Source: Royal Court Theatre

[Chatter and applause.]

Chris: Thank you for staying on. My name's Chris, I work in the international department [inaudible.] I’d just like you to know that this is being live-streamed - I hope - so when asking your questions, it would be great if you could speak up so that we can hear you, and also if you could keep them quite concise, so that we can move this on, as I'm quite sure that Steve would quite like to have a cup of tea before his next gig. So I guess I will start the ball rolling by asking what were your [inaudible] together, why this project?

Stephen Emmott: Katie and I were introduced [inaudible] by someone. I was a scientist and he knew that she was interested in working with scientists [inaudible] and looking at the arts and science, so when we met we got chatting about how science works. So then I told her about what we did in my lab, and why we did what we did, the kind of science that we did and she was really fascinated by this and I think she was extremely concerned about environmental issues, so we quickly turned to a conversation about how scientists and artists could work together, to expand that into how can we do something together about the kinds of issues we work on in the lab, how you work, all the issues I talk about in the talk. So after a long series of discussions we ended up here doing, and me talking about this..

Chris: I have a question actually here which maybe you’ve answered already but it was tweeted earlier, from Richard Loftus. It says why did you feel that theatre was the best medium for communicating your concerns about our futures? Which I suppose is two questions, which is why theatre, what brought you to the theatre, and do you think it is a good medium for [inaudible]?

Stephen Emmott: Right. I mean, I think it’s possibly the question [inaudible] answer. So it's on in the theatre principally because of Katie and Dominic Cooke who helped, was brave enough to put it on, I suppose.

Chris: Dominic, for those who don’t know, is our boss, our artistic director, the head of the Royal Court.

Stephen Emmott: And I think - so that’s the first part of the answer. The second part of the answer is: because this was effectively an experiment in whether it was possible to communicate a set of complex issues, principally scientific issues - issues related to science, also economic and political issues - and show how everything was interlinked in all these issues in a way, to a non-scientific audience in a way that doesn’t dumb it down and insult the audience but doesn’t just make the [inaudible] issues rather loony. [He possibly didn't say "loony" but I can't think of anything it sounds more like.]

And I'm not the one really to say whether the experiment's been successful or not - the audience really say if it's successful - but hopefully it’s gone relatively [inaudible] it’s been successful, and I don’t think the theatre is actually the best medium to communicate this to the maximum number of people [inaudible] into an audience.

And what's been interesting in this little experiment is that the universal response of everyone that I speak to afterwards, usually some people waiting outside or in the bar, is: you must find a way to make every politician on the planet see this so this isn't gonna happen. Or millions more people to see this. So the theatre’s not a good way to do that. But there’s really one good thing about the theatre, I think it’s a sort of liveness, a sort of personal aspect to it, and you know in some sense I suppose that’s one of the reasons why Katie and I got together is that art - theatre is a form of art - is meant to inform, inspire, provoke, I suppose and I think that's what science should do a better job of.

Chris: [Inaudible] questions [inaudible] interesting [inaudible] one quick precisely about the technology. We had one tiny glimmer of hope, in your talk, and that was artificial photosynthesis. Suppose we had it, tomorrow? What would you do?

Stephen Emmott: Well, I don’t think it would solve all problems. It would help solve - it could be potentially revolutionary solving energy problems, bearing in mind that’s not the only problem we face. It wouldn’t solve water, and it wouldn’t solve over-consumption and resource allocation, ecosystem loss, but nonetheless it would solve part of those problems, and if we’d had it we could - it's an interesting question because, I mean, the labs looking at artificial photosynthesis - with, possibly, the exception of mine - are basically treating it precisely how plants treat it which is split water and keep the hydrogen and then ship - and then store hydrogen in large containers and then ship it round the planet. And they’re treating it as a consequence of splitting water, as a purely materials problem, and the problem with that is that, we haven’t got - the materials don’t exist to split water in the way that would be required by artificial photosynthesis.

There's a different way of doing, it I think, which is not so literally trying to reproduce what plants do, but trying to do some of the things that plants do in terms of thinking about cellular processes, rather than just this phenomenon of splitting water, and the problem with hydrogen is finding a way to produce either electricity for example or a different energy source - it could be something like ATPs, a useable form of ATP directly from this artificial plant.

And in that case, you know, you could imagine there being, you know, a trillion artificial trees generating artificial photosynthesis, you know, just around our environment rather than massive power plants, but, as I say, if that would be a possibility if it was available now - but I think it’s going to be quite a way before it happens, and it may never happen, in the form of, certainly just as a materials problem.

But the Department of Energy, most of the other labs are in the U.S., and they’re nearly all funded at Berkeley, nearly all funded by the Department of Energy, who are putting in, it’s like 25 million dollars which, in the scheme of things, is not very much.

Chris: The U.S. Department of Energy?

Stephen Emmott: The U.S. Department of Energy.

Chris: Yes - the lady - sorry, I'm -

Woman 1: Given the thing that you said, do you think there's any point in an of us doing anything? [Laughter.]

Stephen Emmott: Um, yes, I mean, you know..

Woman 2: Excuse me. Sorry - can you repeat the question?

Chris: Sorry. Can you just repeat the question just a bit louder, so that we can just pick it up?

Woman 1: Given everything that you’ve said, do you think that there is any point in any of us doing anything?

Stephen Emmott: Um, yes. I mean, I think, I think my personal view, as an individual, not so much as a scientist and I suppose from my knowledge, scientific knowledge of where we seem to be heading - where we are heading [inaudible.] I mean, even I haven’t given up. I'm responsible - I have a responsibility as a scientist to do things, that I think I can contribute, so for example, get an artificial photosynthesis research programme going. We’re also working, and I did allude to, on the radical new kind of science going to solve the food problem, and that’s going to possibly be our biggest, so ah, that kind of science is being done in my lab, using DNA strand displacement, so, but, then ultimately, I think that the thing that we all need to do is radically change the way we live, and I personally, honestly don’t see any of us doing it.

Chris: Lady just here.

Woman 3: On the basis that the financial resources seem to be -

Chris: Sorry, I think you may need to repeat the question, please.

Woman 3: On the basis that a lot of financial resources are used to extend life, at the moment, and I believe statistically we are skewed - certainly in the Western world - to an ageing community, do you feel that at some point, from a medical, ethical point of view, that we should perhaps at some point give an end point to which we should not be extending life?

Chris: Well, I'll repeat that, sorry. Given the financial resources that we have expended on extending human life, medical resources, and given how this [inaudible] can be skewed towards an aging population, do you think that there is a point beyond which we shouldn't be extending life?

Stephen Emmott: I mean I think these are kinds of questions that I think it's not for ordinary individuals or a scientist to answer or anything. I think that's a discussion that we need, on how we want our society to run. I mean, that level of debate, about that and every other issue, needs to be had, and I don’t personally speaking, I don’t think that we should be switching off everybody at the wall past some age, sort of pillow over the face, to be honest with you...

Woman 3:  - more that we’re getting to the point where we can extend life for someone who has no quality left - 

Stephen Emmott: Right, so the issue there is not [inaudible] the quality of life but - you know, all these are issues that we need to, I think everyone has a responsibility to be more engaged with in the debate about how we want all these things, because there isn’t a simple prescription for solving these things, and, you know, it requires much more debate, and treating these issues more seriously.

Chris: This gent, sorry, this gentleman.

Man 1: Apart from the photosynthesis, I did think it was unremittingly pessimistic, but the one thing I picked up towards the end which was very positive was when you said that if we carry on at our present rate of reproduction, we'll be at nearly 30 million - sorry, 28 billion - population at the end of the century. But you're forecasting that we’re going to be at ten or so... That's the title of the ..

Stephen Emmott: It's the title, but what I want to say about it is ten billion or more. I mean, we don’t know.

Man 1: ‘Cos what I was taking from that was that you believe we’re going to be restricted to about ten billion or so, in which case, if we could achieve that much of a reduction, or a little more reduction, even if our present level of reproduction is bad, we’re at six billion or so, seven billion on the planet, it wouldn't be the end of the world, if we could encourage people to reproduce at two to a couple?

Chris: So are you asking Steve if he thinks if we can keep the population growth, however, down below ten billion or whatever, that means that...

Man 1: .. have misunderstood, but if it’s not really 28, we’re going to be at ten, it's not much further to bring it down from ten to a sustainable [inaudible] reproduction.

Stephen Emmott: Um, well, I might agree with that, but I'd say that even at seven billion we're consuming the planets resources at a far greater rate than is sustainable.

Man 1: But it's a far better outcome than 28 billion, isn’t it?

Stephen Emmott: Er, it's a far better outcome than the 28 billion, certainly. Ten billion is the sort of mid-UN projection. It's nearer eleven now. It was 10.1, it was then 10.4 it was like 10.8, and that is based upon a whole range of assumptions, none of which are occuring, like the education of women in a very large number of countries, and a whole range of issues that simply aren't happening. And so personally, I mean the UN’s upper population estimate is between 16 and 22 billion, and there again these are all projections based upon a number of parameters or assumptions, and their lower projection is that it peaks at just over 9 billion, and then it declines to our current level at seven billlion, because people stop having children by the end of the century, and I think that’s absolutely not only implausible, but reckless to even assume that's going to happen.

Ten billion, personally speaking, I think ten billion is pretty conservative. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see it considerably more than that, simply because, to get it to asymptotal, let alone to decline slightly after ten billion would require a degree of change in reproduction habits in a very large number of countries, and there’s not all that [inaudible] that is happening. In addition I don’t think the UN has done a good job, by the way, of factoring in the decline in infant mortality in the future and extending life expectancy. If you factor that in, you get to 28 billion.

Chris: A gentleman here.

Man 2: Taking your rational pessimistic stance, I think a lot of the clues as to what probably will happen were probably all in your lecture, you're talking now about the politicians they'd not agreed on anything in the past thirty years, we've talked about the military...

Stephen Emmott: Don’t forget this chap has to summarise this question.

Man 2: It’s not a question, I'm just making a statement.

Chris: - to keep it to questions.

Man 2: - the military attending all your conferences and the guy in your lab telling you that he’s going to teach his son to use a gun, and I think that’s the way we’re going, and that’s the way the population will get reduced, and through disease...

Chris: Sorry, this ...

Man 3: [Inaudible] to see you again... [inaudible] but I’m serious of course, and some of the points about population control and the debate we're just having, isn’t there at least a possibility that some of the scenarios you've explained, in terms of what will happen  - with the food, the decline in availability of food, the decline of water and so on - that actually people will stop having so many children, simply because they won’t be able to sustain those children, and that actually population decline might potentially happen more quickly than you imagine or that you explain from the UN figures, because the crazy experiment that you describe we're caught up with, might [inaudible] itself.

Stephen Emmott: Would you like to summarise that?

Chris: If I could. To summarise, the question is: do you think that, as people come across the difficulties that have been thrown up by population growth, you gave them [inaudible]...

Stephen Emmott: Yes. Well it’s interesting, and no I don’t think that, and the reason why I don’t think it is, firstly, and again, population, with the exception of the Middle East, population which is [inaudible] many countries [inaudible] population increasing sharply - the population of Afghanistan, of all places, is set to double in the next fifty years - that, in most of the places where population is increasing most sharply, there is a lot of tropical forest left, and so there’s a lot of land which isn't agricultural land, and if we use that tropical forest, it's is just going to create enormous longer term problems for ourselves. That’s almost certainly what will happen, and the reason is because it’s happening now. And the same with water. The water table is declining every year in those areas, but there still is a water table where you can get water. I mean the average family in the Punjab had to drill about ten metres a decade ago to get to the water table. It’s 150 metres now. There’s still a water table, and you can get water, but at some point there won’t be one [inaudible] but that might be a very long time from now. I realise that doesn’t answer all your questions but, can I ask Peter to ask his question [inaudible.] 

Peter: It seems to me that from what you say, science has got to change its model profoundly if any progress is going to be made, so I’d be interested in your thoughts about what changes in that model should look like, and how we should set about trying to achieve it.

Chris: So how we should create a model of science that achieves the change that you feel that we need to make.

Stephen Emmott: By the way, for those who don’t know, Peter was my lecturer 25 years ago, so it’s a bit intimidating having him being here. [Laughter.] So, it’s a good question, I mean, it’s interesting because as you know, science funding is a pretty conservative game, and it tends to be a game of, sort of, be a measure of central tendencies, so that risky science, science should be risky, and risky science almost always gets rejected in funding because it seems too risky, and even now, our grant proposal to PDSRA [?] or Merck or Wellcome, they want to know what the outcome is going to be, and you’re thinking: well, I wouldn’t be doing science if I knew what the outcome is going to be. And so I think there needs to be more risk-taking in basic science, there needs to be far more basic science, rather than doing science that business wants. I think this intersection of science and business has gone far too far, and I worked in it, one of my day jobs was in a corporation, where I was forced to [inaudible] but I think it’s just gone far too far, because business is short-term, doing science that business wants, long-term blue-sky is three years. Yes, we need to be doing far more radically different, far more radical kinds of science if we’re going to have any chance of solving some of these problems. So, I don’t know what the model is, other than - oh sorry, I’ll tell you the other thing is that there’s far too little focus on supporting people rather than projects, and I think that letting people, giving people, people the respect, whether they’re young scientists or well-respected scientists ten years of funding - just get on with it - yes, some of that money will end up in nothing, but there’s a very good chance that some of it will end up in amazing science coming out of that long... [inaudible].

Chris: This gentleman here, sorry...

Man 4: A few months ago I hosted a lecture at my own institution by Professor Sarah Harper, who’s professor of demography at Oxford, and she took a much more reassuring view than you, not of climate change - that's not the subject - but population growth. She said that changing lifestyles in every part of the world, with a few pockets of exceptions in Africa, would lead us to conclude that the portrait you portray of relentless expansion of population is not the case. I'm confused now, having heard your wonderful talk tonight.

Stephen Emmott: No, I’m not quite as optimistic as Sarah, but - and I do share most of her views. Er, but I didn’t actually say we would be 28 billion, I said if the ... rate continues at the current rate - and even I don’t think it will - we would be 28 billion, and she would say the same. She might argue that it could be 22 billion, but neither of us would disagree that it’s twenty-something. I just happen to not be quite as optimistic as Sarah about lifestyle changes and how soon they will occur and their consequences in the short term.

Man 4: She ended up by saying "It’s a wonderful world for young people", the complete opposite to producing guns...

Stephen Emmott: By the way, I should say, this gun thing, I was quite surprised when this guy in my lab said this, because he’s very, very level-headed. And he said so because, you know, we have a lab of forty people working in this area, and you know, everyone shares the same view as he does, and it’s simply on the basis of a) the science, and b) if we're heading for trouble, of some sort, the scale - I mean I basically reported the facts of where we are, and the science of where we’re going. It’s not my view. Comparing our head in the sand if we want to ignore that[?] you know, only the last two minutes were my opinion, you know, of what I think of the situation. Given all, given the science, he believes, and I believe, and everyone else believes that we’re heading for trouble, and we argue about the extent of that trouble. The issue is, if everyone were to behave rationally, ... it’s possible that the worst ... but neither he nor I think that people behave rationally. And he’s of the view that when trouble does come, he’s not going to be alive, in sixty years’ time, and his son is four, and I think he’s of the view that, you know, "I would like to know that if I’m not around, my son has been well-equipped to defend himself if he has to", as an insurance policy, not someone advocating his son going out and killing people.

Chris: ...in the white t-shirt.

Chris: Gentleman here in the ... t-shirt.