[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.00,0:00:14.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}rC3 preroll music{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:00:14.29,0:00:18.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: Welcome with me with a big round\Nof applause in your living room or
Dialogue: 0,0:00:18.95,0:00:25.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wherever you are derJoram. derJoram is a\Nscience communicator. He got his
Dialogue: 0,0:00:25.97,0:00:31.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,University education and his first\Nscientific experience at Max Planck
Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.16,0:00:38.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Institute. And he will give you now a\Ncrash course for beginners to have the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.57,0:00:44.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,best insight into the scientific method\Nand to distinguish science from rubbish.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:44.85,0:01:03.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,derJoram, the stage is yours.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:03.54,0:01:07.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,derJoram: Hi, nice to have you here. My name\Nis Joram Schwartzmann and I'm a plant
Dialogue: 0,0:01:07.98,0:01:12.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,biologist. And today I want to talk about\Nscience. I have worked in research for
Dialogue: 0,0:01:12.83,0:01:18.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,many years, first during my diploma thesis\Nand then during my doctoral research. I've
Dialogue: 0,0:01:18.81,0:01:22.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,worked both in Universities and at the Max\NPlanck Institute. So I got pretty good
Dialogue: 0,0:01:22.28,0:01:27.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,insights into the way these structures\Nwork. After my PhD, I left the research
Dialogue: 0,0:01:27.15,0:01:31.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,career to instead talk about science,\Nwhich is also what I'm about to do today.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:31.87,0:01:36.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I am working now in science communication,\Nboth as a job and in my spare time, when I
Dialogue: 0,0:01:36.71,0:01:41.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,write about molecular plant research\Nonline. Today, I will only mention plants
Dialogue: 0,0:01:41.07,0:01:45.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a tiny bit because the topic is a\Ndifferent one. Today though, we are
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.35,0:01:49.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,talking about science literacy. So\Nbasically, how does the scientific system
Dialogue: 0,0:01:49.59,0:01:53.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,work? How do you read scientific\Ninformation and which information can you
Dialogue: 0,0:01:53.43,0:02:00.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,trust? Science. It's kind of a big topic.\NBefore we start, it's time for some
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.18,0:02:04.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,disclaimers: I am a plant biologist. I\Nknow stuff about STEM research that is
Dialogue: 0,0:02:04.97,0:02:09.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science, technology, engineering and\Nmathematics. But there's so much more
Dialogue: 0,0:02:09.29,0:02:13.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other science out there. Social science\Nand humanities share many core concepts
Dialogue: 0,0:02:13.92,0:02:19.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with natural sciences, but have also many\Napproaches that are unique to them. I
Dialogue: 0,0:02:19.02,0:02:21.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,don't know a lot about the way these\Nworks, so please forgive me if I stick
Dialogue: 0,0:02:21.84,0:02:26.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,close to what I know, which is STEM\Nresearch. Talking about science is also
Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.90,0:02:31.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,much less precise than doing the science.\NFor pretty much everything that I'll bring
Dialogue: 0,0:02:31.23,0:02:35.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,up today there is an example where it is\Ncompletely different. So if in your
Dialogue: 0,0:02:35.39,0:02:39.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,country, field of research or experience\Nsomething is different, we're probably
Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.71,0:02:44.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,both right about whatever we're talking.\NWith that out of the way, let's look at
Dialogue: 0,0:02:44.12,0:02:48.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the things that make science {\i1}science{\i0}.\NThere are three parts of science that are
Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.63,0:02:53.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,connected. The first one is the scientific\Nsystem. This is the way science is done.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.32,0:02:56.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Next up, we have people, who do the\Nscience. The scientific term for them is
Dialogue: 0,0:02:56.56,0:03:00.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,researchers. We want to look at how you\Nbecome a researcher, how researchers
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.82,0:03:06.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,introduce biases and how they pick their\Nvolcanic layer to do evil science.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.66,0:03:11.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Finally, there are publications and this\Nis the front end of science, the stuff we
Dialogue: 0,0:03:11.23,0:03:15.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,look at most of the time when we look at\Nscience. There are several different kinds
Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.25,0:03:20.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and not all of them are equally\Ntrustworthy. Let's begin with the
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.48,0:03:26.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific system. We just don't do\Nscience, we do science systematically.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:26.30,0:03:30.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Since the first people tried to understand\Nthe world around them, we have developed a
Dialogue: 0,0:03:30.07,0:03:34.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complex system for science. At the core of\Nthat is the scientific method. The
Dialogue: 0,0:03:34.81,0:03:39.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific method gives us structure and\Ntools to do science. Without it, we end up
Dialogue: 0,0:03:39.34,0:03:43.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the realm of guesswork, anecdotes and\Nfalse conclusions. Here are some of my
Dialogue: 0,0:03:43.84,0:03:47.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,favorite things that were believed before\Nthe scientific method became standard.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:47.86,0:03:54.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Gentlemen could not transmit disease. Mice\Nare created from grain and cloth. Blood is
Dialogue: 0,0:03:54.23,0:03:59.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,exclusively produced by the liver. Heart\Nshaped plants are good for the heart. But
Dialogue: 0,0:03:59.91,0:04:03.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thanks to the scientific method, we have a\Nsystem that allows us to make confident
Dialogue: 0,0:04:03.22,0:04:07.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,judgment on our observations. Let's use an\Nexample. This year has aged me
Dialogue: 0,0:04:07.76,0:04:13.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,significantly and so as a newly formed old\Nperson, I have pansies on my balcony. I
Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.35,0:04:17.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have blue ones and yellow ones, and in\Nsummer I can see bees buzz around the
Dialogue: 0,0:04:17.45,0:04:21.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,flowers. I have a feeling, though, that\Nthey like the yellow ones better. That
Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.74,0:04:25.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right there is an observation. I now think\Nto myself {\i1}I wonder if they prefer the{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:04:25.89,0:04:31.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}yellow flowers over the blue ones based on\Nthe color{\i0} and this is my hypothesis. The
Dialogue: 0,0:04:31.70,0:04:36.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,point of a hypothesis is to test it so I\Ncan accept it or reject it later. So I
Dialogue: 0,0:04:36.75,0:04:40.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,come up with a test. I count all bees that\Nland on yellow flowers and on blue flowers
Dialogue: 0,0:04:40.42,0:04:45.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,within a weekend. That is my experiment.\NSo I sit there all weekend with one of
Dialogue: 0,0:04:45.84,0:04:49.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these clicky things in each hand and count\Nthe bees on the flowers. Every time a bee
Dialogue: 0,0:04:49.82,0:04:54.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lands on a flower, I click. {\i1}click, click,\Nclick, click, click{\i0}. It's the most fun I
Dialogue: 0,0:04:54.19,0:04:59.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,had all summer. In the end, I look at my\Nnumbers. These are my results. I saw sixty
Dialogue: 0,0:04:59.93,0:05:03.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,four bees on the yellow flowers and twenty\Nseven on the blue flowers. Based on my
Dialogue: 0,0:05:03.70,0:05:09.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experiment I conclude that bees prefer\Nyellow pansies over blue ones. I can now
Dialogue: 0,0:05:09.11,0:05:14.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,return and accept my hypothesis. Bees do\Nprefer yellow flowers over blue ones.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:14.14,0:05:18.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Based on that experiment I made a new\Nobservation and can now make a new
Dialogue: 0,0:05:18.26,0:05:22.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hypothesis: do other insects follow the\Nsame behavior? And so I sat there again
Dialogue: 0,0:05:22.86,0:05:28.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,next weekend, counting all hoverflies on\Nmy pansies. Happy days. The scientists in
Dialogue: 0,0:05:28.81,0:05:33.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the audience are probably screaming by\Nnow. I am, too, but on the inside. My
Dialogue: 0,0:05:33.91,0:05:38.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,little experiment and the conclusions I\Ndid were flawed. First up, I didn't do any
Dialogue: 0,0:05:38.34,0:05:43.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,controls apart from yellow versus blue.\NWhat about time? Do the days or seasons
Dialogue: 0,0:05:43.69,0:05:48.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,matter? Maybe I picked up the one time\Nperiod when bees actually do prefer yellow
Dialogue: 0,0:05:48.24,0:05:52.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but on most other days they like blue\Nbetter? And then I didn't control for
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.42,0:05:56.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,position. Maybe the blue ones get less\Nsunlight and are less warm and so a good
Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.47,0:06:00.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,control would have been to swap the pots\Naround. I also said I wanted to test
Dialogue: 0,0:06:00.91,0:06:05.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,color. Another good control would have\Nbeen to put up a cardboard cutout of a
Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.01,0:06:09.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,flower in blue and yellow and see whether\Nit is the color or maybe another factor
Dialogue: 0,0:06:09.20,0:06:14.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that attracts the bees. And then I only\Ncounted once. I put the two data points
Dialogue: 0,0:06:14.39,0:06:17.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into an online statistical calculator and\Nwhen I had calculated it, it told me I had
Dialogue: 0,0:06:17.64,0:06:21.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,internet connectivity problems. So I\Nbusted out my old textbook about
Dialogue: 0,0:06:21.38,0:06:25.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,statistics. And as it turns out, you need\Nrepetitions of your experiment to do
Dialogue: 0,0:06:25.06,0:06:29.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,statistics and without statistics, you\Ncan't be sure of anything. If you want to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:29.57,0:06:33.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know whether what you measure is random or\Ntruly different between your two
Dialogue: 0,0:06:33.39,0:06:37.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conditions, you do a statistical test that\Ntells you with what probability your
Dialogue: 0,0:06:37.27,0:06:42.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,result could be random. That is called a\NP-value. You want that number to be low.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:42.34,0:06:46.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In biology, we're happy with a chance of\None in twenty. So five percent that the
Dialogue: 0,0:06:46.63,0:06:50.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,difference we observe between two\Nmeasurements happened by chance. In high
Dialogue: 0,0:06:50.87,0:06:54.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,energy particle physics, that chance of\Nseeing a random effect is 1:3.500.000
Dialogue: 0,0:06:54.76,0:07:00.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or 0.00003%. So without\Nstatistics, you can never be sure whether
Dialogue: 0,0:07:00.78,0:07:06.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you observe something important or just\Ntwo numbers that look different. A good
Dialogue: 0,0:07:06.42,0:07:10.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,way to do science is to do an experiment a\Ncouple of times, three at least, and then
Dialogue: 0,0:07:10.31,0:07:14.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,repeat it with controls again at least\Nthree times. With a bigger data set, I
Dialogue: 0,0:07:14.71,0:07:19.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,could actually make an observation that\Nholds significance. So why do I tell you
Dialogue: 0,0:07:19.01,0:07:22.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all of this? You want to know how to\Nunderstand science not how to do it
Dialogue: 0,0:07:22.82,0:07:27.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yourself? Well, as it turns out, controls\Nand repetitions are also a critical point
Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.01,0:07:30.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to check when you read about scientific\Nresults. Often enough cool findings are
Dialogue: 0,0:07:30.78,0:07:34.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,based on experiments that didn't control\Nfor certain things or that are based on
Dialogue: 0,0:07:34.66,0:07:38.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very low numbers of repetitions. You have\Nto be careful with conclusions from these
Dialogue: 0,0:07:38.82,0:07:43.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experiments as they might be wrong. So\Nwhen you read about science, look for
Dialogue: 0,0:07:43.58,0:07:47.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science that they followed the scientific\Nmethod like a clearly stated hypothesis,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:47.17,0:07:53.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experiments with proper controls and\Nenough repetitions to do solid statistics.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:53.44,0:07:56.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It seems like an obvious improvement for\Nthe scientific system to just do more
Dialogue: 0,0:07:56.73,0:08:01.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,repetitions. Well, there is a problem with\Nthat. Often experiments require the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:01.49,0:08:05.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,researchers to break things. Maybe just\Nbecause you take the things out of their
Dialogue: 0,0:08:05.18,0:08:08.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,environment and into your lab, maybe\Nbecause you can only study it when it's
Dialogue: 0,0:08:08.46,0:08:13.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,broken. And as it turns out, not all\Nthings can be broken easily. Let me
Dialogue: 0,0:08:13.38,0:08:18.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,introduce you to my scale of how easy it\Nis to break the thing you study. All the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:18.48,0:08:22.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,way to the left, you have things like\Nparticle physics. It's easy to break
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.49,0:08:26.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,particles. All you need is a big ring and\Nsome spare electrons you put in there
Dialogue: 0,0:08:26.34,0:08:30.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really, really fast. Once you have these\Ntwo basic things, you can break millions
Dialogue: 0,0:08:30.02,0:08:33.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of particles and measure what happens so\Nyou can calculate really good statistics
Dialogue: 0,0:08:33.69,0:08:38.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on them. Then you have other areas of\Nphysics. In material science. the only
Dialogue: 0,0:08:38.31,0:08:42.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing that stops you from testing how hard\Na rock is, is the price of your rock.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:42.75,0:08:47.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Again, that makes us quite confident in\Nthe material properties of things. Now we
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.63,0:08:53.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,enter the realm of biology. Biology is\Nless precise because living things are not
Dialogue: 0,0:08:53.59,0:08:58.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all the same. If you take two bacterial\Ncells of the same species, they might
Dialogue: 0,0:08:58.55,0:09:02.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,still be slightly different in their\Ngenome. But luckily we can break millions
Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.80,0:09:08.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of bacteria and other microbes without\Nrunning into ethical dilemmas. We even ask
Dialogue: 0,0:09:08.28,0:09:12.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,researchers to become better at killing\Nmicrobes. So doing more of the experiment
Dialogue: 0,0:09:12.19,0:09:16.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is easier when working with microbes. It\Ngets harder, though, with bigger and more
Dialogue: 0,0:09:16.84,0:09:22.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complex organisms. Want to break plants in\Na greenhouse or in a field? As long as you
Dialogue: 0,0:09:22.08,0:09:26.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have the space, you can break thousands of\Nthem for science and no one minds. How
Dialogue: 0,0:09:26.47,0:09:29.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about animals like fish and mice and\Nmonkeys? There it gets much more
Dialogue: 0,0:09:29.80,0:09:33.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complicated very quickly. While we are\Nhappy to kill thousands of pigs every day
Dialogue: 0,0:09:33.92,0:09:37.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for sausages, we feel much less\Ncomfortable doing the same for science.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:37.63,0:09:41.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it's not a bad thing when we try to\Nreduce harm to animals. So while you
Dialogue: 0,0:09:41.85,0:09:46.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,absolutely can do repetitions and controls\Nand animal testing, you usually are
Dialogue: 0,0:09:46.30,0:09:50.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,limited by the number of animals you can\Nbreak for science. And then we come to
Dialogue: 0,0:09:50.90,0:09:55.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,human biology. If you thought it was hard\Ndoing lots of repetitions and controls in
Dialogue: 0,0:09:55.42,0:09:59.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,animals, try doing that in humans. You\Ncan't grow a human on a corn sugar based
Dialogue: 0,0:09:59.59,0:10:03.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,diet just to see what would happen. You\Ncan't grow humans in isolation and you
Dialogue: 0,0:10:03.91,0:10:08.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can't breed humans to make more cancer as\Na control in your cancer experiment. So
Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.62,0:10:11.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with anything that involves science in\Nhumans, we have to have very clever
Dialogue: 0,0:10:11.56,0:10:15.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experiment design to control for all the\Nthings that we can't control. The other
Dialogue: 0,0:10:15.38,0:10:18.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,way to do science on humans, of course, is\Nto be a genetic life form and disk-
Dialogue: 0,0:10:18.32,0:10:24.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,operating system. What this scale tells us\Nis how careful we have to be with
Dialogue: 0,0:10:24.06,0:10:28.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,conclusions from any of these research\Nareas. We have to apply a much higher
Dialogue: 0,0:10:28.04,0:10:32.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,skepticism when looking at single studies\Non human food than when we study how hard
Dialogue: 0,0:10:32.69,0:10:36.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a rock is. If I'm interested in stuff on\Nthe right end of the spectrum, I'd rather
Dialogue: 0,0:10:36.65,0:10:40.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,see a couple of studies pointing at a\Nconclusion. Whereas the further I get to
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.52,0:10:44.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the left hand side, the more I trust\Nsingle studies. That still doesn't mean
Dialogue: 0,0:10:44.77,0:10:50.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that there can't be mistakes in particle\Nphysics, but I hope you get the idea. Back
Dialogue: 0,0:10:50.51,0:10:55.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the scientific method. Because it is\Ncircular, it is never done, and so is
Dialogue: 0,0:10:55.28,0:10:59.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science. We can always uncover more\Ndetails, look at related things and refine
Dialogue: 0,0:10:59.18,0:11:04.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our understanding. There's no field where\Nwe could ever say: Ok, let's pack up. We
Dialogue: 0,0:11:04.18,0:11:09.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know now everything. Good job, everyone -\Nthe science has been completely done.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:09.32,0:11:13.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Everything in science can be potentially\Noverturned. Nothing is set in stone.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:13.12,0:11:18.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,However, and it's a big however, it's not\Nlikely that this happens for most things.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.43,0:11:21.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Most things have been shown so often that\Nthe chance that we will find out that
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.70,0:11:25.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,water actually boils at 250 degrees\Ncentigrade at sea level and normal
Dialogue: 0,0:11:25.49,0:11:30.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pressure is close to zero. But if\Nresearchers would be able to show that
Dialogue: 0,0:11:30.51,0:11:35.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,strange behavior of water, it is in the\Nnature of science to include that result
Dialogue: 0,0:11:35.17,0:11:39.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in our understanding. Even if that breaks\Nsome other ideas that we have about the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:39.61,0:11:44.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,world. That is what sets science apart\Nfrom dogma. New evidence is not frowned
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.51,0:11:48.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,upon and rejected, but welcomed and\Nintegrated into our current understanding
Dialogue: 0,0:11:48.57,0:11:55.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the world. Enough about a scientific\Nsystem. Let's talk about scientists. You
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.04,0:11:59.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might be surprised to hear, but most\Nresearchers are actually people. Other
Dialogue: 0,0:11:59.37,0:12:02.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people, who are not researchers tend to\Nforget that, especially when they talk
Dialogue: 0,0:12:02.57,0:12:07.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about the science that the researchers do.\NThat goes both ways. There are some that
Dialogue: 0,0:12:07.27,0:12:11.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,believe in the absolute objective truth of\Nscience. Ignoring all influence
Dialogue: 0,0:12:11.29,0:12:15.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,researchers have on the data. And there\Nare others, who say that science is lying
Dialogue: 0,0:12:15.90,0:12:20.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about things like vaccinations, climate\Nchange or infectious diseases. Both groups
Dialogue: 0,0:12:20.68,0:12:26.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are wrong. Researchers are not infallible\Ndemigods that eat nature and poop wisdom.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:26.41,0:12:31.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They're also not conspiring to bring harm\Nto society in search for personal gain.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:31.12,0:12:35.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Trust me. I know people, who work in\Npesticide research, they're as miserable
Dialogue: 0,0:12:35.02,0:12:39.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as any other researcher. Researchers are\Npeople. And so they have thoughts and
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.66,0:12:44.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ideas and wishes and biases and faults and\Ngood intentions. Most people don't want to
Dialogue: 0,0:12:44.98,0:12:49.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do bad things and inflict harm on others\Nand so do researchers. They aim to do good
Dialogue: 0,0:12:49.73,0:12:55.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,things and make lives of people better.\NThe problem with researchers being people
Dialogue: 0,0:12:55.54,0:13:00.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is that they are also flawed. We all have\Ncognitive biases that shape the way we
Dialogue: 0,0:13:00.28,0:13:04.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perceive and think about the world. And in\Nscience, there's a whole list of biases
Dialogue: 0,0:13:04.34,0:13:08.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that affect the way we gather data and\Ndraw conclusions from it. Luckily, there
Dialogue: 0,0:13:08.68,0:13:13.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are ways to deal with most biases. We have\Nto be aware of them, address them and
Dialogue: 0,0:13:13.81,0:13:20.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,change our behavior to avoid them. What we\Ncan't do is deny their impact on research.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:20.71,0:13:24.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Another issue is diversity. Whenever you\Nput a group of similar people together,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.80,0:13:28.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they will only come up with ideas that fit\Nwithin their group. That's why it is a
Dialogue: 0,0:13:28.73,0:13:33.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problem when only white men are dominating\Nresearch leadership positions. {\i1}Hold on{\i0}.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:33.80,0:13:39.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Some of you might shout. {\i1}These men are\Nmen of science. They are objective. They{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:13:39.21,0:13:44.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}use the scientific method. We don't need\Ndiversity. We need smart people{\i0}. To which
Dialogue: 0,0:13:44.07,0:13:50.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I answer: {\i1}ugghhh{\i0}. Here is a story for\Nyou. For more than 150 years, researchers
Dialogue: 0,0:13:50.19,0:13:54.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,believed that only male birds are singing.\NIt fits the simple idea that male birds do
Dialogue: 0,0:13:54.49,0:13:59.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,all the mating rituals and stuff, so they\Nmust be the singers. Just like in humans,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:59.33,0:14:03.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,female birds were believed to just sit and\Nlisten while the men shout at each other.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:03.02,0:14:07.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In the last 20 years, this idea was\Ndebunked. New research found that also
Dialogue: 0,0:14:07.87,0:14:13.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,female birds sing. So how did we miss that\Nfor so long? Another study on the studies
Dialogue: 0,0:14:13.98,0:14:17.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,found that during these 20 years that\Noverturned the dogma of male singing
Dialogue: 0,0:14:17.24,0:14:22.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,birds, the researchers changed. Suddenly,\Nmore women took part in research and
Dialogue: 0,0:14:22.65,0:14:27.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research happened in more parts of the\Nworld. Previously, mostly men in U.S.,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:27.40,0:14:31.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Canada, England and Germany were studying\Nsinging birds in their countries. As a
Dialogue: 0,0:14:31.78,0:14:35.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,result, they subconsciously introduced\Ntheir own biases and ideas into the work.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.55,0:14:40.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so we believe for a long time that\Nfemale birds keep their beaks shut. Only
Dialogue: 0,0:14:40.85,0:14:46.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when the group of researchers diversified,\Nwe got new and better results. The male
Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.22,0:14:50.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,researchers didn't ignore the female\Nsongbirds out of bad faith. The men were
Dialogue: 0,0:14:50.23,0:14:53.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shaped by their environment but they\Ndidn't want to do bad things. They just
Dialogue: 0,0:14:53.70,0:14:56.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happened to oversee something that someone\Nwith a different background would pick up
Dialogue: 0,0:14:56.89,0:15:02.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on. What does this tell us about science?\NIt tells us that science is influenced
Dialogue: 0,0:15:02.19,0:15:06.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,consciously or subconsciously by internal\Nbiases. When we talk about scientific
Dialogue: 0,0:15:06.49,0:15:10.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,results we need to take that into account.\NEspecially in studies regarding human
Dialogue: 0,0:15:10.93,0:15:14.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,behavior. We have to be very careful about\Nexperiment design, framing and
Dialogue: 0,0:15:14.81,0:15:18.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,interpretation of results. If you read\Nabout science that makes bold claims about
Dialogue: 0,0:15:18.99,0:15:23.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the way we should work, interact or\Ncommunicate in society that science is
Dialogue: 0,0:15:23.25,0:15:26.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,prone to be shaped by bias and you should\Nbe very careful when drawing conclusions
Dialogue: 0,0:15:26.94,0:15:31.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from it. I personally would rather wait\Nfor several studies pointing in a similar
Dialogue: 0,0:15:31.28,0:15:35.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,direction before I draw major conclusions.\NI linked to a story about a publication
Dialogue: 0,0:15:35.83,0:15:39.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about the influence of female mentors on\Ncareer success and it was criticized for a
Dialogue: 0,0:15:39.60,0:15:46.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,couple of these biases. If we want to\Nunderstand science better, we also have to
Dialogue: 0,0:15:46.89,0:15:50.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,look at how someone becomes a scientist\Nand I mean that in a sense of professional
Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.98,0:15:54.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,career. Technically, everybody is a\Nscientist as soon as they test a
Dialogue: 0,0:15:54.74,0:15:58.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hypothesis, observe the outcome and\Nrepeat. But unfortunately, most of us are
Dialogue: 0,0:15:58.89,0:16:03.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not paid for the tiny experiments during\Nour day to day life. If you want to become
Dialogue: 0,0:16:03.30,0:16:08.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a scientist, you usually start by entering\Nacademia. Academia is the world of
Dialogue: 0,0:16:08.31,0:16:12.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Universities, Colleges and research\Ninstitutes. There is a lot of science done
Dialogue: 0,0:16:12.00,0:16:16.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,outside of academia, like in research and\Ndevelopment in industry or by individuals
Dialogue: 0,0:16:16.74,0:16:21.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,taking part in DIY science. As these\Ngroups rarely enter the spotlight of
Dialogue: 0,0:16:21.03,0:16:26.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,public attention, I will ignore them\Ntoday. Sorry. So this is a typical STEM
Dialogue: 0,0:16:26.71,0:16:31.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,career path. You begin as a Bachelor's or\NMaster's student. You work for something
Dialogue: 0,0:16:31.24,0:16:35.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between three months and a year and then\N{\i1}wohoo{\i0} you get a degree. From here you
Dialogue: 0,0:16:35.55,0:16:39.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can leave, go into the industry, be a\Nscientific researcher at a University or
Dialogue: 0,0:16:39.69,0:16:44.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you continue your education. If you\Ncontinue, you're most likely to do a PhD.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:44.71,0:16:47.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But before you can select one of the\Nexciting options on a form when you order
Dialogue: 0,0:16:47.65,0:16:51.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your food, you have to do research. For\Nthree to six years, depending on where you
Dialogue: 0,0:16:51.89,0:16:56.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do your PhD, you work on a project and\Nmost likely will not have a great time.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:56.66,0:17:00.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You finish with your degree and some\Npublications. A lot of people leave now
Dialogue: 0,0:17:00.96,0:17:05.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but if you stay in research, you'll become\Na postdoc. The word postdoc comes from the
Dialogue: 0,0:17:05.81,0:17:09.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,word "doc" as in doctorate and "post" as\Nin you have to post a lot of application
Dialogue: 0,0:17:09.80,0:17:18.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,letters to get a job. Postdocs do more\Nresearch, often on broader topics. They
Dialogue: 0,0:17:18.05,0:17:21.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,supervise PhD students and are usually\Npretty knowledgeable about their research
Dialogue: 0,0:17:21.91,0:17:26.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,field. They work and write papers until\None of two things happen. The German
Dialogue: 0,0:17:26.43,0:17:30.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz bites them\Nin the butt and they get no more contract
Dialogue: 0,0:17:30.15,0:17:34.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or they move on to become a group leader\Nor professor. Being a professor is great.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:34.73,0:17:37.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You have a permanent research position,\Nyou get to supervise and you get to talk
Dialogue: 0,0:17:37.77,0:17:42.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to many cool other researchers. You\Nprobably know a lot by now, not only about
Dialogue: 0,0:17:42.26,0:17:46.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your field but also many other fields in\Nyour part of science as you constantly go
Dialogue: 0,0:17:46.53,0:17:50.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to conferences because they have good food\Nand also people are talking about science.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:50.91,0:17:55.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Downside is, you're probably not doing any\Nexperiments yourself anymore. You have
Dialogue: 0,0:17:55.87,0:18:01.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,postdocs and PhD students, who do that for\Nyou. If you want to go into science,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:01.01,0:18:04.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,please have a look at this. What looks\Nlike terrible city planning is actually
Dialogue: 0,0:18:04.74,0:18:09.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,terrible career planning as less than one\Npercent of PhDs will ever reach the level
Dialogue: 0,0:18:09.19,0:18:13.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of professor, also known as the only\Nstable job in science. That's also what
Dialogue: 0,0:18:13.94,0:18:20.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happened to me, I left academia after my\NPhD. So what do we learn from all of this?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:20.45,0:18:23.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Different stages of a research career\Ncorrelate with different levels of
Dialogue: 0,0:18:23.42,0:18:27.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,expertise. If you read statements from a\NMaster's student or professor, you can get
Dialogue: 0,0:18:27.49,0:18:31.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an estimate for how much they know about\Ntheir field and in turn for how solid
Dialogue: 0,0:18:31.22,0:18:35.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,their science is. Of course, this is just\Na rule of thumb- I have met both very
Dialogue: 0,0:18:35.27,0:18:38.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,knowledgeable Master's students and\Nprofessors, who knew nothing apart from
Dialogue: 0,0:18:38.44,0:18:43.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,their own small work. So whenever you read\Nstatements from researchers independent of
Dialogue: 0,0:18:43.99,0:18:47.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,their career stage, you should also wonder\Nwhether they represent the scientific
Dialogue: 0,0:18:47.83,0:18:52.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,consensus. Any individual scientist might\Nhave a particular hot take about something
Dialogue: 0,0:18:52.16,0:18:57.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they care about but in general, they agree\Nwith their colleagues. When reading about
Dialogue: 0,0:18:57.04,0:19:00.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science that relates to policies or public\Ndebates, it is a good idea to explore
Dialogue: 0,0:19:00.53,0:19:04.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whether this particular researcher is\Nrepresenting their own opinion or the one
Dialogue: 0,0:19:04.94,0:19:09.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of their peers. Don't ask the researcher\Ndirectly though, every single one of them
Dialogue: 0,0:19:09.05,0:19:16.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will say that, of course, they represent\Nthe majority opinion. The difference
Dialogue: 0,0:19:16.53,0:19:21.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between science and screwing around is\Nwriting it down, as Adam Savage once said.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:21.38,0:19:24.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Science without publications is pretty\Nuseless because if you keep all that
Dialogue: 0,0:19:24.76,0:19:29.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,knowledge to yourself, well, congrats, you\Nare very smart now but that doesn't really
Dialogue: 0,0:19:29.29,0:19:33.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,help anyone but you. Any researchers'\Ngoal, therefore, is to get their findings
Dialogue: 0,0:19:33.72,0:19:38.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,publicly known so that others can extend\Nthe work and create scientific progress.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:38.50,0:19:43.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So let's go back to my amazing bee\Nresearch. I did the whole experiment again
Dialogue: 0,0:19:43.00,0:19:47.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with proper controls this time and now I\Nwant to tell people about it. The simplest
Dialogue: 0,0:19:47.23,0:19:51.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,way to publish my findings would be to\Ntweet about it. But then a random guy
Dialogue: 0,0:19:51.57,0:19:56.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would probably tell me that I'm wrong and\Nstupid and should go f*** myself. So
Dialogue: 0,0:19:56.04,0:20:00.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,instead I do what most researchers would\Ndo and go to a scientific conference.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:00.85,0:20:04.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's where researchers hang out, have a\Nlot of coffee and sit and listen to talks
Dialogue: 0,0:20:04.47,0:20:08.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from other researchers. Conferences are\Nusually the first place that new
Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.12,0:20:13.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information becomes public. Well, public\Nis a bit of a stretch, usually the talks
Dialogue: 0,0:20:13.25,0:20:17.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are not really recorded or made accessible\Nto anyone, who wasn't there at the time.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:17.69,0:20:20.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So while the information is pretty\Ntrustworthy, it remains fairly
Dialogue: 0,0:20:20.74,0:20:25.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,inaccessible to others. After my\Nconference talk, the next step is to write
Dialogue: 0,0:20:25.17,0:20:29.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,up all the details of my experiment and\Nthe results in a scientific paper. Before
Dialogue: 0,0:20:29.84,0:20:33.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I send this to an editor at a scientific\Njournal, I could publish it myself as a
Dialogue: 0,0:20:33.93,0:20:38.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pre-print. These pre-prints are drafts of\Nfinished papers that are available to read
Dialogue: 0,0:20:38.62,0:20:43.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for anyone. They are great because they\Nprovide easy access to information that is
Dialogue: 0,0:20:43.12,0:20:47.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,otherwise often behind paywalls. They are\Nnot so great because they have not yet
Dialogue: 0,0:20:47.17,0:20:51.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,been peer reviewed. If a pre-print hasn't\Nalso been published with peer review, you
Dialogue: 0,0:20:51.75,0:20:55.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to be careful with what you read as\Nit is essentially only the point of view
Dialogue: 0,0:20:55.50,0:21:01.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the authors. Peer review only happens\Nwhen you submit your paper to a journal.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:01.19,0:21:04.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Journals are a whole thing and there have\Nbeen some great talks in the past about
Dialogue: 0,0:21:04.72,0:21:08.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,why many of them are problematic. Let's\Nignore for a second how these massive
Dialogue: 0,0:21:08.90,0:21:12.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,enterprises collect money from everyone\Nthey get in contact with and let's focus
Dialogue: 0,0:21:12.49,0:21:17.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,instead on what they're doing for the\Nacademic system. I send them my paper, an
Dialogue: 0,0:21:17.17,0:21:21.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,editor sees if it's any good and then\Nsends my paper to two to three reviewers.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:21.54,0:21:25.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,These are other researchers that then\Ncritically check everything I did and
Dialogue: 0,0:21:25.37,0:21:30.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,eventually recommend accepting or\Nrejecting my paper. If it is accepted, the
Dialogue: 0,0:21:30.44,0:21:35.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,paper will be published. I pay a fee and\Nthe paper will be available online. Often
Dialogue: 0,0:21:35.26,0:21:40.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,behind a paywall, unless I pay some more\Ncash. At this point, I'd like to have a
Dialogue: 0,0:21:40.18,0:21:44.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,look at how a scientific paper works.\NThere are five important parts to any
Dialogue: 0,0:21:44.33,0:21:49.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,paper. The title, the author list, the\Nabstract, the figures and the text. The
Dialogue: 0,0:21:49.54,0:21:53.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,title is a summary of the main findings\Nand unlike in popular media, it is much
Dialogue: 0,0:21:53.31,0:21:57.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more descriptive. Where a newspaper leaves\Nout the most important information to get
Dialogue: 0,0:21:57.25,0:22:00.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people to read the article, the\Ninformation is right there in the title of
Dialogue: 0,0:22:00.90,0:22:06.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the study. In my case that could be\N"Honeybees -Apis mellifera- show selective
Dialogue: 0,0:22:06.60,0:22:11.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,preference for flower color in viola\Ntricolor". You see, everything is right
Dialogue: 0,0:22:11.12,0:22:15.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there. The organisms I worked with and the\Nmain result I found. Below the title
Dialogue: 0,0:22:15.79,0:22:19.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stands the author list. As you might have\Nguessed, the author list is a list of
Dialogue: 0,0:22:19.64,0:22:23.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,authors. Depending on the field the paper\Nis from, the list can be ordered
Dialogue: 0,0:22:23.32,0:22:28.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,alphabetically or according to relative\Ncontribution. If it is contribution then
Dialogue: 0,0:22:28.28,0:22:32.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you usually find the first author to have\Ndone all the work or the middle authors to
Dialogue: 0,0:22:32.12,0:22:35.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have contributed some smaller parts and\Nthe last author to have paid for the whole
Dialogue: 0,0:22:35.35,0:22:40.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,thing. The last author is usually a group\Nleader or professor. A good way to learn
Dialogue: 0,0:22:40.13,0:22:45.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more about a research group and their work\Nis to search for the last author's name. The
Dialogue: 0,0:22:45.40,0:22:49.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,abstract is a summary of the findings.\NRead this to get a general idea of what
Dialogue: 0,0:22:49.00,0:22:53.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the researchers did and what they found.\NIt is very dense in information but it is
Dialogue: 0,0:22:53.27,0:22:56.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,usually written in a way that also\Nresearchers from other fields can
Dialogue: 0,0:22:56.42,0:23:01.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understand at least some of it. The\Nfigures are pretty to look at and hold the
Dialogue: 0,0:23:01.73,0:23:07.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,key findings in most papers and the text\Nhas the full story with all the details or
Dialogue: 0,0:23:07.09,0:23:11.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the jargon and all your references that\Nthe research is built on. You probably
Dialogue: 0,0:23:11.84,0:23:16.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,won't read the text unless you care a lot,\Nso stick to title, abstract and authors to
Dialogue: 0,0:23:16.30,0:23:20.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,get a quick understanding of what's going\Non. Scientific papers to reflect a peer
Dialogue: 0,0:23:20.69,0:23:25.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reviewed opinion of one or a few research\Ngroups. If you are interested in a broader
Dialogue: 0,0:23:25.82,0:23:30.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,topic like what insects like to pollinate\Nwhat flower, you should read review
Dialogue: 0,0:23:30.61,0:23:35.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,papers. These are peer reviewed summaries\Nof a much broader scope, often weighing
Dialogue: 0,0:23:35.11,0:23:39.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,multiple points of view against each\Nother. Review papers are a great resource
Dialogue: 0,0:23:39.50,0:23:43.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that avoids some of the biases individual\Nresearch groups might have about their
Dialogue: 0,0:23:43.51,0:23:48.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,topic. So my research is reviewed and\Npublished. I can go back now and start
Dialogue: 0,0:23:48.59,0:23:52.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,counting butterflies, but this is not\Nwhere the publishing of scientific results
Dialogue: 0,0:23:52.10,0:23:56.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,ends. My institute might think that my bee\Ncounting is not even bad, it is actually
Dialogue: 0,0:23:56.86,0:24:01.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,amazing and so they will issue a press\Nrelease. Press releases often emphasize
Dialogue: 0,0:24:01.29,0:24:04.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the positive parts of a study while\Nputting them into context of something
Dialogue: 0,0:24:04.76,0:24:08.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's relevant to most people. Something\Nlike "bees remain attracted to yellow
Dialogue: 0,0:24:08.77,0:24:13.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,flowers despite the climate crisis". The\Nfacts in a press release are usually
Dialogue: 0,0:24:13.01,0:24:17.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,correct but shortcomings of a study that I\Nmentioned in a paper are often missing
Dialogue: 0,0:24:17.19,0:24:22.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from the press release. Because my bee\Nstudy is really cool and because the PR
Dialogue: 0,0:24:22.67,0:24:27.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,department of my institute did a great\Njob, journalists pick up on the story. The
Dialogue: 0,0:24:27.76,0:24:31.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,first ones are often journals with a focus\Non science like {\i1}Scientific American{\i0} or
Dialogue: 0,0:24:31.95,0:24:35.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}Spektrum der Wissenschaft{\i0}. Most of the\Ntime, science journalists do a great job
Dialogue: 0,0:24:35.75,0:24:40.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in finding more sources and putting the\Nresults into context. They often ask other
Dialogue: 0,0:24:40.49,0:24:44.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experts for their opinion and they break\Ndown the scientific language into simpler
Dialogue: 0,0:24:44.23,0:24:48.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,words. Science journalism is the source I\Nrecommend to most people when they want to
Dialogue: 0,0:24:48.30,0:24:52.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,learn about a field that they are not\Nexperts in. Because my bee story is
Dialogue: 0,0:24:52.50,0:24:57.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,freaking good, mainstream journalists are\Nalso reporting on it. They are often
Dialogue: 0,0:24:57.18,0:25:00.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pressed for time and write for much\Nbroader audience, so they just report the
Dialogue: 0,0:25:00.15,0:25:05.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,basic findings, often putting even more\Nemphasis on why people should care.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:05.45,0:25:10.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Usually climate change, personal health or\Nnow Covid. Mainstream press coverage is
Dialogue: 0,0:25:10.98,0:25:14.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rarely as detailed as the previous\Nreporting and has the strongest tendency
Dialogue: 0,0:25:14.92,0:25:20.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to accidentally misrepresent facts or add\Nframing that researchers wouldn't use. Oh,
Dialogue: 0,0:25:20.42,0:25:23.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and then there is the weird uncle, who\Nposts a link to the article on their
Dialogue: 0,0:25:23.14,0:25:26.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Facebook with a blurb of text that says\Nthe opposite of what the study actually
Dialogue: 0,0:25:26.50,0:25:31.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,did. As you might imagine, the process of\Ngetting scientific information out to the
Dialogue: 0,0:25:31.75,0:25:35.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,public quickly becomes a game of\Ntelephone. What is clearly written in the
Dialogue: 0,0:25:35.66,0:25:39.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,paper is framed positively in a press\Nrelease and gets watered down even more
Dialogue: 0,0:25:39.48,0:25:44.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,once it reaches mainstream press. So for\Nyou, as someone, who wants to understand
Dialogue: 0,0:25:44.17,0:25:48.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the science, it is a good idea to be more\Ncareful the further you get away from your
Dialogue: 0,0:25:48.38,0:25:52.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,original source material. While specific\Nscientific journalism usually does a good
Dialogue: 0,0:25:52.71,0:25:56.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,job in breaking down the facts without\Ndistortion, the same can't be said for
Dialogue: 0,0:25:56.54,0:26:01.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,popular media. If you come across an\Ninteresting story, try to find another
Dialogue: 0,0:26:01.31,0:26:05.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,version of it in a different outlet,\Npreferably one that is more catered to an
Dialogue: 0,0:26:05.53,0:26:09.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,audience with scientific interest. Of\Ncourse, you can jump straight to the
Dialogue: 0,0:26:09.32,0:26:13.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,original paper but understanding the\Nscientific jargon can be hard and
Dialogue: 0,0:26:13.25,0:26:17.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,misunderstanding the message is easy, so\Nit can do more harm than good. We see that
Dialogue: 0,0:26:17.96,0:26:23.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,harm now with Hobbyists, when epidimi...,\Nepidimio..., epediomiolo.., who are not
Dialogue: 0,0:26:23.64,0:26:28.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people, who study epidemics, who are\Nmaking up their own pandemic modeling.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:28.18,0:26:31.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They are cherry picking bits of\Ninformation from scientific papers without
Dialogue: 0,0:26:31.55,0:26:35.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understanding the bigger picture and\Ncontext and then post their own charts on
Dialogue: 0,0:26:35.23,0:26:39.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Twitter. It's cool if you want to play\Nwith data in your free time, and it's a
Dialogue: 0,0:26:39.85,0:26:44.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fun way to learn more about a topic but it\Ncan also be very misleading and harmful
Dialogue: 0,0:26:44.51,0:26:48.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,while dealing with a pandemic if expert\Nstudies have to fight for attention with
Dialogue: 0,0:26:48.39,0:26:52.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,nonexperts Excel-graphs. It pays off to\Nthink twice about whether you're actually
Dialogue: 0,0:26:52.94,0:26:59.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,helping by publishing your own take on a\Nscientific question. Before we end, I want
Dialogue: 0,0:26:59.28,0:27:03.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to give you some practical advice on how\Nto assess the credibility of a story and
Dialogue: 0,0:27:03.60,0:27:08.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how to understand the science better. This\Nis now an in-depth guide to fact checking.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:08.47,0:27:12.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I want you to get a sort of gut feeling\Nabout science. When I read scientific
Dialogue: 0,0:27:12.76,0:27:18.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information, these are the questions that\Ncome to my mind. First up, I want to ask
Dialogue: 0,0:27:18.32,0:27:23.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yourself, is this plausible and does this\Nfollow the scientific consensus? If both
Dialogue: 0,0:27:23.50,0:27:28.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,answers are "no" then you should carefully\Ncheck the sources. More often than not,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:28.61,0:27:32.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these results are outliers that somebody\Nexaggerated to get news coverage or
Dialogue: 0,0:27:32.53,0:27:37.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,someone is actively reframing scientific\Ninformation for their own goals. To get a
Dialogue: 0,0:27:37.68,0:27:41.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,feeling about scientific consensus on\Nthings, it is a good idea to look for
Dialogue: 0,0:27:41.28,0:27:45.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,joint statements from research\Ncommunities. Whenever an issue that is
Dialogue: 0,0:27:45.28,0:27:49.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,linked to current research comes up for\Npublic debate, there is usually a joint
Dialogue: 0,0:27:49.85,0:27:53.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,statement laying down the scientific\Nopinion signed by dozens or even hundreds
Dialogue: 0,0:27:53.55,0:27:59.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of researchers, like, for example, from\NScientists for Future. And then whenever
Dialogue: 0,0:27:59.15,0:28:03.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you see a big number, you should look for\Ncontext. When you read statements like "We
Dialogue: 0,0:28:03.64,0:28:08.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,grow sugar beet on an area of over 400,000\Nhectare", you should immediately ask
Dialogue: 0,0:28:08.76,0:28:14.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,yourself "Who is we? Is it Germany,\NEurope, the world? What is the time frame?
Dialogue: 0,0:28:14.61,0:28:20.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Is that per year? Is that a lot? How much\Nis that compared to other crops?". Context
Dialogue: 0,0:28:20.95,0:28:26.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,matters a lot and often big numbers are\Nused to impress you. In this case, 400,000
Dialogue: 0,0:28:26.62,0:28:32.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hectare is the yearly area that Germany\Ngrows sugar beet on. A wheat, for example,
Dialogue: 0,0:28:32.36,0:28:37.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is grown on over 3 million hectare per\Nyear in Germany. Context matters, and so
Dialogue: 0,0:28:37.87,0:28:42.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whenever you see a number, look for a\Nframe of reference. If the article doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:28:42.10,0:28:45.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,give you one, either, go and look for\Nyourself or ignore the number for your
Dialogue: 0,0:28:45.96,0:28:50.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,decision making based on the article.\NNumbers only work with framing, so be
Dialogue: 0,0:28:50.29,0:28:54.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,aware of it. I want you to think briefly\Nabout how you felt when I gave you that
Dialogue: 0,0:28:54.84,0:29:00.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,number of 400,000 hectare. Chances are\Nthat you felt a sort of feeling of unease
Dialogue: 0,0:29:00.37,0:29:05.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because it's really hard to imagine such a\Nlarge number. An interesting exercise is
Dialogue: 0,0:29:05.01,0:29:09.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to create your own frame of reference.\NCollect a couple of numbers like total
Dialogue: 0,0:29:09.63,0:29:13.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,agricultural area of your country, the\Ncurrent spending budget of your
Dialogue: 0,0:29:13.75,0:29:17.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,municipality, the average yearly income,\Nor the unemployment rate in relative and
Dialogue: 0,0:29:17.62,0:29:21.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,absolute numbers. Keep the list somewhere\Naccessible and use it whenever you come
Dialogue: 0,0:29:21.85,0:29:27.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,across a big number that is hard to grasp.\NAre 100,000€ a lot of money in context of
Dialogue: 0,0:29:27.39,0:29:32.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,public spending? How important are 5,000\Njobs in context of population and
Dialogue: 0,0:29:32.07,0:29:36.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,unemployment? Such a list can defuze the\Noccasional scary big number in news
Dialogue: 0,0:29:36.35,0:29:41.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,articles, and it can also help you to make\Nyour point better. Speaking of framing,
Dialogue: 0,0:29:41.64,0:29:45.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,always be aware, who the sender of the\Ninformation is. News outlets rarely have a
Dialogue: 0,0:29:45.73,0:29:52.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,specific scientific agenda, but NGOs do.\NIf Shell, the oil company, will provide a
Dialogue: 0,0:29:52.36,0:29:56.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,leaflet where they cite scary numbers and\Npresent research that they funded that
Dialogue: 0,0:29:56.39,0:30:00.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,finds that oil drilling is actually good\Nfor the environment but they won't
Dialogue: 0,0:30:00.06,0:30:03.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,disclose, who they work with for the\Nstudy, we all would laugh at that
Dialogue: 0,0:30:03.87,0:30:07.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information. But if we read a leaflet from\Nan environmental NGO in Munich that is
Dialogue: 0,0:30:07.91,0:30:11.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,structurally identical but with a\Nnarrative about glyphosate in beer that
Dialogue: 0,0:30:11.26,0:30:15.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fits our own perception of the world, we\Nare more likely to accept the information
Dialogue: 0,0:30:15.35,0:30:19.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the leaflet. In my opinion, both\Nsources are problematic and I would not
Dialogue: 0,0:30:19.01,0:30:25.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,use any of them to build my own opinion.\NGood journalists put links to the sources
Dialogue: 0,0:30:25.44,0:30:30.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in or under the article, and it is a good\Nidea to check them. Often, however, you
Dialogue: 0,0:30:30.46,0:30:34.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to look for the paper yourself based\Non hints in the text like author names,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:34.86,0:30:39.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,institutions, and general topics. And then\Npaywalls often block access to the
Dialogue: 0,0:30:39.91,0:30:44.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information that you're looking for. You\Ncan try pages like ResearchGate for legal
Dialogue: 0,0:30:44.28,0:30:49.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,access to PDFs. Many researchers also use\Nsci-hub but as the site provides illegal
Dialogue: 0,0:30:49.58,0:30:55.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,access to publicly funded research, I\Nwon't recommend doing so. When you have
Dialogue: 0,0:30:55.00,0:30:59.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the paper in front of you, you can either\Nread it completely, which is kind of hard,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:59.33,0:31:03.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or just read the abstract, which might be\Neasier. The easiest is to look for science
Dialogue: 0,0:31:03.90,0:31:09.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,journalism articles about the paper.\NTwitter is actually great to find those,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:09.33,0:31:12.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as many researchers are on Twitter and\Nlike to share articles about their own
Dialogue: 0,0:31:12.38,0:31:16.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research They also like to discuss\Nresearch on Twitter. So if the story is
Dialogue: 0,0:31:16.50,0:31:20.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,controversial, chances are you'll find\Nsome science accounts calling that out.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:20.38,0:31:24.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,While Twitter is terrible in many regards,\Nit is a great tool to engage with the
Dialogue: 0,0:31:24.65,0:31:30.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific community. You can also do a\Nbasic check-up yourself. Where was the
Dialogue: 0,0:31:30.32,0:31:34.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,paper published and is it a known journal?\NWho are the people doing the research and
Dialogue: 0,0:31:34.16,0:31:39.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what are their affiliations? How did they\Ndo their experiment? Checking for controls
Dialogue: 0,0:31:39.26,0:31:43.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and repetitions in the experiment is hard\Nif you don't know the topic, but if you do
Dialogue: 0,0:31:43.20,0:31:49.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know the topic, go for it. In the end,\Nfact checking takes time and energy. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:31:49.53,0:31:53.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very likely that you won't do it very\Noften but especially when something comes
Dialogue: 0,0:31:53.20,0:31:57.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,up that really interests you and you want\Nto tell people about it, you should do a
Dialogue: 0,0:31:57.23,0:32:01.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,basic fact-check on the science. The world\Nwould be a lot better if you'd only share
Dialogue: 0,0:32:01.96,0:32:06.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,information that you checked yourself for\Nplausibility. You can also help to reduce
Dialogue: 0,0:32:06.86,0:32:10.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the need for rigorous fact checking.\NSimply do not spread any sane stories that
Dialogue: 0,0:32:10.99,0:32:14.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seem too good to be true and that you\Ndidn't check yourself or find in a
Dialogue: 0,0:32:14.69,0:32:19.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,credible source. Misinformation and bad\Nscience reporting spread because we don't
Dialogue: 0,0:32:19.10,0:32:23.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,care enough and because they are very,\Nvery attractive. If we break that pattern,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:23.82,0:32:26.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we can give reliable scientific\Ninformation the attention that it
Dialogue: 0,0:32:26.85,0:32:31.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,deserves. But don't worry, most of the\Nscience reporting you'll find online is
Dialogue: 0,0:32:31.16,0:32:35.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actually pretty good. There is no need to\Nbe extremely careful with every article
Dialogue: 0,0:32:35.15,0:32:40.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you find. Still, I think it is better to\Nhave a natural alertness to badly reported
Dialogue: 0,0:32:40.06,0:32:45.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,signs than to trust just anything that is\Nposted under a catchy headline. There is
Dialogue: 0,0:32:45.42,0:32:49.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,no harm in double checking the facts\Nbecause either you correct a mistake or
Dialogue: 0,0:32:49.80,0:32:55.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you reinforce correct information in your\Nmind. So how do I assess whether a source
Dialogue: 0,0:32:55.98,0:33:00.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that I like is actually good? When I come\Nacross a new outlet, I try to find some
Dialogue: 0,0:33:00.72,0:33:05.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,articles in an area that I know stuff\Nabout. For me, that's plant science. I
Dialogue: 0,0:33:05.71,0:33:08.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then read what they are writing about\Nplants. If that sounds plausible, I am
Dialogue: 0,0:33:08.97,0:33:12.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tempted to also trust when they write\Nabout things like physics or climate
Dialogue: 0,0:33:12.41,0:33:17.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,change, where I have much less expertize.\NThis way I have my own personal list of
Dialogue: 0,0:33:17.87,0:33:22.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,good and not so good outlets. If somebody\Non Twitter links to an article from the
Dialogue: 0,0:33:22.62,0:33:26.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not so good list, I know that I have to\Ntake that information with a large
Dialogue: 0,0:33:26.36,0:33:30.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,quantity of salt. And if I want to learn\Nmore, I look for a different source to
Dialogue: 0,0:33:30.49,0:33:37.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,back up any claims I find. It is tedious\Nbut so is science. With a bit of practice,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:37.71,0:33:41.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can internalize the skepticism and\Nnavigate science information with much
Dialogue: 0,0:33:41.24,0:33:47.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more confidence. I hope I could help you\Nwith that a little bit. So that was my
Dialogue: 0,0:33:47.50,0:33:50.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,attempt to help you to understand science\Nbetter. I'd be glad if you'd leave me
Dialogue: 0,0:33:50.97,0:33:55.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,feedback or direct any of your questions\Ntowards me on Twitter. That's
Dialogue: 0,0:33:55.23,0:33:59.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,@sciencejoram. There will be sources for\Nthe things I talked about available
Dialogue: 0,0:33:59.08,0:34:04.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somewhere around this video or on my\Nwebsite: joram.schwartzmann.de. Thank you
Dialogue: 0,0:34:04.43,0:34:10.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for your attention. Goodbye.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:10.68,0:34:15.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Herald: derJoram, thank you for your talk,\Nvery entertaining and informative as well
Dialogue: 0,0:34:15.45,0:34:23.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as I might say. We have a few questions\Nfrom here at the Congress that would be...
Dialogue: 0,0:34:23.48,0:34:26.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where's the signal? I need my questions\Nfrom the internet - all of them are from
Dialogue: 0,0:34:26.93,0:34:28.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the Internet.\NJoram: {\i1}laughs{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:34:28.93,0:34:37.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,H: So I would go through the questions and\Nyou can elaborate on some of the points
Dialogue: 0,0:34:37.54,0:34:41.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from your talk. So the first question...\NJ: yeah, I will.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:41.53,0:34:47.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,H: very good. The first question is: Is\Nthere a difference between reviewed
Dialogue: 0,0:34:47.83,0:34:55.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,articles and meta studies?\NJ: To my knowledge, there isn't really a
Dialogue: 0,0:34:55.70,0:35:00.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,categorical difference in terms of peer\Nreview. Meta studies, so studies that
Dialogue: 0,0:35:00.43,0:35:05.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,integrate, especially in the medical field\Nyou find that often, they integrate a lot
Dialogue: 0,0:35:05.22,0:35:10.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of studies and then summarize the findings\Nagain and try to put them in context of
Dialogue: 0,0:35:10.26,0:35:18.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,one another, which are incredibly useful\Nstudies for medical conclusion making.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:18.92,0:35:23.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Because as I said in the talk, it's often\Nvery hard to do, for example, dietary
Dialogue: 0,0:35:23.63,0:35:28.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,studies and you want to have large numbers\Nand you get that by combining several
Dialogue: 0,0:35:28.57,0:35:33.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,studies together. And usually these meta\Nstudies are also peer reviewed. So instead
Dialogue: 0,0:35:33.73,0:35:39.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of actually doing the research and going\Nand doing whatever experiments you want to
Dialogue: 0,0:35:39.33,0:35:46.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do on humans, you instead collect all of\Nthe evidence others state, and then you
Dialogue: 0,0:35:46.10,0:35:49.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,integrate it again, draw new conclusions\Nfrom that and compare them and weigh them
Dialogue: 0,0:35:49.48,0:35:55.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and say "OK, this study had these\Nshortcomings but we can take this part
Dialogue: 0,0:35:55.24,0:35:59.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from this study and put it in context with\Nthis part from his other study" because
Dialogue: 0,0:35:59.64,0:36:04.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you make so much additional conclusion\Nmaking on that, you then submit it again
Dialogue: 0,0:36:04.63,0:36:08.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to a journal and it's again peer reviewed\Nand then other researchers look at it and
Dialogue: 0,0:36:08.87,0:36:12.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say, and yeah, pretty much give their\Nexpertize on it and say whether or not it
Dialogue: 0,0:36:12.65,0:36:17.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,made sense what you concluded from all of\Nthese things. So a meta study, when it's
Dialogue: 0,0:36:17.08,0:36:21.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,published in a scientific journal, is also\Npeer reviewed and also a very good,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:21.60,0:36:25.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,credible source. And I would even say\Noften meta studies are the studies that
Dialogue: 0,0:36:25.96,0:36:30.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you really want to look for if you have a\Nvery specific scientific question that you
Dialogue: 0,0:36:30.60,0:36:36.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as a sort of non expert, want to have\Nanswered because very often the individual
Dialogue: 0,0:36:36.56,0:36:40.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,studies, they are very focused on a\Nspecific detail of a bigger research
Dialogue: 0,0:36:40.51,0:36:44.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,question. But if you want to know is, I\Ndon't know, dietary fiber very good for
Dialogue: 0,0:36:44.76,0:36:49.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,me. There's probably not a single study\Nthat will have the answer but there will
Dialogue: 0,0:36:49.34,0:36:53.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,be many studies that together point\Ntowards the answer. And the meta study is
Dialogue: 0,0:36:53.61,0:36:59.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a place where you can find that answer.\NH: Very good, sounds like something to
Dialogue: 0,0:36:59.23,0:37:05.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reinforce the research. Maybe a follow-up\Nquestion or it is a follow-up question: Is
Dialogue: 0,0:37:05.74,0:37:12.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there anything you can say in this regards\Nabout the reproducibility crisis in many
Dialogue: 0,0:37:12.15,0:37:16.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fields such as medicine?\NJ: Yeah, that's a very good point. I mean,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:16.64,0:37:20.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's something that I didn't mention at\Nall in the talk because for pretty much
Dialogue: 0,0:37:20.90,0:37:26.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like complexity reasons because when you\Ngo into reproducibility, you run into all
Dialogue: 0,0:37:26.41,0:37:33.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,kinds of, sort of complex additional\Nproblems because it is true that we often
Dialogue: 0,0:37:33.57,0:37:40.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,struggle with reproducing. I actually\Ndon't have the numbers how often we fail
Dialogue: 0,0:37:40.31,0:37:45.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but this reproducibility crisis that's\Noften mentioned - that is this idea that
Dialogue: 0,0:37:45.29,0:37:49.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when researchers take a paper that has\Nwhatever they studied and then other
Dialogue: 0,0:37:49.70,0:37:54.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,researchers try to recreate a study and\Nusually in a paper, there's also a
Dialogue: 0,0:37:54.33,0:37:58.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,'Material & Method' section that details\Nall of the things that they did. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:37:58.28,0:38:01.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pretty much the instructions of the\Nexperiment. And the results of the
Dialogue: 0,0:38:01.77,0:38:04.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experiment are both in the same paper\Nusually - and when they try to sort of
Dialogue: 0,0:38:04.41,0:38:09.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,recook the recipe that somebody else did,\Nthere is a chance that they don't find the
Dialogue: 0,0:38:09.56,0:38:13.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,same thing. And we see that more and more\Noften, especially with like complex
Dialogue: 0,0:38:13.30,0:38:17.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research questions. And that brings us to\Nthe idea that reproduction or
Dialogue: 0,0:38:17.86,0:38:24.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reproducibility is an issue and that maybe\Nwe we can't trust science as much or we
Dialogue: 0,0:38:24.11,0:38:30.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to be more careful. It is true that\Nwe have to be more careful. But I wouldn't
Dialogue: 0,0:38:30.51,0:38:36.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,go as far and to be like in general, sort\Nof a distrustful of research. And that's
Dialogue: 0,0:38:36.42,0:38:39.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,why I'm also saying, like in the medical\Nfield, you always want to have multiple
Dialogue: 0,0:38:39.37,0:38:43.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,studies pointing at something. You always\Nwant to have multiple lines of evidence
Dialogue: 0,0:38:43.79,0:38:50.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because if one group finds something and\Nanother group can't find it, like
Dialogue: 0,0:38:50.41,0:38:56.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reproduce it, you end up in a place where\Nyou can't really say "Did this work now?
Dialogue: 0,0:38:56.64,0:39:00.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Like, who did the mistake? The first group\Nor the second group? " Because also when
Dialogue: 0,0:39:00.50,0:39:03.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you were producing a study, you can make\Nmistakes or there can be factors that the
Dialogue: 0,0:39:03.33,0:39:08.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,initial research study didn't document in\Na way that it can be reproduced because
Dialogue: 0,0:39:08.48,0:39:13.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they didn't care to write down the supply\Nof some chemicals, and the chemicals were
Dialogue: 0,0:39:13.04,0:39:16.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very important for the success of the\Nexperiment. Things like that happen and so
Dialogue: 0,0:39:16.62,0:39:20.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you don't know when you just have the\Ninitial study or the production study and
Dialogue: 0,0:39:20.63,0:39:25.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they have a different outcome. But if you\Nhave then multiple studies that all look
Dialogue: 0,0:39:25.18,0:39:31.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a similar area and out of 10 studies, 8\Nor 7 point to do a certain direction, you
Dialogue: 0,0:39:31.85,0:39:37.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can then be more certain that this\Ndirection points towards the truth. In
Dialogue: 0,0:39:37.17,0:39:42.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science, it's really hard to say, like\N{\i1}OK, this is now the objective truth. This{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:39:42.04,0:39:47.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}is now.. we found now the definitive\Nanswer to the question that we're looking{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:39:47.08,0:39:53.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}at, especially in the medical field.{\i0} So,\Nyeah.. So that's a very long way of saying
Dialogue: 0,0:39:53.85,0:39:58.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's complicated reproduction or\Nreproducibility studies, they are very
Dialogue: 0,0:39:58.53,0:40:06.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,important but I wouldn't be too worried or\Ntoo - what's the word here? Like, I
Dialogue: 0,0:40:06.52,0:40:11.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,wouldn't be too worried that the lack of\Nreproducibility breaks the entire
Dialogue: 0,0:40:11.51,0:40:18.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific method because it's usually\Nmore complex and more issues at hand than
Dialogue: 0,0:40:18.05,0:40:22.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,just a simple recooking of another\Nperson's study.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:22.49,0:40:31.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,H: Yes, speaking of more publishing, so\Nthis is a follow-up to the follow-up, the
Dialogue: 0,0:40:31.92,0:40:34.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Internet asks, how can we deal with the\Npublish or perish culture?
Dialogue: 0,0:40:34.80,0:40:41.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,J: Oh, yeah. If I knew that, I would write\Na very smart blog posts and trying to get
Dialogue: 0,0:40:41.58,0:40:46.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,convince people about that. I think\Npersonally we need to rethink the way we
Dialogue: 0,0:40:46.02,0:40:50.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do the funding because that's in the end\Nwhere it comes down to. Another issue I
Dialogue: 0,0:40:50.11,0:40:54.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really didn't go into much detail in the\Ntalk because it's also very complex. So
Dialogue: 0,0:40:54.10,0:40:59.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science funding is usually defined by a\Ndecision making process; at one point
Dialogue: 0,0:40:59.88,0:41:04.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somebody decides, who gets the money and\Nto get the money they need a qualifier to
Dialogue: 0,0:41:04.81,0:41:09.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,decide. Like there is 10 research groups\Nor 100 research groups said that write a
Dialogue: 0,0:41:09.30,0:41:13.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,grant and say like "Hey, we need money\Nbecause we want to do research." And they
Dialogue: 0,0:41:13.31,0:41:19.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to figure out or they have to decide,\Nwho gets it because they can't give money
Dialogue: 0,0:41:19.49,0:41:24.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to everyone because we spend money in our\Nbudgets on different things than just
Dialogue: 0,0:41:24.10,0:41:29.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science. So the next best thing that they\Ncame up with, what the idea to use papers
Dialogue: 0,0:41:29.76,0:41:35.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,- the number of papers that you have - to\Nsort of get a measurement - or the quality
Dialogue: 0,0:41:35.73,0:41:40.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of paper that you have - to get a\Nmeasurement of whether you are deserving
Dialogue: 0,0:41:40.27,0:41:44.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the money. And you can see how that's\Nproblematic and means that people, who are
Dialogue: 0,0:41:44.58,0:41:49.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,early in their research career, who don't\Nhave a lot of papers, they have a lower
Dialogue: 0,0:41:49.09,0:41:53.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,chance of getting the money. And that\Nleads to publish or perish idea that if
Dialogue: 0,0:41:53.05,0:41:56.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you don't publish your results and if you\Ndon't publish them in a very well
Dialogue: 0,0:41:56.90,0:42:01.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,respected journal, then the funding\Nagencies won't give you money. And so you
Dialogue: 0,0:42:01.24,0:42:07.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perish and you can't really pursue your\Nresearch career. And it's really a hard
Dialogue: 0,0:42:07.62,0:42:11.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,problem to solve because the decision\Nabout the funding is very much detached
Dialogue: 0,0:42:11.73,0:42:19.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from the scientific world, from academia.\NThat's like multiple levels of abstraction
Dialogue: 0,0:42:19.06,0:42:23.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between the people, who like in the end\Nmake the budgets and decide, who gets the
Dialogue: 0,0:42:23.66,0:42:29.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,money and the people, who are actually\Nusing the money. I would wish for funding
Dialogue: 0,0:42:29.66,0:42:36.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,agency to look less at papers and maybe\Ncome up with different qualifiers, maybe
Dialogue: 0,0:42:36.85,0:42:44.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,also something like general scientific\Npractice, maybe they could do audits of
Dialogue: 0,0:42:44.98,0:42:50.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some sort of labs. I mean, there's a ton\Nof factors that influence good research
Dialogue: 0,0:42:50.98,0:42:57.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are not mentioned in papers like work\Nethics, work culture, how much teaching you
Dialogue: 0,0:42:57.21,0:43:01.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do, which can be very important. But it's\Nsort of detrimental to get more funding
Dialogue: 0,0:43:01.67,0:43:05.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because when you do teaching, you don't do\Nresearch and then you don't get papers and
Dialogue: 0,0:43:05.76,0:43:10.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then you don't get money. So, yeah, I\Ndon't have a very good solution to the
Dialogue: 0,0:43:10.94,0:43:16.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,question what we can do. I would like to\Nsee more diverse funding also of smaller
Dialogue: 0,0:43:16.41,0:43:21.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research groups. I would like to see more\Nfunding for negative results, which is
Dialogue: 0,0:43:21.45,0:43:28.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,another thing that we don't really value.\NSo if you do an experiment and it doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:43:28.37,0:43:32.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,work, you can't publish it, you don't get\Nthe paper, you don't get money and so on.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:32.43,0:43:35.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So there are many factors that need to\Nchange, many things that we need to touch
Dialogue: 0,0:43:35.18,0:43:39.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to actually get away from publish or\Nperish.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:39.02,0:43:47.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,H: Yeah, another question that is closely\Nconnected to that is: Why are there so few
Dialogue: 0,0:43:47.36,0:43:52.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stable jobs in science?\NJ: Yeah, that's the
Dialogue: 0,0:43:52.42,0:43:56.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetzt,\Nsomething that - I forgot when we got it -
Dialogue: 0,0:43:56.35,0:44:04.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think in the late 90s or early 2000s.\NThat's at least a very German specific
Dialogue: 0,0:44:04.10,0:44:14.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,answer that defined this Gesetz, this law,\Nput it into law that you have a limited
Dialogue: 0,0:44:14.27,0:44:18.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,time span that you can work in research,\Nyou can only work in research for I think
Dialogue: 0,0:44:18.75,0:44:23.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,12 years and are some footnotes and stuff\Naround it. But there is a fixed time limit
Dialogue: 0,0:44:23.59,0:44:27.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that you can work in research on limited\Nterm contracts, but you're funding
Dialogue: 0,0:44:27.58,0:44:31.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whenever you get research funding, it's\Nalways for a limited time. You always get
Dialogue: 0,0:44:31.17,0:44:36.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research funding for three years, six\Nyears if you're lucky. So you never have
Dialogue: 0,0:44:36.22,0:44:41.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,permanent money in the research group.\NSometimes you have that in universities
Dialogue: 0,0:44:41.02,0:44:44.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but overall you don't have permanent\Nmoney. And so if you don't have permanent
Dialogue: 0,0:44:44.56,0:44:49.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,money, you can't have permanent contracts\Nand therefore there aren't really stable
Dialogue: 0,0:44:49.57,0:44:52.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,jobs. And then with professorships or some\Ngroup leader positions, then it changes
Dialogue: 0,0:44:52.94,0:44:58.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because group leaders and professorships,\Nthey are more easily planned. And
Dialogue: 0,0:44:58.83,0:45:02.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,therefore in universities and research\Ninstitutes, they sort of make a long term
Dialogue: 0,0:45:02.29,0:45:07.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,budget and say "OK, we will have 15\Nresearch groups. So we have money in the
Dialogue: 0,0:45:07.25,0:45:12.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,long term for 15 group leaders.". But\Nwhoever is hired underneath these group
Dialogue: 0,0:45:12.81,0:45:16.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,leaders, this has much more fluctuation\Nand is based on sort of short term money.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:16.48,0:45:20.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And so there's no stable jobs there. At\Nleast that's in Germany. I know that, for
Dialogue: 0,0:45:20.53,0:45:25.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,example, in the UK and in France, they\Nhave earlier permanent position jobs. They
Dialogue: 0,0:45:25.86,0:45:29.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have lecturers, for example, in the UK\Nwhere you can without being a full
Dialogue: 0,0:45:29.90,0:45:35.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,professor that has like its own backpack\Nof stuff that has to be done, you can
Dialogue: 0,0:45:35.30,0:45:40.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,already work at a university in the long\Nterm in a permanent contract. So it's a
Dialogue: 0,0:45:40.26,0:45:44.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very.. it's a problem we see across the\Nworld but Germany has its own very
Dialogue: 0,0:45:44.84,0:45:50.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,specific problems introduced here that\Nmake it very unattractive to stay long
Dialogue: 0,0:45:50.19,0:45:56.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,term in research in Germany.\NH: It's true. I concur.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:56.53,0:46:02.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,J: Yes\NH {\i1}laughs{\i0} Coming to talk to the people,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:02.59,0:46:12.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who do science mostly for fun and less for\Nprofit. This question is: Can you write
Dialogue: 0,0:46:12.72,0:46:17.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and publish a paper without a formal\Ndegree in the sciences, assuming the
Dialogue: 0,0:46:17.53,0:46:23.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research efforts are sufficiently good?\NJ: Yes, I think technically it is
Dialogue: 0,0:46:23.68,0:46:27.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,possible. It comes with some problems,\Nlike, first of all, it's not free. First
Dialogue: 0,0:46:27.09,0:46:34.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of all, when you submit your paper to a\Njournal, you pay money for it. I don't
Dialogue: 0,0:46:34.24,0:46:39.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know exactly but it ranges. I think the\Nsafe assumption is between 1.000 and
Dialogue: 0,0:46:39.56,0:46:44.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,5.000$, depending on the journal, where\Nyou submit to. Then very often it's like
Dialogue: 0,0:46:44.35,0:46:49.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some formal problems that... I've been\Nrecently co-authoring a paper and I'm not
Dialogue: 0,0:46:49.96,0:46:56.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actively doing research anymore. I did\Nsomething in my spare time, helped a
Dialogue: 0,0:46:56.51,0:47:02.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,friend of mine, who was still doing\Nresearch with some like basic stuff but he
Dialogue: 0,0:47:02.13,0:47:06.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was so nice to put me on the paper. And\Nthen there is a form where it says like
Dialogue: 0,0:47:06.62,0:47:11.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,institute affiliation and I don't have an\Ninstitute affiliation in that sense. So as
Dialogue: 0,0:47:11.85,0:47:16.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm just a middle author in this paper, I\Nwas published - or hopefully if it gets
Dialogue: 0,0:47:16.05,0:47:19.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,accepted - I will be there as an\Nindependent researcher but it might be
Dialogue: 0,0:47:19.61,0:47:23.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that a journal has their own internal\Nrules where they say we only accept people
Dialogue: 0,0:47:23.93,0:47:28.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,from institutions. So it's not really\Ninherent in the scientific system that you
Dialogue: 0,0:47:28.20,0:47:32.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have to be at an institution but there are\Nthese doors, there are these
Dialogue: 0,0:47:32.47,0:47:38.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pathways that are locked because somebody\Nhas to put in a form somewhere that which
Dialogue: 0,0:47:38.24,0:47:42.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,institution you affiliate with. And I know\Nthat some people, who do like DIY science,
Dialogue: 0,0:47:42.76,0:47:48.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,so they do outside of academia, that they\Nneed to have in academia partners that
Dialogue: 0,0:47:48.55,0:47:54.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,help them with the publishing and also to\Nget access to certain things. I mean, in
Dialogue: 0,0:47:54.06,0:47:57.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,computer science, you don't need specific\Nchemicals,but if you do anything like
Dialogue: 0,0:47:57.58,0:48:02.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,chemical engineering or biology or\Nanything, often you only get access to the
Dialogue: 0,0:48:02.82,0:48:08.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,supplies when you are an academic\Ninstitution. So, I know that many people
Dialogue: 0,0:48:08.17,0:48:13.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have sort of these partnerships,\Ncorporations with academia that allow them
Dialogue: 0,0:48:13.27,0:48:18.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to actually do the research and then\Npublish it as well because otherwise, if
Dialogue: 0,0:48:18.54,0:48:23.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you're just doing it from your own\Nbedroom, there might be a lot of barriers
Dialogue: 0,0:48:23.55,0:48:27.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in your way that might be very hard to\Novercome. But I think if you really,
Dialogue: 0,0:48:27.49,0:48:35.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really dedicated, you can overcome them.\NH: Coming to the elephants in that
Dialogue: 0,0:48:35.21,0:48:41.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,bedroom: What can we do against the spread\Nof false facts, IFG, corona-
Dialogue: 0,0:48:41.16,0:48:48.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,vaccines? So they are very.. They get a\Nlot of likes and are spread like a disease
Dialogue: 0,0:48:48.24,0:48:56.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,themselves. And it's very hard to counter,\Nespecially in personal encounters, these
Dialogue: 0,0:48:56.10,0:49:01.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguments because apparently a lot of\Npeople are not that familiar with the
Dialogue: 0,0:49:01.61,0:49:04.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific method. What's your take on\Nthat?
Dialogue: 0,0:49:04.70,0:49:09.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,J: Yeah, it's difficult. And I've read\Nover the years now many different
Dialogue: 0,0:49:09.33,0:49:15.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,approaches ranging from nuts actually\Ntalking about facts because often
Dialogue: 0,0:49:15.63,0:49:18.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somebody, who has a very predefined\Nopinion on something, they know a lot of
Dialogue: 0,0:49:18.96,0:49:22.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,false facts that they have on their mind.\NAnd you, as somebody talking to them,
Dialogue: 0,0:49:22.99,0:49:26.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,often don't have all of the correct facts\Nin your mind. I mean, who runs around
Dialogue: 0,0:49:26.16,0:49:31.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with, like, a bag full of climate facts\Nand a bag full of 5G facts and a bag full
Dialogue: 0,0:49:31.53,0:49:37.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of vaccine facts or like in the same\Nquantity and quality as the stuff that
Dialogue: 0,0:49:37.88,0:49:41.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,somebody, who read stuff on Facebook has\Nin their in their backpack and their sort
Dialogue: 0,0:49:41.09,0:49:47.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of mental image of the world. So just\Narguing on the facts, it's very hard
Dialogue: 0,0:49:47.12,0:49:52.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because people, who follow these false\Nideas, they're very quick at making turns
Dialogue: 0,0:49:52.67,0:49:56.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and they like throw a thing at you one\Nafter the other. And so it's really hard
Dialogue: 0,0:49:56.32,0:50:01.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to just be like but actually debunking\Nfact one and then debunking the next wrong
Dialogue: 0,0:50:01.08,0:50:07.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fact. So I've seen a paper where people\Ntry to do this sort of on a argumentative
Dialogue: 0,0:50:07.86,0:50:13.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,standpoint. They say: "Look: You're\Ndrawing false conclusions. You say because
Dialogue: 0,0:50:13.24,0:50:20.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A, therefore B, but these two things\Naren't linked in a causal way. So you
Dialogue: 0,0:50:20.82,0:50:25.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can't actually draw this conclusion." And\Nso sort of try to destroy that argument on
Dialogue: 0,0:50:25.26,0:50:31.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a meta level instead on a fact level. But\Nalso that is difficult. And usually
Dialogue: 0,0:50:31.66,0:50:36.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,people, who are really devout followers of\Nfalse facts, they are also not followers
Dialogue: 0,0:50:36.98,0:50:42.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of reasons or any reason based argument\Nwill just not work for them because they
Dialogue: 0,0:50:42.77,0:50:51.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will deny it. I think what really helps is\Na lot of small scale action in terms of
Dialogue: 0,0:50:51.90,0:50:56.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,making scientific data. So making science\Nmore accessible. And I mean, I'm a science
Dialogue: 0,0:50:56.78,0:50:59.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,communicator, so I'm heavily biased. I'm\Nsaying like we need more science
Dialogue: 0,0:50:59.94,0:51:04.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,communication, we need more low level\Nscience communication. We need to have it
Dialogue: 0,0:51:04.79,0:51:09.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,freely accessible because all of the stuff\Nthat you read with the false facts, this
Dialogue: 0,0:51:09.03,0:51:14.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is all freely available on Facebook and so\Non. So we need to have a similar low
Dialogue: 0,0:51:14.21,0:51:22.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,level, low entry level for the correct\Nfacts. So for the real facts. And this is
Dialogue: 0,0:51:22.19,0:51:25.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,also.. It's hard to do. I mean, in science\Ncommunication field, there's also a lot of
Dialogue: 0,0:51:25.97,0:51:31.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,debate how we do that. Should we do that\Nover more presence on social media? Should
Dialogue: 0,0:51:31.34,0:51:38.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we simplify more or are we then actually\Noversimplifying like where is the balance?
Dialogue: 0,0:51:38.13,0:51:43.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How do we walk this line? So there's a lot\Nof discussion and still ongoing learning
Dialogue: 0,0:51:43.82,0:51:48.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about that. But I think in the end, it's\Nthat what we need, we need people to be
Dialogue: 0,0:51:48.13,0:51:56.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,able to just to find correct facts just as\Neasily and understandable as they find the
Dialogue: 0,0:51:56.75,0:52:05.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fake news and the facts. Like we need\Nscience to be communicated as clearly as a
Dialogue: 0,0:52:05.21,0:52:11.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stupid share rolls on Facebook, as an\Nimage that - I don't want to repeat all of
Dialogue: 0,0:52:11.28,0:52:17.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the wrong claims, but something that says\Nsomething very wrong, but very persuasive.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:17.68,0:52:22.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We need to be as persuasive with the\Ncorrect facts. And I know that many people
Dialogue: 0,0:52:22.19,0:52:28.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are doing that by now, especially on\Nplaces like Instagram or TikTok. You find
Dialogue: 0,0:52:28.10,0:52:33.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more and more people doing very high\Nquality, low level - and I mean that on
Dialogue: 0,0:52:33.31,0:52:40.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,sort of jargon level, not on a sort of\Nintellectual level - so very low barrier
Dialogue: 0,0:52:40.17,0:52:46.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science communication. And I think this\Nhelps a lot. This helps more than very
Dialogue: 0,0:52:46.70,0:52:52.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complicated sort of pages debunking false\Nfacts. I mean, we also need these we also
Dialogue: 0,0:52:52.57,0:52:56.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,need these as references. But if we really\Nwant to combat the spread of fake news, we
Dialogue: 0,0:52:56.95,0:53:01.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,need to just be as accessible with the\Ntruth.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:01.59,0:53:10.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,H: A thing closely connected to that is:\N"How do we find human error or detect
Dialogue: 0,0:53:10.75,0:53:16.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it?", since I guess people, who are\Nwatching this talk have already started
Dialogue: 0,0:53:16.32,0:53:23.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with a process of fine tuning their\Nbullshit detectors but when, for example,
Dialogue: 0,0:53:23.38,0:53:27.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something very exciting and promising\Ncomes along as an example, CRISPR/Cas or
Dialogue: 0,0:53:27.01,0:53:39.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,something. How do we go forward to not be\Nfooled by our own already tuned bullshit
Dialogue: 0,0:53:39.49,0:53:46.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,detectors and fall to false conclusions.\NJ: I think a main part of this is
Dialogue: 0,0:53:46.40,0:53:54.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,practice. Just try to look for something\Nthat would break the story, just not for
Dialogue: 0,0:53:54.20,0:53:57.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,every story that I read - that's that's a\Nlot of work. But from time to time, pick a
Dialogue: 0,0:53:57.83,0:54:01.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,story where you're like "Oh, this is very\Nexciting" and try to learn as much as you
Dialogue: 0,0:54:01.12,0:54:05.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,can about that one story. And by doing\Nthat, also learn about the process, how
Dialogue: 0,0:54:05.87,0:54:12.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you drew the conclusions and then compare\Nyour final images after you did all the
Dialogue: 0,0:54:12.28,0:54:18.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,research to the thing that you read in the\Nbeginning and see where there are things
Dialogue: 0,0:54:18.64,0:54:23.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are not coming together and where\Nthere are things that are the same and
Dialogue: 0,0:54:23.01,0:54:30.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then based on that, practice. And I know\Nthat that's a lot of work, so that's sort
Dialogue: 0,0:54:30.11,0:54:38.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the the high impact way of doing that\Nby just practicing and just actively doing
Dialogue: 0,0:54:38.15,0:54:43.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the check-ups. But the other way you can\Ndo this is find people whose opinion you
Dialogue: 0,0:54:43.90,0:54:51.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,trust on topics and follow them, follow\Nthem on podcasts, on social media, on
Dialogue: 0,0:54:51.04,0:54:56.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,YouTube or wherever. And, especially in\Nthe beginning when you don't know them
Dialogue: 0,0:54:56.58,0:55:01.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,well be very critical about them, it's\Neasy to fall into like a sort of trap here
Dialogue: 0,0:55:01.06,0:55:06.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and following somebody, who actually\Ndoesn't know their stuff. But there are
Dialogue: 0,0:55:06.34,0:55:09.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,some people, I mean, in this community\Nhere - I am not saying anything UFSA -
Dialogue: 0,0:55:09.97,0:55:16.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you follow people like minkorrekt, like\Nmethodisch inkorrekt, they are great for a
Dialogue: 0,0:55:16.65,0:55:19.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very.. I actually can't really pin down\Nwhich scientific area because in their
Dialogue: 0,0:55:19.47,0:55:22.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,podcast they're touching so many different\Nthings and they have a very high level
Dialogue: 0,0:55:22.74,0:55:28.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,understanding of how science works. So\Nplaces like this are a good start to get a
Dialogue: 0,0:55:28.60,0:55:35.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,healthy dose of skepticism. Another rule\Nof thumb that I can give is like usually
Dialogue: 0,0:55:35.05,0:55:40.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stories are not as exciting when you get\Ndown to the nitty gritty details, like I'm
Dialogue: 0,0:55:40.06,0:55:45.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a big fan of CRISPR, for example, but I\Ndon't believe that we can cure all
Dialogue: 0,0:55:45.22,0:55:49.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,diseases just now because we have CRISPR,\Nlike, there's very limited things we can
Dialogue: 0,0:55:49.37,0:55:54.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,do with it and we can do much more with it\Nthan what we could do when we didn't have
Dialogue: 0,0:55:54.83,0:56:00.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it. But I'm not going around and thinking\Nnow we can create life at will because we
Dialogue: 0,0:56:00.55,0:56:05.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have CRISPR. We can fight any disease at\Nwill because we have CRISPR. So that's in
Dialogue: 0,0:56:05.85,0:56:11.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,general a good rule of thumb is: just calm\Ndown, look what's really in there and see
Dialogue: 0,0:56:11.06,0:56:18.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how much.. or tone it just down like 20%\Nand then take that level of excitement
Dialogue: 0,0:56:18.49,0:56:22.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with you instead of going around and being\Nscared or overly excited about a new
Dialogue: 0,0:56:22.13,0:56:28.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,technology and you think that's been found\Nbecause we rarely do these massive jumps
Dialogue: 0,0:56:28.63,0:56:34.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that we need to start to worry or get over\Nexcited about something.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:34.77,0:56:42.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,H: Very good, so very last question: Which\Ntools did you use to create these nice
Dialogue: 0,0:56:42.52,0:56:47.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,drawings?\NJ: {\i1}laughs{\i0} Oh, a lot of people won't like
Dialogue: 0,0:56:47.91,0:56:53.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,me for saying this because this will sound\Nlike a product promo. But there is.. I use
Dialogue: 0,0:56:53.34,0:56:59.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an iPad with a pencil and I used an app to\Ndraw the things on there called Affinity
Dialogue: 0,0:56:59.35,0:57:04.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Designer because that works very well then\Nalso across device. So that's how I
Dialogue: 0,0:57:04.38,0:57:08.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,created all of the drawings and I put them\Nall together in Apple Motion and exported
Dialogue: 0,0:57:08.85,0:57:14.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the whole thing in Apple FinalCut. So this\Nis now the show like a sales pitch for all
Dialogue: 0,0:57:14.65,0:57:17.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of these products. But I can say, like for\Nme, they work very well but there's pretty
Dialogue: 0,0:57:17.33,0:57:23.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,much alternatives for everything along the\Nway. I mean, I can say because I'm also
Dialogue: 0,0:57:23.64,0:57:28.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doing a lot of science communication with\Ndrawings for the Plants and Pipettes project
Dialogue: 0,0:57:28.02,0:57:33.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that I am part of and I can say an iPad with a\Npencil and the finishing designer gets you
Dialogue: 0,0:57:33.04,0:57:38.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,very far for high quality drawings with a\Nvery easy access because I'm no way an
Dialogue: 0,0:57:38.53,0:57:44.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,artist. I'm very bad at this stuff. But I\Ncan hide all my shortcomings because I
Dialogue: 0,0:57:44.94,0:57:49.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have an undo function in my iPad and\Nbecause everything's in a vector drawing,
Dialogue: 0,0:57:49.17,0:57:54.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I can delete every stroke that I made,\Neven if I realized like an hour later that
Dialogue: 0,0:57:54.14,0:57:58.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this should not be there, I can, like,\Nreposition it and delete it. So vector
Dialogue: 0,0:57:58.59,0:58:03.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,files and a pencil and an undo function\Nwere my best friends in the creating of
Dialogue: 0,0:58:03.74,0:58:09.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this video.\NH: Very good, derJoram. Thank you very
Dialogue: 0,0:58:09.08,0:58:14.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,much for your talk and your very extensive\NQ&A. I think a lot of people are very
Dialogue: 0,0:58:14.15,0:58:16.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happy with your work.\NJ: Thanks you.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:16.15,0:58:21.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,H: And are actually saying in the pad that\Nyou should continue communicate science to
Dialogue: 0,0:58:21.62,0:58:24.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the public.\NJ: That's very good because that's my job.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:24.67,0:58:27.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}laughs{\i0} It's good that people like that.\NH: Perfect.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:27.70,0:58:31.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,J: Thank you very much.\NH: So a round of applause and some very
Dialogue: 0,0:58:31.53,0:58:39.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,final announcements for this session.\NThere will be the Herald new show and the
Dialogue: 0,0:58:39.76,0:58:47.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,break. So stay tuned for that. And I would\Nsay if there are no further... no, we
Dialogue: 0,0:58:47.92,0:58:53.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,don't have any more time, sadly, but I\Nguess people know how to connect to you
Dialogue: 0,0:58:53.34,0:58:59.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and contact derJoram if they want to know\Nanything more.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:59.30,0:59:14.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,{\i1}rC3 postroll music{\i0}
Dialogue: 0,0:59:14.87,0:59:40.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de\Nin the year 2020. Join, and help us!