Get it out of some of the journals into vast online. The myth of shareholder value being the sole determ nantfor performance. Theres frankly no law that requires to strictly maximize shareholder value as Supreme Court recently stated in an opinion. Focus on outcome because it helps people and what do you replace it with . You have to go with your opinion or friend or political cohort. Faith leaders. When i talk to faith leaders that they join the aaaf. We have all the immense complex science and engineering issues that are facing usment us. They all have moral and ethical components that recent pastors could have fascinating discussions pending and science really does equate to civil rights. Its the foundation of the idea of civil rights and not enough of an emotional and political connection there and refuting the myth of nonintertentent self. My own actions are the only ones that i need to take into account. One last step you could do, again, as i said, sign on, support sciencedebyte. Org. This was a project created by six people that went viral, within weeks had 40 some thousand engineers sign on. A couple hundred universities, joining them would be in good company. Calling for candidates to talk about these things. Because if we get them in the public discussion, then we can trust in this beautiful process of democracy that we have developed to vet the ideas and thinking and move them forward. Science debate. Org, held online exchanges between president obama and opponents mitt romney and we have made Online Publications and news reports around the world mostly in the United States creating coverage of these issues that hadnt and probably wouldnt have been discussed if it were not for this issue. So it really is true that that a small group of determined individuals can change the world. In fact, president obama quoted our Mission Statement in his inauguration and appointed several earliest and supporters to his cabinet. Again, sciencedebate. Org. Im paraphrasing here. Everybody has changed. Our ways of thinking and suggest that we are still dealing with that same question. So thank you for listening and we will have a discussion now. [applause] i should also say that the tv crew, when it comes to q a thatly bring microphone thats not tied into the audio and the pa system in the room, so they can pick up your question. So please work with them on that and speak loudly. We should exchain the presence of tv cameras and all that as well, this is being video taped for book tv which is cspan production. Microphones are going to feed for the program. Youve raised a lot of questions. Ive been doing science policy for my whole career. I was head before coming that are familiar. Youre not a scientist. How did you get into this business . I started out as a scientist and i got interested in policy and pursued that, but i look at your resume, where is his interest in science. Yeah, im a bit of an odd duck that way. I actually studied a combination of things, physics, neuroscience and maintained an interest in it. Although, a lot of my heros were writers and i just wanted to be a writer. It happened to be Charles Darwins greatgreat grandson. Hes also director of a movie and he and i were for adapting biography of Albert Einstein and we were all without work, we had a little bit of time on our hands and frustrated by the low quality of political discussion at that point in time and how the candidates werent really talking about any the science, tech, health or environmental challenge that is we were facing and from our point of view, those have as large an impact as economic challenges or Foreign Policy challenges on everyones daily lives, so we decided to do something about it which led us down a very twisted rabbit hole. Okay. So youve written this book which you have titled the war on science and youve described it a bit but it sounds to me like there is i mean, the term war on science suggests an organized opposition. Is this are we science advocates facing an organized opposition to science or is this just coming from different quarters as you described and industry and rightwing politics . Its both. It is organized particularlily the industrial war on science. There is a Large Network of gross roots groups that are being funded by the energy industry. Americans for prosperity funded by the Koch Brothers and carry enormous weight and have a specific objective that theyre pushing. And what do you suppose theyre doing this . What is their stake in this business . How do you well, if youre in an oil Company Climate change is an existencial issue. And set about disinformation campaigns. Its very much an existential issue. I was intrigued by you raising the issue of false balance. You know, i see this myself. How do you get around this how do you teach journalists that this is not i mean, this is not the way to serve the Public Interest . Yeah, its a big problem because a journalist is really a generalist and not an expert and in some ways responsible by portraying their reportage as objective when its not. They have to acknowledge their bioses. As i point out whenever i have the opportunity, fail to go consider the weight of the work of evidence and they need to balance the story and people that i point that do this very well in the book. I talk to stephanie curtis, its the only weekly radio show that actually gets goes in depth of Climate Change. And it turns out that once you get bas that base level political question, the whole world opens up as far as the fascinating questions that you can get into about how el nino affects lakes in the midwest or weather patterns and things like that and how we should be prepared for coming changes. So its actually an approach that could make meteorologists to viewership because they are providing solid information that people need to know. How do you think future developments affect opposition to the war on science and to expand on that, is there a way to promote science in a direction that will help in fighting this war on science . Yeah, well, one thing occurs along two lines. One has to do with shortcircuiting democracy in order to forestall or affect the business bottom line. So it usually involves Public Relations campaigns in order to pra liez the process or to get people to vote one way or another and provide them with quote, unquote science to challenge the traditional mainstream science. The other is the issue when science presents us with moral quandary or area that we need to refine our moral and ethical understanding that always carries a debate and dont like the idea of science telling us what to do. Thats areas where its going to continue to happen. The most fascinating area is the emergents of knowledge in neuroscience and what that says about free will. Because if people have only limited agency and we can define when they do and when they have agency and what the limits of that are, what does that say about our legal system and Holding People accountable for their actions . I think there are moral and ethical and legal questions that we are going to get into in the next few years. I think thats a good point which to open this up to questions from the audience and i see one immediately and i see a gentleman with a microphone here on a wand. Thank you for your presentation. This is a very good lecture but i think basically we change the war on science to justice [inaudible] we tend to participate whether youre a republican or democrat. The problem is profit corporation, whether that individual or the Koch Brothers, the important thing they use profit, they hide the profit in their debate, so everything is really in terms of who gets the most money from consumer or the government. If if we can substitute or if you see they want to label him mental ill instead of saying hes a great scientist. So if we change the wording about justice and the whole thing, we want to debate [inaudible] so important is our people a really good operation. Dont allow them to control the microphone, allow people to speak. Thanks for this. Thank you, it is about justice. And science is by creating evidence thats impartial, of course, the foundation of not only our Justice System but our political system as well. And so i think that the emphasis on justice is actually a very good suggestion. Thank you. We are here. Let me remind you that these are questions and in a question your voice rises at the end and ends with a question mark and so it should no more than a short paragraph. Okay. Im really sorry. Okay. The microphone im just sorry that holistic medicine and genetically modified organisms were swept into some of what i would agree is really antiscience where evidence is denied but i would like to know what youre basing that on because as a medical researcher and social scientist i found that medical research did not meet social science standard, often apples and oranges were mixed together and yet the authors claim to have a definitive finding say about sche sclorosis when they looked at very sick patients and one last example is the nhss examination of vitamin c under pressure and then they said we are not going to look further back than 1982. Social science tries to be exhaustive as possible so that you dont miss anything. So what research did you do to lump holistic medicine as antiscience . So i think if i understand it right, the question is what research did i use to lump holistic medicine to antiscience . I dont think i said holistic, i think i said alternative. By holistic youre meaning by homeopathy, genetically modified people, a lot of people are thinking that genetically modified means some additional ingredient that we are add to go it and all it is a more precise form of plant breeding and in some ways it is safer than prior breeding methods but where it gets into trouble and important issue is how its genetically modified and for what purposes. If its genetically modify today stave papaya or prevent blindness, then those are good purposes that like any tool, science is a tool, remember, that serve humanity. If thats genetically modified to make plants withstand herbicides, some herbicides and insecticides that are borrowing from the environment by creating other problems, then generally theres probable going to be some consequences from that and we are seeing that and i talk about that in book with the emergence of super weeds. Its a danger to broad i will say that all gmo is bad to eat which is often argued by those in the organic food movement. Thats not true. There is a political legitimate controversy about how its applied. Over here. And then the gentleman next to you. My question has to do with education. Where do we start, how do we start. Im concerned not about College Campuses about trigger warnings and things that student get, they dont want to be upset, yet if youre going to truly learn, i think learning is fundamentally dangerous in my opinion, where do we start so that children in young peoples minds are opened to receive information that might be controversial because i think thats the key to ending the war on science. Great. Good question. One of the things that when i talked to teachers, i talk about process a lot and about different techniques that you can use, when youre teaching Young Students you want to create cognitive dissonance and then science shows theyre actually receptive to new information because the solution to a problem or the answer to a question that theyve raised themselves in their own mind, well, what better way to raise concern than to talk about political issues. Student science debates are fantastic tool, one that often talk about, taking politically contentious topics surrounding science, for instance, making assertion vaccines do cause autism or Climate Change is human caused or not human caused. Something like that. And then sending students to research both sides of the question but not telling them which side theyre going to debate until the day of in which case you flip a coin. The students actually learn for themselves some of the more interesting differences between rhetorical arguments or Public Relations arguments and actual science and theyre equipped on both sides, so they kind of learn the difference. So thats one interesting tool thats actually a lot of fun that doesnt have the teacher responsible for taking in position if the administration is uncomfortable about it. Another one that i like to do is working with students on the fundamental questions like its something alive or not alive. My wife used to be a Science Teacher and she would use a unit to explore this with air ferns, which if you know, im not going to tell you if theyre alive or not, you can research yourself. But theyre sort of like viruses, its a fascinating area to begin to explore some of the fundamental questions about life and the universe and if you can engage students in that and where the answer is not readily apparent and there are some twists and turns, you can capture their imagination in a way that i think is very important because its not about regurgitating the right answer, which is not what science is, its an exploration of the big ideas that we are still grappling with. So those are two examples, anyway. Hi, my name is roger oliva, im an engineer so my background is science and physics, mostly. Can you speak a little louder, please . Okay. The comment was the people that need to read your book arent going to read your book so that leads me to my first question which is what can we do about it and i think you answered the education piece perfectly. I mean, if you get students ingauged and thats a great way forward but beyond student engagement, what does your book recommend that we do about it . And the second question is just i will ask the second question in a minute but okay, well, first let me apologize for the wise crack about engineers. [laughter] i was just having fun. But, yes, those who are author authorritarian by nature and theyre going to assume this is a book about Climate Change which is not although theres a chapter that deals with industrial science. Those people arent going to probably pick it up. But their family members might, friends might, members of the media i certainly hope will and by equipping people with some tools to think about this and to think about to be reminded of what they may have known and forgotten about the fundamental role of evidence and science and democracy i think will give those people tool to begin to change the conversation to at least feel equipped to provide to the other side. [laughter] my next question is what is the next book going to be . Im curious. Im exploring a topic and about acid which was discovered by a guy name cliff steer at the university of minnesota and it slows, chemical compound thats in our gut and appears in very, very high levels in bear bile. [laughter] no, bear bile. For a variety of reasons, its kind of a wonder drug that can treat parkinsons and als and all kind of health issues. Its not being produced because of the structure because out of our pharmaceutical system. Sounds like alternative medicine. Well, yeah, it involve it is chinese mafia, their byo bile has been eaten in china. Yes, over here and then in the back. How would you evaluate the work of journalists in places like the science section of the New York Times and if i have found my name is stephanie and i have found many articles to be informative but what would well they interact with other journalists who are so addicted to balance that they avoid evidence . I think the New York Times generally does a good job. There are few science sections left. Only 7 or less than 7 actually positions in their field. Many of them have to work in other fields or work assigns bloggers because newspaper have cut those sections by in large because theyre more expensive. Same with Investigative Journalism sections. Those are the two sections that have been as the model of internet and so its a big problem because here we are ironically living in an age when science impacts almost every policy issue and science, first of all, it never appears in the Political Pages because editors dont put it there and second of all, most newspapers dont have science sections anymore so people are not even been given the information they need to equip themselves. My question is really simple, what is the role of scientists in this war on science . Yes, its a really great question. Its simple and deceptively simple. Because its very important, but, you know, the most important thing, i think, is get out and be involved in the community and be out as a scientist because we need to reconnect that severed link between science and society and the best way to do that is by personal, emotional relationships. That is how people make many of their decisions and thats what influences many people in their thinking and right now polls show that the majority of americans cant name a single living scientist even though there are about 2 million working among us like zombies. The woman in the back. You touched on what i was going to ask, now, why not have sexy tv shows that are all connecting the dots science ificically and getting the people to be associated with it, connect them in their homes, do it emotionally because look at what has been happening politically recently . No, thats a great idea. The National Academy, the National Academy of engineering have a program called the science and entertainment exchanging where they work to do just that. They provide scientists, science advisers to film tv shows so they get the science right and they also have motive by informing those kinds of relationships between producers, writers and scientists so that they see that scientists are actually generally pretty cool people that are interested in a lot of things and not the dry boring people with white lab coats. Hollywood has a hard time with science, we have to face it. Its hard for them to do comedies without making fun of scientists, you know, making them into either idiotic nerds or evil machinators. We are still struggling with right now. It certainly is something that i would like to find a way to continue to make progress on. One here and one back there. Im studying engineering but i