 So, I am, my name is Diane Dwyer and I actually am a teacher at the Haas Business School. I'm a part of the professional faculty there and I teach media consulting to undergraduates at the business school and I also am an anchor at NBC. So I don't know if you guys have ever watched the local news but when you started, I started a KTVU channel two twenty years ago. So when you guys were born, I started and now I'm over at NBC and I anchor the weekend news at NBC. So you say to yourself, why would a news anchor be teaching a class about biology and I have no idea. So, so there you go. I am supposed to, Professor Holsenbeck asked me to talk to you guys about the future of news. It was odd to me too but I'm going with it. So how many of you read a newspaper and don't be embarrassed, actually touched, picked up a piece of newspaper in the last week and read a newspaper, actually touched one. That's actually a fair amount of people. Now how many have read news but read it online instead of reading it by touching. So a majority of the folks read it that way, right? So I would argue, and I teach this in my class at Haas also, that the news business is in the middle of an evolution also. So this is where I'm going to connect the dots a little bit. So if you were to look at the news business and you think about newspapers and the whole process of how you go, you cut down a tree, you drive it to a paper processing plant and you make paper out of it and then you go print stuff on it and then you take it and then you drive from house to house and you hand out these pieces of paper. That seems relatively archaic, right? Sort of as if we're in the eight phase of evolution, right? And we're down here and we're starting to stand up but we're not quite there yet. So where would you say natural selection? If the newspaper business is in the middle of natural selection right now, I would argue perhaps maybe the paper part of it is a trait that we're going to lose, right? That that's part of this evolution that we're going through right now. And where would you say, where would you describe an evolution, biological evolution, where the newspaper business in particular is right now? Would you put a, are we still on four feet or have we moved up but we're not quite standing like humans yet? I don't know. Do you have any thoughts on it? It's kind of a weird concept. I'm with you. So given that I would say we're in sort of gorilla phase, we're kind of hairy but losing some hair and starting to stand up a little bit and getting a little straighter and that brings me to another guest speaker we have today because we're mixing it up a little bit. So I'd like to introduce to you the next guest speaker which is Professor Uckenbeck. Professor? Are you there? Ah, it's Professor Uckenbeck. I want a banana. Oh, I do get a banana. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Uckenbeck. I'm not sure if Professor Uckenbeck speaks but we'll find out. Oh, bruised bananas. Oh, Professor Uckenbeck, would you like a microphone? Okay, so I don't, I don't know where to connect this whole thing in here. Hold on. You could try. Can you people hear? I could just hold it I suppose. Okay, well I'm Professor Uckenbeck. Occasionally, Professor Hülsenbeck lets me out of my, lets me out of my office and I come lectured, don't forget it. So today I'm going to talk about human evolution, uh-oh, ah, ah, I'm fine, I'm fine, yeah, yeah. These Macintosh computers are very easy to use, I'm fine, so easy a gorilla can use them. Continue in your evolution. So Professor Hülsenbeck asked me to talk about human evolution but he wanted me to give it a unique take. So I'm going to talk about human evolution from the perspective of a non-human primate. That would be, that'd be me. So there is actually some serious stuff I'm going to talk to you about today. This is the outline of my talk. Um, right, technology. So this is what I'm going to be speaking to you about today. So first of all, humans have this conceit that they're quite different from the rest of the animal kingdom. I'm going to dispel that. So I'm going to point out where in the tree of life you guys fit. I'm going to point out that from the perspective of us normal apes, you guys are quite strange. I'm going to review some of the highlights of your fossil record and I'm going to talk about some hypotheses for the origin of modern humans, okay? So you've probably seen this, this isn't a phylogeny. This is a picture, or a painting rather, of the universe pointing out that our solar system is somewhere over here. What I want to do is the same thing but for phylogeny. So here is a phylogeny that includes all of life. So here we have bacteria, we have red allergy plants that fly, some things that live under docks in the bay, and then you are here, you're a vertebrate. And this is just pointing out some of the synapomorphies, Dr. Holsenbeck talked to you about synapomorphies, you unite the different groups at each level. So all life shares a genetic code, for instance, the same genetic code. This is where eukaryotes evolve. There are specific types of phlegelum that all the organisms above this point in the tree share. There's specific stage of development that all of these organisms go through. And then vertebrates and these things that live under docks in the bay have pharyngeal gill slits in a notochord, sort of a primitive type of backbone. Ah, that's neat. Wow. So this is just blowing up the vertebrate tree of life. So this part of the tree, all these organisms above this point in the tree have vertebrae, you have vertebrae obviously, and you have jaws. Fish in these organisms, the lung fish, the frog, and what we're going to call amniotes, all have ossified bones, at this point you get muscularized fins with the beginnings of the pattern of bones you see in the arms and legs, one, two, followed by many. And then here at tetrapods you have four limbs. And finally just sort of really focus in on the amniote part of the tree. The amniotes, things like turtles, lizards, snakes, birds, crocodiles, and all mammals have an amniotic lining around the developing embryo. Here at mammals we all share hair, see, and a specific jaw joint. And up here, sharing with kangaroos in what we call a placental or euthyrian mammals, they give birth to live young, that's viviparity. And just to sort of blow up the part of the tree, finally this is where you are. You and I are both primates, we have fingernails, not claws, but fingernails. Now for a while, we'll talk more about the phylogene of apes, but you and you are apes, whether you like it or not. Like other primates, like other apes you don't have a tail, a more erect posture, relatively larger brains than other primates have in some other characteristics such as greater flexibility in the hips and the ankles. And basically every single gene that's been analyzed in a phylogenetic way point to humans being nested well within apes. There hasn't been a gene that's been found that says otherwise. So you are apes. So here's the phylogeny of apes. There's humans, there's the chimps, these are gorgeous creatures right here, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, these are all the apes. And you note that humans, the closest relative of humans are the chimpanzees. Even though humans as I'll talk about are strange apes, that is to say you guys have many characteristics that are unique to yourselves, your closest relatives are the chimpanzees. In fact if you were a chimpanzee and you asked a chimpanzee who its closest relative is, you would say humans, okay? And from my perspective over here is a gorilla. I'm equally related to both the chimpanzees and the humans. So it's a misconception that I'm more closely related to chimps because we share, well both Harry sort of speak. But so it's a misconception that just because we share a lot of characteristics, gorillas and chimpanzees share a lot of characteristics that were more closely related, that's not the case. Relatedness is all about the recency of common ancestry, remember. And humans and chimps share a common ancestor at this point, and gorillas are equally related to chimps and humans because we share a common ancestor with you guys right here. Okay. Now the molecular evidence also points to a specific time at which you guys diverged from the chimpanzees. So this is a tree laid on its side, and you notice that the units at these branching points, the speciation events leading to the different groups now is in terms of millions of years. And humans and chimps share a common ancestor that's roughly five, six, seven million years ago. And that ancestry again is more recent than the one that you guys share with us. So the humans, chimps and gorillas share a common ancestry perhaps eight million years ago. Now there's lots of characteristics that have evolved uniquely along the human line over that five or six million year period, during which you have a lineage leading to modern humans. So for instance, one characteristic that you guys have, which is unique, is you have 23 pairs of chromosomes instead of 24 like the chimpanzees and gorillas me have. And this is your second chromosome, and what you see here is the chromosome has been colored by basically the gene content. Gene content and the order in which genes occur along a chromosome is largely conserved. That's something that evolves, of course, but it evolves relatively slowly. And so you can see that these two, these are two different chromosomes in the chimpanzee and also in the gorilla. You can see that during the human evolution, chromosome two was formed by a fusion of two different chromosomes from the chimp or the gorilla. So you can see that the gene content matches up. You can see that band matches there, that band matches there. These bands match up here. So there was a fusion right about that point, the ends of the chromosomes are called the telomeres, basically the telomeres of the chromosomes. And nowadays, we actually have fully sequenced the human chimpanzee and gorilla genomes. That is to say, we know all three billion or so nucleotides, ACGs and T's in the genome. The only column I really want you to look at is the very top one. Okay, this is just a measure of how similar the genomes are between chimp and human, gorilla and human, and chimp and gorilla. Notice that the chimp human split as the similarity in the DNA sequences. They're most similar here. They only differ basically one in a hundred positions. So you take two stretches of DNA, match them up in the human and the chimp. And the mismatch is about one in a hundred, so very similar. And the mismatch is a little bit greater if you compare gorillas and humans or chimps and gorillas, as you'd expect, because that's a more distant relationship. Okay, how am I doing on time? All right, so I want to point out now, so that's just a little bit in terms of just getting you placed in the tree of life, your apes, okay? And your closest rotos are the chimps. And you diverged from the chimps about five, six million years ago, somewhere about then. So a little bit about you guys, I mean, you are a little strange, okay? You're unique among apes, you're bipedal, that is to say, you habitually walk on your hind limbs. Now, I know you're seeing a gorilla walking on his hind limbs, but that's very atypical for gorillas. You have much larger brains than the other apes, much less hairy, obviously. Less sexual dimorphism between the males and females. And you have a lot more technology than the other primates or the other apes have. So this is just sort of taking different great apes, a orangutan, a chimp, a gorilla, once again, a handsome devil, and humans. And you can see that, for instance, your legs are much longer in proportion to your total height. That's one thing that humans are unique about. Your arms are relatively shorter as well. You have larger brains and these other apes have uniformly covered with hair. You're much more sparsely covered in hair, except in your head and your armpits and in another place. Okay, so this is the tree again to remind you. This part of the tree, the part that's leading to humans, all the organisms that occur from the point of the split between chimpanzees and humans, up to modern humans, those are called hominids. And the question is, what happened along this part of the lineage? Is there any document, like fossils, for instance, that can tell us what the creatures that lived along this part of the tree looked like? Now, if you're a chimpanzee, of course, you wouldn't be really interested in this part of the tree, you'd be interested in this part of the tree. But chimpanzee paleontologists are very unlucky because there's only one single fossil along this entire part of the tree leading to the chimpanzees. And it's just part of this bone right here. That's all they have. On the other hand, humans have a very rich fossil record. So this part of the tree is incredibly well documented. What's going on here? All right, so just to review what the paleontological record looks like. Now, I'm going to start to talk about the fossil record. From about 8 to 15 million years ago, no hominids, but lots and lots of apes. Many more ape species alive 8 to 15 million years ago than there are now. Which is, we're pretty depopurate in species diversity of apes today. About 6 million years ago, like I said, you have the last common ancestor of the chimpanzee and humans. And we'll talk about this particular fossil find from a year ago called artipithicus, the artipithicus clade hominid clade is established. About 4.3 million years ago, you have adaptation to heavily massacred diets. We can tell that because the fossils that we find have huge molars and lots of attachments for muscles for the jaws. And you see the establishment of the australopithicus clade. About 2.7 million years ago, you start to see fossils that have much larger brains, they're called homo, that's the genus that they're given to. And you see evidence of tool use and stone tools. And we also have evidence of large mammal butchery. You can tell that because the bones have scratch marks where meat was cut off of them. About 1.8 million years ago, we'll talk about two expansions from Africa. All this evolution occurred in Africa. You had the first expansion from Africa of the hominid lineage. Around 600,000 years ago, you have the Neanderthal clade established. And then about 160,000, 200,000 years ago, you have modern humans appear. And about 30,000 years ago, Neanderthals go extinct. And after that, all hell breaks loose. So Darwin visited the Glopkos and so forth. Let's go review some of these fossils. So first of all, like I said, the fossil record is incredibly rich for, or very rich for, the hominid lineage. And this is just sort of summarizing what's known about the hominid lineage. Now, one of the problems with this field, this is called the field of paleoanthropology. These are scientists who study the hominid fossils. Is that there tends to be many more paleoanthropologists than there are bones to study. So there's this tendency to name things over-split them basically. So every fossil has a tendency to get a new name. But this is probably a conservative guesstimate to how many different species were alive. And the main point to take away from this is that at different times, there were multiple hominids alive at the same time, co-existing. So the tree of hominids is actually much more de-poperate now. There's only one species than there was in the past with their multiple species at the same time. The other thing is, I'm not going to expect you to remember all these names, but I just want you to get a feel for what the general trends in the evolutionary history are. The main thing to look at is, when did bipedalism evolve and when did larger brains evolve? Did larger brains evolve before bipedalism or the other? There's other characteristics we could keep track of, but in terms of what I'm going to show you, keep track of those characteristics. All right, so the first find I want to talk about is artipithicus. And it turns out, UC Berkeley has had a large role in understanding human evolution. So even though it looks like Cal comes up all the time, it's because Cal comes up all the time in the study of human evolutionary history. So what I'm going to do is talk about the discovery of artipithicus. This is where artipithicus was discovered in Ethiopia. This is an aerial photo of the site. So what you see here is, we're going from south to north, and laid out along here is showing you that the rocks down here are older, and the rocks up here are younger. And so just by walking from south to north, you walk on rocks that are getting progressively younger. These are old, these are young, I'm sorry. And then over here, you can see where they found evidence of actual bones, hominid bones, and where they found evidence of tool use. So you can see the tool use is much more recent than the evidence for other hominids. Now there's a team that was led by a scientist that's on the fifth floor in this building named Tim White. They've gone to this area of Ethiopia every year since the early 1990s. They have a large team of people that every year after the rains, they walk around looking for fossils essentially. They don't dig, they look for evidence of fossils eroding out of the earth, and then once they find them, then they start to dig. Now Dr. White didn't go to this region randomly. He went there because, A, he knew that humans evolved in Africa. So he went to Africa, not to Antarctica or North America. And he knew that the split between humans and chimpanzees was about five or six million years ago. So he looked for rocks that were about four or five million years old. So he went to the right place and looked for rocks at the right time. So these are the right place at the right time. There's Dr. White right here. Here's one of his collaborators, Owen Lovejoy. Dr. Lovejoy is at Kent State University. And this is Berhani Asfa, one of the Ethiopian scientists involved in the expedition. He actually got his PhD from UC Berkeley and was Dr. Holsenbeck's TA in Anthropology. He was a hard ass. And this is the paper that came out about a year ago, an entire issue of the journal Science, where they announced the discovery Ardipithecus, the oldest known and most complete hominid fossil found yet. So what does the skeleton look like? So here's some little bits and pieces of the skeleton. So on the right here, we have the hand of Ardipithecus. And the important point to note is it has an opposable thumb. In the right, you have the foot of Ardipithecus. And notice that it has this big toe called the halux. That's what they call divergent. It's sticking out to the side. We'll talk about that more in a bit. Here in the center, you have the teeth of Ardipithecus. And the main point to note here is that the canines, the large teeth here in the chimpanzee, the canines and Ardipithecus are intermediate between what you see in modern humans and in the chimpanzee. And finally, this is the hip bone structure of Ardipithecus. And note that we'll be talking about this other fossil, Lucy, in a bit. But notice that its hip structure is very similar to Lucy's. And you can tell a lot about how organisms walk by looking at their hip bone. Specifically, this bone here, called the ilium, is typically very long in organisms that walk in their knuckles and much shallower, like in modern humans, for organisms to walk upright. So it already looks as if Ardipithecus was walked upright just from the hip structure. Here, once again, is the foot structure with sort of a recreation of what Ardipithecus' foot looked like. It's probably an all-purpose foot, sort of speak. It's a foot that worked well walking around on the ground. It's also one that you would have a grasp until would have been quite handy for climbing trees. There's a nice picture of the skeleton. Now, it is the case that other primates, other apes, can walk. So this is a chimpanzee walking along the river, and notice he's walking upright. He's not doing it very well, but he's walking upright. And so all these great apes can walk upright pretty occasionally. They just don't do it for a long duration. The unique thing about humans is that you're really well adapted to walking upright for a long time. In fact, you can't walk like a chimpanzee with his knuckles very well at all. So here's some of the evidence that Dr. White summarized for me that Ardipithecus walked bipedally. So first of all, the shape of the upper pelvis, like I mentioned. The shape of the lateral foot, so what does this mean? It means that the second and third toes are propulsive. That is, they're the ones that actually give you forward motion when you walk. And the helix, the big toe is the version. So this is the one that actually would be good for grasping the trees and whatnot. So he calls this the all-terrain vehicle foot. And also the skull of Ardipithecus has a shortened cranial base, which usually the hole that the central nerve goes into the head through in organisms that walk. So creatures that walk, whoops. So the hole basically goes into the back of the head and creatures that walk on all four limbs. Whereas for creatures that walk upright, the hole called the 4M and Magnum is actually on the cranial base, as they say. And so Ardipithecus had this pattern, not that pattern, indicative that she probably walked upright. Okay. So that's all I want to say about Ardipithecus. Am I doing on time here? I think I'm doing okay. So I'll talk a little bit about Lucy. This is another fossil find. This one's younger. So Ardipithecus was about 4.4 million years ago. Lucy is much younger. This is a find that occurred in 1974 by Donald Johnson, once again in Africa. And it is an incredibly complete skeleton. So it looks incomplete. So if you look at this, say that's a complete skeleton. But you have to remember that we're bilaterally symmetrical. So if you only find one bone on this side, you know what it looks like on that side. It's symmetrically, it's symmetrical to that one, right? So really, you can actually piece together much more of the skeleton than you could ever imagine just by looking at this, looking at this. And there's a beautiful picture of Lucy from 2 million years ago, 3 million years ago. Here is a reconstruction of the skull. And this is a reconstruction of the hip. So once again, over here on the right, you have, okay, there we go. On the right, you have modern humans. On the left, the chimpanzee. In the middle, you have Lucy. And notice that the femur comes in at an angle. This is basically, you get your center of gravity. Individuals that walk habitually upright, like humans, they get their center of gravity as close to the center of their body as they can. So the femurs come in at an angle. Whereas in chimpanzees, that's not the case. It's just a straight line. And you can tell that this is a case that Lucy had a similar type of pattern because of the angle of the knee. So you can see this is humans. You can see that the knee has a, it's flat here. It's going to be joined cleanly here. But you can see the femur goes off at an angle. Chimpanzees, it's straight up and down. But in the Lucy knee, they're called Don Johansson's knee. But Lucy's knee, you have this angle again. Indicating that Lucy almost certainly walked upright. And only that we have tracks. So these are tracks along a lava bed. So these are trace fossils. They're still fossils, but they're trace fossils from 3.6 million years ago of hominids that were clearly walking upright. You don't see any indication that their hands are dragging along or anything. Okay, I think I'll skip that. So the last bit I want to talk about for the fossil record is just the genus Homo. And I'm not going to go into any detail about any skeleton. I just want to give you a flavor for what's going on. Some of the major traits that evolve in Homo are a larger brain. Okay, so this is where you see the emergence of a larger brain. So the first thing you should note is that bipedals evolved before large brains did. The smaller and flatter face, you have much smaller teeth and jaws, a greater height, and some other characteristics. Less sexual dimorphism as well. But these are all characteristics that evolve in the skeletons that I'm going to show you in a bit. So here's one of the older ones, Homo ergaster. It lived about one and a half million years ago. Homo habilis about two million years ago. Homo rudolfensis, also about two million years ago. Notice there's a great diversity of Homo in the fossil record, living at about the same time. Here's a very, very complete skeleton of Homo erectus. Now, Homo erectus is the last, a very long lived species, from about 1.7 to a quarter million years ago. And this is the last species before you have the emergence of modern humans. So about a quarter million years ago, you have Homo erectus dying out and you have modern humans originating. And there's a number of models that are out there for how modern humans originated. One of the models I'll discuss is the multi-regional hypothesis and the other is the so-called out-of-Africa hypothesis. So what do these hypotheses look like? So the multi-regional model says that, so I should say the Homo erectus is the first hominid to actually spread across the world. So the multi-regional hypothesis says that down here you have Homo erectus and you have these arrows mean you have migration between these different populations. So you have gene flow occurring between these different areas and this gene flow is continuous. And you have Homo sapiens evolving simultaneously, that is to say emerging simultaneously over a wide geographic area. That's the multi-regional hypothesis. The out-of-Africa hypothesis is different. It says that modern humans, you have Homo erectus down here, modern humans evolve from Homo erectus and then spread out through the world. Okay, so that's a different model. They evolved in one place and then later spread out across the world. So which of these two models best explains the observations we have out there? Well, there's a very famous evolutionary biologist by the name of Alan Wilson. He was at UC Berkeley for about 35 years. He died in 1991 of leukemia. And he's published a very famous paper called By Vigilant et al. on the origins of modern humans. And what he and his colleagues did is they sequenced the mitochondrial DNA sequences from about over 100 humans where they knew the geographic origin of these different people. So remember the mitochondrial DNA is the circular bit of DNA that occurs in the mitochondrion. And one thing that Dr. Holsenbeck didn't mention is that the mitochondrion is maternally inherited. So all the mitochondria in the males in the audience, they're dead ends. It's only the mitochondria in the females that have a hope to go on into the next generation. So they're maternally inherited. So when you trace a tree of mitochondrial DNA, you're tracing a maternal history. Okay. So what he did is made a phylogenetic tree of modern humans. And there it is on the, on the, so you can see, well I can barely see out of this thing now. So there's the modern, the tree of modern humans. And the point here is that the root of the modern humans, this is the most common recent ancestor of the mitochondrial DNA for all modern humans. And the question is where did that originate? And by this tree you can infer that it was in Africa because all the lineages of first branch off, all the mitochondrial lineages that branch off first are from people with origins in Africa. So this gives rise to the idea that the out of Africa hypothesis is the correct one. And they call this common ancestor of the, of the mitochondria. They call this the mitochondrial Eve. It was sort of an unfortunate, cute name, but in a sense there were some women that all this mitochondrial DNA did trace to. And so if you want to call her Eve, that's your business. But you have to realize that she wasn't the only individual in the population at the time. She just happened to be the only individual in the population that happened to have a mitochondrial DNA that gave rise to all the modern humans. All the other DNA was, mitochondrial DNA was a dead end. Okay, where are we now? I'm going to skip this part, although it's fascinating. And the last thing I want to talk about is Neanderthals. I talked about Neanderthals briefly, that they were established about 600,000 years ago, they're anatomically very modern. They have brains as big as modern human brains or bigger. Okay, they live, this is a geographic distribution of Neanderthals. Notice that they're European and also in the Middle East. But you should realize that at the same time, anatomically modern humans, homo sapiens like us, were living in the same region. And so people have always speculated, always speculated about whether or not there could have been love between Neanderthals and modern humans. Okay, and of course scientists don't call it that, they call it gene flow. So this is a study that came out literally five months ago. And it was led by this Svante Pabo who was just visiting Berkeley two days ago. And then you see Berkeley faculty involved were Rasmus Nielsen, who's up on the fourth floor, and Monty Slacken, who's also up on the fourth floor. These were the theoretical biologists who analyzed the data that Svante Pabo's group generated. And I should note that what they did is they sequenced Neanderthal genome. All right, so how do you do that? Because there are no Neanderthals around today. But I should also point out that there are a lot of UC Berkeley faculty and students involved in this. So all the blue bits here are people that were involved in it. They were from UC Berkeley. This is the paper that was published. So what they did is they actually took a Neanderthal bone and they ground out some of the interior part of the three different bones from females. And then they're using modern techniques, they sequenced the genome. I'm not going to describe them, but basically how methods sequence DNA today, or genomes today is they don't literally go from one end of the genome and read sequence by sequence all the way to the end. What they do is they divide or blast the genome into lots of little fragments and they sequence these little fragments individually. And then they piece together using computers all the fragments. It's like a big puzzle. And it turns out the DNA in these bones is already fragmented anyways because it's 30,000-year-old DNA, so it's already fragmented just because of what happens to DNA after death. So it was fine. The DNA could easily be sequenced using modern techniques so that there were some issues with contamination and whatnot. So what they did in terms of analyzing the data was trying to distinguish between several different models. So here's Homo erectus. We know that it was the ancestor of all the modern humans. Neanderthals diverged about 600,000 years ago. And here's the modern human tree. So this would be the out-of-African hypothesis. These populations here are African populations and these are not African populations. And the question is, did you have gene flow between Homo erectus and Neanderthals? Or did you have gene flow that occurred, basically this would have had it been in the Middle East as modern humans were spreading out through the rest of the world? Or was it specific to some populations? And analysis of the genome DNA firmly supports the idea that you had gene flow between Neanderthal populations in modern human populations at the base of the part of the tree that goes to the other parts of the world. The way you can tell this is that non-African populations and Neanderthals share unique DNA nucleotides that you don't find in Africans. So this is the evidence that supports this hypothesis. So it looks like they're a gene flow. About 1% to 4% of non-African humans, individuals, their DNA is from Neanderthals is the best estimate. So looking out in the audience, about 1% to 4% of your DNA is from Neanderthals. All right, so I want to just give a few final thoughts before I stop this lecture. And this is not going to be covered in exams, so you don't have to worry about this. So the first point I want to make, because I know a lot of the students in this class are pre-med, is you can choose any major and still be a candidate for medical school. I think this is something that's not well understood. Being pre-med is taking certain classes. It's not a certain major. And so this is all information almost taken verbatim from Nancy Finkel, who's one of the advisors here on campus about taking courses. And she says, these are the courses you need to take to be a pre-med. And it also helps to have research experience, have some community service, being able to speak a foreign language is a real benefit as well. And I want to talk about specifically research experience. As you probably guessed by now, the faculty at UC Berkeley aren't selected based on how well they give lectures. Okay? They're selected based on the research. And this is something generally speaking, the people here at UC Berkeley do quite well. And so you're at this university where you're not being taken care of very well, like you would be if you were at a large private school, like Harvard or something. The only thing you have going for you in terms of this university is you have access to good research opportunities. So you could actually get into labs and do research. And so what I'm going to do is talk about how you might go about doing that. Now there are some programs on campus. One is called the URAP program that takes interested undergraduates and pipes them into various labs on campus. But there's other ways of doing this as well. And the basic idea is try to make contact with a professor that does work that you're interested in. So the first thing you would do is you would knock on the professor's door, right? So knock, knock. I'm going to be talking to this professor about potential work in his or her lab. You greet the professor, say hello. I'm Ukenbeck, Harry Ukenbeck, who are you? You talked, hopefully you will have actually done a little bit of work beforehand and you can discuss the research and why you're interested in coming into that lab. So here I am talking to Professor Doris Backtrog who's up on the fourth floor of this building. Of course, be prepared for a long talk. Professors like to talk. So here I'm still talking to her. But she was very, very nice and said, sure, we've got some opportunities for you in the lab. And she took me to the lab. I met the nice people in the lab. Here I'm shaking hands with one of the nice people. And I had a great time here. I am working in the lab. So I've got a pipette right there doing real science. I don't know what she expected. I am a gorilla and I'm in a lab. What do you expect? But I had some issues. And so I was kicked out. But I don't think you would have the same problems. So take advantage of your time at UC Berkeley. And one of the ways you can do that is to get some research experience, rather. Go Bears. And thanks, Professor Dwyer. Wow.