Nobel Minds 2025

Hello from the Royal Palace in Stockholm. I'm Lucy Hawings from the BBC and we've been invited to record the program in this beautiful room by their royal highnesses Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel. Thank you. >> Well, thank you and uh warm welcome to the Royal Palace and to the Bernardot Library. This library gathers thousands of books originally owned by past kings and queens from the Banadot dynasty, providing insights into their time. Just as knowledge shaped their world, it

continues to shape ours. Science is an important part of meeting the complex challenges of today. challenges that our esteemed Nobel laureates address through their groundbreaking discoveries guiding us toward a more enlightened future. There is a great strength in bringing together experts from different disciplines as we do here this evening and I am very much looking forward to the upcoming discussions. So once again a warm welcome to all of you.

Laurates, thank you so much for joining us. This is the first time that you've gathered all together. It is my first time here too. It is an honor and a privilege for me to be here with you in beautiful Stockholm. So, thank you for having me. And with us here in the audience are some of your friends and family I know as well and some students from here in Sweden who have some wonderful questions they're going to be asking us later. So, we're looking forward to hearing from them. We're

going to look in turn at the work that you've all done. But I wanted to start by getting a sense of what it takes to become a Nobel laureate. And Omar, I thought I'd start with you. Uh, you've been awarded Omay Yagi the Nobel Prize in chemistry. But when I heard your story, all I thought was what a determined young man you must have been to come from a family of refugees in Jordan and then today to be sitting here with us. Would you describe yourself as determined?

>> Yeah, I guess so. Um, I mean, and it t it takes passion, I think. I mean, I fell in love with molecules when I was very young. I didn't even know they were molecules. I was just attracted to their beauty. >> Oh, we're in this very beautiful library. And it was a library that you in a library you first discovered. True. >> Chemistry. >> Yes. Yes. Well, in my in my school when I was 10 years old, uh the library was actually supposed to be locked during the break and uh

u and it's supposed to have an attendant that would watch the students and make sure we're not we're well behaved. Well, it was I thought maybe I give it a try and see whether it's open or not, whether the door is unlocked. And certainly it was unlocked. And I went in there and there I found a book that had these molecular drawings. I was I was captivated by them. I mean I felt like I discovered something that nobody ever saw before. >> Filip the Nobel laurate in economics but

as a young person you were so motivated by your social consciousness and things. What is it that got you into economics? >> So I was uh you know maybe the post 1968 generation in France. We wanted to change the world and make the world a better place. I was a militant in a leftwing party and um and I I would hear economic reasonings all seemingly logical leading to opposite conclusions and I said you know how how can I find out who is right and who is wrong and I started questioning

myself and to this day I never stopped questioning myself but was the idea to best better understand the world to help transform it. Fred Ramdale, you are the Nobel laurate in physiology and medicine and your story of how you found out that you had been awarded a Nobel Prize is quite something I said thinks something about your character. Can you tell us the story? >> My wife and I and my dogs tend to go backpacking and camping every chance we get. We just love to be out in nature.

And so we were off and uh up at about 8,000 ft east of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, it snowed. Uh, I didn't know it was the weekend they gave out or the week they gave out the Nobel Prizes. I had no clue. My We had no cell service. My phone was in airplane mode. We drove through Yellowstone and my wife's phone connected and I was uh outside walking the dogs around in a little campground and she started screaming in the car. Um, and I thought, "What's going on?" And she came out with

a big smile and said, "You won the Nobel Prize." And I said, "No, I didn't." And uh there may have been an expletive in there. I'm not sure. And um and she said, "I have 200 text messages from our friends that said you do >> 200 text messages." You know, >> oh yeah, I had more text messages in two days than I had in the entirety of 2024. >> I did the math. It was crazy. >> And Mary, you are a colleague of friends, Mary Bronco, another of the Nobel laureates in physiology and

medicine. When you were a small girl, you wanted to be a doctor. You wanted to to help people. >> Yeah. Has that driven you throughout your life, that motivation? >> Yeah, that's been a big motivating force. I also went through a period of time where I wanted to be a veterinarian. So, just helping in general and caring for people. But when I went down the more research track, then I realized I could still, you know, maybe not work directly with patients, but hopefully what we find in research

medicine. When you were a small girl, you wanted to be a doctor. You wanted to to help people. >> Yeah. Has that driven you throughout your life, that motivation? >> Yeah, that's been a big motivating force. I also went through a period of time where I wanted to be a veterinarian. So, just helping in general and caring for people. But when I went down the more research track, then I realized I could still, you know, maybe not work directly with patients, but hopefully what we find in research

and what we can translate into things that help human health also make me feel like I'm, you know, helping people in a less direct way, but perhaps more broadly, which is very satisfying. Michelle de Roy, your Nobel laurate in physics. Congratulations. I think sometimes for many of us physics can feel a bit baffling maybe sometimes counterintuitive. I wonder if you need a degree of just acceptance about the laws of physics to be able to think further and to succeed.

>> I think um what I would um would say is that um when you learn these subjects you have to have a certain amount of patience. So uh if you try to understand everything right away, you can be very frustrated. So I think that you have to embrace uh the these concepts that seem uh very uh very weird at the beginning but uh you know year after year you you learn them more. And John Martinez, another of the laureates in in physics. I know your parents raised you and I

think this is absolutely a fantastic idea for all parents to ask a question every day. >> Have you asked any questions since you've been here? >> Oh, after the chemistry lecture, um I I had some questions about it and it was funny because I I I kind of felt uh like I was asking a dumb question. I should have known this. >> But you're the kid at the back of the class. >> Yeah. But well, I kind of prefaced this, but uh I I got some really good answers as to how to think about it in my own

way and uh I think they they like the they like the question. Yeah, that was a very good question. I answered it well >> and and uh those questions are how I really more deeply understood what they were doing and uh kind of building a mental model in my in my mind. >> And has this been a sort of guiding principle for you throughout your life? just making sure that every day you're questioned. >> Yeah, that's right. That's what our parents uh the story is. You know, when

when you're a child, you you sit around the dinner table, the parents ask you what you did today, and you kind of roll your eyes, okay? Because that's boring. But they always ask me, well, did you ask a question? And that really trains you very well as a scientist. >> Susumagawa, Nobel laurate in chemistry. Where did your love of chemistry come from? Yeah. And the uh I think in the when I was junior high school student maybe the 10 years old or something in the in the elementary

school they had an event in the just hiking outside or the the uh sports event. So several times it rains everything stopped. I was so sad. And so the one day I I I I want to be a scientist to control weather freely but still we could not do this but but this is my big motivation that time >> wanted to control the weather. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We can't even predict the weather. >> John Moia Nobel laurate in economics. You have reached I think some would say

what a summit in your career. Your life could have taken a very different path though when you were a young man. >> Yes. Well, I was uh serving in the military in Israel and u I went to take u tests to become an officer and at the end of the day you went in for a 5minute interview and they were told if you passed you were going to become an officer or not. And so I walked in and there's this psychologist and he opens my dossier and he looks at me and he smiles and he says

he says Joel says you are not fit to lead or to be led. And so at first I was crushed but upon reflection it occurred to me that the only thing I could do in life was become an academic because you do not lead and you are not led. you are so self-employed. What makes I think a good academic and that's I think everybody around this table must be sharing that with me is self-discipline. >> Well, let's turn now to the work that has won you all your awards and we're

going to start with economics. Let's have a look at the work. Over the last two centuries, for the first time in history, the world has seen sustained economic growth. The laurates in economics, Joel Mokia and Phipe Aion together with Peter Howitt explained how innovation and new technologies are essential to further progress and why competition policy letting new and better products out compete companies with older ones is needed for growth to continue. This process of creative destruction

creates conflict that must be managed. Otherwise, innovation will be blocked by established companies and interest groups that are put under threat. If innovations are to succeed one another in a self-generating process, we need not only to know that something works, but also why. Before the industrial revolution, a lack of this knowledge made it difficult to build on new discoveries. The laurate's work can support policy makers in creating research and development policies.

Joel, we've become used to the idea that our economies just keep growing year on year with occasional blips, but that we become richer all of the time. But that hasn't always been the case, has it? I mean, what's changed? >> Well, in fact, not only that, it hasn't always been the case. If you consider human history to be say a 12-hour clock, okay, real growth started at 5 minutes to midnight for most of human history. Um, you know, the good old times may have been old, but they weren't good.

People were poor. The vast bulk of humanity lived on the brink of famine, disease, death, and misery. We're living in a world that is radically different and the question is how did we become that way and so there's more to than one answer to that but the answer I have been focusing on for the last you know 20 years or so is that we have been accumulating something which I call useful knowledge which is sort of a compilation of science and technology but also the interaction

between them that we've been able to harness natural regularities and laws for our own material purposes. >> And Phipe, you wrote with Peter Howitt who also shares this prize but can't be with us today to look at how creative destruction fuels growth. Can you explain what that is? What is creative destruction? >> So creative destruction was a a ter term coined by Joseph Schumpeter to refer to the process whereby new innovation displays old technologies. So what we

did with Peter Hoit is to build a growth model around the notion of creative destruction and the basic ideas are that long long run growth is driven by cumulative innovation where each innovator stands on giant shoulders. We build on previous innovations. The second idea is that innovation do not come from heaven. They're done a lot by of course researchers but entrepreneurs who pursue innovation because they want to make a profit out of it. They want to if you make a better product you get a

rent. And the third idea is creative destruction, new innovation, displace all technology. But at the heart of the paradigm, there is a contradiction. On the one hand, you need the innovation rants to motivate innovation activity. But on the other hand, yesterday's innovators are tempted to use their rants to prevent subsequent innovations because they don't want themselves to be subject to creative destruction. And managing a market economy is how to deal with this contradiction. Can I ask some

rent. And the third idea is creative destruction, new innovation, displace all technology. But at the heart of the paradigm, there is a contradiction. On the one hand, you need the innovation rants to motivate innovation activity. But on the other hand, yesterday's innovators are tempted to use their rants to prevent subsequent innovations because they don't want themselves to be subject to creative destruction. And managing a market economy is how to deal with this contradiction. Can I ask some

of the other laurates whether you're comfortable with this idea of growth in such a way? Michelle, do you have concerns? >> Um, yes. The question is, can we uh grow without limit? I mean, what about the finite resources at some point? We have also to modify uh this growth system which uh you know wants to consume more and more resources of the earth. Fred, do you have concerns about growth? >> There's a knee-jerk reaction. We see that growth favors a very small number

of people and so we're so we're actually getting farther and farther apart. I the I I take your point. The bottom is still way better off than they were even a hundred years ago, let alone a thousand years ago. >> But but it's the gap gets really big and so I don't know whether there's a policy way to do that. But I love the idea that you can find economics as a way to bring everyone up. I'm really curious. Can you your comment about innovation changing things? I think that resonates, makes

total sense. Is there a predictability to that? Can you predict when, where, how innovation will be disruptive? You cannot say for sure it will be disruptive, but you can create conditions that will favor more disruptive innovation. You cannot say for sure it will come in. But for example, you know, in in the the US are many things I criticize with the US but uh and currently especially but uh uh they they have a system where they encourage short-term failure. you see and

total sense. Is there a predictability to that? Can you predict when, where, how innovation will be disruptive? You cannot say for sure it will be disruptive, but you can create conditions that will favor more disruptive innovation. You cannot say for sure it will come in. But for example, you know, in in the the US are many things I criticize with the US but uh and currently especially but uh uh they they have a system where they encourage short-term failure. you see and

>> and long-term success anything then can say when you say you know if you fail now that's great please fail okay >> that's good in France we tend to discourage short-term failure but you rais another point on inclusive growth you're absolutely right if we don't make growth inclusive you get populism you know why do we get populism in France we are on the brink of maybe having the extreme right in power in 18 months >> because many people felt left out of the

process and I think it's very important that growth be inclusive. >> Let me add one small point to that and that is that the kind of processes that Philipe and I are working on are beneficial on average but the average conceals the fact that there are winners and that there are losers and there are almost no inventions I can think of that did not involve somebody losing. I mean you look at one of the most famous invent invention in history which is the invention of the printing

press in the middle of the 15th century. So there's a whole army of people who's made their living transcribing books by hand, copying them by hand and all these copers basically were put out of business by the printing press. And so the question is how do you make the losers accept the changes? And I think we've made some progress on that. The welfare state's purpose to a great extent was to look at the people who are either losers or potential losers and say look if you are to be put out of

work because this innovation there is a safety net. >> Okay. We have some students from around Sweden in the audience with some burning questions for our laureates. Oscar >> Yeah. Europe has had a great progress regarding new innovations. Everything from the art of printing to the steam engine. But today it seems like the progress has stagnated a bit compared to the US and China. So my question is does the regulatory landscape in Europe hold us back? And if so, do you have an advice to give?

>> First, we don't have a true single market for goods and services. You know, when you innovate, you need a market for your innovation. It's a segmented each European country has its own regulation. We call that goldplating. we don't have a true single market. The second thing is that we don't have a proper financial ecosystem. I was taking telling you about risk takingaking. You know, you need to be able to fail in the short run. Venture capital helps you there. We

are totally below in in in Europe and we don't have in Europe the equivalent of the DARPA, the defense advanced project agency. This kind of prompetition way to do industrial policy. Europe is a regulatory giant and a budgetary dwarf. and that has to change. >> Well, we're going to move on now to look specifically at the work done by our chemistry laurates, Suzumu Katagawa and Omar Yagi. Let's uh have some background now as to why you along with Richard Robson have been awarded this year's

Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson, and Omar Yagi are rewarded with the chemistry prize for their work on building molecules together into structures, which the Nobel committee called molecular architecture. They worked out how to build constructions with large spaces between the molecules through which gases and other chemicals can flow. These rooms could be used to harvest water from desert air, to capture and store chemicals that humans want to get rid of, including carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere, to deliver pharmaceuticals to specific organs in the body, or to trap ethylene gas from fruit, to make them ripen more slowly. They can be used to separate PAS, a group of so-called forever chemicals, from water. Omar, what for you is the most sort of exciting application as a result of your research? >> We can trap and store hydrogen for clean energy, take CO2 out of the air to clean the air, and uh as we have done, taking water out of the air to make drinking water.

>> That's remarkable. So, so I think that the the most important contribution here in terms of creating porocity is the fact not only can you create skeletons that are porous, but you can also design them and craft their interior, customize their interior on the atomic molecular level with precision so that they are tailored for specific properties. >> So, Sumu, this feels so significant as a discovery. Would would you say that we are entering a new age?

>> Yeah. And the we are entering the the so the in the 19th century the people use coal and 20th century in the petroleum our our century the just it's a age of gas that I told you in in the the air is widely distributed so so the even the very small countries but they can freely use this air so that's very important >> I'm wondering what the rest of you and I'm looking at your face there. >> Yeah. Well, I I had one first question was um how how long ago did you did you

realize the power of the moth, you know, how many years ago? Well, I think the initial discovery came in n well, we reported in 1995 and that was how do you take constituents of matter which are inorganic and organic combine them together and still make an ordered system such that things come together in an ordered fashion and in the case of of of our work that the pores would be homogeneous in size and shape. That's almost like a miracle. I think many people probably feel that that they're

concerned about climate change as well and that we're still wrestling with this idea of how you can take CO2 out of the atmosphere. But what you're saying is we definitely can. It's been solved. >> Well, already moths are deployed in cement plants to take up CO2 out of flu gas before it reaches the atmosphere. Okay, so that's right there is a demonstration that we can trap CO2 in an economic fashion. Now out of the air is a little bit harder. You know we put in

the air since uh we started burning fossil fuels almost well more than 1100 gigatons of CO2. Okay that's a lot of CO2 that we have to take out of the air. This is the extra CO2 that we must take out of the air. This is the CO2 that's causing climate change. This is the CO2 that's screwing up our planet. So we have now materials that can do that. >> So the scientific So I would say I would go as far as to say that the scientific challenge of cleaning the air from this extra CO2 is is done.

>> So so what if that's done what is missing is what political will and >> well I think soiety money. Yeah. I mean as scientists we find solutions to problems facing society but society has to have the will to take our findings and say in this particular case this is a global problem and requires many countries at least the G20 to decide this is a crisis that we need to address. Now my my question was with AI. Many people criticize AI saying AI consumes lots of energy and my view is

that AI may also help us save a lot of energy. Is is it the case that in your area the use of AI would help you know would help you uh in in your attempt to use what you do to clean up the air. AI could help us speed up discovery, help us in scaling up these materials, help us achieve better answers, help us in asking new questions. And so we so for the last three years, I've been transforming my group into an entirely AI group that combines experiment with AI where we can feed

these models not just the positive results but also the negative results and these models become a lot better. Okay. And we have another question now from one of our students, Anastasia. Hi. >> Hi. H I'm wondering how do you see AI being integrated into medical science without jeopardizing the ethical standards and the quality of research? >> I think it's critical that we actually be able to use AI data set, AI tools, sorry, to to access the data. Um, but you you're correct in that there's the

potential for misuse in some of that. And you know I I I don't know that there's a great solution to that. Certainly there will be regulatory roles there etc. Um I know that that becomes challenging but I do think there's going to have to be some oversight and some control around that. I also think though that that it's going to help with identifying new hypotheses um new approaches that we can all take to at the very early stages of understanding biology and translating

that into meaningful medicines. So I do think it'll have a really positive result at early stages as well where I would worry much less about privacy and other issues around um those sorts of things with AI. What are your thoughts Mary on on AI? >> The the kinds of data that are being generated and and analyzed really can't be handled by a single human brain. We have to use AI to make sense of it. But there al also has to be the scientist to sort of understand what questions are to

be asked and you know what the next steps are. But certainly the the power of AI makes things possible. My biggest concern is is using large databases in which some of the input data is just frankly wrong. So you've got to be able to to to ensure you you've got quality, right? But I do think it has really in incredible value in in some of the healthcare industry and particularly in some of the large databases. And I think Mary can speak to this much better than

I can, but I I do imagine that um it's going to revolutionize the way we we process and deliver healthcare. >> Let's move on now to the laureates in physiology and medicine and the work that they've done. Here's a short introduction to why they won their prize. >> The body's powerful immune system must be regulated, otherwise it might attack our own organs. Shimon Sakaguchi, Mary Bronco, and Fred Ramstdale are awarded the medicine prize for identifying a previously unknown

class of immune cells, regulatory TE-C cells, which prevent other immune cells from harming our bodies. The ability to control these so-called security guards makes it possible to activate and deactivate the immune system, helping the development of medical treatments for cancer and autoimmune diseases and of more successful organ transplants. Several of these treatments are now undergoing clinical trials. Mary and Fred, congratulations. and you won this award along with Shimon

Sakaguchi is not with us today after a discovery that the two of you made some time ago. So Mary, tell us about it. >> So the yes, the discovery that we're being honored for um occurred in the started in the mid 90s. The human genome project had launched in 1990. Um and there was a lot of excitement about what possibilities could come out of that kind of science. And so this startup company called Darwin Molecular that Fred and I both became involved in had a had a vision that you could use, you

know, genebased discovery to find new novel drug targets. Um, so start a project that's based on just an interesting phenotype. So an interesting, you know, biological trait and if you could understand the genetic basis of it, perhaps that would lead to sort of a novel a novel way of getting to a drug target that could be developed into a therapy. And one of the main um biological areas that we were interested in was autoimmunity and the immune system. And so yeah,

>> and afraid it's already having an impact in terms of treatment. It's starting to absolutely I mean the so what Mary discovered and what what we and and Shimone discovered as well is that the the gene that that she found and that we've characterized controls and is responsible for a very small population of cells in our blood and our tissues that keeps us from getting sick. So most of us don't have MS and most of us don't have Crohn's disease and it's because of these cells.

And so now we know about these cells. We didn't we didn't really have a good handle on them before. So now we understand the cells that essentially keep our immune system in check from from destroying our own bodies. You know, normally we it's it's designed to protect us from pathogens, right? The immune system keeps us safe from COVID and flu and whatever else, but it also recognizes our own tissue sometimes. And this these cells prevent that. And so now we're actually what we couldn't do

in 2000 was really take advantage of that because the technologies didn't exist to to do cell therapy or even gene therapy in any particular realistic way um 25 years ago. Today you can't. >> So many people are affected by autoimmune diseases. My son has celiac disease for instance. So of course my question is could this lead to a cure? >> Most of my professional life no one in my business wants to talk about cure. you want to talk about therapy and treatment because cure is a really high

bar. It's not that people don't want to be cured. It's just a really high bar. Well, we want to talk about cure because I think um there is the possibility of that. Now, we're we're a long way from that still, but but you can see how this develops into a cure. You can see the path forward. You know, there's a lot of hills and valleys between here and there, but but at least you can see where you're going. >> Mary, that word cure is so powerful as a a word. How does it feel to be working

bar. It's not that people don't want to be cured. It's just a really high bar. Well, we want to talk about cure because I think um there is the possibility of that. Now, we're we're a long way from that still, but but you can see how this develops into a cure. You can see the path forward. You know, there's a lot of hills and valleys between here and there, but but at least you can see where you're going. >> Mary, that word cure is so powerful as a a word. How does it feel to be working

doing research on on something that could lead to a cure? >> Well, I couldn't have predicted at the time that we would be talking like this. I mean, the work started 30 years ago and and as Fred said, the the idea of actually using cell therapy was um really not even contemplated. You know, it was it was something we could not have predicted at the time we started. >> And Joel, I know your wife is an immunologist. >> You're sitting there in the audience and uh

listening with fascination, I'm sure. >> Yeah, she's listening with fascination. She >> has she given you a question to ask. >> Well, I don't know. I mean, we've been she and I wrote one paper together in the 51 years that we've been married. 56 years that we've been married. >> You need to get that right. >> Yeah. But uh but you know, she is a a tumor imunology. There's something that really struck me that I want to raise when that Fred said and that is he sort

of said well 25 years ago we had this idea but we didn't have the tools and we didn't have the technology to do this and this is I think a magnificent example of how progress actually work and how I don't think we're ever have to worry that much about resources because not only that it is true of course that science creates technology in the fact that we know more and then we know how to apply it. But it also works the other way around that new tools are developed

by engineers, by technicians that then make scientists see further. So what that really means is there is no ceiling. I mean we ain't seen nothing yet. >> Yeah, that that's correct. I mean right now the the way we're trying to employ this is um I won't say crude, but it's but it's challenging. It's labor intensive. It's difficult. We take out cells, we engineer them, we put them back in. It's a long, expensive, difficult process. I am sure that in some number of years, I don't know if

that's 5, 10 or 20, we will do this in a much more fasile way in the PA in the patient. We may even be using um molecules like Omar is describing, but but we're going to do this in a much different way in 20 years. And I don't know exactly what that's going to look like, but I know it'll be different. Exactly. >> I had a question on of course you need innovators need to appropriate need to get rants but on the other hand the very early stage of research need to be open

and free freedom and openness is important and it's always you see you have this tradeoff some parts need to be appropriatory when you are closer to commercialization but you need openness and freedom is so important and do you have a view on this yourself? Have you experienced this tension >> exper? Oh, absolutely. Experienced the tension. Absolutely. I mean, I've worked for biotech company most of my life. Absolutely. And I I scientifically grew up as did Mary in the era where we

didn't know what the genes were. And so we thought the genes had value and sometimes they really did. And so when you found one, you patented it. Some turned out to be extraordinarily valuable. So and we didn't know and you never knew which one. So that tension is absolutely there. And Fred, you've actually been backed by Bill Gates. >> Well, yeah. So, the work that we did, the the company was funded by Bill Gates and Paul Allen. So, yes, they're venture capitalists, but they were not in the

business to make money. They were the two richest people on the planet at the time. So, they didn't they weren't trying to make money. They wanted to make change. Want to do something interesting. I I there's very few examples of that today. Well, there weren't actually very many back then, and there's still very few today. And so most basic research is still going to depend on government funding. There's there's no way around that. And I at least I don't see a way around that.

>> That that is subsiding though, isn't it, Joel? Would you say? I mean, is there need to be more sort of pressure on multi-billionaires in the world to to roll up their sleeves and contribute? >> You would think that what has happened in the US in the last 10 years is two things. One is that the government is becoming increasingly reluctant to fund research and in some cases uses that research to force certain constraints and limitations on university including

my own I sure are to say in order to force them to do things they wouldn't do on their own simply by threatening the government funding. But the second thing is I think that in in the United States as well as in Europe uh fiscal deficits and national debts will become increasingly ownorous and that the willingness to spend large amount of money on research is going to decline among the voters and that will put government in a very different parade. At the same time

however we have had this phenomena of the number of billionaires I mean I I just heard this story a week ago has again keep keeps going up and you know and you know a billion dollars is not what it used to be but it's still a lot of money. >> So Zuma what is the picture with funding in Japan if it's harder to access in America has that been good for Japan? Yeah, in in Japan traditionally government has a a important role. 20 years ago or 30 years ago the the

fundamental research funding works very well but the right now the the the it's a kind of the zero sum game. So because the competition the any many many companies and many countries and they want to have a you know top position in the individual AI and the you know in the quantum and the devices something so the the it's a big problem so we are very pleased to award the Nobel Prize in two Japanese so the the government and the public interested in this this results So that means we have to push

more to invest in in the fundamental science. >> You are a superstar in Japan now. >> Not a super not superstar. The if the the successful this kind of the money and >> you're being modest Omar um with the environment changing over funding. Do you think we're seeing more money, research, even innovation starting to happen in China? Yeah, I mean I think the Chinese are um have been investing uh constantly and and also expanding their investment in research in in the

categories that uh Susumu just outlined the basic research and the applied research and the ultimately the commercialization type of research and uh and they also produce a lot more uh scientists and and STEMbased u measures. So I mean compared to let's say the US, China produces 35% of their graduates are uh scientists and engineers while in the US I think it's around 5 to 6%. >> Well let's move on to another question that we've had from the audience. EBA

>> thank you. Uh was there any moment in your career or during your research when you began to suspect that your work might one day be recognized with the Nobel Prize or did it come as a surprise when you received the call? >> Okay. Excellent. John, >> you shouldn't do this kind of research for the Nobel Prize. It's just a an award bestowed on you uh per by chance. But um uh you know what you all know what I you know what I mean. Um, but it it's the just the doing of the science

that's the real thrill of of of science. >> Wonderful. Thank you so much. The last award we're going to look at is the Nobel Prize in Physics. Let's have a look at the work. >> We're used to a world where if you throw a ball against a solid wall, the ball will always bounce right back. In the quantum world, things are a little different. If you fire a subatomic particle like an electron at a barrier, most of the electrons will bounce back, but there's a chance the

electron will tunnel through to the other side. For a long time, this phenomenon was thought to occur only on a tiny microscopic scale. But this year's laureates in physics, John Clark, Michelle Devore, and John Martinez showed that this effect could be reproduced in electrical circuits in the real macroscopic world. This discovery has been harnessed by scientists in making modern quantum chips and paves the way for the development of the quantum computer. The Nobel committee said there is no

advanced technology used today that does not rely on quantum mechanics including mobile phones, cameras and fiber optic cables. Now John, this idea of quantum tunneling which you illustrate so well when the electron burrows through the energy barrier that was originally held to be impossible by conventional physics wasn't it? I mean this must be seen as a big breakthrough what you've done. >> So so the idea of of tunneling actually is quite old. Um it preceded after the

understanding of uh quantum mechanics. But what was different about our experiment is that tunneling has been understood for let's say how electrons and fundamental particles work. But this was now expanded to something we called macroscopic variables. And in this particular case, we make um electrical circuit that's you know you can you can see with your own eyes and then it's the current and voltages of that electrical circuit which is composed of billions of electrons that tunnels and some

mathematical way uh that tunnels into a new state of the electrical circuit that we measure. Wow. Mel, some of the applications of your research can you explain for us? >> If you can assemble uh a lot of quantum bits, you can build a quantum computer. And so that's what um discovery has uh essentially enabled the building of quantum machines, machines where quantum mechanics um functions at the microscopic level, at the level of information processing. since >> there's been a decline in in young

people taking physics at school. It's really hard to find teachers to teach physics. Does there need to be a a change in how it's taught? >> Uh yes, certainly certainly there's a big effort to be done in popularizing quantum mechanics. There's um the people have done it, but there's a lot more to do. And I think I think some of the experiments that have been done in the last 20 40 years if written in a popular way I think could teach quantum mechanics in a much more intuitive way

>> because yes I think uh that the saving grace here is that there are more and more experiments that uh um actually embody the basic principles. The problem with quantum mechanics is it was reversed engineered. The the laws were reversed engineers for from very complicated phenomena. And >> isn't there a famous statement attributed to Richard Fman who said if you think you've understood quantum mechanics, you haven't understood it. >> Yes. Yes. But this shouldn't be quoted

too too too often because in some sense it's discouraging and and I I think it's wrong. And but I also think we've learned a lot since that quote and we we you know and he popularized the idea of making a quantum computer and that >> effort by us has made it I think a lot more clear. >> Yes. So I think that what you will see is there will be more and more machines and and experiments that would clarify the concept of quantum mechanism. Can I ask Mary you about education because uh

of course with STEM subjects not enough students now are doing them but particularly girls and more and more girls are taking STEM but they're still underrepresented. Do you think some of the messaging needs to be changed >> around? I I think so. I think um um yeah like you like you say I think there are more girls going into STEM and more young women going into higher education in the STEM subjects. Um but I think um the situation could improve even further

I guess with more you know role models. So I think we need more women at higher levels in the education system, academia, um corporate world, the pharmaceutical industries etc. um would I think demonstrate to more and more um young scientists coming up what the possibilities are >> like a Nobel Prize. I like >> like an old question. >> That helps. Yeah. >> But thank you. And another question from one of our students, Kate Moasi. >> How can we promote more outside the box

thinking in an educational system that still remains largely unchanged and is still largely dependent on, for example, students recalling single correct solutions. John Moia >> I grew up in a country Israel which has been at the frontier of technological growth in many areas. Israel went from a poor third world country which it was in the 50s to a country with a GDP that's higher than Italy and Spain. H and that's exactly because they have defeated to some extent uh the this sort of

inertia that high schools impose on students. Now what is true of course that it's not true for everybody but one of the sort of empirical regularities of innovation is in the fact that most of it is done by a relatively small number of people and you know selecting those pulling them out and giving them this special training and moving them ahead understanding that these are the people that are going to get e economy going that takes out of the box thinking as

well. We teach science not in the way that students like to learn science. So I think we need to change our technique. We need to make it more relevant. We need to give examples uh about uh applications and and work in a way go from applications to to fundamental principles make it more interesting. Well, before we come to an end, I mean, you've all had such a busy week with awards and concerts, banquetss, uh, giving your lectures and things as well. I'm sure you're all quite exhausted, but

well. We teach science not in the way that students like to learn science. So I think we need to change our technique. We need to make it more relevant. We need to give examples uh about uh applications and and work in a way go from applications to to fundamental principles make it more interesting. Well, before we come to an end, I mean, you've all had such a busy week with awards and concerts, banquetss, uh, giving your lectures and things as well. I'm sure you're all quite exhausted, but

when you get back home, I think we'd all love to know what you all plan to do and what your, you know, relaxation before Christmas schedule might look like. Omar, what are you planning to do once you get home? Well, I mean, I think the prize has uh infused more intense energy than I've ever had, and there's so much more to do. And so, yeah, I mean, I've uh after the announcement, I went right back into the lab. I never took a day off. >> That doesn't sound very restful. What do you do?

>> I I feel restful because I'm doing the stuff that I love. I want to say that Philipe and I agreed last summer long before each of us dreamed about the prize to write a book together. And just having listened to, you know, people sitting around this table, you know, I have much more energy because what I understand is exactly that new ideas are not getting harder to find because now I, you know, I hear these fantastic advances in human knowledge in things that I thought were beyond, you know,

our understanding autoimmune disease, you know, CO2 capture from the atmosphere in in large quantities, you know, a new physics of energy. I mean, who can who how can anybody say that all the lowhanging fruits have been picked and that everything important that can be invented has been invented? Okay, you know, we're going to write a book that will finally put those pessimistic these technopes to, you know, bury it so deep under the ground that nobody can ever

find it again. And we're going to write a book that will drive that home. And thanks to the Nobel Prize, we're going to get a much larger advance. >> Phipe, I hope you're not starting the book. >> I have nothing to add. I think it's all been said. >> Mary, your plans, a well- earned rest, I'm sure. >> My plan. Yes, I look forward to some rest. What I really look forward to is catching up with all the people that I have been hearing from since the announcement of the award. I'm

completely behind on replying to the amazing number of messages and stuff from people that I've known all throughout my life. And so I'm looking forward to reconnecting with people and Yeah. And then figuring out next steps >> and the two of you like to go hiking together. I understand you got some walks planned. >> Yes. Yes. to it's important to keep in good shape and uh I think together we can discuss new ideas but >> so you talk shop you talk about work when you're walking

>> among other things but but generally yeah >> no my neighbor at this table worked said that this work life balance is maybe um not formulated correctly you said that I I like what you said that you cannot dissociate actually recreate ation from from work. It's true that it's by uh doing other things that you get uh your best ideas. You you're not getting good ideas in science in in just thinking about >> planning some quality time in your in your garage then are you a building?

Actually, actually I was just thinking about the hiking and there's a lot of things that I learned here and I need to kind of process that and what I find is kind of the runner's high you get when I go hiking is really good for creativity and getting a lot of ideas but the problem is afterwards about half the ideas once you've kind of come down from the runner's eye about half the ideas don't make any sense at all. So you have to filter them afterwards. Half of them do.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Okay. Yeah. Right. >> Pretty good rate. That's pretty good. >> Pretty good percentage. >> Yeah, that's right. Say thank you. That's a That's a good correction. >> Taking a taking a good shower. Can I also >> And dishwashing. I love to do that. >> Oh god. This I never use the dishwasher. I I like to do. Yeah. It's very inspiring. >> Can you come spend some time in my house? >> Anytime I can. >> Anytime you want to come around and do our dishes. Suzu, what about you? What

will you do to relax? >> After the announcement in October and I very busy so I like the just walking and I commute train but the I get the two station the more before the terminal. So I like walking because Kyoto city Kyoto is the old capital. So the street is fascinating just like a cartian co coordinates and so the there are many choice of the the passage. Okay. So the I I I love to find the uh shrine temples of course and the restaurants small restaurants and the bakeries or

something like that. It it's very fun but the I could not walk in this month last month. So the yeah back to the Kyoto so the I want to walk >> Kyoto is such a a beautiful city to walk in as is Stockholm I must say and and Fred you have been to Stockholm before but we have a photo of you actually and you're standing next to a camper van here in Stockholm. >> Yes. Can you tell us what is in in that photo? >> Uh, yes. So, it was 2002, 2004. I don't remember what year it was. Uh, and I'm

dressed much more in my normal fashion, which is blue jeans and sandals and a t-shirt, I think. And I was just on holiday here with my wife and some friends. And we uh we were walking around the Nobel Museum area. And I think the museum had just opened up, but outside there somewhere was a small caravan or travel trailer that said Nobel Museum on it. and I looked at it and said, "This is as close as I'm ever gonna get." And so they took a picture of me pointing at this thing. Um, and it

happens a lot. As I was coming on the 50% u, I was really apparently quite wrong. >> And he here I am. >> Does it feel surreal sometimes? >> Oh, no. Not sometimes, all the time. It's 100% surreal. Um, absolutely. But I I will tell you that having my friends and colleagues here is as if not more um emotionally satisfying than winning the award. >> Thank you all very much. Thank you. Well, that is all from this year's Nobel Minds from the Royal Palace in Stockholm. It has been an absolute

privilege to have this fascinating discussion with some of the best minds in the world. And I'd like to thank uh her royal highness, Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel for being here with us today. And to all of you here in the audience as well from me, Lucy Hawings, and the rest of the team. Goodbye.