welcome to nobel minds and the second of our two programmes. laureates, this is the first time that some of you have been brought together in discussion on television. congratulations to you all. thank you. applause. first, let's look at the chemistry prize with its scientific breakthroughs that have myriad uses that will benefit humankind. let's have a short video looking at what the prize for chemistry was made for. it's very strange. the nano world is really, really bizarre. when matter is reduced to its smallest dimensions, it's made up of quantum dots — nanoparticles so tiny that their

size determines their properties. alexey ekimov, moungi bawendi and louis brus discovered and developed this artificially created collection of semiconducting nanoparticles. they are just a few millionths of a millimetre wide and glow blue, red or green when exposed to light. quantum dots already have commercial and scientific uses and, in future, could contribute to flexible electronics, thinner solar cells and encrypted quantum communication. so, moungi bawendi, erm, i don't know, viewers may be watching this programme on qled tv — one of the things that have arisen from the work that you've done — so just tell us about how your work collectively can be used to improve lives.

so, qleds is one of the biggest moneymaking applications of quantum dots but the field, in the last few decades, has grown enormously and there's a lot of people working on many other potential applications that have yet to see either commercial success or the applications being proven, and that includes fields going from energy harvesting for the sun, either for making electricity through photovoltaics or through the creation of fuels, using the energy of the sun into the quantum dots to then create electrons that can be then used to create molecules. that's one application. another application is in biomedicine and in diagnostics. it helps surgeons to see tumour tissue in the body more easily — it could do.

so, i think that it's a tool that the surgical community can use to understand how to do things better on animal models. the issue with the application to humans is much more complicated. but there are all sorts of possibilities. all sorts of possibilities. professor louis brus, you work independently of the other chemistry laureate, alexey ekimov, who was born in russia but moved to the united states. you were working on similar — in a similarfield, but independently of each other because, of course, he was behind the iron curtain at the time. but it does stress the importance of collaboration, doesn't it, in scientists�* work? without a doubt. the work that moungi and i have done is erm...an extreme example of that, you know? it falls in the cracks between

academic scientific departments, between chemistry and physics. this work that we have done is the last step of a long continuation of progress using semiconductors in our modern life and things have been completely transformed by transistors and light—emitting diodes and optical communications on fibres. much of the progress has occurred by making smaller and smaller devices, you know, and miniaturising these and making them cheaper. and the methods of chemistry, you know, the same methods that are used to synthesise drugs for the drug industry are the natural methods for dealing with the tiniest of semiconductors that are sort of half molecular in nature, you know? fascinating. so, moungi bawendi, i know you've been asked this lots of times, or it's been raised, but i can't resist it. you failed your first chemistry test

at harvard university, didn't you? idid. i'm sorry to bring it up... laughter. ..but, you know, it does show that success can be forged out of failure. absolutely. what do you want to say to any aspiring scientists out there who are not getting the score cards that they want? well, first, i'll say that the scientific process is built on failure often. you try things and they fail, so it's part of the process. from my end, i came from a small high school in the midwest and i wasn't used to the large classes at harvard or the environment of taking exams there and i wasn't used to studying for an exam at college level and i was just completely unprepared for that first exam, both psychologically as well as from the point of understanding the material, and i got by far the lowest grade in that exam in the class. erm, went home, i think, a little later, and i was crying

to my parents, you know, "i don't want to go back." but i did go back. but you say you still struggle with impostor syndrome, don't you? i do. ferenc? well, i couldn't agree more with moungi that actually, failure is part of the process. i would even say that, actually, failure is a dominant part of the process. have you failed? well, i mean, we do fail on a weekly basis. | if you simply fail at an experiment, | then drop it and do something else, you haven't learned anything. and the trick is to — _ you know, experiments aren't bad. the design could be bad, - the hypothesis could be bad. there's many other things thatl could lead to a bad experiment. but if you don't figure that out - and figure out what it really means, then you don't learn, - you don't know how to make the next experiment. mmm. let's take a question from our audience, from one of the students here. hadiqa inam, you have a question

for the chemistry laureates? yes. how would you strike a perfect balance between collaboration and individuality when it comes to making ground—breaking discoveries? gosh! collaboration versus individuality. that's an excellent question. i think the original idea for an experiment comes from an individual. and — but to get something done, once you have this idea for an experiment or what field in which you want to work, you need to assemble the technologies and different expertise to make the whole project work. in my case, it'll stretch all the way from organic synthesis to theoretical physics, you know, and so you want to make a team of people that — each person can contribute something. old saying, you know — you want to hire people that are smarter than you are. moungi bawendi, how would you answer that question? it's a very good question indeed.

there's always a tension, i think, between collaboration _ i and the individual, and you see thatl in research groups because everybody wants credit for having done - something and when it's a team effort, that's harder to do. so, i try to make sure that- i have an atmosphere in my group that's very collaborative, - that everybody gets included. but at the same time, _ it's also important that somebody feels that they're in charge i of something and they can go to other people for help. but they need to have — i they need to feel like this is their idea that they're pursuing, with the help of other people. - claudia? claudia goldin, economics laureate. you had the closest of collaborations, working with your husband, lawrence katz. so, i mean, what's it like working with somebody so close to you? is it more productive? well, the largest collaboration

is a book that we have written called the race between education and technology, which is about economic inequality, and that was a collaboration that brought together my interest in economic history and larry's expertise in labour economics and in the economics of inequality. so, that's sort of the best type of collaboration, where you have two complements coming together who can work well together, yes. but long distance collaboration, i think, has been proved not to be as effective as, you know, very close up... but we have so much long distance collaboration now. professor katalin kariko, you encountered drew weissman at the xerox photocopying machine. i mean, that forged a great partnership, didn't it? yes. so, we really met there, and the second part that we fight for who gets first there,

that part was not true. laughter. we did not wrestle there. but, you know, it was — you know, xerox machine is somewhere people will meet. you know, maybe at the coffee machine, but drew is not drinking coffee, so i would miss that opportunity to meet him there. so, it is important that scientists talk to each other. sure. anne l'huillier — yeah? yeah, just i agree on everything that was said. i think, for me, collaboration is really essential and i would like to say as a european, i think the european union has done, really, a greatjob in helping these collaborations in europe and with all of these programmes, networks that really pushed scientists to work together to change idea, to collaborate, and i think this has been really great. yeah. but it's notjust within yourfield, is it? you've also got the collaboration

across disciplines, which is also very important. i know, ferenc, you have benefited a lot in physics from what's been done in the chemistry prize. butjust to also ask you this, which is, now, because of technology and ai, you know, we've seen that the european union has put out a code of how technology and ai can be used. people are saying that the scientists need to work with the philosophers, with the ethicists, with the humanities, so that, you know, their scientific work doesn't take place in a vacuum and you're aware of what the implications are of the discoveries and breakthroughs that you're making. is that something that resonates with you? i think it's going to get much more complicated in the future because pretty soon, we'll be able to do in vivo gene therapy and, you know, maybe we fix sickle cell, we fix cystic fibrosis. at some point, it's going to come up, well, i want to change my baby's eye colour or their hair colour

or their height or, you know, who knows what. that's an area that — my answer is no, but nobody cares what i think about that. in that, you need the ethicists and others. ferenc? if a single scientist says something, that has little weight, but if the scientific community as a whole conveys a message, that has much more weight and that's why i think, particularly in these questions, it would be so important to actually conduct discussions within the scientific community first, try to reach some major conclusions, some consensus, and then communicate that consensus to the outside world. moungi? so, i want to bring up| climate change, then, because there is consensus - in the scientific community, etc, but it's being completely denied by, you know, important politicians — i at least in the us.

and so, where did we go wrong in the scientific. community on that scale? what's your answer? i don't have a good answer. but maybe — maybe we did not do anything wrong. maybe we did do what we could — actually, those — the specialists in climate science, and if this was done, then basically at that point, probably ourjob ends and the responsibility is handed over to the politicians, right? i think that's claudia's field. i think its money. the reason people deny climate change is because it would cost their regions, their people, money, and they're better off saying, "no, we need to pump more gas, "because it will make my people richer." 0k, good. thank you. well, if the chemistry prize was awarded for research on the tiniest of nanoparticles, then the physics prize relies on the work on the briefest period

of time, so let's take a quick look at what the physics prize was awarded for. it's very small. capturing short—lived phenomena like a hummingbird's 80 wing beats per second requires tools such as high—speed photography and strobe lighting. in the same way, extremely short pulses of light can be used to study how electrons behave and examine rapid processes inside atoms. the experiments conducted by anne l'huillier, pierre agostini and ferenc krausz produced these pulses of light which were so short that they were measured in a quintillion of a second. their work could lead to more accurate electron microscopes, faster electronics and tests to diagnose diseases at a much earlier stage.

professor ferenc krausz, so just spell out for us briefly what the medical applications or uses are of the work that you did. well, actually, i should say perhaps as a very first important message, that it was completely unforeseeable at the time when we started working, actually, on the problem we identified, or on trying to answer a question that we identified, and the question was whether it could be possible to actually explore a world which human beings could not access to — namely the world of electrons in motion. we developed the tools for that, and one of the tools actually also allowed us to capture, eventually, not only the ultrafast motion of electrons in atomic and molecular systems, but also the equally fast oscillation of visible and infrared light.

and that was actually the enabling technology for the medical application that we started to work on about eight years ago. and this is basically a simple, hopefully, eventually, simple blood test for identifying diseases, particularly chronic diseases, hopefully at an early stage. how could that help, for instance, in detecting cancer? could this mean that it is detected, picked up in a patient, much sooner? this is the goal. this is the aim. it could be revolutionary, couldn't it? so, anne l'huillier, you have spent, i mean, really, the best part of four decades... yes. ..doing your research. i mean, what was it like when you finally thought, eureka, this is the moment? this was a great moment, actually. but, no, i — wejust happened to — this was in �*87. we — it's a little

bit about failure. we were looking for something and we saw something else, so you can interpret this as a failure. we were not — we did not see what we wanted to see, but we saw something else that was really interesting. now, at that time, i couldn't say that i would work on it a0 years later and get the nobel prize for this. this would be — but i was very excited because this was new and very interesting. ijust simply wanted to do research on this. good. we've got a question from our audience. aleksandra velkova, you've a question, please. what is it? well, my question for you is what inspired you to continue with your research, even when progress seemed unobtainable? well, i think the whole process — actually, an excellent question. thanks for the question. the whole process, in my view, starts with asking the right

question, trying to find the question that fascinates me so much that ijust would try to do everything to find the answer. because i think that if i find the answer, this could perhaps be useful, important for something. anne, you must have needed a lot of patience. yes. i think to be a good researcher, you need to be very obstinate. i i think all of us around this table have this, erm... - chuckles. ..quality, or not. i don't know. are you all patient people? you need it for your work? essential? i'm not patient. you're saying not? claudia's not patient. no, we're not patient. i think that's the point. we're not patient. it's not about patience. it's about obstinacy. perseverance might be a better word. perseverance. that's the right word. not being patient. 0k. right. i just thought a0 years sounded like a long wait,

but, yes, you're right, perseverance is the best word. and the other word is passion. i mean, this is something that 'passionates' you. i passion and perseverance. i like that. yes. so, laureates, as we wrap—up this discussion, then, let me go around the table and ask each of you either what are you going to use your prize money for or, if you think that's too delicate and undiplomatic a question from me, what might you be using your new—found platform for? this celebrity status that you have. ferenc, what are you going to do? well, we are just continuing to do what we have started to do 1.5 years ago with an organisation that we founded to support children in ukraine. those who are — who need this help mostly. and we actually teamed up with an organisation in ukraine and our part of thejob,

sciencelipeople, is to actually reach out to the scientific community and persuade them for donations. and the money that comes in, we move to ukraine and use it for different projects. right. supporting ukrainian schools. claudia? claudia goldin, economics laureate. erm, i have set up a research fund at harvard. looking into gender studies... looking into economic history, genderstudies... right. ..and other areas that perhaps i don't know exist. anne l'huillier? erm, i'm going to give a number of lectures next year. and what i would like to do is really to talk to the young, and especially women students, and to try to encourage them, maybe, to go into science.

i also want at some point to go back to my usual life, which is to do research and teaching. that i really want to go back as soon as possible. you feel you've more discoveries in you? 0h, absolutely. and there is still things to understand on the same thing i have been working on during 40 years. interesting. there are still things to do. drew weissman, anne l'huillier is working on the same thing she's been doing for a0 years, but we have had cases in the past where some nobel laureates have had their heads turned and have been attracted into fields which they don't really have the particular expertise with rather sad endings. i mean, where do you stand on this? i'm not smart enough to do that, so i'm going to stick with what i'm doing. i mean, all of our award money goes into a charitable institution that does a variety of things, but i think the biggest thing is to use the megaphone that this has given us

to address worldwide equity. equity for vaccines, but, more important, equity for science. bringing science to the entire world and giving them access to experience science. we're mainly looking atjunior high and high school kids, and by exposing them to science, we're hoping it'll spark an interest in some of them and, you know, build new careers. right. katalin? yes. so, i, like other support money — you know, award money i receive, it will also go to education. i don't like to make statements myself. and, you know, i also like to, in the future, working, and presently also, work on something using all of this knowledge i collected for 40 years about the rna biology and realising maybe i have an answer

for certain diseases, better understanding, and have a solution for that, so that's what i will do. chemistry laureate professor louis brus, how are you going to use your new voice? well, if my health will support it, i will certainly try to begin giving more talks and talks in high schools. i'll give a talk in the local high school as soon as i feel up to it. and as far as the money goes, i will... i have been supporting various charities over the years, one of which is the nature conservancy in the us, and i'll certainly give them more money because they do good work. and i'm still thinking about what to do with the rest of it. 0h, right. yeah. good. and finally, professor moungi bawendi, one of the chemistry laureates, what are you going to do? i have to say that the award is so sudden for me that i haven't had really —

i didn't think about this before and i'm still processing what i'm going to do. but one of the things that has struck me is the power that we now have for the young. and, you know, i look forward to, as louis has said, you know, talking to the younger people, especially in high schools, and, you know, try to be a role model in some ways. i think — those students are ourfuture and i want to be able to help that. my goodness, what an altruistic bunch of nobel laureates you all are. that's all from this year's nobel minds from the library of the royal palace in stockholm. it's been an absolute privilege to be talking to all of you and hearing your fascinating insights and listening to the work that you have done which has brought so many benefits to humankind.

and it's really been wonderful to be with you. renewed congratulations to you all. thank you to my audience here and to you, wherever you're watching this programme. from me, zeinab badawi, goodbye. applause. hello there. boxing day brought a lot of fine, dry, settled weather across the country thanks to a ridge of high pressure, but it is all change into tomorrow. we have storm gerrit expected to bring gales, heavy rains and significant hill snow across scotland, and it remains unsettled into thursday with windy weather, with sunshine and showers. this is storm gerrit, winding its way up out in the atlantic,

we are in between weather systems today, hence the fine and dry weather with widespread sunshine for the rest of today. with just one or two showers around, light winds, breezier for the northern isles, signs of cloud and rain just getting in the far south—west ahead of storm gerrit later in the day, otherwise for most it stays dry, on the cool side, single digits for most. it's a cold start to the night across the far north of england, scotland, with early frost and ice. and then wind, rain, cloud spread northwards, associated with storm gerrit through tonight. so it turns stormier for all and we start to see some snow over the hills in the north. temperatures double figures in the south, single figures further north. storm gerrit then very much in control of our weather on wednesday, a lot of isobars on the charts, so very windy indeed. we have some concerns about the snowfall amounts across the hills of scotland, above 200 metres, in excess of 15 centimetres for many throughout the day. and we can even see accumulations higher than that where we have drifting and blizzards when you add on the strength of the wind.

so, very nasty conditions to be had across northern areas, wet and windy elsewhere, gales certainly around coastal areas, up to 60 mph through the channel. later in the day, chance of severe gales developing for north—east scotland and the northern isles. a little bit of brightness for northern ireland through the afternoon, many places will stay wet with cloudy weather. double figure values for most but cold across scotland. so, pretty severe weather on the way for wednesday, low pressure hangs around as we head into thursday as well, again lots of isobars on the charts through thursday so it will be another blustery, windy day to come. sunshine and showers, most of these in the north and the west, some heavy ones, hail and thunder and snow on the hills again in scotland. probably a better chance of seeing lengthier, sunny spells will be towards eastern england. again, just about double figures for many, cold across scotland. we hold on to the unsettled theme for the rest of the week and the run—up to new year's with rain or showers at times.

live from london, this is bbc news. a ukrainian missile damages a russian warship docked in occupied crimea — the latest in a series of attacks on russia's black sea fleet. israel's army chief says the war in gaza will last for "many more months". iraq condemns us air strikes on iranian—backed targets in its territory. the us says it was retaliating after an attack on american bases. and cameras take us behind the palace gates — we get a glimpse at a new bbc

documentary following king charles in his coronation year. hello, i'm christian fraser. ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky has said he is "grateful" to his air force for a missile attack that badly damaged a russian warship in the black sea. the novocherkassk was hit during an attack on the port of feodosiya in russian—occupied crimea. local officials say at least one person was killed. ukraine said the ship was destroyed. president zelensky wrote on telegram, "the occupiers will not have a single peaceful place in ukraine." james waterhouse reports from central ukraine/ for ukraine, this was a high—value target. the russian novocherkassk landing ship struck by guided missile.

the force of the blast suggests it was full.