 Cameron is the advocacy director of the Public Library of Science and a great advocate of open access generally who's played a very significant role in thinking and developing policy around that. You've got his biography in your pack. I'll just highlight three words from that, which says that he's a well-known agitator. So he's going to be a well-known agitator to stir us all up in the final session. I'd like to thank the organisers of the meeting for inviting me to give a talk. At the end of two days that have been incredibly exciting, incredibly thought provoking, really timely, and to have to follow two outstanding key notes, a whole series of really wonderful sessions, so no pressure whatsoever. I'd also like to thank them for putting a scientist on stage at a humanities conference. I figure that the approach here is that if all else fails and the furies descend from the audience and tear me limb from limb at the end of the presentation that it's actually no loss to the community. Though I'm kind of hoping that at least I get to do what happened in the first version of Monteverdi's unfair, which is to run from the stage, I'm certainly not expecting Apollo to come down from the heavens and take me up into the heavens of Whitehall or whatever. And if you think that's a pathetic attempt to say that I'm not just a scientist, you're absolutely right. So I want to start by doing what I very frequently do in a talk like this. And I want to make it clear that my job in talking to you, my role in being here, is to enable you to take things away and to do things. I tweeted earlier, I find it really funny sitting in talks about copyright watching people take pictures of the slides. So I want to make it very clear that you are very welcome to take everything that I give you here and take it away, critique it, use it in any way that you see fit. I take a risk there and that you may do something nasty with it to me, but I think that would be far preferable to you going away and not doing anything with it whatsoever. So I've been left with the task of summing up a conference in a space which I'm not particularly familiar with. And I wanted to tease out one sort of central piece because I'm only going to be able to do this in half an hour at a very, very meta level. But it struck me that there's a tension right at the heart of what we've been discussing. I mean, there are clearly a lot of tensions, but the one that's particularly struck me is the tension between a fondness, a desire for the fixity of the monograph of the book of the codex as a physical object. The object that we heard Francis Pinter talk about is the thing the author wants to give to their mother-in-law, which must have hard covers, which must have colour plates. An attachment to that, the integrity of that object, the integrity of the physical object, the control that it being a physical object gives you as an author, indeed as a publisher, indeed as a collections manager. You have a control over the integrity of that object. And yet there being a tension at the heart of what the object is for that humanities, as I understand it, is about discourse. It's about a conversation. It's about conversations that might occur in corridors or might occur over decades or over centuries in the pages of books increasingly online. But where the value arises from the collision of context, that insight arises in the interstices between the fixed objects. And that is the context that different people bring to the conversation that create new insights and create new scholarship. So how do we square this circle of a fondness for, a desire for and a usefulness of an object that has boundaries, that has integrity and the need for it to be an object of discourse. And I haven't said anything that John Claude or Kathleen said in their presentations, but this quote particularly jumped out at me, that it's the context that matters. So I was really struggling with how to give this talk or what to talk about. Obviously I'm being tasked with summing up so I didn't really have any opportunity to prepare, but I was keen to adopt this notion that it is context that is important, that creating context that is important. And I like to try and live the message behind my presentations. So what I have is 60 slides on a loop, some of them have pictures, some of them have words, and Eric Hellman kindly randomised them for me. So I'm just going to speak to the slides as they inspire me and as they come up. I hope they create some interesting tensions as they go past for you as well. And we'll see what happens. So here's a word, and it's an interesting word. There are other words in other European languages because it means knowledge or scholarship or things to do with teaching. It doesn't admit of this difference between science and humanities. It's interesting that it's the anglophone countries that have institutions, societies, royal societies, that are different in dealing with sciences and the arts and humanities in a way that other continental histories are different. I wonder in the context of a discussion about words, about discourse, to what extent is the difference between the sciences and medicine and the humanities actually a consequence of the words we've used and the discourse we've adopted, the institutions that has created as opposed to the actual real differences between things. And does that mean there are opportunities to share the risk between different audiences, between different stakeholders in a way that both helps the humanities learn from what has happened in the sciences. And yes, we have taken a series of steps forward and built systems that do work and do operate at scale. But equally, I find myself increasingly asking the question, what can we learn about how those processes have worked and where they haven't worked from the humanities and the social sciences because as scientists we're not very good at critiquing our own culture and our own systems. When we tell stories to each other about what we're doing, we tell the stories that have been part of the narrative of this conference, how do we pull those pieces together? And what can we learn about narrative to help us communicate science more effectively to communities? And perhaps we can pull these things together and see that there isn't such a big difference as we may have thought. The web of course lies at the centre of this, the ability not just to connect things together but to take them apart, but to put them in different places. We've heard quite a lot about embedding text but also people have touched on embedding video, embedding multimedia in different kinds of places, in different kinds of forms. Where can you take the conversation? Can you blow the book apart and spread it across the web in a way that actually doesn't damage its integrity, that does allow you to pull that discourse back together to bring the attention back into one space? And what, if anything, does open mean at the heart of this? We saw information wants to be free. We know that information also wants to be expensive. I actually do have the slides coming seven seconds ahead, I know the next one that's coming. I am cheating. But how can we, and this has been really at the heart of the whole meeting, how do we deal with the issues that marking up, typesetting, editing, managing the production of research is a serious challenge that costs money? And yet at the same time recognise the power that arises from making that content, making that information freely available, and the new audiences that you can reach, and the very large new audiences that you can reach. We've seen numbers of, talked about print runs of hundreds, we've talked about viewers in the thousands. We touched on the notion of content that went into Wikipedia where the viewers may be in the millions, which is the dream of those engaged, of those involved in public engagement. We've seen for some time that there's a huge potential, and that we haven't yet realised it. There are many different things that we could do, that we can dream of and that we can see, but that we don't necessarily yet have the infrastructure, the architectures in place to actually support. We have to ask that question, how do we build those things up? What are the architectures? What are the institutions that we need? And what are the funding mechanisms behind those institutions? We've seen a lot of concerns about the potential weakness of a library supported model for publishing. What if the institution backs out? Those questions around the reliability of different revenue streams go right across this space. It's not a question of whether one model is better than another, more sustainable than another. It's a question of how do you ensure those revenue streams continue into the future. We know that prestige lies at the centre of many of the challenges, and one of the tools we need to bring to get authors involved, to get libraries involved and publishers involved. We do need to talk, and again, one of the really nice things about the meeting has been to see the people on the panel, so we need to talk, and we need to talk amongst ourselves about technology, we need to talk to the community more broadly about what's going on. But we also need to create the conversation which is the scholarship itself, whether it's in a physical form or a digital one. There's also the question of impact. This is actually a comment on my blog where I talked, I wrote a blog post about my views of why the humanities and social sciences were missing a trick in the context of the UK policy environment, and what the author of the comment says, and I think this is a really important thing, this is a person who is involved in giving policy advice to senior members of the UK government, and they say very clearly, I put things about economics in these briefs because I can get at them, because they're in REPEC, because they're freely available, and I will not put references to resources and information in these briefs unless I'm confident that the people looking at them, looking at the briefs, will be able to actually get to the source information. When we think about our impact statements as those who are involved in that process are preparing them to talk about the impact of our work, and this person says, I don't include anthropology, I don't include sociology because I think I have access to it, and the people who need to make informed decisions don't have access to it. We talk a lot about the costs of making this available, we get a lot of concern about the potential risks, but we also tend not to pay too much attention to the downside risks of not making things available, of the impact that doesn't occur, of the readers that don't become engaged. We haven't talked so much about training. One of the things that often comes up in this space is about how will we continue to train the authors of the future, how will they get that experience if they're just doing things online? What will the experience be to bring them up to standard in terms of discourse, to standard in terms of their writing? And I guess we have more questions than answers, but that's the nature of the beast. We've also touched on ownership quite a lot. The question of who owns what, and this has been surfaced at some level in terms of concerns over control, but we haven't really delved into it. Who owns the scholarship? If the purpose of the public funding of scholarship is to create a public good, then that's a wonderful thing. If the researchers still feel they own it, how is that conducive to the ultimate creation of the public good? And how do we ensure that that research reaches all the places that it might be relevant? And I don't mean that we need to focus on applications-driven research. I mean that when we reach people, when we allow people to communicate to engage with work, with scholarship, that we can find applications that we've never thought of. Indeed, the most interesting application of much of our work is precisely that which we would never think of ourselves. And in a world, it was fascinating looking at the difference between Rupert's map of readers and Pierre Monnier's map of readers, seeing the difference between those two in Africa. One of them included French West Africa, and the other did not. This is not, although it's increasingly a world driven by the need to have things in English, remains a place where reaching people, having scholarship reaches its audience and have an impact means much more than just having it in one single language. Indeed, this is something that's been well known for some time, particularly in Scandinavia, where a lot of the social sciences journals are actually subsidised for the purpose of ensuring that there is a publication mechanism in the vernacular for social science so that it can reach those populations where it's relevant. And we need to think about enabling translation, making things possible, allowing others to do translation so that we can maximise that impact. So we need to think about the architectures. We need to think about how we build these systems up. We need to think, and it was great again to hear many people talk about the tools that we need, some of which we have, some of which people don't realise that we have, some of which were built ten years ago and have been forgotten, but which can be connected into and built through a set of standards so that anyone can use them. So that we create an infrastructure that does bring costs down for everyone and perhaps brings costs down regardless of whether those people are in the for-profit, the not-for-profit space, whether they're in the public space, the private space or the institutional space. The key thing is ensuring that we reach people effectively. There's a question here. As the business model shifts from being focused on getting money out of readers or on the reader side to getting money on the author side, how does that change that set of relationships? My personal view, this is coming from a science perspective and it's coming from a journal publisher perspective, is that our business, our service business, is in ensuring the widest possible readership for our customers, our authors. This is a 3D print of a piece of stucco and I was really struck by Martin's initial comments when he talked about the possibilities of not just sharing the text and not just the pictures of archaeological digs of objects that are relevant to a piece of research. We can actually move beyond that and share a real sense of the objects. We've talked a bit about multimedia. We've talked about video and audio and music, but what if you could share those pottery charts? What if someone could take them and have them and hold them in their hands, either as an educational tool or to further their own research? That's possible today. There are museums buying 3D printers to create prints of skeletons so they can be used as part of exhibits. Ultimately, all of this comes down to the question of sustainability. There's a tension at the heart of the open access movement, which is, do we rip the whole thing down and start again? Do we take the good in the system that we have and try and take that forward? The answer, of course, is a mixture of both. People want quality assurance. They want the sense of text. They want the engagement with reviewers. It's very clear that authors are very keen on having their work reviewed and they value that interaction. We have less evidence on whether it's actually very good at determining quality, but we do know that authors value it and we know that readers value the sense that it has occurred. And as we open up that process to a wider audience, how do we ensure that these systems do actually work? Who's going to pay? We've heard a lot of different systems, a lot of different mechanisms and there's been a lot of backshatter about which ones are open and which ones are not. Which ones are appropriate for libraries? Which ones might undermine the role of libraries? A little less about which ones undermine the role of publishers and a little less perhaps about which ones undermine the role of scholars. But there are a lot of models out there that we need to look at. I wanted to touch on this, so it's gone past. That's a copy that I actually own that. That's a 300-year-old copy of Carelli's Violin Sonata's, printed in London without permission. In fact, it's printed. It actually has a dedication to Queen Anne in the front of it, but it's just two years before the Statute of Anne. But actually, we owe that illegal in our thinking printing for a lot of our knowledge of Carelli, for the fact that he is in fact a world-famous composer compared to most of those other violinist composers of the same time who are now forgotten. The discussion of our work is perhaps the most important thing that we can have as scholars. In closing, I want to come back to two points. We've talked about open access. We've talked about the public good, and we've talked about the potential and the possibilities for the future. What we haven't really delved quite so much into is that open per se is just a step along the road to the effective utilization of this new network infrastructure we have. You've seen bits of this video. What it is is a simulation of the growth of a network over time, and what the graph along the bottom shows is the number of nodes that are connected to the network as you start to add connections. The point of the simulation is that every now and then you get a sudden jump, a sudden jump up as more people are connected to the network by reducing the friction, by making new connections, by enabling resources to flow. It's not just that you get gradually more and more of an audience. It's that we have the opportunities for these discontinuities in connectivity that take us to a qualitatively different place from the small villages that we've recreated in our academic institutions. What we're really about here is building networks that support scholarship, about exploiting, and I mean that in the positive sense, the network infrastructure we have available to us to further the cause of scholarship and further the creation of the public good that lies at its centre. I return, as I very frequently do, to the original words of the Budapest Open Access Initiative. It is the case that the open access movement owes a lot of its success to the clarity of thinking and the clarity of writing of Peter Suber. This is an example, par excellence, of that clarity and that thought. The old traditions of scholarship, of being a public scholar, and this new capability, this new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good, but I think it's more than that. And I want to come back to this question of context. At the end of the day, what we're talking about is an object of discourse. The point of a book, a monograph, a codex, a tweet, a blog post, a journal article is to provoke reaction, is to engage people, is to make people think. And it seems to me that the way of addressing that tension at the heart of the meeting, the question of fixity and integrity versus network, discourse, connectivity, and the random creation of context which has the potential, if we're sufficiently connected to create new insights, to provide new opportunities, is that the arts and humanities have discourse at their heart. The resources, whether they be books and long-form arguments will always have a role to play, whether they be tweets and short-form arguments will always have a role to play, can be combined in a network, can be combined on the network to create a different kind of scholarship. The book will always have its role, but what I want to leave you with is the notion that perhaps we don't need to get too concerned about the future of the book because what the opportunity that we have before us today is to actually use a technology that is built for discourse, that is built to create networks of scholars. It's not just that the old tradition, the new technology, combine to create an unprecedented public good, but they also create the potential for an unprecedented public, an unprecedented good for scholarship. That's where I'm standing from. That's my context. Your job is to decide how to go about doing it. Thank you. Thanks Cameron for a great and very courageous ending there to our conference. A couple of words then just to conclude. As we heard earlier, it's the 40th anniversary of the British Library. It's also the 50th anniversary of the Glastonbury Festival. I think that tells us a few things. First of all it tells us that popular culture is always a good deal ahead of institutions. We should all be listening to a group of people who aren't particularly represented here. That is people who are aged 15 to 25 because they're driving the new technology to pick up on Cameron's closing point there forward and really showing how it can be used. It also did take Glastonbury some 40 years to get the Rolling Stones to perform there, which also helps us a little bit, I think, to also reflect something on this conference. If you read Keith Richards' autobiography, which of course is a great and conventional traditional book, you'll realise that the reason why he and Mick Jagger really made it in Essex was because 40 years ago they were the only ones who physically owned the bits of vinyl at 45 revolutions per minute that had the latest stuff from the United States on. So they were in demand because everybody was chasing their content. You couldn't listen to it unless you found them because they had it and they played it. We now live in a completely different world, of course, where we are completely swamped with content. We can't let it go away. You've all been sitting here on mobile devices pretending to make assiduous notes about what's been going on, but you've actually been doing your email, you've been twittering, you've been keeping in touch with your office, writing books, probably, and simultaneously listening out for a few key words. We're swamped with content all the time and our problem is what to do with the content. I'm told that in 10 or 15 years' time or less we'll be producing more than 50 zetabytes of new information every year. I've completely lost track of what a zetabyte is. Cameron can probably tell me, but I do know that it would be a complete mountain of terabytes and terabytes are roughly what you can carry in your bag at the moment. We're producing huge amounts of content. It won't go away, it's pursuing us everywhere. If we go over into the allied field of science, we're told that two new peer-reviewed journal articles in medicine are published every minute. You try doing a conventional PhD thesis, chapter two literature review, based on that sort of influx of knowledge. I think what these past two days have told us is that things are changing very rapidly indeed. We're looking at real new forms of the production and dissemination of knowledge. We've had some great keynotes. We've also had some really good showcases and three parallel strand sessions which have moved very interestingly from the broad framing questions of the sort that Jean-Claude started off with yesterday, right through to some of the imperative of the detail in CCBY licences, how to promote your book, for example, how to put together the mechanics of that publishing. It's testimony to the importance of that, that everybody has stayed so focused on these issues throughout the two days. I'd like to conclude by again thanking the people in JISC and Oarpn who put this together and the British Library for hosting this, and also of course for the sponsors for making it possible. I particularly like to thank all of you for attending and making it the success that it's been. Thank you very much indeed.