the 1982 nobel discussion with the 1982 nobel laureate. t, �* , discussion with the 1982 nobel laureate. . �* , ., laureate. that's him. having coffee. laureate. that's him. having coffee- the _ laureate. that's him. having coffee. the whole _ laureate. that's him. having coffee. the whole field - laureate. that's him. having coffee. the whole field of i coffee. the whole field of medicine _ coffee. the whole field of medicine will _ coffee. the whole field of medicine will be - coffee. the whole field of medicine will be more - coffee. the whole field of| medicine will be more and coffee. the whole field of - medicine will be more and more clearing — medicine will be more and more clearing up _ medicine will be more and more clearing up genetics _ medicine will be more and more clearing up genetics to - medicine will be more and more clearing up genetics to our- clearing up genetics to our behaviour. _ clearing up genetics to our behaviour, our— clearing up genetics to our behaviour, our disease - clearing up genetics to our. behaviour, our disease states and probably— behaviour, our disease states and probably before - behaviour, our disease states and probably before long - behaviour, our disease states and probably before long you | and probably before long you can predict— and probably before long you can predict somewhat - and probably before long you can predict somewhat how. and probably before long you can predict somewhat how it| can predict somewhat how it should — can predict somewhat how it should behave. _ can predict somewhat how it should behave.— can predict somewhat how it should behave. how does that make you _ should behave. how does that make you feel? _ should behave. how does that make you feel? it _ should behave. how does that make you feel? it is _ should behave. how does that make you feel? it is almost i make you feel? it is almost spooky. _ make you feel? it is almost spooky. i — make you feel? it is almost spooky. i guess. _ make you feel? it is almost spooky, i guess, to - make you feel? it is almost spooky, i guess, to see - make you feel? it is almost i spooky, i guess, to see that, and it is amazing, yes. find spooky, i guess, to see that, and it is amazing, yes. and no pressure _ and it is amazing, yes. and no pressure on — and it is amazing, yes. and no pressure on your— and it is amazing, yes. and no pressure on your children - and it is amazing, yes. and no pressure on your children in i and it is amazing, yes. and no| pressure on your children in 40 pressure on your children in a0 years hence to also be sitting here. i wont be there then, i'm sure. gary sharpe is, you are the fifth person to have won a

nobel prize twice. are you going to keep up the tradition hoping for a third? —— barry sharplessi hoping for a third? -- barry sharples— hoping for a third? -- barry sharles . ., , . , ., sharpless i have no plans for that, i sharpless i have no plans for that. i can't _ sharpless i have no plans for that, i can't help _ sharpless i have no plans for that, i can't help myself, - sharpless i have no plans for| that, i can't help myself, just to do research and i have to do that so that is the way it goes. that's why didn't stop doing research. some people i guess go off to the heavenly dream of life after a nobel prize but too many do and most of us keep going as if nothing had happened. doesn't help you raise money that much.- raise money that much. doesn't it? i raise money that much. doesn't it? i would _ raise money that much. doesn't it? i would have _ raise money that much. doesn't it? i would have thought - raise money that much. doesn't it? i would have thought it - it? i would have thought it did! 0k, doctorjohn clauser, you are one of the physics prize winners. you have said that 90% of scientists want to win the nobel prize, and the other 10% are laying. which category are you in? at}! other 10% are laying. which category are you in? of course i've category are you in? of course we always _ category are you in? of course i've always wanted _ category are you in? of course i've always wanted to - category are you in? of course i've always wanted to win - category are you in? of course i've always wanted to win the l i've always wanted to win the nobel prize, and the former. so

ou nobel prize, and the former. so you are one of the truthful once? , . . . , you are one of the truthful once? , ., , you are one of the truthful once? , once? yes, actually i may be uniuue once? yes, actually i may be unique or— once? yes, actually i may be unique or mother _ once? yes, actually i may be unique or mother may - once? yes, actually i may be unique or mother may be - once? yes, actually i may be - unique or mother may be unique in nobel history, both her brother and her son are nobel laureates. my uncle won one in the 1950s for chemistry, edmund allen. , ., ., , allen. there is quite a family tradition going _ allen. there is quite a family tradition going on. _ allen. there is quite a family tradition going on. ben - tradition going on. ben bernanke e, you are one of the economics prize winners and a lot of people know you as the former chairman of the us central bank between 2008— 201a. president 0bama at the time described you during the financial crisis as being the epitome of calm. have you been taking the news of your nobel prize calmly? i taking the news of your nobel prize calmly?— prize calmly? i have been re prize calmly? i have been pretty calm _ prize calmly? i have been pretty calm about - prize calmly? i have been pretty calm about it. - prize calmly? i have been pretty calm about it. i - prize calmly? i have been i pretty calm about it. i have prize calmly? i have been - pretty calm about it. i have no family members have won nobel prizes they have no basis for comparison, but it is very gratifying and iamik was very pleased to be recognised. you must be used _ pleased to be recognised. you must be used to _ pleased to be recognised. you must be used to being in the spotlight?—

must be used to being in the s-aotliht? , , ., ., , spotlight? yes, but not always in the most — spotlight? yes, but not always in the most favourable - in the most favourable circumstances. ., ~ ., circumstances. professor anton zeilinger. _ circumstances. professor anton zeilinger. you _ circumstances. professor anton zeilinger, you are _ circumstances. professor anton zeilinger, you are also - circumstances. professor anton zeilinger, you are also one - circumstances. professor anton zeilinger, you are also one of. zeilinger, you are also one of the physics prize winners. are you enjoying being in the limelight because that is what happens when you become a nobel laureate. it happens when you become a nobel laureate. , ., happens when you become a nobel laureate. , . , laureate. it is a little bit strenuous. _ laureate. it is a little bit strenuous. you - laureate. it is a little bit strenuous. you have - laureate. it is a little bit| strenuous. you have two laureate. it is a little bit - strenuous. you have two give your time in minutes, every journalist wants to talk to you and i want to talk to everyone, i want to make them happy. it is a high—quality problem. mei]! is a high-quality problem. well i is a high-quality problem. well i am certainly _ is a high-quality problem. well i am certainly very _ is a high—quality problem. well i am certainly very happy talking to you.— talking to you. i'm happy talkin: talking to you. i'm happy talking to _ talking to you. i'm happy talking to you! _ talking to you. i'm happy talking to you! that's - talking to you. i'm happyl talking to you! that's very aood. talking to you! that's very good. professor— talking to you! that's very good. professor alain - talking to you! that's very - good. professor alain aspect, you are also a physics laureate, that puts you at the top of the physics tree, you are considered one of the world's must begin scientist. do you feel brilliant? ma. world's must begin scientist. do you feel brilliant?- do you feel brilliant? no. i feel lucky- _

do you feel brilliant? no. i feel lucky. so why - do you feel brilliant? no. i feel lucky. so why don't i do you feel brilliant? no. i. feel lucky. so why don't you feel lucky. so why don't you feel brilliant? _ feel lucky. so why don't you feel brilliant? because - feel lucky. so why don't you feel brilliant? because i - feel lucky. so why don't you | feel brilliant? because i think there are so _ feel brilliant? because i think there are so many _ feel brilliant? because i think there are so many people - feel brilliant? because i think| there are so many people that they consider much better than me so this is why i think i am lucky to get this prize but because i have it, i want to seize the chance to talk to young people and promote science. , _ , , ., young people and promote science. , , , , ., . science. philip dybvig, you had a really interesting _ science. philip dybvig, you had a really interesting supervisorl a really interesting supervisor who you really flourished under and yet he had no time for you, how come hello yes, my advisor steve ross, and we would hang out with the other students in the bay window on the way up to her his office and we didn't know when he would come and when he would come and we would ask do you have time today? and he would say no. 0r ask do you have time today? and he would say no. or do you have time today? in 15 minutes. then in 15 minutes he would come out and say 30 seconds. you've got to say very concisely what it is you been doing for the week and he will say keep going or

try looking at this, whatever. and then you really had 30 seconds. it wasn't a joke. but seconds. it wasn't a 'oke. but that simplicity _ seconds. it wasn't a joke. emit that simplicity has really helped inform your research subsequently. have got to try to keep things clear and simple?— to keep things clear and simle? . . , ., , simple? and it really means something _ simple? and it really means something if _ simple? and it really means something if he _ simple? and it really means something if he takes - simple? and it really means something if he takes two . something if he takes two hours. morten meldal, i know that you are also an accomplished rock guitarist and even build your own guitars and so have you been rocking since he received the prize? i been rocking since he received the prize?— the prize? i haven't had the time, the prize? i haven't had the time. l'm — the prize? i haven't had the time, i'm sorry, _ the prize? i haven't had the time, i'm sorry, but - the prize? i haven't had the time, i'm sorry, but i - the prize? i haven't had the i time, i'm sorry, but i would like to do so in future as well because i think that arts and science are two sides of the same is —— same coin and you can learna same is —— same coin and you can learn a lot about creativity from doing arts, which is very useful in your scientific discoveries. yeah, absolutely. _ scientific discoveries. yeah, absolutely, that _ scientific discoveries. yeah, absolutely, that interface i scientific discoveries. yeah, absolutely, that interface isi absolutely, that interface is so important and every year, there is a literature laureate. let's get down to discussing a little bit about what you've all won the prize for and let

us start with medicine. professor sva nte us start with medicine. professor svante paabo, we will talk about your work first but first of all let's give this brief overview of what you want your prize for. how did modern humans evolved? the question of our origins has engaged and puzzled us throughout the centuries. well, svante paabo has helped us gain more insights into what it is to be human. he has found a way of extracting genetic material from extinct hominid species. he then worked out how to sequence the genome of the neanderthal and identified another agent hominid, the denise oven. professor paabo found traces of gene transfer from both these species in present—day humans. proving that homo sapiens, in some parts of the world, had coexisted and interbred with neanderthal and annese ovens.

this ancient flow of genes helps us understand our physiology is in terms of the development of diseases and infections and how we tackle the —— denisovans. professor fonte pavo, described for us in a nutshell how is it that we modern humans were so successful in surviving and becoming billions of people on earth, unlike me under 12s and denisovans —— svante paabo. ladle denisovans -- svante paabo. we don't know. _ denisovans —— svante paabo. - don't know, actually, but we hope that having the neanderthal genome can help us approach that question. we know, for example, neanderthals had just as big brain as modern humans. it may not have been that they were individually smarter than us but it could have been, for example, that modern humans tended to have bigger populations. we know that they contributed genetic material to people today and

when we now look at the early modern humans, at the met neanderthal, almost all of them turn out to have family members that were neanderthal, actually, so it may actually be that more or less we have absorbed these other groups into larger human populations. crosstalk. so we kind of bread them into extinction, almost? yes. and did neanderthals and denisovans also have the power of speech, for instance, they could create art? they used tools, so were they very similar to tools, so were they very similarto us? i tools, so were they very similar to us?— tools, so were they very similar to us? i think they were very _ similar to us? i think they were very similar. - similar to us? i think they | were very similar. clearly, they must have had local communication. we know a little bit of one gene that has something to do with articulation, probably, that they shared with us. if they had a language, it'sjust a language we would have started at school or if it was more different in some way, we don't know. . , . . different in some way, we don't

know. . ,. ., , ., know. fascinating. if you worked _ know. fascinating. if you worked out _ know. fascinating. if you worked out how- know. fascinating. if you worked out how much i know. fascinating. if you - worked out how much neanderthal you have in you? no, i've got much crosstalk. you've not done it? gosh, iwould have thought that would be the first thing you would have analysed. fascinating, isn't it? hello laurie 0akes, is anything you want to ask professor paabo about his research? i think i fascinated about research and what makes us human? haifa fascinated about research and what makes us human? how do you define human? _ what makes us human? how do you define human? like, _ what makes us human? how do you define human? like, you _ what makes us human? how do you define human? like, you know, - define human? like, you know, there _ define human? like, you know, there must— define human? like, you know, there must be a borderline or something like that. if you go further— something like that. if you go further back, where do you start? _ further back, where do you start? what's going on there? there — start? what's going on there? there are _ start? what's going on there? there are things like walking on two legs, using fire and stone tools, but millions of years. then there are neanderthals and denisovans who were very similar to us. and then there are fully modern humans, the direct ancestors of everyone today, but i do think sometimes are special and with time, at least 70,000 years

ago, you start becoming very numerous, start having technology, things change rapidly and you see because it comes regionalised and an expert can immediately see where the stone tools come from, central asia or western europe. and becoming spread across water or you don't see [and on the other side. there's land on the other side. there's craziness there.— craziness there. crosstalk. that's neanderthals - craziness there. crosstalk. that's neanderthals and - that's neanderthals and denisovans didn't have? we set sail from africa 60, denisovans didn't have? we set sailfrom africa 60, 70,000 years ago to populate other parts of the world with no idea what layout there. karen bertozzi, did you want to ask something?— bertozzi, did you want to ask somethinu? ., ., �* ,, ., something? you don't know your visit neanderthal _ something? you don't know your visit neanderthal but _ something? you don't know your visit neanderthal but i _ something? you don't know your visit neanderthal but i do - something? you don't know your visit neanderthal but i do know. visit neanderthal but i do know mine, i've had it analysed, so i am 2.3% neanderthal —— carolyn bertozzi. is i am 2.3% neanderthal -- carolyn bertozzi.- carolyn bertozzi. is that something _ carolyn bertozzi. is that something i _ carolyn bertozzi. is that something i can - carolyn bertozzi. is that something i can be - carolyn bertozzi. is that l something i can be proud carolyn bertozzi. is that - something i can be proud of? yes, _ something i can be proud of? yes, i think it's really up to how you think about it. the end of those don't often have very

good reputation, iwould of those don't often have very good reputation, i would say. but i do think it's changing, actually. many people are proud of being neanderthal and i think many things we learn about variants that are good come from neanderthals. preventing things like miscarriages and things like that. there are other bad things that are bad in the present pandemic for example so it really depends on what parts you have, i would say.- it really depends on what parts you have, i would say. they are known to _ you have, i would say. they are known to having _ you have, i would say. they are known to having a _ you have, i would say. they are known to having a very - you have, i would say. they are known to having a very broad, i known to having a very broad, muscular, you know, slightly brutish kind of demeanour, nothing thuggish about you though, professor, at all. mr; though, professor, at all. my cuestion though, professor, at all. my question is— though, professor, at all. my question is is _ though, professor, at all. my question is is there a big difference to making a hubble telescope and a stone axe? isn't— telescope and a stone axe? isn't it _ telescope and a stone axe? isn't it the same genes? | telescope and a stone axe? isn't it the same genes? i do think it is — isn't it the same genes? i do think it is the _ isn't it the same genes? i do think it is the same - isn't it the same genes? i u think it is the same genes. i do think that there is something with us that makes us want to explore, sail out

across the oceans, construct the technology for that, and now yes, we need to go to the moon and to mars. there seems to be no stopping us. i do think it is something special there. ., ., , you there. doctorjohn klauser? you believe there was not that - there. doctorjohn klauser? you believe there was not that much migration, — believe there was not that much migration, and _ believe there was not that much migration, and being _ believe there was not that much migration, and being a - believe there was not that much migration, and being a sailor- migration, and being a sailor myself, _ migration, and being a sailor myself, i_ migration, and being a sailor myself, i sailed _ migration, and being a sailor myself, i sailed across- migration, and being a sailor myself, i sailed across the l myself, i sailed across the oceans, _ myself, i sailed across the oceans, it's— myself, i sailed across the oceans, it's surprisingly i myself, i sailed across the . oceans, it's surprisingly easy -- john— oceans, it's surprisingly easy —— john clauser. _ oceans, it's surprisingly easy —— john clauser. in _ oceans, it's surprisingly easy —— john clauser. in fact, - oceans, it's surprisingly easy —— john clauser. in fact, i- —— john clauser. in fact, i think— —— john clauser. in fact, i think it _ —— john clauser. in fact, i think it was _ —— john clauser. in fact, i think it was proved - —— john clauser. in fact, i. think it was proved earlier, just— think it was proved earlier, just how— think it was proved earlier, just how easy— think it was proved earlier, just how easy it _ think it was proved earlier, just how easy it was. - think it was proved earlier, just how easy it was. you i think it was proved earlier, i just how easy it was. you can jump— just how easy it was. you can jump on— just how easy it was. you can jump on a _ just how easy it was. you can jump on a ltale— just how easy it was. you can jump on a bale of— just how easy it was. you can jump on a bale of hay- just how easy it was. you can jump on a bale of hay and - just how easy it was. you can - jump on a bale of hay and boom! you are — jump on a bale of hay and boom! you are across _ jump on a bale of hay and boom! you are across an _ jump on a bale of hay and boom! you are across an ocean! - jump on a bale of hay and boom! you are across an ocean! i- you are across an ocean! i highly— you are across an ocean! i highly suspect _ you are across an ocean! i highly suspect that - you are across an ocean! i highly suspect that your i you are across an ocean! i- highly suspect that your whole field _ highly suspect that your whole field of— highly suspect that your whole field of study— highly suspect that your whole field of study significantly- field of study significantly underestimates— field of study significantly underestimates the - field of study significantly. underestimates the amount field of study significantly- underestimates the amount of commerce _ underestimates the amount of commerce and _ underestimates the amount of commerce and travel- underestimates the amount of commerce and travel there - underestimates the amount ofl commerce and travel there was and exploration _ commerce and travel there was and exploration.— and exploration. yes, i mean, we have _ and exploration. yes, i mean, we have no — and exploration. yes, i mean, we have no evidence - and exploration. yes, i mean, we have no evidence that - we have no evidence that earlier forms of humans ever came to america, australia,

madagascar, for example. that's really something that comes with humans that have skeletons and behaviour like ours. it's amazing to me, in a way, that humans didn't come to the americas until 20 30,000 years ago. and i think there's something special there. he is insistinu something special there. he is insisting that _ something special there. he is insisting that denisovans - something special there. he is insisting that denisovans and i insisting that denisovans and neanderthals were sailors, likely, but there we go. i neanderthals were sailors, likely, but there we go. i was thinkin: likely, but there we go. i was thinking svante _ likely, but there we go. i was thinking svante paabo, - likely, but there we go. i was thinking svante paabo, we i likely, but there we go. i was i thinking svante paabo, we were talking about why some humans would look around and take risks and go on boats. humans need to know _ risks and go on boats. humans need to know the _ risks and go on boats. humans need to know the limits - risks and go on boats. humans need to know the limits of - need to know the limits of where _ need to know the limits of where they can be and nothing is more — where they can be and nothing is more important than land to live on— is more important than land to live on and _ is more important than land to live on and opportunities from the earth, _ live on and opportunities from the earth, what she gives more in certain— the earth, what she gives more in certain places and nothing in certain places and nothing in others, _ in certain places and nothing in others, sol in certain places and nothing in others, so i think the risk had — in others, so i think the risk had to— in others, so i think the risk had to he _ in others, so i think the risk had to be there with the

denisovans and neanderthal, too~ — denisovans and neanderthal, too. ., .. denisovans and neanderthal, too. ., ~' , ., denisovans and neanderthal, too. . ., too. thank you. fascinating stuff! we — too. thank you. fascinating stuff! we could _ too. thank you. fascinating stuff! we could go - too. thank you. fascinating stuff! we could go on - too. thank you. fascinating stuff! we could go on for i too. thank you. fascinating - stuff! we could go on for hours and hours discussing this, couldn't we? but really, very groundbreaking research there. if svante paabo's worker could help us gain a better understanding of our physiology and how we tackle diseases, the same is true of this year's chemistry prize. many pharmaceutical groups have been inspired by natural substances and so, the imitation of natural molecules that perform the same function is crucial to the same function is crucial to the industry. barry sharpless and morten meldal are awarded the prize for discovering a new way of putting molecules together, called click chemistry. they established the foundations for a functional form of chemistry in which molecular building blocks snap together quickly and efficiently. it is now commonly used both within research and

product development. carolyn bertozzi began using the technique of click chemistry to map cells with a method she called buyer orthogonal reaction. this contributes to the manufacture of drugs that target diseases such as cancer more effectively and it also has many other important applications —— bioorthogonal chemistry. carolyn bertozzi, you say you are very motivated in your work by wanting to bring health benefits so how does your research help us better target diseases? yes, well, better target diseases? yes, well. we _ better target diseases? yes, well, we developed - better target diseases? yes, well, we developed a - better target diseases? yes, well, we developed a type i better target diseases? yes, well, we developed a type of chemistry, it's called bioorthogonal chemistry, and it's a chemistry that can be performed in living systems, including in humans. and by doing chemistry in humans, we can do things like direct a medicine to a tissue of interest and keep it away from

other tissues, and this turns out to be important in the treatment of cancer. barry sharpless, — treatment of cancer. barry sharpless, you _ treatment of cancer. barry sharpless, you say - treatment of cancer. barry sharpless, you say that i treatment of cancer. barry i sharpless, you say that chemist make connections like nobody else. what do you mean by that? i don't think so. i think humans _ i don't think so. i think humans make connections brilliantly in literature and everything. connections mean, 0k, everything. connections mean, ok. i_ everything. connections mean, 0k. i am — everything. connections mean, ok, i am sitting everything. connections mean, 0k, iam sitting next everything. connections mean, ok, i am sitting next to you 0k, ! am sitting next to you and— 0k, i am sitting next to you and i— 0k, ! am sitting next to you and i want— ok, i am sitting next to you and i want to hold your hand but if — and i want to hold your hand but if i — and i want to hold your hand but if i hold my hand against you. — but if i hold my hand against you. if— but if i hold my hand against you, if that's ok.— but if i hold my hand against you, if that's 0k.- we i you, if that's ok. sure! we have something _ you, if that's ok. sure! we have something bonding, i you, if that's ok. sure! we l have something bonding, it's like velcro but it is easy to separate _ like velcro but it is easy to separate. but if i hold your hand. _ separate. but if i hold your hand, that is better bonding. but if— hand, that is better bonding. but if i — hand, that is better bonding. but if i have one of these like car seat — but if i have one of these like car seat buckles on, you have the male _ car seat buckles on, you have the male and female, forget that— the male and female, forget that part but i am attached to you — that part but i am attached to you if— that part but i am attached to you if i— that part but i am attached to you. if i don't click, we are never— you. if i don't click, we are never attached. and that's what chemistry— never attached. and that's what chemistry is about. but never attached. and that's what chemistry is about.— chemistry is about. but we may have to get _ chemistry is about. but we may have to get op _ chemistry is about. but we may have to get up from _ chemistry is about. but we may have to get up from the - chemistry is about. but we may have to get up from the table i have to get up from the table later so we will detach ourselves. click chemistry, isn't it? you know, clicking things together. morten meldal,

it has very useful applications beyond medicine, doesn't it, such as prince that bind better to a surface, as barry sharpless was demonstrating now, —— paints. you are also looking at a strong material made of bali which is a has a real, you know, really good environmental properties —— barley. iiii environmental properties -- barle . �* ., ., environmental properties -- barle. �* ., ., barley. if we're going to look the future. _ barley. if we're going to look the future, you _ barley. if we're going to look the future, you have - barley. if we're going to look the future, you have to i barley. if we're going to look the future, you have to look| barley. if we're going to look. the future, you have to look at all of our possibilities of using the waste streams introduction for making new materials that can replace some of the materials that we are using today from fossil oils. i would actually like to ask the three gentlemen on the other side about, yes, about the importance of long—term, you know, considerations in economy and sustainability but in particular you are regulating

now, out of the predicted prices, but what about regulating in very long—term to look at sustainability? climate issues and _ look at sustainability? climate issues and sustainability i issues and sustainability issues _ issues and sustainability issues are a problem because no individual— issues are a problem because no individual has an incentive to do anything about it, it requires cooperation between governments and the like, at one point— governments and the like, at one point to make his people say well— one point to make his people say well economic growth is going — say well economic growth is going to _ say well economic growth is going to strangle us because we have _ going to strangle us because we have too— going to strangle us because we have too much stuff on someone. but economic growth means the things— but economic growth means the things not necessarily are more but they— things not necessarily are more but they are better, and that they— but they are better, and that they can _ but they are better, and that they can be made more efficiently and made from, you know. — efficiently and made from, you know, better materials. sustainability and economic growth _ sustainability and economic growth are not inconsistent but it does— growth are not inconsistent but it does require some agreement, some _ it does require some agreement, some cooperation, not only within— some cooperation, not only within a _ some cooperation, not only within a country but, you know, globally. — within a country but, you know, globally. in— within a country but, you know, globally, in order to move us in that— globally, in order to move us in that direction. do globally, in order to move us in that direction.— globally, in order to move us in that direction. do you think chemistry _ in that direction. do you think chemistry plays _ in that direction. do you think chemistry plays a _ in that direction. do you think chemistry plays a role - in that direction. do you think chemistry plays a role there, | chemistry plays a role there, in the future?— in the future? absolutely, because — in the future? absolutely, because i _ in the future? absolutely, because i think _ in the future? absolutely, because i think the i in the future? absolutely, because i think the only i in the future? absolutely, i because i think the only way to do this— because i think the only way to do this without imposing, the concern — do this without imposing, the concern the people have is that

going _ concern the people have is that going to. — concern the people have is that going to, you know, carbon serotype _ going to, you know, carbon serotype of growth, will impose a lot _ serotype of growth, will impose a lot of— serotype of growth, will impose a lot of economic hardship —— carbon— a lot of economic hardship —— carbon zero. people can't have gasoline — carbon zero. people can't have gasoline for their cars, for example _ gasoline for their cars, for example. so the way for people to get— example. so the way for people to get these to continue to improve _ to get these to continue to improve standards of living or maintain _ improve standards of living or maintain standards of living but then _ maintain standards of living but then also do that in a way that— but then also do that in a way that uses— but then also do that in a way that uses less fossil fuels. carolyrr— that uses less fossil fuels. carolyn bertozzi, youth, innocence, moved beyond scientific research in some ways because you are involved in a number of start—ups, so you become something of an entrepreneur. —— you've moved. this theme during covid of course scientists come up with vaccines and so on so you think scientists should be more commercially minded and they should have access to financial investments and all the rest of it? ., ., ,. , , ., it? not all scientists need to be financially _ it? not all scientists need to be financially minded. i i it? not all scientists need to| be financially minded. i think it's great to have a sector of our scientific colleagues interested in translating their research into products that can

benefit humanity. at the same time, i think we need a robust investment and very basic science, very curiosity— driven science, very curiosity— driven science, that my not be translating into a product in the person's lifetime, and both of these types of investments, i think, are equally important. alain aspect?— i think, are equally important. alain aspect? yes, in my case i am sure i— alain aspect? yes, in my case i am sure i am — alain aspect? yes, in my case i am sure i am not— alain aspect? yes, in my case i am sure i am not good - alain aspect? yes, in my case i am sure i am not good at i alain aspect? yes, in my case i am sure i am not good at going i am sure i am not good at going to application myself during all my life i've explained to my graduate students, etc, that if they have a good idea, they should go. it's not having dirty hands to go to application. now there are plenty of new products in quantum technologies and when my former students start a company, they come and talk to me and asked me to be a scientific advisor and i think that this is a good process. i

give talks, and explain what they have been doing is basic science and people around listen to it and say oh, we could use that for something. in your case apparently you are able to see that to sides. you are a source _ able to see that to sides. you are a source of— able to see that to sides. you are a source of inspiration. 0k, are a source of inspiration. ok, let's get a lot of response from our audience. we got some students from sweden so we have a physics student from stockholm university. your question please?— stockholm university. your question please? and scientists receivin: question please? and scientists receiving the — question please? and scientists receiving the most _ question please? and scientists receiving the most famous i receiving the most famous scientific prize, do you think you can have more impact than people and other associations on governments and companies to make them think more about big global issues?— global issues? since you are a -h sics global issues? since you are a physics student _ global issues? since you are a physics student i _ global issues? since you are a physics student i am - global issues? since you are a physics student i am going i global issues? since you are a physics student i am going to | physics student i am going to go to the physics laureates first. are you going to be able to help us tackle big global

challenges like climate change? you look like you are ready to speak? i you look like you are ready to seak? ., ., , you look like you are ready to seak? . ., , ., ., speak? i am ready to ask if we can influence _ speak? i am ready to ask if we can influence governments. i speak? i am ready to ask if we | can influence governments. we will do our best we also know that our government have elections, elections they want to win so the question is, where do the post of these problems on the to—do list and i will put all efforts to raise them in the to—do list but i'm not sure if i will be successful. ., ., successful. carolyn, you are the woman around - successful. carolyn, you are the woman around the i successful. carolyn, you arei the woman around the table successful. carolyn, you are i the woman around the table and you are only the eighth woman to have ever won a nobel prize in chemistry. so this gives you an enhanced platform, doesn't it? and i know you have been a really powerful advocate for women in science, you had a lot of trouble in the early days trying to actually find a place in a lab, so are you going to use your voice in a lab, so are you going to use yourvoice in in a lab, so are you going to use your voice in enhanced way as an advocate? i use your voice in enhanced way as an advocate?— as an advocate? i think people robabl as an advocate? i think people probably would _

as an advocate? i think people probably would like _ as an advocate? i think people probably would like to - as an advocate? i think people probably would like to see i as an advocate? i think people probably would like to see me | probably would like to see me use my voice that way and i am very happy that i am the person that stands between having one woman here and zero women here at. it's probably a question thatis at. it's probably a question that is better posed to the men around the table.— that is better posed to the men around the table. lasting? there around the table. why? there are so many more _ around the table. why? there are so many more of- around the table. why? there are so many more of them, i around the table. why? there i are so many more of them, and they are in a position to make change that is nine times greater than my own position. applause greater than my own position. applaus: a, greater than my own position. applaus— applause may be i can state that, the numbers _ applause may be i can state that, the numbers in - applause may be i can state | that, the numbers in chemistry are on a very good project every. we have had i think four of those eight women have received prizes within the last four years, received prizes within the last fouryears, economics received prizes within the last four years, economics probably is the worst represented of all of the prizes, think that is the number i'd learned this week so maybe we can redirect the question to the economics laureates as to how their boys

can be used to change this. by]!!! can be used to change this. all riaht, can be used to change this. all right, economics laureate? ii right, economics laureate? i agree that economics has a poor record as physics and chemistry in other sciences still have low proportions of women and minorities, it has been rising over time. minorities, it has been rising overtime. economics minorities, it has been rising over time. economics has not had as much improvement and it is a bit of a puzzle why that is a bit of a puzzle why that is the case. i was the president of the american economic association a few years ago and we try to put in programmes to help men taught young women economists to bring people into the field, to address a variety of issues and i hope that those things will bear fruit, i hope that those things will bearfruit, but it i hope that those things will bear fruit, but it is a disappointment and a problem. it does make a difference when there are more women in the field, it changes the things that people work on and changes objectives so i have that will improve over time.- improve over time. barry

sharpless? _ improve over time. barry sharpless? women i improve over time. barry i sharpless? women mostly improve over time. barry - sharpless? women mostly went in medicine and _ sharpless? women mostly went in medicine and biology, _ sharpless? women mostly went in medicine and biology, and - sharpless? women mostly went in medicine and biology, and i i sharpless? women mostly went in medicine and biology, and i had i medicine and biology, and i had a student i was advising and she was like the smartest kid at mit and we tried to get her to go to graduate school but she thought about having a life and having a family and she just didn't know if she wanted to make that sacrifice.- to make that sacrifice. let's move onto _ to make that sacrifice. let's move onto cor's _ to make that sacrifice. let's move onto cor's nobel- to make that sacrifice. let'si move onto cor's nobel prize move onto cor�*s nobel prize physics, here is a brief guide to it. the cor�*s physics pride is awarded for discoverers in want of mechanics. physics at the micro level dealing with the micro level dealing with the smallest of particles. the laureates alain aspect, john clauser and anton zeilinger have shown the potential to investigate and control particles that are in entangled states. when two particles are entangled, that is the

scientific term for quantum blinking, what happens to one of the pair has an instantaneous effect on the other, howeverfarapart instantaneous effect on the other, however far apart they may be. the fundamentals of quantum mechanics has a huge and profound impact on our world. the technology opens up the possibility of quantum computing so huge amounts of data can be processed in a few minute rather than the millions of years it would take a normal computer. the laureates experiments lay the foundation for current research in quantum information science which can lead to new and unexpected ways of storing information and securing data as well as developing drugs and vaccines faster. professoranton faster. professor anton zeilinger, you faster. professoranton zeilinger, you have demonstrated that phenomenon called quantum teleportation. it sounds very exciting like

something out of the science—fiction series star trek but what applications can you see for your work in teleportation quantum teleportation quantum teleportation is a kind of science—fiction in a sense because it was in films like star trek and so on and the mistake they did, they thought that in order to teleport somebody, you had to teleport the substance you were made of and so on and so on, that is a big mistake. in quantum mechanics we found that it is enough to kind of transport the quantum state which is the embodiment of information which characterises you. i could exchange all carbon atoms and you would be the same person because it is the information, it is how it's put together which is exciting and that is what we can do in quantum teleportation. 50 what we can do in quantum teleportation.— teleportation. so my friend danny greenburg _ teleportation. so my friend danny greenburg over i

teleportation. so my friend danny greenburg over here teleportation. so my friend i danny greenburg over here in the audience was once asked in teleportation what would happen with the sole? and he said it's only the soul which is teleported.— only the soul which is teleported. only the soul which is teleorted. ., . , teleported. for example you could transfer _ teleported. for example you could transfer all— teleported. for example you could transfer all the - could transfer all the information in your fine could transfer all the information in yourfine reigns into mine. then they would be very happy. multiple winner of nobel prizes.— nobel prizes. billions of years until we have _ nobel prizes. billions of years until we have that _ nobel prizes. billions of years until we have that way. i i nobel prizes. billions of years | until we have that way. i don't know if i until we have that way. i don't know if i can _ until we have that way. i don't know if i can wait _ until we have that way. i don't know if i can wait that - until we have that way. i don't know if i can wait that long. i know if i can wait that long. the teleportation is a means of transporting information from the output of one quantum computer to the input of another quantum computer in the future. . . another quantum computer in the future. , , , , future. this is the best computer _ future. this is the best computer ever - future. this is the best i computer ever invented, isn't it, the human brain?— it, the human brain? that's what you — it, the human brain? that's what you believe but i it, the human brain? that's what you believe but how i it, the human brain? that's i what you believe but how will you prove that?— you prove that? well, i'm not... yeah. _ you prove that? well, i'm not... yeah. at _ you prove that? well, i'm i not... yeah. at some things. and others — not... yeah. at some things. and others not. _ not... yeah. at some things. and others not. alain - not... yeah. at some things. | and others not. alain aspect, because you developed another aspect of quantum mechanics, quantum physics, and quantum

cryptography, which means that you can have telecommunication systems that are impossible to break into, so tell us a bit about that and who might find that useful? i can think of a few. . i, ., , few. in quantum cryptography the security — few. in quantum cryptography the security is _ few. in quantum cryptography the security is based - few. in quantum cryptography the security is based on i few. in quantum cryptography the security is based on the i the security is based on the very basic laws of quantum physics. so until the moment when we find that quantum mechanics is no longer good, we can be safe with quantum cryptography. now you ask who will be impressed by that? take the case of diplomacy. if now we have somewhere big eras which collect all the information, and they cannot decipher, but they keep the records, and five years from now, standard computers have improved and now they can decipher. if it is dramatic secret, it will be big turmoil, big problem. if you use quantum

cryptography, even five ten or 20 years, in principle, it cannot be deciphered. so i think that diplomacy would be very happy to have this kind of things. very happy to have this kind of thins. ., i, very happy to have this kind of thins. ., ., , things. doctorjohn clauser, here you — things. doctorjohn clauser, here you are, _ things. doctorjohn clauser, here you are, the _ things. doctorjohn clauser, here you are, the irony i things. doctorjohn clauser, l here you are, the irony being things. doctorjohn clauser, i here you are, the irony being a nobel physics laureate for quantum is and yet you said at one stage i don't understand quantum physics. find one stage i don't understand quantum physics.— one stage i don't understand quantum physics. and i still do not understand _ quantum physics. and i still do not understand physics - quantum physics. and i still do not understand physics and i quantum physics. and i still do not understand physics and in. not understand physics and in fact it was a quest to understand quantum mechanics that has kept me going all of this time. and unfortunately in the process i think i have killed that which i loved, which is einstein's whole legacy in the process. you brina legacy in the process. you bring op — legacy in the process. you bring up the _ legacy in the process. you bring up the great - legacy in the process. you bring up the great scientist einstein and he said if it was an idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. have

any of your ideas been thought crazy? any of your ideas been thought cra ? ., . , any of your ideas been thought crazy?_ douglas i crazy? 0h, totally! douglas diamond. _ crazy? oh, totally! douglas diamond. i— crazy? 0h, totally! douglas diamond, ithink— crazy? 0h, totally! douglas diamond, i think you - crazy? 0h, totally! douglas diamond, i think you are i crazy? 0h, totally! douglas| diamond, i think you are on crazy? 0h, totally! douglas- diamond, i think you are on the record of saying the best new ideas often seem stupid. fix, ideas often seem stupid. particular put that into practice when i'm dealing with my own phd students. you don't want to dismiss ideas too early because they seem stupid. sometimes they are completely at odds with the thing that ever body knows for sure, broadly knows for sure is correct. you got to push them along pretty far before you tell them and then at some point you figure out the idea of some of them actually are stupid and then you want to prevent the student from wasting their lives doing something that is clearly incorrect.— something that is clearly incorrect. �* , ., incorrect. anyone else? carolyn bertozzi? _ incorrect. anyone else? carolyn bertozzi? yes. _ incorrect. anyone else? carolyn bertozzi? yes. in _ incorrect. anyone else? carolyn bertozzi? yes. in a _ incorrect. anyone else? carolyn bertozzi? yes. in a nutshell, i incorrect. anyone else? carolyn bertozzi? yes. in a nutshell, ll bertozzi? yes. in a nutshell, i was considered _ bertozzi? yes. in a nutshell, i was considered crazy - bertozzi? yes. in a nutshell, i was considered crazy because | was considered crazy because the places that people usually do chemical reactions look a lot more like this and not so much like this. but they will say that for a chemist we

probably all three of us have had the experience that the cycle of life or chemistry, you start out with an idea, people say it's crazy, it won't ever work. you show that it works, people don't believe you at first. overtime, people don't believe you at first. over time, eventually, people get on board and they acknowledge that it works and they repeat work in their own labs and it works beautifully and everyone embraces it to the point where now people forget that you invented it in the first place because itjust becomes part of the fabric. let's just get another reaction from the audience during our discussions. i've got a question here from a medic student, shirley littman. your question to the laureates please? question to the laureates lease? , , , question to the laureates lease? , ,, �* ., please? guess, i'm wondering where you _ please? guess, i'm wondering where you get _ please? guess, i'm wondering where you get your _ please? guess, i'm wondering where you get your best - please? guess, i'm wondering where you get your best ideas| where you get your best ideas from? ~ ., , ., where you get your best ideas from? ~ ., i. i. from? where do you get your best ideas — from? where do you get your best ideas from _ from? where do you get your best ideas from fellow - from? where do you get your best ideas from fellow we - from? where do you get your l best ideas from fellow we don't know the process. really? it just comes to you. like archimedes in the bathtub? it’s archimedes in the bathtub? it's like archimedes in the bathtub? it�*s like something that cannot not happen. itjust happens in your

brain. happen. it 'ust happens in your brain. �* , ., happen. it 'ust happens in your brain. �* ., ., ~ brain. but you have to think about something _ brain. but you have to think about something and - brain. but you have to think about something and think| brain. but you have to think - about something and think about it and _ about something and think about it and think about it, and suddenly... that is probably a common— suddenly... that is probably a common thing that you have this focus _ common thing that you have this focus in — common thing that you have this focus in your mind.— focus in your mind. exactly. obsession. _ focus in your mind. exactly. obsession. we _ focus in your mind. exactly. obsession. we must - focus in your mind. exactly. obsession. we must have l obsession. we must have obsession. l obsession. we must have obsession.— obsession. we must have obsession. ., ~ ., obsession. i would like to sort of mention — obsession. i would like to sort of mention the _ obsession. i would like to sort of mention the group - obsession. i would like to sort of mention the group effort i obsession. i would like to sort of mention the group effort in| of mention the group effort in science — of mention the group effort in science copy and i think that almost — science copy and i think that almost all ideas i have actually come from the group, and having an atmosphere where stupid _ and having an atmosphere where stupid ideas can be put on the table — stupid ideas can be put on the table without fear, and nine of the ideas _ table without fear, and nine of the ideas that come will be wrong _ the ideas that come will be wrong but there will be that one great idea that comes. barry— one great idea that comes. barry sharpless? | one great idea that comes. barry sharpless?— one great idea that comes. barry sharpless? i don't know where my _ barry sharpless? i don't know where my ideas _ barry sharpless? i don't know where my ideas come - barry sharpless? i don't know where my ideas come from i barry sharpless? i don't knowl where my ideas come from but barry sharpless? i don't know. where my ideas come from but i have the smell of blood, i mean, i smell blood when they get close to something that's important. it's like an animal. i'm in really, it's not the smell of blood but i see something and i think my god, why hasn't that been done? it must be known, and then i find

out it is not known.— out it is not known. that is so evocative. — out it is not known. that is so evocative, professor! - out it is not known. that is so evocative, professor! i'm - out it is not known. that is so evocative, professor! i'm an i evocative, professor! i'm an animal, _ evocative, professor! i'm an animal, that's _ evocative, professor! i'm an animal, that's why. - evocative, professor! i'm an animal, that's why. how - evocative, professor! i'm an i animal, that's why. how much neanderthal _ animal, that's why. how much neanderthal have _ animal, that's why. how much neanderthal have you - animal, that's why. how much neanderthal have you got - animal, that's why. how much neanderthal have you got a i animal, that's why. how much i neanderthal have you got a new? all right, well let's now move on to our final category of nobel prizes and that is economics. banks can be fundamentally unstable and so need to be properly regulated. sometimes as in the 2008 global financial crisis, banks can fail, putting pressure on the entire system. this can result in an economic meltdown with higher borrowing costs and plunging prices. economists can enter a downward spiral of rapidly increasing unemployment and bankruptcy is. thanks to this year's economics laureates, the world has improved its ability to avoid both serious financial race is

an expensive bailout. douglas diamond and philip dybvig developed models explaining why am banks exist and why they are vulnerable to rumours of collapse and how regulation can reduce a run on banks. regulation can reduce a run on banks, ,, ., , ., regulation can reduce a run on banks. ,, ., , ., ., ., banks. stabilisation of our financial— banks. stabilisation of our financial system _ banks. stabilisation of our financial system is - banks. stabilisation of our financial system is an - financial system is an essential precondition for economic recovery.- economic recovery. ben bernanke's _ economic recovery. ben bernanke's research - economic recovery. ben bernanke's research on| economic recovery. ben i bernanke's research on the great depression provides insights into the thinking behind economic policy—making during more recent financial crises. the work of all this year's crises. the work of all this yea r�*s laureates crises. the work of all this year's laureates played an important role in ensuring the covid economic slowdown did not develop into a new great depression. professor ben bernanke, we saw in the 2008 financial crisis when the banks were bailed out, in many cases, these were investment banks. the money which had been lost was money that belonged to

other financial institutions and it was the taxpayer who had to pay to have them bailed out, and that caused a lot of consternation and anger. it and that caused a lot of consternation and anger. it did cause a lot _ consternation and anger. it did cause a lot of _ consternation and anger. it did cause a lot of consternation i cause a lot of consternation because people properly thought well, why are we helping the people who caused the crisis in the first place? i would point out that if the system collapses, then notjust the people of wall street but people of wall street but people on main street will be badly hurt, and i think it's important for people to know that all the money that was put into the banks was paid back with interest. but into the banks was paid back with interest.— with interest. but douglas diamond. _ with interest. but douglas diamond, your _ with interest. but douglas diamond, your research i with interest. but douglas - diamond, your research combined with philip dybvig looks at this need for governance providing deposit insurance, so that when ordinary consumers households invest their savings in the bank, that they don't all go withdraw their money if they think the bank is going to collapse because you say it is a self—fulfilling prophecy. so tell us what your work shows about the need for that kind of deposit insurance. 50. about the need for that kind of deposit insurance.— deposit insurance. so, the oint deposit insurance. so, the point of —

deposit insurance. so, the point of work _ deposit insurance. so, the point of work that - deposit insurance. so, the point of work that phil - deposit insurance. so, the point of work that phil and deposit insurance. so, the. point of work that phil and i did was basic function, one basic function that banks do is making the deposits more liquid and the underlying assets they may hold, that means giving people more but they could pay everybody if they took their money out, so there is a problem sort of with the baby and the bathwater that if you are doing this activity, you are doing this activity, you are somehow subject to this run problem, this self—fulfilling run, and the various incomplete ways to get around it but it seems like the one that has worked the best is having a solvent government ensure the deposits, as you say, so that seems that for this set of activities, regulated commercial banks, it has worked quite well. now, the trouble is this activity of creating liquidity, you don't have to be a bank to do it, so it is moved over time to these other unregulated institutions and in the lehman brothers we were talking about, women brothers had a run and it looks like in 2008, the run was spreading

into all of these financial institutions that financed themselves short—term and unless you end up having deposit insurance for one and all, it's very hard to use that solution. all, it's very hard to use that solution-— all, it's very hard to use that solution. ~ ., �* , , , solution. what's interesting is that it's unusual— solution. what's interesting is that it's unusual for _ solution. what's interesting is that it's unusual for a - that it's unusual for a practitioner such as you, ben bernanke, former chairman of the federal reserve, the us central bank, to be awarded the nobel prize. it was a work had done earlier on the great depression. but doug and phil, do you feel at all tempted to enter the fray of the real world, as it were, in terms of working with politicians and policymakers, are you quite happyjust your policymakers, are you quite happy just your research? during the 2007— 2010 period when we had the global financial crisis, i actually got involved from pretty much the first time in policy, in the first time in policy, in the white house and went to, invited to a seminar at the federal reserve on flights and quality. federal reserve on flights and auali . , federal reserve on flights and auali ., quality. did you en'oy it? initially but *

quality. did you en'oy it? initially but then _ quality. did you enjoy it? initially but then there i quality. did you enjoy it? initially but then there is | initially but then there is something being a public intellectual where people hurl insults at you. that was not my favourite part of it. did insults at you. that was not my favourite part of it.— favourite part of it. did you aet favourite part of it. did you get that. — favourite part of it. did you get that, ben _ favourite part of it. did you get that, ben bernanke? i favourite part of it. did you i get that, ben bernanke? oh, es. get that, ben bernanke? oh, yes- they _ get that, ben bernanke? oh, yes. they created _ get that, ben bernanke? oh, yes. they created a - get that, ben bernanke? oh, yes. they created a stress halt — yes. they created a stress halt you _ yes. they created a stress ball. you know those stress halls — ball. you know those stress balls that you squeeze? they created — balls that you squeeze? they created it in the shape of me so people were upset, they could — so people were upset, they could squeeze, you know? so there — could squeeze, you know? so there was— could squeeze, you know? so there was a lot of... there certainly— there was a lot of... there certainly was a lot of blowback.— certainly was a lot of blowback. , _ , ., blowback. philip dybvig, what about you? — blowback. philip dybvig, what about you? would _ blowback. philip dybvig, what about you? would you - blowback. philip dybvig, what about you? would you be - blowback. philip dybvig, what - about you? would you be tempted to go into the...?l about you? would you be tempted to go into the. . . ?_ to go into the...? i have thought _ to go into the...? i have thought about _ to go into the...? i have thought about this - to go into the...? i have thought about this on i to go into the...? i have l thought about this on and to go into the...? i have - thought about this on and off. i'm willing _ thought about this on and off. i'm willing to— thought about this on and off. i'm willing to do— thought about this on and off. i'm willing to do it _ thought about this on and off. i'm willing to do it at - thought about this on and off. i'm willing to do it at a - i'm willing to do it at a distance _ i'm willing to do it at a distance. i— i'm willing to do it at a distance. i have - i'm willing to do it at a distance. i have a - i'm willing to do it at a i distance. i have a friend i'm willing to do it at a - distance. i have a friend who is at — distance. i have a friend who is at the _ distance. i have a friend who is at the sec— distance. i have a friend who is at the sec and _ distance. i have a friend who is at the sec and i _ distance. i have a friend who is at the sec and i often - distance. i have a friend who| is at the sec and i often tried to find — is at the sec and i often tried to find a _ is at the sec and i often tried to find a time _ is at the sec and i often tried to find a time in— is at the sec and i often tried to find a time in meetings. is at the sec and i often tried to find a time in meetings to| to find a time in meetings to ask about _ to find a time in meetings to ask about policy _ to find a time in meetings to ask about policy things - to find a time in meetings to| ask about policy things going on and — ask about policy things going on and talk— ask about policy things going on and talk about _ ask about policy things going on and talk about it - ask about policy things going on and talk about it but, - ask about policy things going on and talk about it but, and| on and talk about it but, and at one — on and talk about it but, and at one point— on and talk about it but, and at one point actually- on and talk about it but, and at one point actually i- on and talk about it but, and at one point actually i was i at one point actually i was visiting _ at one point actually i was visiting the _ at one point actually i was visiting the saint - at one point actually i was visiting the saint louis- at one point actually i was| visiting the saint louis fed periodically. _ visiting the saint louis fed periodically, hoping - visiting the saint louis fed periodically, hoping that l visiting the saint louis fed periodically, hoping that i| periodically, hoping that i would _ periodically, hoping that i would have _ periodically, hoping that i would have some - periodically, hoping that i. would have some influence periodically, hoping that i - would have some influence in policy— would have some influence in

policy and _ would have some influence in policy and opportunity - would have some influence in policy and opportunity to - would have some influence in policy and opportunity to give something _ policy and opportunity to give something back, _ policy and opportunity to give something back, but - policy and opportunity to give something back, but i - policy and opportunity to give something back, but i felt - policy and opportunity to give i something back, but i felt like i did _ something back, but i felt like i did not— something back, but i felt like i did not have _ something back, but i felt like i did not have any— something back, but i felt like i did not have any there. - something back, but i felt like i did not have any there. it’s i i did not have any there. it's not yours. — i did not have any there. it's not yours, yeah. _ i did not have any there. it's not yours, yeah. but - i did not have any there. it's not yours, yeah. but i - i did not have any there. it's not yours, yeah. but i think| not yours, yeah. but i think overall. _ not yours, yeah. but i think overall, i'm _ not yours, yeah. but i think overall, i'm more _ not yours, yeah. but i think overall, i'm more in - not yours, yeah. but i think overall, i'm more in the i overall, i'm more in the curiosity— overall, i'm more in the curiosity and _ overall, i'm more in the curiosity and research, i overall, i'm more in the i curiosity and research, and overall, i'm more in the - curiosity and research, and so the division _ curiosity and research, and so the division of— curiosity and research, and so the division of labour- curiosity and research, and so the division of labour makes. the division of labour makes sense — the division of labour makes sense for— the division of labour makes sense for me _ the division of labour makes sense for me to _ the division of labour makes sense for me to be - the division of labour makes sense for me to be doing - the division of labour makes i sense for me to be doing that. so, sense for me to be doing that. so. i_ sense for me to be doing that. so. i mean. _ sense for me to be doing that. so, i mean, clearly— sense for me to be doing that. so, i mean, clearly unlike - sense for me to be doing that. so, i mean, clearly unlike thel so, i mean, clearly unlike the scientists here, they are applauded when they go into the roles of the, you know, the practical world for coming up with new drugs and kill them someone but you say that sometimes, you get brickbats thrown at you. i must ask you, obviously, because a lot of people are concerned about what is going on in the economy, the global economy, now. we got all sorts of factors that play with the food and energy crisis, the slowdown in china which has also brought down global growth and so on. are you gentlemen worried at all about a global recession? is it going to get worse, ben bernanke? it’s worse, ben bernanke? it's certainly— worse, ben bernanke? it's certainly possible. - worse, ben bernanke? it�*s certainly possible. our problem now is higher inflation. in

many countries. we are much better off i think than the 19705 better off i think than the 1970s because central banks are much more focused on the inflation have much more debility with the public but as the federal reserve and the brooksbank and the european central bank and someone raise interest rates in order to fight the inflation, potentially one side effect will be a slowing economy or even the morris microphone moderate recession, i don't know, —— riksbank. moderate recession, i don't know, -- riksbank.- moderate recession, i don't know, -- riksbank. phil, do you think we're _ know, -- riksbank. phil, do you think we're in _ know, -- riksbank. phil, do you think we're in for— know, -- riksbank. phil, do you think we're in for a _ know, -- riksbank. phil, do you think we're in for a tough - think we're in for a tough time? �* ., ., time? i'm a little worried about the _ time? i'm a little worried about the economy - time? i'm a little worried about the economy but i | time? i'm a little worried - about the economy but i have to put in _ about the economy but i have to put in a — about the economy but i have to put in a disclaimer— about the economy but i have to put in a disclaimer that - about the economy but i have to put in a disclaimer that the - put in a disclaimer that the that— put in a disclaimer that the that i'm _ put in a disclaimer that the that i'm worried _ put in a disclaimer that the that i'm worried about - put in a disclaimer that the that i'm worried about a i put in a disclaimer that the i that i'm worried about a kind of outside _ that i'm worried about a kind of outside of _ that i'm worried about a kind of outside of my— that i'm worried about a kind of outside of my main - of outside of my main expertise _ of outside of my main expertise. and - of outside of my main expertise. and i- of outside of my main expertise. and i don't of outside of my main - expertise. and i don't see it, at least — expertise. and i don't see it, at least in _ expertise. and i don't see it, at least in the _ expertise. and i don't see it, at least in the united - expertise. and i don't see it, at least in the united states, financial— at least in the united states, financial crisis. _ at least in the united states, financial crisis. getting - financial crisis. getting started _ financial crisis. getting started at— financial crisis. getting started at this - financial crisis. getting started at this point. i financial crisis. getting - started at this point. there is kind — started at this point. there is kind of— started at this point. there is kind of a _ started at this point. there is kind ofa mini _ started at this point. there is kind of a mini financial- started at this point. there is kind of a mini financial crisisl kind of a mini financial crisis in crypto— kind of a mini financial crisis in crypto currency, - kind of a mini financial crisis in crypto currency, which - kind of a mini financial crisis in crypto currency, which is| kind of a mini financial crisis| in crypto currency, which is a whole — in crypto currency, which is a whole other— in crypto currency, which is a whole other story, _ in crypto currency, which is a whole other story, but - in crypto currency, which is a| whole other story, but crypto currency _ whole other story, but crypto currency is _ whole other story, but crypto currency is small— whole other story, but crypto currency is small and - currency is small and relatively _ currency is small andl relatively unimportant currency is small and - relatively unimportant for the economy— relatively unimportant for the economy at— relatively unimportant for the economy at this _ relatively unimportant for the economy at this point. -

relatively unimportant for the economy at this point.- economy at this point. let's 'ust aet economy at this point. let's just get a — economy at this point. let's just get a final _ economy at this point. let's just get a final reaction - economy at this point. let's| just get a final reaction from one of our students of what has been discussed. david sturman, a physics student at stockholm university. what do you want to ask the laureate? if university. what do you want to ask the laureate?— ask the laureate? if you think back about — ask the laureate? if you think back about the _ ask the laureate? if you think back about the specific - ask the laureate? if you think back about the specific work | back about the specific work for which you receive the prize, do you think now different about your work then you may have done something differently?— very difficult one. what's your reaction? _ very difficult one. what's your reaction? no. _ very difficult one. what's your reaction? no. no. _ very difficult one. what's your reaction? no. no. no. - very difficult one. what's your reaction? no. no. no. i- very difficult one. what's your reaction? no. no. no. i like. reaction? no. no. no. i like that. applause. _ reaction? no. no. no. i like that. applause. i- reaction? no. no. no. ilike that. applause. i have to say, that. applause. i have to say, thatis that. applause. i have to say, that is the shortest response i've ever had! so david, a very emphatic no. crosstalk. you cannot have — emphatic no. crosstalk. wm. cannot have questions that can be answered like that. can you explain quantum physics in one minute and it would be the same answer. no. bill minute and it would be the same answer- no— answer. no. all right, thank ou to answer. no. all right, thank you to all — answer. no. all right, thank you to all of _ answer. no. all right, thank you to all of you _ answer. no. all right, thank you to all of you laureates, l you to all of you laureates,

and renewed congratulations to all of you. it's been a privilege and a pleasure to be discussing some of the big challenges of our day with some of the greatest minds. and thank you to my audience here, including the royal highnesses and to you of course wherever you are watching this programme. from the library of the royal palace in stockholm, that's all from this year's nobel minds from me, dayna badawi, and the rest of the team, goodbye. —— zeinab. applause. hello there. part two of this weekend brings a change to our weather. we're finally going to see an end to this extremely cold spell of weather. milder, wetter, windier weather will be spreading up from the south but before it

does so, we're likely to see a risk of ice and snow for a while, and the ice could be bad enough across northern parts of england, particularly the pennines, through sunday. the met office have issued an amber ice warning for it. so, it looks like we could see some disruption as rain and sleet falls on these frozen surfaces. could be very slippery indeed across some roads and pavements and, like i mentioned, there is that chance of transient snow as this area of low pressure, these weather fronts, push their way northwards. now, it will be turning milder across southern and western areas quite quickly through the day. however, this mild air will take a while to push the colder air out of the way because we start off on a very cold note across central and northern and eastern areas on sunday. the wind and rain already across the south and the west will push into that cold air — this is where we are likely to see some transient snow on the leading edge, certainly over the hills — and that significant risk of ice — that amber warning in force there. it's going to be a very cold day for many, particularly when you factor in the strong southerly wind, but it will be turning mild by the end

of the day across the far south—west. that mild, wet, windy weather spreads northwards across all areas during sunday night and the ice and snow risk diminish so by monday, it's going to feel very different, very mild indeed compared to we're been used to. a windy day to come, rather grey, cloudy. outbreaks of pretty heavy rain across southern and western areas. the chances of localised flooding in places where we have snow and ice melt and also, the rain falling on the surfaces as well. but look at those temperatures — up to the mid teens celsius for many of us. stays blustery with further rain as we move out of monday into tuesday. low pressure sitting to the north and the west of the country. however, could see something just a little bit fresher pushing into the northern half of the country, as indicated there by the blue hue. i think it's still quite a mild day though across southern and eastern areas. outbreaks of rain clipping the south—east. some sunny spells around. blustery showers affecting the north—west of the uk, maybe something a little bit wintry over the higher ground. single figure values here, otherwise we're at or above the seasonal norm for northern ireland, for much of england and wales. stays unsettled, though, around the middle parts

of the week. this is wednesday's area of low pressure. this is thursday's area of low pressure, so we'll continue to see bouts of wind and rain at times. on wednesday, i think it's the northern half of the country that will see the windiest and the wettest weather. further south, a few showers but also some sunshine. it will stay blustery. again, pretty mild for the time of year in the south. something a little bit fresher further north. on thursday, it could be a reverse — it could be the southern half of the country that's impacted by this next area of low pressure. could see some heavy rain again across southern and western areas — a risk of flooding here. there's just the chance some colder air could return across scotland, so here, the rain will turn to snow, maybe even down to lower levels. at the moment, it looks like it's going to be on the hills. and you can see it's chilly there, whereas further south, again, particularly southern areas, we're into double figures. and as we head into the christmas period, it looks like it stays unsettled. further spells of wet and windy weather and there's a question mark to how far southwards this bluer, this colder air will move southwards

because there is a chance northern parts could see the cold air and have some periods of snow, particularly over the higher ground. but there is still a question mark on that — you have to stay tuned to the forecast. indications here on the icons, you can see it will turn colder across the north of the uk around the christmas period whereas further south, it stays unsettled, but i think we're staying with temperatures around or a little above the seasonal norm.

both serious financial race is an expensive bailout.

this is bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in the uk and around the world. i'm rich preston. the headlines: china sees a sharp increase in coronavirus cases days after beijing eased restrictions following a wave of protests. international film actress, taraneh alidoosti, is arrested in iran, as anti—government protests continue into a fourth month. german police recover some of the precious items stolen during the country's biggest art heist three years ago. and, argentina or france? we look ahead to the world cup football final.