationship with science been changing over time . I would like to ask eric to start. I asked for this question because one of the things people seem to think this idea that americans are turning against science is kindng of new but the have been surveys done for decades and one study found 2012 dug into this idea of whether this is a new idea using a General SocialScience Survey data from 74 to 2012 and one of the things he found his back in 1974 the people were most skeptical of science and the people who have the least trust in it defined themselves as political moderates which opened up my eyes because then im like that isnt what i would have thought. People that have conservatives and liberals had basically the same and whats happened since then is that liberals have basically maintained the same level of trust in science and the moderates maintained the same relative distrust in science but conservative trust in sciences sam plummeting from just plummeting. So, its far well below now what kind of the moderate distrust in science is so the story and always interested in is why does that happen and thinking about that in the root of some of my work. It is surprising i think looking at the Apollo Missions for this nostalgia that we are seeing in the media, you get this sense that everyone loved it and everyone loved science in the 60s. As a space historian, tell me what youve learned about that. It is certainly a lens to nostalgia as i love it and everybody in the audience does, too during thehe actual apollo years of the 60s, the general public opposed it. The apollo 11 flight didnt reach majority approval and couldnt provide a sixmonth window of that mission so we have rebranded it as a Great Success but it wasnt appreciated by most of the public at the time because it was an enormous amount o of mon. We dont think very hard about this anymore but what it costs today is around 200 million may be a little bit more and that is built on top of another quarter of petroleum, 250 billion spent during the 1950s on the Ballistic Missile program that undergirdeundergirded at all anf americanamericans thought that n enormous amount of money that we could be spending solving other social problems that i wasnt alive for a frankly there were throughout the 1960s and especially late in the decade right around the apollo and people thought shouldnt resolve these problems before engaging in this grand techno spectacle . Its eye opening. Your organization studied science into peoples relationship with it for decades now through numerous polls looking at individual issues and science in general. Can you talk about any trends youve seen or surprises that you and your colleagues have unearthed a . The Research Center we do lots of nationally Representative Public opinion surveys. I just want to step back a little bit in terms of some of the big picture things we see. Number one, most americans say when you ask them that they see positive benefits coming from science on the whole. Number two, you often see this idea of continued optimism for scientific and technological develop and come up the space developments might be one of those, but other kinds of things coming up now people anticipate the continued change. But when it comes to trust, also we see more of a mixed pattern. On the whole people have a fair amount of confidence in scientists that fac to act in tt interest of the public but its usually a minority certainly less than half that have what you might think of as a strong trust saying they have a great deal of confidence, a larger group has kind of a fair amount of confidence, so you might think about that as kind of a soft positive. And it was brought up we only have one kind of survey in the u. S. That looked at trust over time from the 1970s to today, and what is surprising that there is not what they find is that confidence in scientists into the leaders of the Scientific Community has been stable over time and thats a striking because we are living in an era of lower trust and institutions particularly lower trust and governments today, so thats a striking and against some people aid relief in the community, but this table doesnt necessarily mean high. There is still room to grow. When you look at different issue is whether they use vaccines, genetically modified food, Climate Change or the teaching of evolution in schools, or all of those lumped together, do you have people like im against science and all those things . Its important to remember sciences the best enterprise and what we do is study the pieces that are connected with social issues were ethical issues or policy issues so w its not that surprising then that they sometimes also connect with our political divide and religious divide and other kind of divide in society, but one of the Key Takeaways we find it again and again is that how people think about the science related issues whether it is climate issues or vaccines or so on. Thereup is no single group in society that kind of takes what you might think of as a position that against the Scientific Consensus or skeptical of a Scientific Consensus position, so it varies. We know climateus issues are tighly politically polarized. That isnt a big surprise anymore but not everything is politically colorized so that is what is interesting. We are living in a time where we do have a lot of uncertainty in the future. We are looking at global Climate Change. Weve got these powerful tools, people are entering the genomes of human embryos and as youve said some have Strong Political religious overtones. Is it politics and religion that are polarizing people further against science . He studied muslims and their beliefs and so do you see this simple access in your work . Thats a great question. Thank you everyone for coming out tonight. I appreciate it. Im used to teaching undergraduates, so the fact that this is a full crowd means that theres either a final or i am doing something differently. [laughter] so, yes, so this is a great question and a sort o it sort of dovetails on what kerry was talking about. We find that there is not really a desire from any american that we interview either qualitatively or quantitatively in the surveys who dont like science. I mean it kind of won the game. It is extremely popular in america and that is part of the problem because they will tell you we dont actually know what science is if you talk to any sort of sociologist or historian of science into say there is a thing called science, their head will explode and they will get very upset because science is so chaotic. He may not even think that there is a single physics or biology they are so diverse and there are so many people doing differentg kinds of things comig yet i found in my work in creationist and muslim high schools, people are very comfortable talking about a thing called science and are convinced that science proves evolution wrong. Now, i dont think thats true, but its interesting that they feel the need to use science to make their case. You could imagine in another universe where they said no this is what the bible says and thats it, but they dont. So its interesting. When people hear the word creationist science, the thing they often hear is creationist. Really what you hear is the science than you think science is necessaryry and that is actually super interesting for me as a sociologist. To answer your question, you know, we really think those aref us have studied this stuff it really has to do with identity and so basically theres a lot of complicated jargon on this but essentially if something is important for your identity you dont want toou chang change ref something is not important people get new data and think okay sure i guess i will go there or do this. But if its relevant for your identity, you are unwilling to change and you will think lots of complicated ways around trying to keep thinking what you wanted to think to maintain the peace of your identity and so generally when people dislike multiple elements of science, its not because they are more or less committed to science that its because those elements of science together all conflict with different parts of their identity so its really about identities and not really about rational thinking or capacity to understand or deal with science. In fact tons of studies in my own work in a creationist high school, these kids did very well on their science test. They knew all the right answers, they just thought that they were wrong. So what do you do with that . It is a complicated problem. Its such an interesting point you raise like what do people mean by science and in a way its this big monolithic structure trusted or not trusted you have written some provocative pieces. One i recommended this title with a nation ruled by science is a terrible idea. Can you talk about some of your thesis and what do we mean by science . I will say if you want to have a nice day on twitter do not pick a fight with neil cressey tyson. [laughter] that is a poor life c choices. I just started my job and i got a letter copied to the chancellor of ucla saying how i shouldnt be allowed to call myself a scientist with social scientist which isnt a real scientist anyway which is kind of truth actually do that as a whole separate conversation. [laughter]ho but point is theres a huge debate that goes all the way back further than him but one of the articulators is the philosopher david hume talks about the distinction between what is and what ought to be so there itheres the question of u divide it and what we should do based on what we can see. Its a complicated question but i am pretty much in the school thaschool thatyou cant or at ly hard so if we have a thousand dollars as a city council, hopefully we get some more money that what are we going to do with that thousand dollars are we going to build a library, are we going to build a park and get a tax cut . Science cannot tell us what to do there. Science can help us know can kids have better life outcomes if they are by a library and science can help us know that there will be possibly more jobs and less taxes. Thats all great but whether or not the beauty of the park is intrinsically better than the sort of joy at a library isnt a scientific question and thats okay but there is something that we in philosophyom called scientism which isnt science but the idea that science and its rational thinking will solve all of our problems and its frankly antiintellectual and refuses to recognize the importance of philosophy and of the importance of poetry and art, of literature, all the kind of ways that think of life that science cant give us access to which isnt to say that it does integrate but it has a specific role to play. I think it also refuses to see that it can be manipulated for a lot of reasons and i want to look at Climate Change in that aspect it seems to be a clearsp issue where did i alisam and paid critics were able to attend whats happening in our planet and how quickly its happening. Your wonderful book merchants of dowd discusses this. Can you talk a little bit about what you found with your coauthor and the links between the Climate Science and tobacco science are very powerful. That book came about because someone through serendipity my job as a nasa historian allowed me to look into the records of directory and i was just looking to see what his recommendations had been in the early 1980s to what they should bee in the future and i had some free time and i noticed im sorry, i have something stuck in my throat. I hope that works. The one time i have to talk about mars and my voice went away and i sat there gasping for like five minutes before i could get going again. Lets hope that doesnt happen. And i just happened to notice in the finding that he had files and correspondence under the George Marshall institute and that organization i knew of because it has been engaged in some effort to cast doubt on deflation science. I was like what is this, the director of the oceanography one of the major Research Centers in the United States what does it, have to do with these guys and the answer is hes one of the c founders. That actually was a very toxic moment for me in the afternoon for me because iec could watch d see his records as the historian sometimes, but only a few weeks after that, but the meeting in germany and she was working on the flip side of this is an early adopter of Climate Science and went to his grave rejecting plate tectonics just utterly rejected it and she was interested in what causes this and why do some people accept the conclusions and what causes them to reject others. I think the answer very much depends on individuals upbringing and motivation ands o forth but then we got to talking about this issue for climate and one of us, we cant agree any more. If she thinks i did, i think she did, we agree to disagree and then we ha have something new because it is the same guy and argument is larger than together is with market fundamentalism, the idea that only unregulated free markets can best protect o human freedos and thats kind of where we end on that long complicated story. You mentioned this briefly, these political influences that shape and change how people view science and i wonder in the time ive been covering it been getting from both sides to increasing and i think the general language of your us humans are responsible for warming the climate and we are seeing the effects of it. Half the polls tracked the evolution around the thinking of Climate Change or have they been stilled by the political thinking on the topic . In the Public Opinion surveys about Climate Change, energy, Environmental Issues and perhaps as no surprise to you that there is a very wider political divide on the issues, so what you see are that republicans and democrats in particular just take totally different positions including things like the likelihood of effects on wildlife and other kind of thingsny so pretty much any question that you ask related to Climate Energy and environment issues. Weve seen the divided like this for a long time but its not the almighty. Remember we are living in the air of politicaera of politicalo what means all around the 2004 they just might end up so thats what they call the political polarization. The typical democrat, the issue positions of the Typical Group that grew further apart and so we are living in the era is more polarized do you see that liberals are less likely to vaccinate . They are not associated with politics you can find political divides particularly if you raise more policyy oriented issues there is a view about the role of government that drives a lot of the political divisions so if you are framing something in terms of should they be required or not you are more likely to see the political divide over that but our vaccines say how effective and further risks and benefits of any political divide. We have seen these huge outbreaks in california it seems to me people are putting others at risk. It remains a strong opinion on some. There are various religious communities opposed to vaccination. I would say this is not we were talking about the 1970s, but this is a very old story. This is a bit of a joke but i am going to do one of the most doubletree things an academic can do a site toqueville but it goes back to toqueville and the suspicion of authority in the United States so one of the things thatec led to the second great awakening in religious history which is the most obvious historical moment the second great awakening came out of the suspicion of ministers writes saying who are these ministers to tell me how to read the bible and these east coasters to tell me how. I can redefine on my own i dont need anyone telling me how toe o it but what historians point out is that its not just of ministers. Its about layers, government officials, medical doctors so there was a general suspicion and this is what tocqueville described how he talked about democracy in america as an underbelly to it. It also has a danger disaffected but it insists on an intellectual quality such that expertise is suspicious. Who are you to tell me vaccines are not true. That is a very old sensibility that in some ways predates the jacksonian era that was very important in the 18 hundreds. The issue is very important. I know ive seen polls were trusted professionals and firefighters are at the pinnacle that they are not much below them. They are trusted as a Good Authority where thirdgrade teachers were told to ask the students to draw a scientist and they were all men in white coa coats. There is a view Charles Darwin we see him he had these ideas. This idea. Ie seems like a conflict than because we are a society that doesnt want to be told what to do and respect and admire. But people say okay but you know what the scientists in general are fine for go i would rather have an appendectomy than someone going around in a covered wagon. As a rule that seems like a safe bet. But people generally they can carry the weight and seem to work in the earthquakes but most of science is pretty productive so the proof is in the pudding but these things that trigger identity to make them think they cannot live the way they want to live and it makes them really madad. Scientists have taken a lot of criticism for hiding in their ivory towers to keep their head down and do their work speaking jargon and not engaging with the public but on the other hand you have these provocateurs like neil who take on the creation. I think theyre causing more problems than its worth but thats a whole separate conversation. They are not productive. P it is absolutely useless for a few reasons because they put needless enemies with all religious people and with creationism which is not the case. I think they misunderstand they are not reading the studies of creationism it is not ignorance but thats how but primarily it is polemical actually i think it is anti at all anti intellectual there is that incapacity to recognize the specific space that we contribute to society that is very much underer threat so science needs defenders who arent weed weirdly heading on philosophy there is this weird anti and intellectual as of that is anti utopian and we could clear rational order based on science and we have seen that movie before. It is creepy. Im just not a fan. Lets talk gml and food science talking about the role that media plays toward science and i get so tired coffees good for you or its bad for you or it is so episodic and out of context and people just rollll their eyes theres been a lot of fraud but a lot of good people working in it and gm knows, there is so much air rational thinking on both sides that seem crazy to me. Is this an emotional issue . Is that political . Does the media muddy the urwaters quick. They are all good questions we hear concern like food science studies we ask if they are aware aware they are hearing conflicting studies they hear a coffee is safe than bacon. There is concerns if they might undermine the confidence of science. We try to get at that but on the whole it doesnt seem to shake peoples confidence but there is a difference of people who dont know as much could beence confused so do you generally understand whats healthy to eat and whats not and then they do stand out more than those whoo follow so there is a possibility it can be more confusing. But in general they are both h od examples but there are complicated ways to form attitudes and beliefs so there is that assumption that if we could just inform you more but it doesnt work that way. Its not just based on information there is multiple kinds of information that come into your thoughts. So they tell you what to think at the end of the day. So why dont you think like me and that will never work. So listen to the studies that tell you what you want to do. [laughter] and to edit genomes so lets edit these mosquitoes they can never give anyone malaria again or edit the babies so its taller or smarter. Science keeps moving and what it can do is amazing at uc davis trying to grow human kidneys in pigs you think that so crazy but you undergo dialysis and think oh my gosh hurry up. Or sickle cell that it could be amazing but seeing how people think as science is progressive or is it religious know you will help your own child or not take fetal tissue quick. You are right. These are the big issues right now with emerging science particularly in terms of the application for humans so what we find again and again with the context maybe we dont know exactly how you selected gene but we do know we have opinions about what you would do and what the purpose is so those opinions vary quite a lot so therapy tends to see have strong support may be what used to be called thebi idea and then you see a lot more resistance. We sawaw the same thing with genetic engineering the purpose matters a lot but one thing that is commercially available is the idea of glow fish in that widespread opposition taking technology too far because they didnt see the value so people thought that in the context they didnt get behind for that reason but it is more like developing animal cells for human organs for transplant in humans they understood that and gave it more support spoon just like Jeff Goldblums character in Jurassic Park you spend so much time if you do something you thank you shouldju i cant remember exactly but the idea that science can do cool stuff but its a philosophical and ethical question but its not the only source there are amazing secular emphasis but also Climate Change ethics cithis is a fascinating philosophy questions about how much lives today matter versus 1000 years from now so how obligated are you to the lives of today from a thousand years from now . That is a hard ethical question they could tell us what would happen in 1000 years for better or worse but not which lives are more valuable. So this is where we do need to push science and the state to think hard questions about these ethical issues before they show up because they will keep coming and too often they think of ethics and science like genetic engineering of humans and animals and plants and thats important but there is a lot of science showing potential love great ethicalfo harm. The idea that valuing life because they have come up with an idea of the social discount rate to use calculations of the future value of human life and that is crucial to evaluatecl the Economic Cost of Climate Change and then we need to know the value of our great grandchildren to assess the damage to them this is part of that furious feel the climate economics because some people think the discount rate should be zero every life is the same as every other life. But the economist will tell you thats not how we act. The way we actually act is we assign less value to ourselves or to our grandchildren andlv grandchildren they have data to back it up so thats an interesting philosophical proposition. Its obvious we value those refugees ine than the camps we clearly dont value humans equally for religion and nonreligious for millennia but science gives us great data with which we can better understand how to frame the questions that what we ask those about. We see so many crises from migration to climate but do people need and other areas to make progress in the right decisions . There fighting about Climate Change is that knowledge or information quick. Of the worst person to ask that question. As a historian my job is to understand the world they are i in. I struggle with how do i fixti this. So the first part of my answer is information goes so far i doubt we change too many minds because it will only be read by those who are already sympathetic to book learning anyway because it is a book and 200 pages long. And all the other philosophical and religious questions that are really not my specialty is a historian of science. But then you have to satisfy your editors and with the, authority and that scientific information is reflected the National Academy of science report because historians arent always right either radiation is a big area they were deliberately misleading the public with those studies so at the same time we have to live in a world where journalists can write an articlee that send them a reliable source of information thats the best answer we can give but its not complete and wishing you a better answerou than that. I will tell you what society needs. [laughter] a new president . [laughter] how do we relate to science . Ideally like we should learn in science class that a simultaneous capacity for amazement and curiosity and suspicion we stay curious and amazed but we also secondguess. Ideally science is deeply democratic but the whole point is that we are always rethinking our habits we are always doing this asng a group so we think of it not as a thing thats done by professors but something we all have access to thinking hard about the world where susan tries to work out the definition of science which no philosopher if you even tttempts to do anymore because it is so complicated but she says its rational thinking at the basic level so being open t correcting others and being corrected is a big start. Thats what keeps me up at night how polarized we are with those echo chambers. Pulling a whats happening now but do you have thoughts on where we are headed . Is it more division . Or will a crisis force us to come together at a polarized time . I would pick up on the basic point how much our hainformation environment has changed so lets talk about how we integrate the world of social media as her main channel so that means on the one hand we have access to a much wider array of sources ecbecause people like Neil Degrasse tyson a wellknown palm individual has billions of followers on a public page like facebook and many other people anybody who wants to build an audience now has an avenue to reach large audiences so if you look at those public pages to see who ndy out there some are traditional legacy media and many are not so those that you think are the alternative sources or pseudoscience. The range of information is muche wider but on the other hand we are not as beholden as we were to somebody elses schedule. We had more control and ability to carry the information we wanted to Pay Attention to than we ever did before. So then we can reinforce information or misinformation its a much more complex world. Now we will open our questions to the audience lets get around of applause. [applause] i am surprised none of you mentioned Artificial Intelligence when you mentioned the human discount theory i know those that have that built in it doesnt have the Jeff Goldblum maxim of could we do it or should we do it. I hate to say this but i dont know much about it. Its impossible for me to know everything. [laughter] thats the first problem im a historian and not a scientist. The second thing is that there is a level of fear that has built up and i dont know about the models that have the discount rate built into them i could babylon but i wont because they just dont know enough to answer. Sometime Silicon Valley can create things because i have money so i must be good at everything what is it necessarily true so i talked to my friends we have 40 neurons we have no idea how they work together. They think that we will download johnny depps brain in three years. So theres always models of intellectual may be 400 years from d now we could download a brain. Who knows the future but did you actually look at people that studied intelligence as we understand it in animals . I have a question of the importance of the science if that couldnt get enough importancece. So why doesnt get more support in american Popular Culture . I have to push back because actually think there is an enormous amount of science now that now the three big networks with those comedy shows have basically been destroyed by internet streaming and theres a lot more content than there ever used to be so its gone downhill so theres more public interest. So why is science so terrible . So my friends who are criminologist find juries say why couldnt you just do this with the body . Thats not possible so theres always presentations of science that are grossly inflated or whatever we love it is o just not accurate. It was discussed between republicans and democrats with Climate Change if youul could speak why the more conservative beliefs dont support the idea of Climate Change. The answer to that is tied fundamentally into the ids states should not regulate ssbusiness neoclassical economics it should be free and unregulated theyve sold this to the t public through the promotions of 1970 and they push that order back into the 1930s. But because solving climate probably means intervention into the Energy Market energy and agriculture and transportation they oppose by environmental regulation and therefore they dont want Climate Change to be addressed so then they misrepresent the science so i try to talk to people about solving the problem because it is a fake confluent one conflict invented by industry they should of moved on 30 years ago what we should do about it not can we but this brings us back to the point this is a philosophical and social problem and should be addressed on those terms but thats hows it came about. I went to a private Christian School so we skipped the chapters on evolution not only did it make sense to me i wanted to share it with my father because my mind was blown so that put a kink into our relationship so a young person came to me withun advice because she discovered the evidence with humanr evolution she wants to share with her a religiousast. Creationist so what is your take . Youre faced with evidence youve never been taught before and want to share it but is it our responsibility to open other peoples minds and is it that is an interesting conundrum. Thank you for sharing your story i hope your fathers relationship improves. Is hard to answer the question as im invited to those communities i take the obligations seriously not to harm them and so its not my job to go in and change their minds. But in terms of our relationship with my family , my family is catholic and we converted to evangelical christianity but my uncle does not believe inol evolution so as a typical twentysomething i remember talking saying yeah well and he was arrogant so we went back and forth and then i remembered i should havepe stopped and i said is understood its hard to understand his world from his perspective. Help me to understand that so recently that where did the animals get to where they are . How does that work . Hes like i thought about that and told me a huge story but i dont think its accuratean but he clearly is smart and thought a lot about this. Thats when i decided i wanted to understand how they think instead of judging them before hand it is terrible Public Policy ultimately we need to make hard decisions about who is right and who is wrong so the had a where is not the same when i do politics often thats an uneasy fit but i feel very uncomfortable telling you how to deal with your family but with my own family its trying to navigate those moments where the better thing is to understand or to say what you are doing is wrong and believing in evolution i just dont think its wrong so if i will fight with my family its much more about gay marriage. I think thats a fight that has stakes in the world that causes people paid i dont thank you not believing inak evolution causes anybody pain. Maybe if you are a biology teacherrle but if youre my unce im not worried. [laughter]. How much is e overarching notion that drives some of this. How much is fear driving . You heard about the threat of e Climate Change. Especially when we were talking about terms of vaccines. It is a great example in terms of thinking about vaccines that have multiple ways people come at it in terms of our research. One of the groups that had the most concerns are people that have Young Children who are there on theli frontlines facing those decisions about vaccinations for lots of other inoculations. That could be part of it they are concernedd about weighing ot those risks for their individual child as well. On climate im going to get a little bit of a different answer. I told you before how the professional scientists came to cast doubt on science but theres anothethe science butths and that is fear of change as well as the emotional rejection of the idea that we all caused this problem just by going about our dailyy lives. I guess the first person that pointed this out to mes with a rightwing republican one of the few that came to accept Climate Change. Am i the one doing this and the answer is we all are. We dont want to accept that or that we have to change fundamental element of our lives if we want to help solve the problem. [applause] thank you for the panel tonight. I am a scientist that has been involved in a box high and communication outreach both policymakers and the general public. I was kind of curious from a sociological and Historical Perspective the amount of advocacycy that has come out of recent political events what kind of fool d role do you see t playing into the impact that could have on future perceptions of science and sciencebased policy compared with your expertise and how this played out in the past . I think that is already bak baked. The politicization of the finale a big round of applause for the panelists. Thank you so much for coming. I would like to see how we could increase funding for those programs for those that have an important issue to me being a student currently. Instead of just leaving for the future generations to figure out down the line. Climate change, abortion. The issue to me is the student loan crisis and how it is crippling my generation. I hope one day i can have a house and looking at how much of this is going to cripple our generation i would argue the current wave of nativism and antiimmigrant sentiment of xenophobia is not different from what we have seen in the past and why it seems to be peppered with acts of violence and prosody and other acts. Antiimmigrant riots in period of the civil war and in the 1880s. Thereve been a lot of moments in American History when the antiimmigrant sentiment has been translated into true ugliness. [applause] thank you very much, steve and good afternoon to all the members and guests today. It is my privilege to be your presiding officer today and introduce todays participants. It is in more than 160 countries by anybodys measure huge. Since becoming ceo in 2012 piece focused on leveraging the citys unique Global Network to serve in the institutional consumer clients with an emphasis on