Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Brian Keating on The Micah Hanks Program: Life Beyond Earth and Losing The Nobel Prize (#330)

Starting point is 00:00:01 In humanity, there is this obsession with prizes, with honors, with awards, with glory. And I really, again, trace it to almost a form of religion, where you have a worshipful attitude, you have a hierarchy set up. And it's not that competition is bad. I think competition is ultimately can be very healthy, but it can also have a dark side. We are really venerating this prize above almost everything else. And the fact that it's really so subjective, it's so far straight from what it was originally intended to do 100 plus years ago.

Starting point is 00:00:42 And it's now more in such a way that it's affecting the way that science is perceived not only by the public, which is bad enough, but by how scientists themselves see it and how they view and their committees that give them tenure and their funding agencies are guided in part by the precedence set by previous Nobel prizes. And I think that's very dangerous. Welcome to this replay edition of Into the Impossible featuring your host Brian Keating being interviewed by Mika Hanks. Mika is a writer, producer, podcaster, researcher, and adventurer, and co-founder of the debrief. He delves deep into science, technology, history, and UAP and UFO research.

Starting point is 00:01:28 In this interview, Mika focuses on Professor Keating's first book, Losing the Nobel Prize, and Brian's personal Nobel stories, his outspoken criticisms of the coveted Nobel, and his ideas on how the award process could be improved. You're going to get a fast-paced introduction to the field of SETI, that's the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, its history and evolution. What are the chances of finding life beyond Earth? What are the chances of discovering techno-signatures revealing alien civilizations? If you appreciate a civilized dialogue about controversial science, including research on SETI

Starting point is 00:02:05 and Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, please keep into the impossible in your feeds by subscribing and following. Please help us spread our techno signature by paying it forward with a share to curious friends. Jump over to our YouTube channel at Dr. Brian Keating, that's DR Brian Keating, and subscribe there too. There you'll find an extensive selection of episodes featuring SETI, exoplanets and astrobiology. SETI is a particularly irrelevant subject in light of this week's revelation by Avi Lube on this channel of his retrieval of what could be the first interstellar material ever recovered and publicly released.

Starting point is 00:02:44 Please let us know what you think of the show in the former review like this one on ample podcasts. One of the best. Dr. Keating has a great way of extracting interesting and indebt information from his guests. He makes the content relatable for all, no matter. your background. And now, your host, Brian Keating, being interviewed by Mika Hanks. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Open the podbay doors, please help. And Brian Keating is someone who many of our listeners will already be familiar with. He has joined us on the program in the past. He is Distinguished Professor of Physics at the Center for

Starting point is 00:03:25 Astrophysics and Space Sciences in the Department of Physics at University of California, San Diego, and his book, losing the Nobel Prize, which has become a personal favorite of mine, was selected as one of the best science books of the year at Science Friday, Amazon, Science News, Physics Today, Forbes, and Symmetry Magazine. Obviously, a lot of other people liked it, too. So I figured it was about Tom We get him back on. Dr. Keating, how are you doing? That's great.

Starting point is 00:03:50 It's a wonderful day, and it's always lovely to be with you, Michael. We've had a lot of positive reaction, a little negative reaction, but the negative reaction, you know, if you don't get negative reaction, it means you're not doing your job, right? If people don't disagree with you, then what you're saying is a little, probably too bland and not effectual. So I've gotten some criticism, but that was to be expected, primarily from people that either love the Nobel Prize and tickets played or people that are actually working for the Nobel Prize or hope to win it, themselves. So the main people that I want to reach, which are young people, students, young scientists, have been overwhelmingly supportive. And I gave a talk up in the Bay Area last week for the SETI Institute, the Served for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, which is a passion of mine as well. And there's a young girl who came up to me and she asked me, you know,

Starting point is 00:04:46 if I could sign this drawing that she made of me and my book. It was about 12 years old. And I was just so touching to this. She had a NASA shirt on and she wants to be a scientist and that I have influence over young people and hopefully guiding them in the direction of passion for science and technology is just a great blessing and fortunate and unable to home. Indeed. That really is something I appreciate about your work, Brian. And in addition to your advocacy as a scientist, in addition to your work as an educator, we do share that interest in SETI and I did want to get into that subject with you a little bit. talk some about the SETI program. Many scientists, in fact, are looking at the discovery of extraterrestrial life as being an

Starting point is 00:05:29 imminent discovery. They say that within just a few years, this is going to be a reality. It's going to step out of the realm of speculation and science fiction and into the real world. So I'd love to get your perspectives on this. How close are we to discovering alien life? And what is the state of the art with the science pertaining to that? So SETI, I should say, for listeners who might not be as familiar and passionate as I am, I'm not you are, but it's the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

Starting point is 00:05:54 So it's not merely the search for life. And actually, I make it even more of a distinction because I say it's a search for technology, because the only way we would really get evidence for, you know, intelligent life is if we have evidence for technology. And so, for example, if there was a dolphin swimming around in an ocean on, you know, the moon Titan, we would never know about it unless the dolphins have created some, you know, brand-new iPhone 11. or something like that. And whatever dolphins use to communicate, it certainly doesn't seem to be technologically.

Starting point is 00:06:26 And so we would be blind to that. Now, that doesn't mean life doesn't exist, but I think we'd all agree it's much more exciting to find a dolphin than to find a microbe, although both would be revolutionary exciting and a step forward for the human species to understand. We may not be the only species on this entire universe, and certainly within our galaxy.

Starting point is 00:06:46 And so the search for it has gone on for 50 or 60 years, and actually the SETI Institute is really the byproduct of two great scientists. One is Jill Tarter, who was the inspiration for the character played by Jody Foster in Carl Sagan's movie called Contact. She's a real-life person, and she and Frank Drake, who's a famous scientist who came up with this calculation, that could be used to set a limit or a number of extraterrestrial intelligent species that may exist in the universe. And so they've been going out this for 50 years now, over 50 years, hoping to find ways technologically to perceive the existence of an advanced life form in some other part of our galaxy. We know it probably can't be in our solar system. The conditions don't think to be right anywhere else but Earth for intelligent life.

Starting point is 00:07:39 But actually, the search has expanded as you asked about technology that enables it. we now believe that there's actually an interesting progression. So the movie Contact, your listeners, Mike, remember starts off with like radio transmissions from the 1932 Olympics, I think it is, broadcasting out into space. And then so that was like the first mass broadcast television signal on Earth. And that's great. And it went out. And now it's been, you know, 70, you know, 80 to seven years or whatever since that broadcast.

Starting point is 00:08:12 But at the same time, you have, you know, this notion. that the way that our civilization has progressed, now we transmit almost nothing via these antennas, right? So you have almost everything via beam, you know, fiber optics or cable TV, you know, for television. Very little is, you know, broadcast directly out into space. And so if other civilizations took the same route, you might not expect them to be seeable because the period of time in which they use the technology might have only been 50 years.

Starting point is 00:08:40 And if you're not looking in the right 50-year bracket, you're not going to see them. And so then the question has come up, well, what other forms of life could be detectable? What planets have meeting possible criteria? We know there's thousands and thousands. There might be a trillion planets in our own galaxy alone. And there might be, you know, half a trillion galaxies in the observable universe. So I think there's a lot of research going into this to see, well, how would an alien communicate with us? And maybe it would be as envisioned in contact or maybe it would be something radically different.

Starting point is 00:09:13 And so the best approaches to use are most sensitive detectors and telescopes in a targeted fashion to look at the most promising potential planets that might host life. Right. You know, another fascinating thing that's happening right now is the idea that we have enough technology that even if the alien life in question, the alien intelligence, even if they were not trying to communicate directly with us or search for other life, that we might still detect their techno signatures. The concept of, for instance, a Dyson sphere comes to mind here. So is it equally probable in your mind that we might detect alien life that is utilizing advanced technology, but not necessarily beaming that into the cosmos? Yeah, there's a fellow author at the same publisher that I wrote losing the Nobel Prize with. Norton, his name is Adam Frank. He's a professor in New York, upstate New York.

Starting point is 00:10:01 He has a book called Light of the Stars in which he argues that the most promising signature to look for is not necessarily, you know, a beam of, or any radio waves or high-energy photons or what have you, but instead just might be to look for the effects of, you guessed it, greenhouse gases. So warming trend established on Earth, he claims, you know, predominantly by not sources such as radio waves or television broadcasts, but actually from farming, the advent of farming, perhaps 10,000 years ago, the advent of mass amounts of animals used for livestock, and then that contribution towards climate change. And then simply the evolution of a biosphere over time that might increase the probability

Starting point is 00:10:51 for detection and the biosignatures that would be present would be much more easily detected, perhaps, than the actual radio transmission, because you're looking at a planetary wide distribution of energy in the case of a climate change signal. So a depressingly, surprisingly, surprisingly, after that calculation, he comes up with a calculation that really can put a constraint on how many civilizations capable of producing global warming, climate change, planetary evolution could have existed in the entire history of the observable universe. And it comes up with the number that on the small end is like 100 such advanced.

Starting point is 00:11:33 civilizations. That sounds, you know, decent. If there were, you know, 100 civilizations in our solar system, you know, we would never have asked the question, are we alone? We would know it as a fact. But 100 over the 14 billion year lifetime of the universe, if they're evenly distributed or somehow plausibly distributed, I mean, you know, hundreds of millions of years between civilizations. And it would mean that they're distributed perhaps, you know, 50 to almost 100 billion light years away from us, meaning that we could never even. have causally connected with them and contacted with them and observed signals from them and transmitted signals to them. So it's quite improbable from that calculation, although he claims that's a big number. I think it's a very small number. And so the odds, you know, my opinion about detecting this within our lifetime has to be expressed as a very small number. And even Seth Shostak, who's foremost, he's the chief astronomer at SETI Institute,

Starting point is 00:12:29 famous author and podcaster, et cetera. he doesn't even seem to be, you know, he always says that this is, you know, it could happen next year, it could happen a thousand years from now, it could never happen. So I think, you know, we can't really put a probability on it, but we're learning a lot more about the conditions necessary for life. And seeing that they're pretty common throughout the universe that we can observe, that doesn't necessarily prove that life exists, but it certainly proves life could exist. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling three.

Starting point is 00:13:01 fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed. That's why I chose GoogleFi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore Google Fi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. Google Fi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. We're talking with Dr. Brian Keating, a friend of the program. He's the author of the book losing the Nobel Prize. We've had him on in the past, but in light of some of the news pertaining to interstellar discoveries, I wanted to get him on to talk about SETI a bit, as well as his broader work. And that brings us to the subject that we're about to touch on

Starting point is 00:13:45 with him right now. And, you know, one of the things I think that we have to understand about ourselves is the ways that our culture and our society affect our mentality and the things that drive us. Again, this is fundamental to what you talk about in losing the Nobel Prize, Brian. And, you know, you had sent me this story the other day. It's a tragic story, in fact. It involves Martin Wiseman, who had been a climate economist. And the New York Times reporting his apparent suicide, I was shocked when I read the story. And they had noted the fact that after having not won the Nobel Prize himself, that his attitude and his mood had seemed to take a marked turn. And it's such tragic news. And you'd reached out to me and had said, you know, I never want to see this kind of thing

Starting point is 00:14:26 happen again. Can we talk a bit about that? Maybe the impact that story had on you, and of course, with relation to the book you've written about this very subject and some of the negative side of what is arguably perceived as being the best prize that a scientist can achieve. Yeah. So you have, you know, very frequent examples of people that say lose money or lose fame or don't win certain accolades throughout the spheres of entertainment or in politics that suffer from depression and sometimes escalate all the way to, you know, actual suicide. And in this case, this poor man was despondent in many, and many, according to many accounts in that report, in part due to his failure to win the Nobel Prize.

Starting point is 00:15:13 And then as I pointed out in the book, you know, they don't give it again for the same discovery or the same field, et cetera. But I just wish desperately I could have met this man and told him and given him a copy of my book to show how ludicrous the aspirin. to win the Nobel Prizes. It's kind of like saying, you know, would you have liked to win the, you know, would you kill yourself over not winning the Longitude Prize? Right.

Starting point is 00:15:38 Longitude prize. That was like 400 years ago, 300 years ago. Nobody even cares about it. And the likelihood of people caring about the Nobel Prize in a few decades, perhaps, longer, if they continue with some of the negative trends, they've had, you know, sex abuse scandals that have rocked a Nobel Prize. And I talk about some of it in my book, the other. scandals involving dictators and and really mass murderers and people accused of

Starting point is 00:16:02 horrible things winning the Nobel Peace Prize arguably the most prestigious prize that is offered you know you don't hear about so many of these aspects in physics and chemistry a Nobel Prize is won by you know a person generally considered to be the father of chemical warfare or chemical weapons and so you see this throughout all these prices and then to have a person you know venerate this prize to such an exalted level that upon not winning it, he, you know, he feels depressed. And maybe that did cause him to commit suicide. I don't know why they would keep mentioning if it didn't. And it's tragedy upon a tragedy because it really is showing the level to which

Starting point is 00:16:45 the Nobel Prize is taken so seriously and so sacrosanct that it's almost in my opinion, as I describe in the book, it's become a religion and it's a religion that's worshipped by people who have prize, prize, you know, these accolades and awards above almost anything else. And I feel truly in my heart, if I had an hour with this gentleman, at least with regard, I can't speak for the other aspects of pain and mental suffering and anguish he must have been afflicted with. But if I had an hour, if I could just talk to this poor, poor man, I would, I could have had an impact, I hope, to make him feel that at least in this aspect, again, I can't address the other mental. I'm not a psychologist, a psychologist.

Starting point is 00:17:28 But to make him realize that this award is really, in a lot of ways, a naked emperor that people are truly bowing down to and worshipping. And again, it's set by a few hundred academicians in Sweden that determine this prize. And even the economics prize that he aspired to, apparently, it was only a recent invention. And it was construed as being an abomination, essentially, towards the Nobel name. by one of Nobel's grand nephews who basically had petitioned them to remove Alfred NoMail's name from the prize. So it's no longer called the Nobel Prize in Economics. It was and it was never created by Alfred Nobel.

Starting point is 00:18:11 He knew nothing about it. And so it's now known as the Swedish Central Bank Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. And you know, when you think about it like that, like would you be depressed over not winning the, you know, the Kansas, you know, federal bank reserve prize for, you know, whatever podcasting. Yeah, I just, I cannot imagine it. And to exalt this so high, it just really depressed me a little bit, too. And I feel, I feel this is such a great tragedy.

Starting point is 00:18:40 And I just wish that it could never happen again. I appreciate again, you bringing it to my attention because I've had many friends. I think we all have friends in our lives, Brian, or even, you know, we as individuals from time to time, we may, you know, battle depression or stigmas because of, certain subjects we have interest in. For instance, again, the search for extraterrestrial life. That's a very loaded one because while I believe that in likelihood, extraterrestrial life does exist somewhere or at very least at some point has existed

Starting point is 00:19:08 and that life or evidence of it, maybe in the past even, could be detectable. That is a subject that when you get into the, again, the more controversial revelations by the U.S. Navy in their study of unexplained aerial phenomena, they get rather polarized on those. So to try and be a scientific educator or a proponent of science education and then also to be willing to push boundaries, it can become at times difficult because you're inevitably going to be attacked. And really after reading your book, it helped me, and I want to thank you for that, it helped me kind of see yet again that even though the Nobel Prizes are not explicitly only awarded for science achievements, the fact that this has become the be-all end-all for so many. And yes, as you correctly say, the New York Times article references that in relation to a number of factors which may have contributed to this man's decision to commit suicide, I couldn't imagine a greater tragedy when we really break this down and go, what do these goals that people strive for? What do these awards really mean? And as you have pointed out, the most important takeaway from me about your book is that how does that influence scientists specifically in terms of the truth?

Starting point is 00:20:20 the goals that they aim for and the kinds of studies that they try to achieve. It could actually be a hindrance, couldn't it? I think it definitely is. And, you know, I bring up several instances in my book, including this famous study called Goldman's Dilemma, where there was a question posed to the most elite athletes in the world, Olympic caliber athletes, by an physician named Robert Goldman. And Goldman asked these athletes if they would take a drug that would guarantee them, you know, say, winning an Olympic gold medal or winning overwhelming.

Starting point is 00:20:50 overwhelmingly victorious in their sporting endeavors, but they would also then die five years later. And he reported originally that there were at least half of the people that responded would take that drug, would take that risk, that would take the certainty, rather, that they would die in exchange for this accolade, glory, and success. I think it's just shows you that in humanity there is this obsession with prizes, with honors, with awards, with glory. And I really, again, trace it to almost a form of religion where you have a worshipful attitude, you have a hierarchy set up.

Starting point is 00:21:29 And it's not that competition is bad. I think competition is ultimately can be very healthy, but it can also have a dark side. And we never talk about the dark side of it. And in science, the field that I am an expert and know most about, you know, compared to other subjects, which I know less about, is we are really venerating this problem. eyes above almost everything else. And the fact that it's really so subjective, it's so far straight from what it was originally intended to do 100 plus years ago. And it's now more in such a way that it's affecting the way that science is perceived not only by the public,

Starting point is 00:22:07 which is bad enough, but by how scientists themselves see it and how they view and their committees that give them tenure and their funding agencies are guided in part by the, you know, the you know, by the precedence set by previous Nobel Prizes. And I think that's very dangerous. Absolutely. And again, you know, since I have so many Nobel Prize winning scientists that are personal friends of mine in the audience, no, I'm kidding. But in truth, I would not want to try and take away from the achievement of those who have actually been awarded the prize. It is, however, my intention, and I think yours in the book, to illustrate that this should not be the thing that drives people. And this should not be the thing that inspires people to pursue certain avenues of

Starting point is 00:22:51 science, because again, as you outline in the book, and for those who might be interested in reading it, again, that book is titled Losing the Nobel Prize by Brian G. Keating. But one of the key elements that you illustrate is how only certain areas of science tend to fall into those categories, most likely to receive awards. But there are so many others that wouldn't be on the Nobel radar, so to speak, which are so fundamentally important to not only making life better on this planet right now, or perhaps studying other life and the potential for its existence elsewhere, or even, you know, ensuring help to ensure the future of humanity, as we know it. I mean, many of these kinds of existential concerns, when we get into the nuances and the areas

Starting point is 00:23:37 of science that can affect all these things, you simply don't see all of them qualifying for what would be that landmark Nobel achievement. And that too is concerning because I worry that many scientists, many gifted professionals will not pursue those areas if they do not feel that there will be the potential for that payoff in the end. Yeah, it's a very good point. It's very complicated question to unpack. But I'll say, you know, my book is really a memoir of what it's like to aspire to do great

Starting point is 00:24:06 science, to observe something that's not been observable before. And really to also, as I candidly admit, to win this gilded medallion because, as it is currently or when I began, the writing of this book and even my scientific career, you know, began almost under the shadow of the Nobel Prize for the discovery of gravitational waves emanating from a pair of pulsars in a distant part of our galaxy. And this fascinated me that this person who had won the Nobel Prize that year was the same age as me when he discovered this finding that would later lead to his Nobel Prize, namely he was 21 or 22 years old when he started to make these discoveries. And I thought, well, maybe I can do that too. And then in my department was a Nobel laureate, Leon Cooper. And later there'd be another Nobel laureate there. And just the fawning, the attention, the pride that Brown took in and having these. eminent scientists there and again you're absolutely right I don't take anything away from the

Starting point is 00:25:08 winners they don't choose themselves in fact I was I was asked to nominate the winners of the Nobel Prize the year after I basically had to retract the discovery that I remember that nomination you know which they asked me to keep strictly confidential so I ask your listeners not to not to mention this to anybody but even though it's in my book but and nevertheless the the award that that ended up going out, that to me was almost, you know, sort of a humiliation, but it was also a chance to work on my own humility. Because I realized I had aspired to this so much and that I wouldn't win it. And yet they were still asking me for my advice as to who should win it.

Starting point is 00:25:50 And I started to think amidst all this, I looked at one of the rules and regulations that they asked me to abide by. And the one that they, you know, had very prominently displayed was you can't nominate yourself. So, you know, ultimately, you know, that the person who wins it, you know, it wasn't some self-dealing. That doesn't mean that their PhD advisor or their former boss or their former students can't nominate them. That happens all the time. And you see rich family trees of Nobel laureates, so to speak. But nevertheless, they pretty much almost always get it right.

Starting point is 00:26:21 The problem is who they leave out. So they get some people that are necessary, for example, to receive the award, but they don't get all the ones that were sufficient. to make the award possible. And for that reason, I predict the Nobel's days are numbered because science is not done by three people anymore. It's my team of the Simon's Observatory, which I'm the leader of, is the 260 brightest people on the planet. And I say candidly in the book, now I explicitly saying right now that I should not win the

Starting point is 00:26:52 Nobel Prize and we should not win the Nobel Prize if we're successful, meaning that we're looking for something and that one or two or three people, are not adequate for this discovery to be made. And I think that's really true. And I also say, you know, if they want to see if I'm sincere, they should offer me the Nobel prize. And if I don't turn it down, then I'm a hypocrite. It's a very noble thing of you to say.

Starting point is 00:27:15 Brian, I do want to actually get some updates about what's happening there at the observatory. But first, I have to ask you this because we have talked in the past and we even mentioned it briefly earlier today that you've gotten some pushback from colleagues. You know, there is such a thing as the Sagan effect where, and in fact, there's a great blog about this at my friend, Dr. Oni Pagan's website. If you go online search for One, Pagan, and he writes about the Sagan effect, this is, of course, in reference to Carl Sagan. And what happens when science educators get out there and they are promoting science and education to the public, Sagan really saw a lot of push, back, because for some reason, there appeared to be this perceived diminishing of his efficacy as a scientist by virtue of being a popular communicator on this subject.

Starting point is 00:28:08 And many would actually just chalk it up to being professional jealousy when they see a person who has published a book or they go on television and they are promoting broader science awareness rather than simply publishing papers. Now, you have done a lot of both. Do you feel that this sort of an idea, a Sagan effect, could be in any way associated with some of the pushback you've received. Yeah, you know, I love talking to you because you ask me questions that no one's asked me in the two years of it.

Starting point is 00:28:34 But you're absolutely right. And it is very perceptive to note that. So I have written probably close to two, co-written, close to 200 scientific papers. And these papers have been cited by other scientists and collaborations thousands and thousands of times, meaning that they've read my work and said that my work at some small, all way or maybe a large way contributed to the particular branch of research that they're working on. That's how science is done. No one does science by his or herself. We're all standing on the shoulders of the giants that preceded us. And we all have an obligation to teach those that come

Starting point is 00:29:12 after us. And part of the currency of science is your so-called citation count. So don't think that, you know, only podcasters, you know, worry about counting downloads and things like that. For scientists are obsessed with this. In fact, we only, we not only have statistics, We have statistics of statistics. So in other words, we have not only how many people have cited a particular paper, but then we say, of those papers that have been cited, how many have been cited a certain number of times, and so on and so forth. And you can make statistics of statistics of statistics. It can really drive you nuts. And of course, you know, if scientists can do this, they're going to do every conceivable form of analysis.

Starting point is 00:29:52 How many papers have been read by 10 people before the scientist turned 30 years? There's a statistic for that. Are you kidding? Oh, I'm not joking. And your ability to get promotions depends on some of these statistics as a professor and a research university like UC San Diego or any of the other top universities in the world. And so what I find so fascinating is that for all those citations, you know, close to 10,000 citations of my papers.

Starting point is 00:30:20 And I'm very gratified for each and every one because it meant somebody had to sit through and read through the, you know, it could be a 30-page paper. which could take weeks to get through and go through peer review and get validated, et cetera, et cetera, that they took the time for that. In contradistinction, you know, my book's been read 20,000 people and all around the world and not scientists alone. And it's been read by scientists. Some of the most eminent scientists in the world not only read my book, but endorsed it. Sir Roger Penrose, Lord Martin Reese, Brian Green.

Starting point is 00:30:54 I mean, these are the most phenomenal scientists in the world. And they read and they sat down with my ideas. And some of them gave me the highest compliment that scientists can give me, which is that I learned something from you. Now, these are people that created my field. They're telling me that they learned something from little old me, this kid who, you know, didn't have any special advantages, you know, grew up relatively poor and had, you know, low access to a very small public school in New York. And still, I went on through the help of my wonderful mentors in both the scientific pursuit and in writing. I've had wonderful mentors in writing, Katie Freeze, Lisa Randall, Brian Green, Martin Reese, all these wonderful, it just blows me away.

Starting point is 00:31:36 And so you're right, it's a question of impact. I don't think that the people that hate, you know, are going to hate me anyway. I think some people come off negatively in the book and, you know, I tried to keep it as honest as possible and it is as completely honest and thoroughly research as could be. But it's inevitable people will kind of have negative associated. with it. Some people, though, pay me the highest compliment. I told you what scientists have said that just warm me so much. But then I've had non-scientists tell me that this book, you know, changed their life and that influence how they handle things in business or how they teach things to their daughters. And it just those kinds of things I would never get from a scientific paper. I mean, very few scientific papers can be said to change somebody's life and the and then lay people and a lay person. life. Yeah, although I wish that they could. And I think it's important because you're outlining the multifaceted element here and the importance of science educators. A person who writes a popular

Starting point is 00:32:39 science book reaches so many more people than that paper will. But then again, you might call the scientific peer review publication process, the gold standard of science. This is how we do the best work that we can. And it is no man as an island. I mean, this has to be a mutual, a cumulative effort. Now, that reminds me of something else I'd like to ask you about, Brian, because a number of years ago, the editor of the Lancet Journal had written an article

Starting point is 00:33:03 talking about how much of what his own journal published he felt was borderline pseudoscientific in the sense that he thought that the peer review process at times had been corrupted by a sort of buddy system in science where some scientists, this doesn't always happen,

Starting point is 00:33:19 but some scientists would take for granted discoveries made by their peers without actually properly reviewing the data because, well, we know this person's work, and therefore we assume it is likely to be, you know, complete and accurate. That may not always be the case, as the editor had complained in an actual journal entry that he himself wrote, which calls into question a number of issues. Does some of the same problems perhaps that we see with regard to the Nobel system, would you say that those apply to the scientific process and specifically to peer review itself?

Starting point is 00:33:50 Yeah, I do. I think that there's this perception that peer review. is some sort of panacea that, you know, by employing it that sort of guards against any potential, you know, detrimental aspect of research. For example, a lot of large institutions like NASA will not have a press conference on some new finding of an exoplanet or life on discovered in a meteorite has happened unless those results are peer reviewed and accepted for publication in a journal. And it could be a very prestigious journal, or it could be an ordinary, less impactful, as we say, journal.

Starting point is 00:34:32 But there's plenty of examples where that's happened and the peer review has taken place. And indeed, the results had to be retracted. And I always point out, you know, the results always appear on the front page of the New York Times. And then the retraction, if they ever appear, is always on page, you know, B-32, you know, some months or years later. And I think that's actually a significant lacuna and a failure of scientists that we basically don't handle our flaws in public. And so the public is left either with a misapprehension that science was reported as always correct, or they're left with the impression that scientists never make mistakes. And neither one of which is true because scientists are human beings. And as long as human beings do science, we are going to make mistakes.

Starting point is 00:35:19 And so I think we should, you know, reserve some funding in some sense for our grants to deal with these ethical issues in science and present our, you know, our true exposure to how science is actually done. So it's for our benefit ultimately that we are perceived as engaging in a human endeavor. And part of the reason I think people think of science as so daunting is because they see that they believe that scientists never make mistakes. And because of that, they are left with this, again, this misconception that we are not like other people. And if they don't feel like they are incapable of making mistakes, then they feel like they can't be scientists. So we probably do ourselves a disservice. We drive people away from science that could otherwise be a part of it because of this air of invincibility. Yeah, I am.

Starting point is 00:36:12 Your summer starts now with Memorial Day deals at the Home Depot. It's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next summer. grill four-burner gas grill on special buy for only $199 and entertain all season with the Hampton Bay West Grove seven-piece outdoor dining set for only $49. This Memorial Day get low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot. While supplies last, price invalid May 14th or May 27th, US-only exclusions apply, see Home Depot.com slash price match for details. So glad you're brave enough to say things like that, and it's very important, I think, in the broader scientific dialogue, but, you know, talking about science. What's going on right now? What have you got going on there at the Simon's Observatory?

Starting point is 00:36:51 Let's get an update about that. So the Simon's Observatory is perhaps the most ambitious cosmological telescope ever designed. It's actually a series of an array of four telescopes that work independently of each other to look at the sky as perceived by this radio or microwave emission that comes to us in all directions called the cosmic microwave background radiation. This signal is the leftover thermal imprint of the formation of the very first elements in the universe 13 billion, 800 million years ago. And because of that, it's the oldest light in the universe, so it travels through all of space and time. And in particular, it may encode within it the properties of what makes our universe tick. What is our universe made of? How long has our

Starting point is 00:37:38 universe existed for and how long may it continue to exist for? But most interesting, interesting question of all, in my opinion, in cosmology, is what happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? In other words, what was preceding our universe? How does time progress from a non-being of time, from the non-existence of time, and then time suddenly springing into existence? How could that be possible? We are attempting to understand that. And along the way to glean insights into the very deepest in our workings of the universe, how the universe is built. What is it comprised of? What are the particles, forces, and fields that hold our universe together and are blowing it apart

Starting point is 00:38:20 simultaneously? And so to me, it's the most fascinating thing to do and to have the ability to work with 260 of the brightest minds on all seven continents is just such a delight and a treasure for me that it's one thing to do what you love, and it's another thing to be able to do what you love with people you love. And that's the way I feel, you know, just so engaged and so passionate about the science. So people are interested. You can look us up at simons observatory.org or we have a YouTube channel, Simon's Observatory,

Starting point is 00:38:51 in addition to all the stuff I usually post on social media, et cetera. Yeah. And I know it's not out yet, but I did hear that there is a paperback edition of your book coming out later this month. Where can people find this book? Yeah, so it's available. It should be available pretty much in every bookstore. It goes on sale officially in the 20.

Starting point is 00:39:08 4th of September 2019. So by the time this airs, it should be available either for actual order or pre-order. And I urge people to, you know, sign up for my mailing list because I do a lot of giveaways, a lot of swag. I give away bookmarks with gold-plated images of Alfred Nobel on them. And I give away meteorites and sometimes even a lunar sample or two that I've collected in all my expeditions all over the planet. So it's a book, again, that's not really a book about the Nobel Prize per se. It's more about how the Nobel Prize loomed over me and caused me to reevaluate not only what does it mean to be a scientist, but also what it means to leave a legacy.

Starting point is 00:39:56 Because Alfred Nobel endowed the most famous will in history and so doing created the Nobel Prize. And he died childless and without a spouse, and this legacy is all that he left. and how it got distorted is important, and I do describe that in three of the 13 chapters, but the rest are really about the legacy that I urge everybody to do. I say, you know, at one point, you know, write your will, write your ethical will. What do you want people to know about you? What gifts of the mind and the spirit do you want to give? Not just your monetary wealth, but what about your intellectual wealth?

Starting point is 00:40:32 Do you want to go and give on? So I say, write that down a year before you die. That's what Alfred Nobel did. So you don't know when you're going to die. So write it down today. Absolutely. And it's a very personal reflection that you're offering your book. I highly recommend it losing the Nobel Prize.

Starting point is 00:40:48 We might have to get you back on at some point for some more setty updates. And I really appreciate you taking time to join us on this edition of the Micah Hanks program. Thanks again, Brian. Let's have you back. I would love to. Man, it's always such a treat to be on with you. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Thanks for listening.

Starting point is 00:41:08 Keep in touch, inspired and informed by signing up for Professor Keating's Monday magic email at Briankeeting.com slash list. And if you have a dot-edu domain, we'll send you an artifact older than the earth, forged in the fire of an exploding star, in the form of an authentic meteorite fragment. Thanks to all our viewers and listeners for helping us reach 150,000 subscribers on YouTube and putting us into the top 1% of science podcasts. Please keep it growing. by subscribing and sharing with friends.

Starting point is 00:41:41 We love reading your reviews and suggestions. Follow Professor Keating on Twitter at DR Brian Keating, that's Dr. Brian Keating. And remember to always be curious. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank.

Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Brian Keating on The Micah Hanks Program: Life Beyond Earth and Losing The Nobel Prize (#330)

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.