 Hans Rosling is the Professor of International Health at the world-renowned Karolinska Institute at the University of Sweden. Hans has had a tremendous reputation and impact on trying to get messages across which stimulate and educate, and he's done this through the use of technology, quite innovative solutions. He didn't want me to say any more than that because we've had certain props such as the pointer, and I'm sure that you'll have an animated talk, and it gives me great pleasure to introduce Hans. Thank you. Thank you. It's an honour for me to come to Leeds. In the last century, it was Morris and Felicity King who were the champions of teaching global health, and they worked here in Leeds. I read their books before I set out to work in one of the poorest countries in northern Mozambique as a medical doctor. From there on, I have tried to contribute to the understanding of the world, and really my decision to focus on learning was when I did a test in my global health course. Some of you may have seen this before, but it was really the discovery of my lifetime. I asked the Swedish students who made it for medicine at Karolinska Institute, meaning they had their highest grade you could get from secondary school in Sweden. Where is the child mortality highest? I gave them these pairs of countries, so it should be easy for them. I picked the pairs together so one country really had twice the child mortality of the other. There is an uncertainty of data on child mortality, but that uncertainty is plus minus 20%. When I put countries together where one is twice the other, there is no doubt whatsoever which has highest. Turkey has higher child mortality than Sri Lanka. Poland is higher there, Russia higher there, Pakistan higher there, South Africa higher there. To my immense satisfaction, the Swedish students only had 1.8 right answers out of five possible. Of course, ignorance is the best friend of the teacher, isn't it? It makes life so easy. I did it three semesters, so I got the uncertainty range or confidence interval of 0.4 there. I was pretty sure that I knew they were ignorant, I was going to teach them, and then one night I was writing the report to the management of the university, and I realized my discovery. It's often like that when you do research. You have your results, you sit with your results, and then weeks later suddenly you see the discovery. I have shown that the Swedish top students know statistically significantly less about the world than the chimpanzee. Because had I used a questionnaire in the form of bananas and I written Sri Lanka on one banana and Turkey on the other and served them on equal plates to the chimps they would have scored 2.5. So I jumped to conclusions when I thought that the students were ignorant. Sometimes we jump to conclusions and think they are ignorant. They are not ignorant, they have preconceived ideas, and there is nothing as challenging for you when you teach as someone who think they know. Teaching about stem cells is much easier. No one knows anything about stem cells. It's a piece of white paper like this and you start to draw the stem cell and you teach. You teach about the world people have all these ideas about them. It's very difficult and it took me a long time to realize how strong they were. I did a very unethical second phase of this study. I studied the professors that hand out the Nobel Prize in medicine, my colleagues, and they were on par with the chimps there. So the Department of Human Resources got very interested and they thought perhaps they could introduce more chimps in the teaching. But with all these animal care now it is as costly to keep a chimp as a professor. I can release cases. So they lost interest in my study. The former president Hans Vicksell was the head of the Nobel Assembly. He said, when you travel the world and show these embarrassing results, please tell them that I had four correct answers. I promise him to do that. But even he mixed up Sri Lanka and Turkey. In Sri Lanka grandmother can read. In Turkey we have all the inequities that increase child mortality. Gender inequities, ethnic inequities, geographical inequities, income inequities. Turkey is a great country. They are doing enormous success but they have one rural up mountain part with Kurdish illiterate women without any relative in West Europe. That's why you have the child mortality in Turkey. Where the Sri Lanka yes have a civil war but it's a civil war where both parties are serious about protecting their children. It's just an enormous ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. So I face these myths the students have all the time. They say they cannot live as we do. It's the most common thing they say. And I have to tell them that this is bloody wrong. It's we who cannot live as we do. And then they tell me if poor children survive the world population will grow and destroy the environment. This is the most common comment we get. I was yesterday afternoon with the economist in London and they said it is the most common email they get when they write something about improving child survival in the world. It's so much. And the correct thing is if poor children die the world population will grow and destroy the environment. Because love is bigger than death. And if three children are lost you get four more children. And population keeps growing. They haven't learned our schooling system failed to teach basic arithmetic and demographics. And we still portray the sort of Holocaust idea let's kill them. This is very strong. Myth 3. People in the rainforest live in balance with the environment. No not at all. It's a nasty place to live. They are killed by the environment. The highest child mortality in the world is people who live in the rainforest. That's why there are so few in the rainforest. There's romantic views about the world. And the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. No actually it's not. But the disparity between the richest and the poorest is growing. But the big chunk in the middle, three billion are moving very fast forward in economically. So this is what I have to face. I found out that beside this quantitative research on the teaching challenge, I do qualitative research. In Sweden you have a Kadamoma ban, the Swedish ban which is very popular. You serve the student that in the break. They get very happy because the university pay for their coffee and their biscuit. And then you go around and listen what they say. It's the most efficient way of evaluating a lecture. Just keep quiet. I've done some anthropology in my research. Quick quiet and go around listening to them. And then they say they cannot live like us. And they talk about the western world and the developing world all the time. So coming back to class, I challenge them and say, what is the criteria for the western world you kept talking about? Well we were never taught criteria. Developing one, no. So where does Turkey belong? Where does Cameroon belong? Well we had problem based learning so we don't know these countries. We had this fantastic problem based learning. We put a sign on one wall in our classroom. They said western world and on the other developing world. And then we put drawings and photos on these two sites. And then we served lunch and those on the western world. They had a very nice lunch and those got rice and then we started to fight. It was the best class I ever had they said. I forced them and finally they say western world has long life and small family. Developing world has a short life and large family. Now I like it. This is what we had on the way. We had this family, a very big family on one side and small family on the other. One had graves and the others didn't have graves. So this is where I see it. I have to reach them somewhere. That is where we develop the software trend. Actually we is wrong. This is just done by pure child labor. It's my son and his wife that dropped out of university. Actually the importance of dropping out of university to advance in technology. He went into the shop, he bought director and macro media manuals which are not taught at universities because they are too modern and they were not at that time. And then he sat down and wrote this. And to this day then he hasn't had one hour of training in computer science and now he is project leader at Google to continue to develop this. So this is a real challenge. It is in computer games that the new animation technology being developed. It is not taught at universities. We had to go via Silicon Valley to be invited into the technological universities in Sweden. It's a real difficult to keep up when fields move so far. So what do we show here? We show here and here I have another very good teaching device. Many use laser pointers. I've never understood why. They are a catastrophe. Even here we had problems. We tried to find out the way and eventually there was a teaching technology. There was, you know, this is really good technology. So you can use this here. They were very nervous here, you know, that I would get hurt. And why is this so funny? Because academicians never stand on ladders, only working class. Each bubble here is a country. The size of the bubble is the population and the color of the bubble is the country. And what we show here, this is obviously India. That is China, the big bubble. The big bubble up there is US and this is Japan. These brown bubbles are Europe. And on this axis I show what the students have the size of famine, fertility rate. You see seven children per woman, five, three and one child per woman. And here the length of life, life expectancy, three, 30, 50, 70. I really like that we could find the ladder here that there was such advanced technology in Leeds here. So because you should be in the image when you talk. Have you ever seen the weatherman in TV standing beside the map so you have to have two TV sets? That's often how we do when we project images. Actually you could walk in them. That's the way we did when there were blackboards. When there was a map which came down from the ceiling. My teacher was standing in front of the map teaching about how great Alexander was approaching Asia in his war and so on. Now, so this is 1950 and the students were right, weren't they? There was a group of developing world countries that really had large families and short life. And there was the western world up here to which they include Japan, which had really long life and small family. But this was 1950 and I have found that students, at least in Sweden, they have the world view of a world as it was the year when their teacher was born. So that's why we did this animation software where I now can show you what has happened in the world. And think yourself, because these statistics are very good. We have very good data on the size of family. In the census it's very easy to obtain. You approach the home, knock the door, door opens, the kids come out and you count them one, two, three, four. It's a very straightforward server method. Life expectancy is more difficult. You have to span, interview people, the uncertainty is plus minus ten years. But the pattern we know, 1950, we had a divided dichotomized world. What is it today? Has the developing world got a longer life and live up here? Or have the smaller families live up here? Or are they here in the few in between countries we had? We had some very few in between countries. One of them were Hong Kong and the other was Cuba. Cuba, 1950, when Castro was still in university, was closer to US than to Brazil. So much myths. When we look at the world, this ideology and myths, it's not fact from school. And now I'm going to start the world. And here we go. And you can see year by year, China is getting a longer life, India is getting a longer life, the Arab countries are the green here, the life is getting longer. This is the Latin American countries and the US here. They are doing really well, really well over there. And now you can see how China is doing well. Under Mao Zedong life got longer there and longer. And now family planning is coming and the Chinese family planning is doing quite well. They are moving over in this direction. And here you have India lagging behind Indira Gandhi trying to start family planning here. Bangladesh still with the African countries. Now the Arab countries have a long life in 1980. And they start family planning also. The imams start to agree on family planning and they move in this direction. Bangladesh, how well they are catching up with India in spite of still having a low life expectancy. They are going here. The African countries are now splitting. South Africa is over there. But in the 90s you can see the HIV epidemic bring down the life expectancy of South Africa and many of the other African countries while the rest of the world moves up to this corner here. And China is already there where Europe is. And now today we have a completely new world. This is the big change. And why do we have... UK is there. And Brazil is there. 1950, United Kingdom, 1950. Here we go. Were you aware of that? There's an enormous catch up which has taken place. The one I used to show in the United States is this one I got in 1965. You see how nice this software is? No pop-down menus. Computer games is clicking directly on. We developed this by my son doing extreme programming. Having a new version every second week. We sent it out to five students. They came in the evening. They got a pizza each of them and then they criticized it. And that's how we managed to take away it. And we created the system where every pixel carries information. Every color changed carries information. And you can see United States there. And you can see Vietnam. This is the only country coast. Vietnam was there in 1964. And the tragic war started between these two countries. And this is what Vietnam has done system. Vietnam has very good data. Vietnam today is like United States 1980. And I had Al Gore jumping the stage after a presentation. Shaking my shoulders and saying, I didn't know that. I didn't have the slightest idea. And that's Al Gore. Then you can imagine the rest of them. It's like numbers. It's a number crunching. So it means that the world is being driven forward by people who don't have a windscreen on their vehicle they are driving. We don't see what is happening in the world. Now this is of course what do I show here? This is the bedroom. Whether there's pillow talk and soft decision between husband and wife on how many kids they should have. And the world is full of modern families. And they say our children shall have shoes. They shall go to school. They shall have a guitar and a ball. And once we shall go to the sea with our children. The world is full of modern families. And at the same time post industrialized kids have myths about rainforest being a lucky place. It's enormous easy to be professor of global health. I recommend everyone to choose this topic. Because the difference between the reality and what people think is so very very different. So what about incomes? What about income? We had the great difficulty in showing income because it's so ideologically. No, the world is getting more unjust. No, it's getting less unjust. The whole fight about globalization. And we were thinking about different animation. It was not the technology which is difficult. The difficult thing is to invent the image, the animation in which you are going to show it. We decided to show only income here on one axis. Dollar per day. And we had to make it logarithmic. And it's fairly simple. You don't write logarithmic. You just show $1, $10, $100 like that. Just to make this axis, it is about 22 iterations until we get the axis right. And then how do you show a person falling down? That person has $10 a day. And you have to have a unisex icon for persons. And now we ask all people on the world, please, come down, come down. Everyone stand on your daily income so that we can see the distribution of world income. And this becomes quite intuitive. That there are people on incomes all the way. There is a little hump, the post-colonial hump, but there is no gap between the rich and the poor. There is a disparity from the poorest to the richest. That is wider than ever. But there is no gap. And where is the money? How could we show that? Well, let's hear. This is a coin. Everyone understand that it is a coin. And when thunder strikes, the 20% richest will get 74% of the money. And the 20% poorest get 2%. So it's not the dichotomised world. We have a quarter of the world economy in middle-income countries, and there it's where we have more than half of the growth today. And aid is something that these people give in small amounts to these people. And three to four billion people are in between, and they manage on their own. They don't give aid, they don't get aid. And that's, of course, mainly Asia. So how can we show where the countries are? How do you show a stacked distribution? Well, with animation, you can let Africa fall down like that, and then the OECD fall down like that, and then Latin America fall down like that. If you put them, people would think they are behind. This is how to show that you stack them. And you see also the design of the movement that is very important. So you really understand that they lie on top of each other. There you have the world. But I go backwards to when I was a student. In 1970, I did public health in Bangalore in southern India, and that was changed my worldview. Most of the poor people in the world were in East Southeast Asia or in South Asia, and Africa was really not poorer than Asia. This is how it was. Latin America had all incomes in the world, and East Europe were trying to overcome the Soviet bloc, the West Europe, and North America, the OECD countries there. And this is what happens. The animation shows how population growth and hundreds of millions and billions is coming out of poverty, and people are slipping back into poverty in East Europe. And if we look at the projections today, this is where we are. This is the way you should show income distribution. I can run the consultancy for right-wing globalization haggers, and I can calculate a ratio which shows them that the world is getting better. And I can calculate another ratio with logarithmic scale to the left-wings who hate globalization. But I show animation, I show all the pixels, and this is not Donald Duck. Here we can hide now the reference to the good economic survey where they have merged all the household interviews in the world. So you can create layers like this. But this is a fixed data set in the software. And it's not a technology where you can import different things. We built this in flash. And you can also move on. You can move on here to... Well, we're over there. Yes, you would like to change this. So you take away the dollar per day there and you take in GDP. And then you can morph. It's called morphing this. Never switch from one image to the other. But we show now the GDP per capita in South Asia, in East Asia, the size of the bubble is the population. East Europe and Latin America is almost like East Europe today. OECD is there and Africa is there. And please can the Arab states form their own bubbles now from Africa and there. And it's come down. It's quite cute, you know what you can do there. And here. And you see every pixel carries information. Like in BBC. All these fantastic animation in BBC. You go like this, they never carry information. They just brand, brand, brand. All TV use animation and graphics to brand. Not to inform. And here we now... Oh, sorry. I can go a little slower here. No, jump up. I put on this axis here. I put child survival. Healthy is up and sick is down. This is actually the graph I distributed to you. Same sort of axis. It's the new world map. North is healthy, south is sick. East is rich, west is poor. And Africa is there. India is there. East Asia is there. Arab states. East Europe, Latin America. And OECD. It looks like a gap. The students shout, see that's the gap. We told you. And health is there bad and good. But what happens when I split the countries? I will split... There's not so much people in Sub-Saharan Africa. If there's problem in places in Sub-Saharan Africa, it's not so much people. When I split Sub-Saharan Africa, it hatches like that. And then it goes away. You see the difference between Sierra Leone and Mauritius. Mauritius was the first one to have a free trade agreement and they could sell sugar and textiles on the same conditions as Europeans. And Ghana is somewhere in the middle here. And then these are all interactive. So you can look at them like this. And we split South Asia here. And you get Afghanistan there, Sri Lanka. Remember Sri Lanka from the shimp test? Grandmother can read, so they are very healthy. And then Arab states. Well, same religion, same culture, same geography, and yet so different. One hour's flight from Sana in Yemen to Dubai and United Arab Emirates, and two ends of the world. You cannot divide the world in Western world and developing countries. Neither can you talk about continents. You have to learn the different countries. I have a joke which I use for this. I tell them about my neighbor that knows 200 types of wine. You know the name of the grape, the temperature, everything about them. I only know two types of wine because I'm not interested in wine. I know there's red and there's white. Whereas my neighbor only know two types of countries, Western and developing. Whereas I know 200. I know the child mortality, the literacy rate, the gross national problem. And there is no digital divide. There is a continuum in excess to digital information. We already want to portray it as a dichotomy. It's a colonial reminiscence in the head that we want to create dichotomies in the world. Look here when I split the whole world. This is how it is. It's a continuum, as you see on this graph. There are countries all the way. All the way we can find countries. And they move also in very specific ways. Look here. This is the world in 1960. And here we move it now. You have money. You can see Mao Zedong make China healthier than he dies. And then Xiaoping make them rich there. It's very easy political science. Leftish government to the left and rightish government to the right. And you can portray countries like this. And then you can select and you can go back and ask a really interesting question. That is not where the Turkish would join the European Union. I mean that's a three-year thing to discuss. The interesting thing is can Uganda join the European Union? And Uganda was there in 1960. And South Korea was there in 1960. And Portugal was there in 1960. And this is what happened. Sorry. Uganda had some really bad decades. And then they are going on. They now have economic growth. They have improved health. They have controlled the HIV epidemic. And Uganda today is where South Korea is. South Korea has catch up and overtake in Portugal. So the correct answer is yes, Uganda can join in 40 years. If they follow the route of South Korea. A danger here is of course that I use averages of countries instead of showing the disparities within countries. If I split South Africa into the 20% richest in South Africa and the 20% poorest it goes like this. And Namibia, that little country, have within itself all the life conditions in the world. And there is Uganda. And there is Nigeria. Two, three African countries and you have a whole world variation within them. And yet you want to have a policy for HIV in Africa. It's very strange how the lack of seriousness it is when we discuss global issues. Yet Nam doesn't have so much difference whereas Brazil have a lot of difference. Now it would be very nice to continue and click and that's of course the vision we have to get all public statistics available in this way in the data. Now what we need however is to change the mindset. The mindset and the family statistics which I show here in the rainforest. There were two, Ma'am and Dad got two kids. In agriculture death was falling, industry it was falling. This is one way of showing of showing the demographic transition. And the world has come very far down in this end almost all countries are down here. And this is the mental model we have. It goes back to empires and barbarian and the Scots and the Swedes know where we belong at that time. And we are still sort of proud and ashamed for it. We don't really know what to handle that part of the history. Colonies and empires and then developing an industrialized and today we have to have we can't have a dichotomy any longer. It's not the dichotomy. It's a continuous. We have failed states over there. And the main global trend is convergence. Convergence where the last billion doesn't move. We still have one billion in poverty. The amount of poor people is the same as it was about 200 years ago. The proportion falls very rapidly. But that's because the population grows. And it's not sustainable. There's too much carbon dioxide emission. Did you see what I'm doing? I'm a professor who can use two fingers. I put them on alt and tab. And then I get this little window. And I can jump between different open windows. I'm running a course at Karolinska Institute for Professors in Learning. It's called Advanced Computing. And I teach them to use two fingers. The average professor only use one finger. Next, next, next. So, you know, the convergence. This is one of the best way of showing convergence. One of our master students uploaded all the provinces of China. And you know of course Henan, you know. Henan has more people than United Kingdom. And we don't know the position of Henan. And Shandong perhaps is a little better known. These are the different problems. They were very healthy in relation to their money. This axis is GDP per capita. This is life expectancy. The funds are too small here because this is a download from the web. But these blue are the countries of the world. And the colorful there are the Chinese provinces. Shown in the different regions of China. And if we would go like the East region, you would find Shanghai there, isn't it? And I've always wanted to compare Shanghai with its corresponding thing in the other part of the Euro-Asian continent and it's the Netherlands. Because Shanghai and the Netherlands are very similar in its geography, its history and so on. And there was the difference in 1990. The Netherlands were here with Italy and Japan and Canada where Shanghai was here with Guadeloupe and Chile and Yugoslavia. And what has happened? Here we go. Shanghai has catch up with West Europe. Shanghai in Beijing has the same life expectancy and the same economic level and the statistic is good. I personally visited and gone through the data with the colleagues who collected. They have problem with informal immigrants as does Netherlands and as does Britain. And how you calculate life expectancy on them. We have a convergence of the world which is very, very strong. But we also have this problem with carbon dioxide. Here I can choose and our program is made such on the web now that you have four or five hundred of different indicators to choose between here and you can change the indicators down here and you can change them down here which is the size of the bubble and you can choose the color up there. And now I'm going to show you emission of carbon dioxide per person on that axis. Ten ton, twenty ton and here income per person. And we start 1820 and I heard in the morning news that the coal mines were being opened again in Britain. And this is Britain starting the industrialized revolution not far from here. And this is what happened. Some other West European countries started to follow and look, look, the big bubble. The size of the bubble here is the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted. The level of it is how much per person. And you can see how the United States catch up and overtake Britain already there, 1906. And down in this corner we have the little China there. See how small they were. And no one was thinking about them. And then we can compare the United States there and we can run the world and we can see what happens in carbon dioxide. And then people go out and say, oh it's very dangerous. China is now emitting so much carbon dioxide. It's absolutely terrible the way it's viewed. They have 3.9 ton per person. United States have had 20 tons now for almost a century. And then they have, this is an official situation. I won't say what I think about it. And you have Al Gore and he makes these nice power points. He gets old Oscar and nothing happens. I was in Davos in the World Economic Forum and the Minister of Environment of India stood up and he said, it was you. We always see the countries that destroyed the climate. It was you who burnt all the coal. But we forgive you because you didn't know what you were doing. You didn't have the slightest idea that this would change the climate. So we forgive you. Right from now on we can't per capita. There is no way of not counting per capita when it comes to carbon dioxide. And it is one of the typical Davos. They cannot live like that would not work. We cannot live as we are doing. As long as US is not lowering, why should China or India even think about adapting a more costly energy solution? Forget about it. And is there possibility of doing something about this? Well, this is getting out of poverty. I think I'll jumping at that one and I'll go directly to this one. I want to show you this one. The Iraq war cost 75 billion US dollar in direct cost for the US taxpayers. Of course the indirect cost for the US people and those injured is enormously higher and also for the Iraq people. But that's a direct cost. The US agricultural subsidy is 300 billion US dollar and the federal investment in research and development for green technology is 3 billion and the corporate sector add 3 billion. This is a joke. It's an absolute joke when you look at the number. It's not serious. And the health aid in the world of which the British government have done a good effort, I really must say, but it's still small. 10 billion US dollar. We can reduce, take away the agricultural subsidy in the United States for 10 days and you can double the health aid and you can get the children to survive and you can get down the family size and you can get the sustainable population in the world. The money is there. The money is really there. And she also has a lot of money. This is who she is Leon, head of SAFE. You know about SAFE? State Administration of Foreign Exchange in China. She has 1,700 billion US dollar. It's the foreign exchange reserve in China. They sell more than they buy. And how much does she accumulate? How many days of accumulation of dollar in the foreign reserve in China correspond to the annual aid to the poorest countries? 10 days. She accumulates as much as the agricultural subsidy. These sort of numbers, we don't make them understandable. It's easy. It's primary school math. But we don't make it and instead we substitute it with myths, what we have here. So we have an idea. We have a conceptual modeling gap-minder which is a foundation now. And we try to add content into the technology which Google is now developing and which others are developing. I'm very happy that Microsoft are copying the moving bubbles, the trendalizer software. Bill Gates told it himself that he complained that he couldn't add it to Excel. But actually it's very difficult. And why haven't we put it? It's very difficult to make a software which has a good user interface on how you convert the numbers into the graphic. That's difficult. It's not making the good graphics as difficult in itself, but it's 100 times more difficult to make an easy user interface on how to convert numbers into graphics. Because often have you tried to make charts in Excel? It's a headache. I still can't do it. Because they always turn up in another way and I want to show years that way and then it's number of people that way. It's too difficult. The world is generating a lot of data and we need to bring it back to the world. So we found out that perhaps we should use this little new tube for entrance in the world. It's called YouTube. And we wanted to put in here data that way. So we tried to say we use these softwares and then we make videos and we upload the videos. Because I always look at allegories. This is beautiful music, isn't it? Anyone here who can see that this is beautiful music? It used to be occasional someone who can see that this is Nocturne from Chopin's beautiful note. Mostly we need an instrument to play it and we need someone to place it. And then we can hear that it's important. I think data is like the notes. Very few can understand the number. We need the instruments and it's good news that you can make electronic instruments now. So we can have everyone playing the notes themselves also. But the problem now is this disease. I've been around in the statistical agencies in countries and internationally and discovered a disease which I call DBHD. It's database hugging disorder. And I've also found a cure. It's cured by recognition three times daily. People who do the hard job of collecting data, unifying it, putting it in an organized way in the database don't get recognition. There are three professions which you don't tell at the dinner pot. It's undertaker, child psychiatrist and statistician. My wife is a child psychiatrist. And we have to give credit back to those who produce numbers. We found that. Paul Sheung is the leader of United Nations Statistics Division from Singapore, very foresighted. He has started to cure database hugging disorder and it was quite easy to get Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, enthusiastic about putting the technology at place. Google doesn't want to have content. They want to put tools at excess for getting this out. So our task now is I'm a go between the international statistical system and the software developers. And what we have now on GapMinders web page and kindly enough I got the internet access. This is GapMinders web page. It's not so beautiful. We have focused on content. You have GapMinders world up here. You can click on it and then you can get in and you can choose the indicators yourself. We have about 10,000 images on the internet from those. We have some video lectures and here's the interactive presentation you can download. We found, however, that is the videos that are successful. The number of people that lean forward and click is one 10,000 times less than those that lean backwards and watch. Very difficult to get really traffic on interactive web pages. Interactive web pages are for the gatekeepers, for the teachers, for the activists, for the communicators, and then they have to produce. So can we at all compete with videos on the net? Is it possible? Many people say give it up. It's just about the cat falling down into the toilet or something. That's what YouTube is at its best. That's what it's about. So I will do it right here. What do people look at on the net? They look for sex, isn't it? They look for money. And perhaps hopefully they look for health. So who would be in top if you do sex, money and health on Google? It's me. I feel like we're saying bolt when I'm there. I check it. And this is demographic lecture about development in Sweden. But we did a storytelling of it. And this is the challenge. We still haven't managed, we still haven't started to use the internet and animation and graphics in education. We still gather it in room and put a person in front. And then we have it as a little tool. It's really a potential out there. And we have to see how can it be used in more ways. Thank you very much for the attention. Thank you. What can I say? Thank you very, very much, Hans, indeed. I mean obviously it's been very, very stimulating talk but I'm sure there are lots of questions. So does anybody want to fire off? Aim high, shoot hard, have fun. That's what my son says. We really need to get innovation going in IT and teaching. We did a big project at Carolinska Institute. We put up a lot of different funding sources to advance in using IT and teaching. And then we evaluated very carefully and we evaluated two years or two and a half years later. The most successful, without any competition was a two and a half hour training on how to use PowerPoint for teachers. You can do a lot of things in PowerPoint. You can do amazing things in PowerPoint and we don't use PowerPoint as it can be used. If you see us here, this is the graph you had. My great-great grandma was born in 1830 when Sweden was like Sierra Leone and then my great-grandma was born in 1863 when Sweden was like Mozambic in 1891 when Sweden was like Ghana and my mother was Sweden was like Egypt and I'm the Mexican in the family and my daughter was born when it was like Chile and my grandchild when we were like Singapore. This is PowerPoint. You can build and construct things in PowerPoint very much. And having upgrading the use of IT broadly on one hand and on the other hand try to innovate. And when you innovate, you innovate for the world, not for your course, not for your university. We had two projects simultaneously at Karolinska. One was the 3D embryo, a very great animation on how the embryos start growing from one cell and become a fetus and become a child and you can turn it around and see the organ and they put it behind the code on the web page. Having the idea if it was successful they would then eventually sell it or use it. And we put up our stuff free all the way. And the deal we wrote with Google was that they will provide this free for public statistics for free use. What you do in teaching, put it free on the web page and just compete. I'm dreaming about a situation where we get good videos, good lectures. You can't make lectures with a fixed camera. I see that you have several cameras here. You have to follow the learning from film. Perhaps it's not the 40-minute lecture you put up, but someone explaining in eight minutes the difficulty with sensitivity and specificity in epidemiology tests, some of these core difficulties. Then we compete on YouTube, which lecture is best. The students all over the world can go to that beautiful explanation from Shanghai or that fantastic short description from Leeds. It's not just Cambridge and Oxford and Harvard who dominate. It's just stupid in this world to have this sense that that university is good and that university is not good. You should have a fair competition as we have in research publications. That we should create and then to film it. But the book is still there and the lecture is still there. So it will be a compliment, but if we could compete on that. So get the use out to everyone and upgrade PowerPoint knowledge. That's one thing. The other, let innovation take place and put them up directly on the net and let it be tested and let us compete globally with those innovations. Thank you. Anybody else would like to ask a question? Yes? I'm going to have to get on the website. Do you have information concerning things like PC for head and internet access? Do you have information concerning PC for head and internet access? No. The idea is that we don't have information. We just want to be a place where you can upload. Actually we offer our software also for those who have information. But what we want is a unified format for information. What are you searching when you are searching Yahoo or Google? You are not searching the internet. You are searching the server of Google and Yahoo because they copy the internet every night. They open every document you have on your web page and that's why it's fast to search. But they can't copy the database because they are on the hidden web. If they copy them, they are not in unified formats so it won't work. We must create, but you won't create that by grabbing people's database because they have database hugging disorders. They get so upset then. There must be a credit going back. People upload the data, they get traffic and credit back. Here, on this axis, you can choose whatever you want. You go to health and you go to bad teeth per person. Here it's very interesting bad teeth per person. I'm lecturing for the World Congress of Dentists next week. United States here have a low percentage. These are 12-year-old children. Bad teeth per person here. The tooltip, we get the specific definition. We want a simple one which is seen in the first layer. We import whatever data we give. The problem is that the World Bank doesn't allow us to upload the data because they are selling the data. I was negotiating with the economists which seems, although they don't use tax money, they are more interested actually to give better access to data. That you can do, but it's still the thinking that we have just one who have the data. When you click down there, we throw the traffic back to those who actually did that data. This is our data. It's just a way of seeing the data. If you want the data because you would like an analysis, you click down in view data and here you have the whole data set down there which you can copy down in download. You can create a completely new way of handling data if you build the software and you get the way structure in which people upload it. The luck with the search was that people uploaded a lot of stuff. The Acrobot reader is free. Even Explorer was free from Microsoft because Nasta earlier was free. The services must be free. It's a little like the sidewalks and the pavement in the city. I noted that in both London and Leeds I didn't have to pay to walk the sidewalk. We take that for granted, but we don't take it for granted that the statistics that the taxpayers pay 10 billion US dollars annually in direct cost is not accessible in unified form. There is a SDMX among the enlightened statistician there is a process going on and we need that process to meet the technology. But that takes some time. Gentleman at the back. Thank you. I've just got a slight worry at the back of my mind which is about information. A thought just occurred to me. I've just tweeted it to a friend. I thought that the most complex piece of information you showed us was the little Chopin piano piece. There's a qualitative difference between the complexity of information contained in something like that and the complexity of information contained in statistics. I just wonder what you think about that. It's sorted to do with this relationship between information and action. You're right. We'll get side effects when we make it available this way. But imagine the day when the door of the monastery was open and someone shouted, there's a guy called Gutenberg who says we can print the Bible so everyone can read for themselves. And the response was, but that will lead to misunderstanding and misconception and it will split the church and so it did. So they were quite right in their worries. And you will get misconceptions but the main effect I think will be good. We will have discussion about it but there's no doubt about it. And we have a lot of culture on how things should be. We have intentionally not put any regression lines or anything in it because from a scientific point of view we regard this as a data exploration tool and a result communication tool. It doesn't replace any of the numerical analytical tools that we have. And that's why we didn't want it to someone show a correlation and say the correlation of it. We kept that out of it. But it's... And there is, I know there's a map about London about the risk of getting myocardial infarction in different boroughs of London. And some are really risky. Some boroughs are really risky but it's because there's an old population so they haven't aged standardised. So in real estate you know you will see people don't want to buy a house there so you'll lose value on these sort of things you have. But we think you can solve that by having a discussion forum on some sort of. We are great admirers of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is excellent compared to British encyclopedia because British encyclopedia runs always the risk that people think it's the truth they are reading. When they are reading Wikipedia they know that it's not the truth they are reading. So the whole idea of that there is big central stores where it is correcting. But on the other hand Wikipedia has to keep control. They have to do. And the soft control and how you choose to do that that's difficult. You can fall into one ditch on one hand where you get more misconceptions and more side effects and you get true understanding. Yeah, yeah it is. And it's so unpredictable. I thought all the time that creating the interactive web page would be what made all the difference. And then I got the invitation from this TED conference in California technology, entertainment and design. What I said Hollywood and architects, no it's not serious I won't go. I won't go to such places. And they kept coming back to me and eventually I went there. And then they made a video afterwards and they sent it to me to justify they could upload it. I said never in my life a commercial for cars for a BMW me professor in public health from Sweden forget about it I said. And then they convinced me and that was the success of my life. So it's so unpredictable to see. It's new technology, new means of communications learning. It's really really unpredictable. We have been working since 98 with this. We have replanned every third month. It's really unpredictable. Why we had the success was not where we thought. The thing I would say it is the real challenge is the sort of the design of the things. How you make that design work. That's the shell. And normally when we do software like this we have one person is the content person. I know the number, I know the income distribution. They hand the thing over to a designer. The designer and I know how to design this will be beautiful. They hand it over to a programmer. And then the programmer make it run. And then it comes back to the content person. I said no that was not. That's not the right way. And then they become enemies very rapidly. If we work in a line. You have to have that little group work together. That was the whole, the success was it was me, my son and his wife. And I got all the credit you know. The culturally it's always the Caucasian, tall Swedish public health male professor that gets the credit you know. Whereas it's the young people who sit there and do the design you know. And work hard. I've been going water skiing after them for the last five to ten years like this. But we were not fighting. We managed to listen to each other. And we had very very short iterative loops. Before we sold to Google it worked like I worked at 8 o'clock in the evening. I came home to then. We brainstormed up to midnight and then I slept for some hours. I went back. I worked at the university to 8 o'clock in the evening and then I brainstormed with them to midnight and then they worked the whole day. And having an iterative loop of 24 hours when you develop this. And like this is really the 25th version of it. You have to really work and leave it and then work again. Much of the web design is not good because the content person, the design person and the technology person are not working together in a very rapid iterative loop process. And yet what we succeeded with was not what we thought. Our great plans went wrong. So we were of course very very lucky. We started this when we had to give credits to Macromedia. Macromedia who made director and then Flash which was tools in which you could build this. But the trendalizer software is 1,500 pages of code in Flash. And we tried to make it in modules which we intended to put free to the world but it didn't work because there were so many bugs in Flash. And Kevin Lynch who is the chief architect of Flash at Macromedia, we eventually ended up at him. And he said, well I'll help you. That's a good thing you are doing. He was using it, showcasing with it. So we sent the stuff to him. He signed the non-disclosure and we sent the source code. And he said we never thought anyone would be so stupid as to write 1,500 pages of code in action script because programmers don't write it in action script. But this is because we are not programmers. We came in from the street and did this because we had something we wanted to communicate and we had designers and my son and his wife were mostly in art and photography. So it's serendipity. It's lots of serendipity that brought me here. Decently I should have been standing in the medical faculty talking about tuberculosis control in Africa. But I should have done it. Now I ended up here. So you have to follow it and you have to test it. No big project that you deliver in the end. Small, short, iterative loop within the project and then out and test it on the audience and test it free. But keep the ownership. It's very important. If you want to give something away for free, you must own it. Otherwise you cannot give it away for free. So be clear about who own stuff you develop. It's a university, whether it's a project group, whether it's an association, foundation or company. And then you decide to have a policy to give it free, but you own it. Because otherwise you will get into conflict someone else will take it. Even that graph I gave you, I took copyright in US very early on, the bubble shot. I invented that 96. Just to be able to give it away. Otherwise someone will claim it. One of the audience actually has been putting up questions there on the back channel. The audience said, we're constrained by technology in our lecture theatres. Is using something advanced like this in a face-to-face presentation too risky? Is it better to run an elaborate lecture from an internet site? People who lecture are more scared to fail than they are eager to succeed. That's the problem. You have to take a risk. And of course I have run some sort of performance skill. But the more you simplify, the more funny you are, the more you are loved until the audience suddenly hates you. And then when they hate you, they really hate you. And people sense that they want to keep safe so they don't want to simplify and make too many jokes. You have to read the audience to do that. Of course lecturing skill is a thing of itself. Often I think we promote problem-based learning because we are bad lecturers. It's always stupid to compare a bad version of one methodology with a good version of the other. Problem-based learning is very costly. The economy of it is very costly when you should have teachers to sit around. We crashed the economy of our medical faculty because we have our teachers spread out in the whole of Stockholm. And the traveling of teachers broke the economy. We lost too many working hours for them. It's much better to put people in an auditorium like this and put a good lecture here. This is how you save budget for God's sake. And then you can use that for something which is effective. So many of our courses we try to lump the students together in two hundreds. And then we run them in small groups. But we have too many courses which is 30 students all the way through and that doesn't pay off. You have to do the economics of teaching and how you do it. Well actually I mean show business so that you have to try to combine that. And it's also interesting that the financing structure of Caroline's Institute is very nice. You become a professor there's no money to pay your salary. There's no money to pay your salary. The department gets money based on what you produce. You produce PhD students, you get money, you produce associate professors, you raise a research grant, you get money, you run courses, you get money. You do external lectures, you get money. So you can do what you want. I think it's very dangerous to have this. You have a fixed position and then you should do so much teaching. That's stupid. Half of the researchers should never teach. Never ever. And others should teach most of the time or you should divide your life in periods. There's too much prestige. I've written my 100 papers and I decided to stop doing research. It's very difficult among the professors because you don't run any papers and they lack alcoholics. You don't drink anything, they say. You don't have any grants. No, I decided to stop it now. I'll run GapMind. I'll do that. I handle data like the herbarium. Astronomers, I greatly admire astronomers that collect in unified format their observations and so on. I try to do that function. But that was because a very foresighted structure. Too much of academic life is about getting tenures and position and it's so boring. It's so boring and once you get 46 and you get the permanent position and you hang on it for 19 years until they get rid of you and you burn a lot of money. That doesn't work. If you are good at teaching you should be able to fund yourself on teaching them and to merge a team of people and be good of it. But it's very much you have to look at the finance instruction on how people are employed at universities if you want innovation in teaching.