HEFFNER: I’m Alexander Heffner,
your host on The Open Mind.
Two years ago we
welcomed former National
Science Foundation
president Walter Massey
and headlined our program
"Laboratory of Art,"
and again today we
examine the intersection
of science and the humanities
with a pioneering cultural
philanthropist, Vice
President of the
Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation and author of
the critically acclaimed
"Immortal Bird,"
Doron Weber leads it’s seminal
program in Science and the Arts.
Weber is an advocate
of scientific literacy
and has embraced
storytelling to galvanize
public understanding
of science and its
contributions to
civilization.
From groundbreaking films
"The Imitation Game"
and more recently "Hidden
Figures" to critical
digital
libraries, Wikipedia,
the Digital
Public Library,
and World Flora Online, to
historical explorations,
"The Emperor of All
Maladies: A Chronicle
of Cancer," and the
correspondence of Darwin,
Weber has made possible
remarkable innovation.
Full disclosure,
including here too,
as a supporter of
exchanges of learning
on The Open Mind, we thank him
for that heartily
and for being here today.
Welcome, Doron.
WEBER: Thank
you very much.
HEFFNER: It's a
pleasure to see you,
pleasure to have
you on two times now,
with my grandfather
the first time.
As I think about those
innovations that you
championed, the
Digital Public Library,
Wikimedia, you know we've
had the three executive
directors here who've
led that organization.
We think about the
importance of fact,
and it could not be more
critically important
to the scientific
method today.
What is the
commonality in,
in your work in linking
fact to the scientific
exploration and
storytelling.
WEBER: Start with Wikipedia,
which is not art.
It is interesting
that Wikipedia,
which is a community
edited collaborative text
production with uh,
80,000 volunteers,
there's almost
no false news,
fake news on
Wikipedia, so it's,
you get a consensus,
people coming together.
In terms of the scientific
process more generally
though, the process of
science of course has,
needs peer review,
double-blind methods,
is very, very rigorous.
Art has its own kinds
of rigorous process
but the challenge of
translating science
into art has to do
with finding
equivalent forms and,
and, and compelling
storytelling that will
convince people without, while
not being always documentary,
accurate in a strict
documentary sense
that will capture the
gist and hopefully will
incite people to then go further
and read more deeply into,
into science.
HEFFNER: The reason
Doron that I connect
them is just because it is fact
that is so germane
to accurate storytelling.
While
persuasive, sexy, um,
there are a variety of
tactics you can employ
to make
storytelling effective,
how have you decided
which works to champion,
which works will have
that force and weight,
not just the authority of
storytelling but really
the foundational facts.
WEBER: Well, we support
six of the leading film
schools, for example, in
the country and so these
are not, uh, we
receive hundreds
of submissions every year.
We also work
with Sundance,
Tribeca, Film Independent, San
Francisco Film Society,
the Black List, so
we're constantly
getting, uh,
proposals from people,
and I’d say we, there's a mix
between historical figures,
so "The Imitation
Game" you mentioned
about Alan Turing.
We have um, a documentary
about Hedy Lamarr
that we've been
working on for a while,
we're also trying to make
a feature film about her.
There's a play about
Rosalind Franklin.
You have to give
some creative license,
so a film like "A
Beautiful Mind,"
which won the Oscar and
reached a lot of people,
it's not strictly accurate
in terms of there's
not that much
mathematics in it,
and they took
certain liberties,
for example with um, with
schizophrenia and visions,
which again is not
strictly accurate.
However, that film then
led a million people
to buy the book by
Sylvia Nasar which
is very accurate and
learn more deeply,
so it's a
question of what,
what um, what demand of
proof you put in a work
of art as opposed to
a scientific paper
and they're, and
they're quite different.
HEFFNER: Well what about
the book "Hidden Figures"?
WEBER: Well the book
"Hidden Figures," um,
came to me three years
ago from an unknown,
unpublished author.
She wasn't an
author, a woman named,
uh, Margot Lee Shetterly
and it was a remarkable
story, I'd never heard it,
and I was kind of blown
away and um, the challenge
was to get her support
because she was
unpublished and to
convince my colleagues
as worth taking a chance
on her, and what I still
remember is in the,
um, in the
manuscript she sent me,
she had a
sentence in there,
she talked about how
growing up in Virginia
everyone she knew was in
science and engineering,
and she said
when I was a child,
I knew so many
African-Americans
who were in math,
engineering, and science,
I just thought that's
what black folks did,
and that was such a
wonderful sentence and
overturned the
stereotype we all have
that I just thought that this is
a story that everyone needs
to know, so we gave her
a grant that allowed her
to take some time off
and write the book,
and then Hollywood,
normally I would have to
support the development of
a screenplay about a book
like that but
Hollywood, um,
grabbed it really fast.
They saw the
same thing I did,
that it had great potential
and then the rest you know.
It was nominated
for three Oscars.
I think it's grossed about
over 200 million dollars
and even more importantly it's
led to a cultural shift.
So Sloan for example, for
over 50 years we've been
trying to get more
underrepresented
minorities to go into
science and engineering,
and one big hit, a
work of art like that,
I think has a huge
cultural impact.
So we're already
seeing scholarships,
um, "Hidden
Figures" scholarships.
There's a course, uh,
Skip Gates has talked
about starting at Harvard.
It's really ramifying in
many ways in a cultural
sense and is going to help
our program in terms
of getting more women
and underrepresented
minorities into
STEM careers,
so, it's a
home run for us.
HEFFNER: What is
the, the ultimate goal?
The ultimate goal in terms
of fostering public policy that
could be conducive to further
integration within science.
WEBER: Well, so that,
that's a good question.
I'd say there are
multiple goals.
So the, in, in a, in
a work like "Hidden
Figures,"
certainly getting more,
uh, underrepresented
minorities to go into STEM
and showing in fact
that there is a history,
an amazing history of
accomplishment that we
simply didn't know.
I mean the question is there,
you know, the film
has three women,
portrays three
amazing women,
but um, I've
talked to Margot,
she's compiling a
um, an archive.
There's probably a
thousand of these women
who were involved in
the space program,
African-American
women, and
we didn't know
their stories.
The question is why didn't
we know their stories?
Now they're
coming forward,
so their, how many
other invisible figures
like this are there
in other fields.
So in that sense,
that was one aim
and I think that aim is very
much on the way to being
accomplished.
In the deeper sense of my
program in its entirety,
the notion is that science and
arts really uh,
it's an artificial
division and anyone who
wants to be
fully alive today,
you can't ignore science
which is the most powerful
source of systematic
knowledge I think we've
ever had, and it's given
us an incredible quality
of life or at least half
of the planet has given
us, uh, a great
standard of living.
It's allowed us to
shape our planet,
it's allowed us to send
a human to the Moon
and send a um, a robot to
Mars and send a probe
into interstellar space.
Allowed us to
understand the gene,
the atom, the neuron,
and, and you know,
and um, develop
fields in uh,
nanotechnology and
biotechnology that have
really given us,
you know, tremendous,
uh, goods and advantages,
but at the same time,
I think there are many
questions that science
still can't answer,
and in order to,
how do you
lead a good life?
How do you bring up happy,
well-adjusted children,
or how do you even,
how do you lose weight?
How do you avoid a cold?
How do you
prevent wrinkles?
How do you uh, stem the rise in
autism and asthma?
How do you avoid Alzheimer’s and
Parkinson’s?
Um, can you live
past a hundred?
What is human
consciousness?
What is creativity, what
is ... there are a lot of
questions
science can't answer,
so you need to, you
need to be able to have
a full understanding
of science and you,
but you also
need, uh, history,
philosophy,
literature, arts,
languages, um,
ethics, religion,
all of them
come into play.
So the humanities by
definition are what,
that which makes us
human, and humanities
and the science
together I think are,
so that is, the deepest
goal is to give people,
to bring those "Two
Cultures" in C.P.
Snow's famous terms,
together and to kind of
try to make people
understand that it's not
an either-or question.
HEFFNER: Within
that intersection,
you raised a number of
important questions.
Which is the most
important right now at
this moment in history?
Based on your,
based on what you fund,
based on what you
discern in the field,
WEBER: Yeah.
HEFFNER: ...of science.
WEBER: I think it's, there
are advances in science
constantly and artificial
intelligence is certainly
one, and it's going to
enter every phase of human
life and it's going
to give us enormous
advantages, but it's
also gonna challenge
things like work and just um,
because basically any
repetitive task is gonna
be taken over by machines.
We're seeing it obviously
in driving for example,
all the driving occupation
which is the largest,
uh, I think male
occupation in the
United States and you
could argue that part
of the election was
about a certain segment
of the public understanding that
there's,
they're gonna
be under stress.
Some of those
jobs might be going,
may never be coming back,
so we have to retrain
people, we have to rethink even
the definition of work.
That's certainly
hugely important.
Advances in
bioengineering,
things like CRISPR-Cas9
that allow you
to essentially, they're
molecular scissors
that let you pretty much snip
anything you don’t want.
In, in the human germ
line we've never
had that capability
before.
I think we're
going to need to uh,
again think very
carefully about how
we use that incredible,
um, technology,
so I think there are
a host of questions
but I would say the
most important,
I guess, underlying
message for me always
is that you really
need to have a full
understanding of science
in, in the modern world
because it drives so much of our
um, economy and our progress,
but science on its
own isn't enough,
so in order to have a
fully educated citizenry
we need people who are
comfortable and conversant
certainly with
science, technology,
engineering, mathematics,
and economics as well,
but also who
don't necessarily,
um, who have a wider, more
comprehensive view of, of life.
That's at least the, uh,
the goal of my program
at the Sloan Foundation,
Public Understanding
of Science and Technology.
HEFFNER: You
mentioned the election.
There is a current of
denialism in response
to scientific innovation, so how
does the storytelling
assist maybe more than
any other factor...
WEBER: Yeah.
HEFFNER: ...in
reversing the denialism.
WEBER: Yeah.
I don't, now to be fair,
what's going on now is
obviously unusual
and unprecedented.
However
historically, science is,
is, there's not one party
that supports science
and one that doesn't.
I would say
that, um, science,
when people, when science
doesn't support your point
of view, you become
anti-science even,
so from the, from the
right we tend to get
denial of
climate change and um,
we get creationism, but
from the left we get the
questioning of uh, GMO.
We, the notion of uh,
vaccines causing autism,
so I think whenever it
doesn't fall in line
with people’s views, they um,
conveniently move
away from science.
I don't think it's a, you know,
a single party issue.
I'd say right now that
bigger challenge is,
uh, what's
called post-truth.
I mean the very
notion of a fact.
You know, it's
raining, no it's sunny.
I mean those are
really, you know,
um, very fundamental yes
or no kinds of questions
that appear to be, uh,
under some stress
and so I think that
isn't really, um,
it, it's almost deeper
than science in terms
of what's going on right
now, but certainly
to encourage, I think
"Hidden Figures"
which we mentioned
before for example,
one of the reasons I
believe it's so successful
is that it actually
appeals to both the left
and the right.
It's a patriotic American
film and I think
both sides can find
things to applaud in it.
In fact I've never seen,
I've watched it several
times at different
theaters and the audience
gets unbelievably
involved and,
and active and applauds
in the middle of the film,
which is very unusual.
So I think there is a way
to reach people sort
of in the center, and
what makes them American
and the values
they embrace.
I think we've kind
of forgotten that
and I think that's why a
film like that can bring
people together.
Um, and I would prefer
to focus on let's say
the positive message and
the ability to reach,
to reach most Americans
I think do still share
fundamental values,
but I think we have
become very polarized, so works
of art can bring people
together,
and when they do that,
um, you can walk out
of the theater and maybe
have a slightly altered,
I mean nothing
instantaneous but it,
it expands your
understanding let's say
of other people.
HEFFNER: Where do
you think there's most
potential to
touch people's lives.
WEBER: Well I mean I,
one of the issues
that we're concerned
about, um, is, is privacy.
I mean I think
the, as we all have,
our lives have migrated
online and we all have
digital identities, I
think it's important
for people to wrest back
control of their digital
selves and I would like
to see a situation
where you can ask for a credit
profile and see what,
what your rating is,
what it's based on,
we should be able to ask,
and I think the Europeans
have this, I think it's, it's
called “right to know.”
I could say well,
what does Google,
Facebook have on me?
I'd like to see
my online profile,
maybe I want to challenge
some things in it,
because many decisions
are being made
and they're selling it
to third parties,
insurance
companies, banks,
um, employers, people
are gonna be
making all kinds
of decision.
It could be based on
faulty information and
algorithms that are coming with
all kinds of strange,
um, conclusions
that may not be true,
so I think it's
really important,
uh, in the digital
age for consumers
to have more of a voice.
HEFFNER: Your investments
in Wikipedia
and the Digital Public Library
have been long-term, steadfast.
It's one of
Sloan's I think,
uh, most loyal sources of uh,
information and knowledge.
What is the long-term
hope for literacy
in the United States
and, and abroad
and why do you care so deeply
about your investment in
Wikipedia?
WEBER: Well, so
the, you know,
the confluence of
mass digitization,
the worldwide
web, things like um,
uh, cloud computing
allowed for the first
time for the body of
human knowledge
to be available to people, so
that’s a wonderful opportunity,
and I think our
support of Wikipedia,
Digital Public Library
of America was uh,
to ensure that this is
done in the best possible
way for the, for
the public good,
so as usual, and, and uh,
and this is natural
in a free market economy,
you have companies
coming in and
seeking to monetize this,
which they have
every right to do,
and a lot of companies
are gonna do very well,
and we wanted to make
sure that this knowledge
that belonged to everybody,
the fruits of cultural
scientific knowledge
that have been really our,
our heritage
remained open,
remained under, in the
case of Digital Public
Library of America,
under stewardship of,
of scholars and, and
people who had committed
a lifetime, librarians are very
devoted to knowledge,
to preserving it,
to annotating it,
to making sure you
have the right edition,
and it's complete and
comprehensive and so we
care about quality,
and over time I believe
quality wins, but short-term,
it doesn't always pay.
And you can
make sometimes,
it's easier to make money
with low-hanging fruit,
so our support of things
like the Digital Public
Library of America is
a kind of long-term
commitment that over time
we really need to take
care of this heritage,
this collective heritage,
and make it
available to everyone,
make it as freely
available as possible,
free where possible,
sometimes under reasonable
financial terms and
conditions where
that's not possible,
um, but uh, it's a
kind of effort to
democratize education.
So in the sense of
the Sloan mission,
we believe in science
and technology and we,
it's always, you
know, technology is,
is neutral, it's amoral.
I mean hammer, I could
hit you over the head
and kill you with it
and I could build you
a beautiful house with it.
So it's a tool, and
every form of technology
is a tool and it's, and
we want to make sure
that that tool is used
in a constructive
way to build a better, a
better world for people.
So, so in, it's that, it's
part of that philosophy
that guides our support
for Wikipedia and Digital
Public Library of America.
HEFFNER: What we've
seen from Sue Gardner
to Lila Tretikov to
Katherine Maher,
who leads the
organization now,
is really their collective
acknowledgment after
years of your
investment and growth
that they are now the
last line of defense of,
against misinformation,
what I've called the
monetization of fraud.
Now in the case of
"Hidden Figures,"
that's the monetization
of, of real information.
You mentioned "A Beautiful
Mind." The book at least,
and the movie
to some extent,
it's a monetization
and the inspiration that
disseminates from that of
real accurate information,
but what I find
so difficult to,
to reconcile with the
present reality is that
folks view Google as
indispensable and they
don't necessarily see that
Wikipedia is maybe far
more indispensable
than Google.
WEBER: Well
they're, they're,
they're co-dependent
'cause you know,
I think uh, about half of
Wikipedia’s searches come
through Google...
through Google...
WEBER: So we,
we like Google.
HEFFNER: Yeah.
WEBER: Um,
obviously uh, you know,
you can search many
other things on Google
and Wikipedia is, it's kind of
the dream of what World
Wide Web or what Tim
Berners-Lee had in mind
and I think Tim himself
is concerned about,
there's a kind of locking down
of the web to some extent.
When you do a search now,
what you're getting is um,
is really a lot of
uh, the big five, um...
HEFFNER: Right.
WEBER: Amazon,
Apple, Facebook,
Google, Microsoft
are kind of um,
pushing certain, um,
things that are uh,
monetizable for
them, so I think it,
Wikipedia is co—is
a counter-force.
I mean I think one of the
challenges for Wikipedia
is that the web is not
used in the way it once
was, so you now
have much more,
you have apps and you
have portals like Facebook
where people just come
in through there
and get so much of their
information, and so we,
we have to
kind of rethink,
we constantly have to
change with the times
and I think Wikipedia needs to
continue to innovate
and to um, but I think
it's still a wonderful
corrective and, and
so many people know,
you know when
you go there,
while it's not perfect,
it usually is a very good
synthesis and starting
point for getting solid,
credible information.
HEFFNER: But, but I think
Doron that technology
is not necessarily
amoral anymore,
the complicity of Google,
in the perpetuation
of so-called fake
news and um,
now they're beginning,
social media
and sort of old new
tech, Google, Yahoo,
to take ownership of
the fact that it's a high
voltage, high risk
game, risk and reward,
and it can be quite
risky if you're not
ensuring the veracity of
information that’s disseminated.
Do you see technology
still really as amoral.
WEBER: Um, you know,
amoral in the sense,
it's neutral, I
still think it,
it's about,
technology is about us.
It's how we
choose to use it.
So Google, if you
work for Google,
it would make sense what
they're doing 'cause
they're, they're
trying to make money
and make their shareholders
happy, but if you're a consumer,
then you have to
worry, then you,
we have to find ways to
encourage better behavior.
So one of, one
of our notions,
if we had a kind of a
consumer organization
that let's say, and some
people are doing this,
are beginning to rank
different companies in
terms of how they treat
consumer information so
over time, maybe
when you do a search,
if you discover that
Company A is protecting
your information more
than let's say Google
or Yahoo or, or Microsoft, you
may slowly migrate there
and that would encourage those
companies will then,
um, improve the protection
that they provide
to consumers 'cause they
won't want to lose
the business, so I
don't believe it's um,
I, I'm not pessimistic
about it but I do think
we have to kind of fight
back and encourage better
behavior, otherwise, um,
otherwise we will get,
we will get
taken advantage of,
so, and I think technology
is both the problem
and the solution
to the problem.
So in that sense, I believe
it's, it's, it's neutral or
it's, it's, it's um, it's,
it's flexible and it's,
it's really upon us...
HEFFNER: Right.
WEBER: To use it in a
more effective way.
HEFFNER: It's certainly
subject to manipulation,
and the books that you
identify as part of
Sloan Arts tend to
model the more moral,
moralistic, um, positive
notion of how technology
can be viewed as a vehicle
for pro-social growth.
WEBER: Right. Although
we also supported,
uh, "The Making of the
Atomic Bomb" for example,
book by Richard
Rhodes which,
you know, won the Pulitzer
and many other awards,
HEFFNER: Right.
WEBER: And that's
certainly one example
of both human ingenuity and
brilliance but being used
to create a destructive weapon
so we're not, we're not...
HEFFNER: Right.
WEBER: You know, we,
we, we report it as,
as it happens, um...
HEFFNER: Right.
WEBER: But um,
yeah we're certainly,
uh, take an
optimistic view that,
that, that technology
can and should be,
and science should be used
to advance public good.
HEFFNER: So as
you identify that,
really your mandate,
advancing public good
through technology and the
books that you identify,
so our viewers understand
in case they have an idea
for a submission,
what is your,
what are your guidelines
for the kind of book
that you would support.
WEBER: Oh. Books, well I, I
should also hasten to add,
we, books, theater plays,
we do a lot of plays,
lot of films, radio,
um, public television,
new media, we’re exploring
virtual reality right now.
I think for
uh, authors, um,
we have
instructions on our,
you know,
website about what,
what's required, but
essentially you make
the argument for
your book.
Um, it should
deal with, you know,
science,
technology, economics,
or mathematics, should be
written for a general audience.
Um, we're not on the
whole doing scholarly
kinds of publications.
Uh, though you mentioned
the correspondence of
Charles Darwin and
that's kind of a,
an exceptional, um,
uh, work of scholarship.
It's gone, for
over 25 years,
they're still
not finished.
They're going through
Darwin's life year by year,
um, and I think we're
very open to all kinds,
I mean Margot
came to us again
without any track record.
I get a lot of proposals
from better-known authors
obviously that do
have a track record.
I think it's just a
question of how good
the um, the proposal is.
We have a book
committee that you know,
weighs in and
then we have,
and if the expertise
isn't on the committee,
we send it out for
external evaluation.
Sloan is very
rigorous about external,
um, due diligence, so
we, it will be gone
over very carefully.
It's certainly got
to be super-accurate.
I mean there's no,
often what we do
is when we like a book and we’re
not sure but we will uh,
put some money in to
hire an expert in the,
to make sure that it's
vetted very carefully,
so um, we do take
accuracy very seriously,
but in works of
art, um, as I said,
there are some, you
know, "Photograph 51"
which is about Rosalind
Franklin, a beautiful
play that Nicole Kidman was in
on the West End and we,
we may be bringing it
back to Broadway trying
to make it into a film,
it took certain liberties
with Rosalind
Franklin's life.
It wasn't
perfectly accurate.
But it was, uh, a very
good ... it was based
on a real understanding
of the double helical
structure of DNA.
I took Jim Watson
to opening night,
had him sit next to me in case
he was going to object.
HEFFNER: [LAUGHS]
WEBER: He didn't,
at least publicly.
Um, he's obviously a
character portrayed
in it so you know, it's um, it's
plausible and based,
and it doesn't violate
anything that we know
but there, there
are often, um,
areas that no one
will ever know.
The play
"Copenhagen" similarly,
no one knows exactly what
happened between Bohr
and Heisenberg
during that meeting,
so Michael Frayn just
took certain liberties
but preserved what, the
historical record.
So we're, you know,
but there's always,
so poetic license is
permissible within
the bounds of, of
scientific, uh, accuracy.
HEFFNER: What
is that though.
What, what is within
the bounds of scientific
accuracy... How much
liberty or license...
WEBER: Well you can't, I mean
you, you, you can't, uh...
HEFFNER: When does it
disrupt the integrity?
WEBER: Well if it's,
if it's scientifically,
if you're, if you're
proposing something
that is, uh,
physically impossible,
I mean that is
scientifically,
you know, just
not, not real,
not science fiction I
guess you could say,
anything that
is, or is um,
could not have
happened 'cause it,
it defies the laws of you know,
thermodynamics, uh...
HEFFNER: But not the
laws of character. We can...
WEBER: The laws,
uh, you know...
HEFFNER: Right, we can
make alterations
to folks' character...
WEBER: The lo—yeah, though as an
artist, I mean their,
character, when you
develop a character,
their, your own
set of laws as,
as a creator that actually
are very rigorous
in their own way, they're
different than scientific laws,
and everyone knows you
know it instinctively
because you go see a
movie or a play
and you think I believe
that or that character
didn't quite work for me. I'm
not sure why but I wasn't,
you know, he wasn't
credible to me or she
wasn't credible to me.
HEFFNER: You
don't see it as a,
a slippery slope
if the character,
the portrait, the protagonist is
a 180 degrees...
WEBER: Oh, well if it's
based on a historical
figure it's, it
should be accurate.
HEFFNER: Needs to
retain some accuracy.
WEBER: Yeah, we don't
allow, yeah, absolutely.
It's got, it's got to
be, all the known facts
have to conform, but
then you can say,
you know, we did a
play about Newton,
you know, um,
poking his eye,
you know, with a needle in order
to understand color,
the prismatic
nature of color,
um, it took certain
liberties but the,
it still, it kept intact
everything we knew
about Newton's life as
it, as it occurred,
so we, we don't allow
things that are impossible
and, and, and that are,
fly in the face of fact.
We just say
there's a, there's a,
a space there
for, for creation,
allowing the
artist to come in and,
and rethink and also make
those people accessible
and bring them, the
Alan Turing film,
"The Imitation
Game," took many,
many liberties, um, with
the record in terms of um,
uh, you know, the,
even the romance,
some people, it was clear
that he was a gay man
but um, some people
felt that the woman,
female character
got too much play,
because those are
the requirements
of a Hollywood movie.
On the other hand, um,
you can read "The Enigma,"
which is a, a very good
biography of Alan Turing
and get the full story,
and it was able to bring
the gist of Turing's story
to millions of people
who didn't know
about it before,
but you know, so I
would say I would give
that film a pass, even though it
wasn’t perfectly accurate,
but if, if the biographer
came to me with,
then I would
be absolutely,
um, you know, I, I
wouldn't accept any,
any error whatsoever.
HEFFNER: Doron.
Thank you for
being with me today.
WEBER: Thank you.
HEFFNER: And thanks to
you in the audience.
I hope you join us
again next time
for a thoughtful excursion into
the world of ideas.
Until then,
keep an open mind.
Please visit The
Open Mind website at
Thirteen.org/Open Mind to
view this program online
or to access over
1,500 other interviews,
and do check us out on
Twitter and Facebook
@OpenMindTV for updates
on future programming.
