Иноязычная профессиональная коммуникация. Практикум

we gave some examples of what you could spend it on. Other people, in the morning, got a slip of paper that said, “By 5:00 pm today, spend this money on somebody else”. Also inside the envelope was money. And we manipulated how much money we gave them. So some people got this slip of paper and five dollars. Some people got this slip of paper and 20 dollars. We let them go about their day. They did whatever they wanted to do. We found out that they did in fact spend it in the way that we asked them to. We called them up at night and asked them, “What'd you spend it on, and how happy do you feel now?” What did they spend it on? Well these are college undergrads, so a lot of what they spent it on for themselves were things like earrings and makeup. One woman said she bought a stuffed animal for her niece. People gave money to homeless people. Huge effect here of Starbucks. (Laughter) So if you give undergraduates five dollars, it looks like coffee to them and they run over to Starbucks and spend it as fast as they can. But some people bought a coffee for themselves, the way they usually would, but other people said that they bought a coffee for somebody else. So the very same purchase, just targeted toward yourself or targeted toward somebody else. What did we find when we called them back at the end of the day? People who spent money on other people got happier. People who spent money on themselves, nothing happened. It didn’t make them less happy, it just didn’t do much for them. And the other thing we saw is the amount of money doesn’t matter that much. So people thought that 20 dollars would be way better than five dollars. In fact, it doesn’t matter how much money you spent. What really matters is that you spent it on somebody else rather than on yourself. We see this again and again when we give people money to spend on other people instead of on themselves. Of course, these are undergraduates in Canada – not the world’s most representative population. They’re also fairly wealthy and affluent and all these other sorts of things. We wanted to see if this holds true everywhere in the world or just among wealthy countries. So we went, in fact, to Uganda and ran a very similar experiment. So imagine, instead of just people in Canada, we said, “Name the last time you spent money on yourself or other people. Describe it. How happy did it make you?” Or in Uganda, “Name the last time you spent money on yourself or other people and describe that”. And then we asked them how happy they are again. And what we see is sort of amazing because there’s human universals on what you

51

do with your money and then real cultural differences on what you do as well. So for example, one guy from Uganda says this. He said, “I called a girl I wished to love”. They basically went out on a date, and he says at the end that he didn’t “achieve” her up till now. Here’s a guy from Canada. Very similar thing. “I took my girlfriend out for dinner. We went to a movie, we left early, and then went back to her room for ...”" only cake – just a piece of cake. Human universal – so you spend money on other people, you’re being nice to them. Maybe you have something in mind, maybe not. But then we see extraordinary differences. So look at these two. This is a woman from Canada. We say,

“Name a time you spent money on somebody else”. She says, “I bought a present for my mom. I drove to the mall in my car, bought a present, gave it to my mom”. Perfectly nice thing to do. It’s good to get gifts for people that you know. Compare that to this woman from Uganda. “I was walking and met a long-time friend whose son was sick with malaria. They had no money, they went to a clinic and I gave her this money”. This isn’t $10,000, it’s the local currency. So it’s a very small amount of money, in fact. But enormously different motivations here. This is a real medical need, literally a life-saving donation. Above, it’s just kind of, I bought a gift for my mother. What we see again though is that the specific way that you spend on other people isn’t nearly as important as the fact that you spend on other people in order to make yourself happy, which is really quite important. So you don’t have to do amazing things with your money to make yourself happy. You can do small, trivial things and yet still get these benefits from doing this. These are only two countries. We also wanted to go even broader and look at every country in the world if we could to see what the relationship is between money and happiness. We got data from the Gallup Organization, which you know from all the political polls that have been happening lately. They ask people, “Did you donate money to charity recently?” and they ask them, “How happy are you with your life in general?” And we can see what the relationship is between those two things. Are they positively correlated? Giving money makes you happy. Or are they negatively correlated? On this map, green will mean they're positively correlated and red means they're negatively correlated. And you can see, the world is crazily green. So in almost every country in the world where we have this data, people who give money to charity are happier people that

52

people who don't give money to charity. I know you're all looking at that red country in the middle. I would be a jerk and not tell you what it is, but in fact, it's Central African Republic. You can make up stories. Maybe it’s different there for some reason or another. Just below that to the right is Rwanda though, which is amazingly green. So almost everywhere we look we see that giving money away makes you happier than keeping it for yourself. What about your work life, which is where we spend all the rest of our time when we're not with the people we know. We decided to infiltrate some companies and do a very similar thing. So these are sales teams in Belgium. They work in teams; they go out and sell to doctors and try to get them to buy drugs. So we can look and see how well they sell things as a function of being a member of a team. Some teams, we give people on the team some money for themselves and say, “Spend it however you want on yourself”, just like we did with the undergrads in Canada. But other teams we say, “Here's 15 euro. Spend it on one of your teammates this week. Buy them something as a gift or a present and give it to them. And then we can see, well now we’ve got teams that spend on themselves and we’ve got these prosocial teams who we give money to make the team a little bit better. The reason I have a ridiculous pinata there is one of the teams pooled their money and bought a pinata, and they all got around and smashed the pinata and all the candy fell out and things like that. A very silly, trivial thing to do, but think of the difference on a team that didn't do that at all, that got 15 euro, put it in their pocket, maybe bought themselves a coffee, or teams that had this prosocial experience where they all bonded together to buy something and do a group activity. What we see is that, in fact, the teams that are prosocial sell more stuff than the teams that only got money for themselves. And one way to think about it is for every 15 euro you give people for themselves, they put it in their pocket, they don't do anything different than they did before. You don’t get any money from that. You actually lose money because it doesn’t motivate them to perform any better. But when you give them 15 euro to spend on their teammates, they do so much better on their teams that you actually get a huge win on investing this kind of money. And I realize that you're probably thinking to yourselves, this is all fine, but there’s a context that’s incredibly important for public policy and I can’t imagine it would work there. And basically that if he doesn’t show me that it works here, I don’t believe

53

anything he said. And I know what you’re all thinking about are dodgeball teams. (Laughter) This was a huge criticism that we got to say, if you can't show it with dodgeball teams, this is all stupid. So we went out and found these dodgeball teams and infiltrated them. And we did the exact same thing as before. So some teams, we give people on the team money, they spend it on themselves. Other teams, we give them money to spend on their dodgeball teammates. The teams that spend money on themselves are just the same winning percentages as they were before. The teams that we give the money to spend on each other, they become different teams and, in fact, they dominate the league by the time they’re done. Across all of these different contexts – your personal life, you work life, even silly things like intramural sports – we see spending on other people has a bigger return for you than spending on yourself. And so I’ll just say, I think if you think money can’t buy happiness you’re not spending it right. The implication is not you should buy this product instead of that product and that’s the way to make yourself happier. It’s in fact, that you should stop thinking about which product to buy for yourself and try giving some of it to other people instead. And we luckily have an opportunity for you. DonorsChoose.org is a non-profit for mainly public school teachers in low-income schools. They post projects, so they say, ‘I want to teach Huckleberry Finn to my class and we don't have the books’, or “I want a microscope to teach my students science and we don't have a microscope”. You and I can go on and buy it for them. The teacher writes you a thank you note. The kids write you a thank you note. Sometimes they send you pictures of them using the microscope. It’s an extraordinary thing. Go to the website and start yourself on the process of thinking, again, less about “How can I spend money on myself?” and more about “If I’ve got five dollars or 15 dollars, what can I do to benefit other people?” Because ultimately when you do that, you’ll find that you’ll benefit yourself much more. Thank you. (Applause)

Marisa Fick-Jordan: The wonder of Zulu wire art

0:11 The decorative use of wire in southern Africa dates back hundreds of years. But modernization actually brought communication and a whole new material, in the form of

54

telephone wire. Rural to urban migration meant that newfound industrial materials started to replace hard-to-come-by natural grasses.

0:32 So, here you can see the change from use – starting to use contemporary materials. These pieces date back from the 40s to the late 50s. In the 90s, my interest and passion for transitional art forms led me to a new form, which came from a squatter camp outside Durban.

0:49 And I got the opportunity to start working with this community at that point, and started developing, really, and mentoring them in terms of scale, in terms of the design. And the project soon grew from five to 50 weavers in about a year. Soon we had outgrown the scrap yards, what they could provide, so we coerced a wire manufacturer to help us, and not only to supply the materials on bobbins, but to produce to our color specifications. 1:19 At the same time, I was thinking, well, there’s lots of possibility here to produce contemporary products, away from the ethnic, a little bit more contemporary. So I developed a whole range around – mass-produced range – that obviously fitted into a much higher-end decor market that could be exported and also service our local market.

1:40 We started experimenting, as you can see, in terms of shapes, forms. The scale became very important, and it’s become our pet project. It’s successful, it’s been running for 12 years. And we supply the Conran shops, and Donna Karan, and so it’s kind of great. 1:59 This is our group, our main group of weavers. They come on a weekly basis to Durban. They all have bank accounts. They’ve all moved back to the rural area where they came from. It’s a weekly turnaround of production. This is the community that I originally showed you the slide of. And that’s also modernized today, and it’s supporting work for 300 weavers. And the rest says it all.

2:23 Thank you very much. (Applause)

Janet Iwasa: How animation can help scientists test a hypothesis

0:11 Take a look at this drawing. Can you tell what it is? I’m a molecular biologist by training, and I’ve seen a lot of these kinds of drawings. They’re usually referred to as a model figure, a drawing that shows how we think a cellular or molecular process occurs.

55

This particular drawing is of a process called clathrin-mediated endocytosis. It’s a process by which a molecule can get from the outside of the cell to the inside by getting captured in a bubble or a vesicle that then gets internalized by the cell. There’s a problem with this drawing, though, and it’s mainly in what it doesn’t show. From lots of experiments, from lots of different scientists, we know a lot about what these molecules look like, how they move around in the cell, and that this is all taking place in an incredibly dynamic environment.

1:02 So in collaboration with a clathrin expert Tomas Kirchhausen, we decided to create a new kind of model figure that showed all of that. So we start outside of the cell. Now we’re looking inside. Clathrin are these three-legged molecules that can self-assemble into soccer-ball-like shapes. Through connections with a membrane, clathrin is able to deform the membrane and form this sort of a cup that forms this sort of a bubble, or a vesicle, that’s now capturing some of the proteins that were outside of the cell. Proteins are coming in now that basically pinch off this vesicle, making it separate from the rest of the membrane, and now clathrin is basically done with its job, and so proteins are coming in now – we’ve covered them yellow and orange – that are responsible for taking apart this clathrin cage. And so all of these proteins can get basically recycled and used all over again.

1:48 These processes are too small to be seen directly, even with the best microscopes, so animations like this provide a really powerful way of visualizing a hypothesis.

1:59 Here’s another illustration, and this is a drawing of how a researcher might think that the HIV virus gets into and out of cells. And again, this is a vast oversimplification and doesn’t begin to show what we actually know about these processes.

2:14 You might be surprised to know that these simple drawings are the only way that most biologists visualize their molecular hypotheses. Why? Because creating movies of processes as we think they actually occur is really hard. I spent months in Hollywood learning 3D animation software, and I spend months on each animation, and that’s just time that most researchers can’t afford. The payoffs can be huge, though. Molecular animations are unparalleled in their ability to convey a great deal of information to broad audiences with extreme accuracy. And I’m working on a new project now called “The

56

Science of HIV” where I’ll be animating the entire life cycle of the HIV virus as accurately as possible and all in molecular detail. The animation will feature data from thousands of researchers collected over decades, data on what this virus looks like, how it’s able to infect cells in our body, and how therapeutics are helping to combat infection.

3:16 Over the years, I found that animations aren’t just useful for communicating an idea, but they’re also really useful for exploring a hypothesis. Biologists for the most part are still using a paper and pencil to visualize the processes they study, and with the data we have now, that’s just not good enough anymore. The process of creating an animation can act as a catalyst that allows researchers to crystalize and refine their own ideas. One researcher I worked with who works on the molecular mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases came up with experiments that were related directly to the animation that she and I worked on together, and in this way, animation can feed back into the research process.

3:56 I believe that animation can change biology. It can change the way that we communicate with one another, how we explore our data and how we teach our students. But for that change to happen, we need more researchers creating animations, and toward that end, I brought together a team of biologists, animators and programmers to create a new, free, open-source software – we call it Molecular Flipbook – that’s created just for biologists just to create molecular animations. From our testing, we've found that it only takes 15 minutes for a biologist who has never touched animation software before to create her first molecular animation of her own hypothesis. We’re also building an online database where anyone can view, download and contribute their own animations. We’re really excited to announce that the beta version of the molecular animation software toolkit will be available for download today. We are really excited to see what biologists will create with it and what new insights they’re able to gain from finally being able to animate their own model figures.

4:59 Thank you. 5:01 (Applause)

Kamal Meattle: How to grow fresh air

57

0:11 Some 17 years ago, I became allergic to Delhi’s air. My doctors told me that my lung capacity had gone down to 70 percent, and it was killing me. With the help of IIT, TERI, and learnings from NASA, we discovered that there are three basic green plants, common green plants, with which we can grow all the fresh air we need indoors to keep us healthy. We’ve also found that you can reduce the fresh air requirements into the building, while maintaining industry indoor air-quality standards.

0:47 The three plants are Areca palm, Mother-in-Law’s Tongue and money plant. The botanical names are in front of you. Areca palm is a plant which removes CO2 and converts it into oxygen. We need four shoulder-high plants per person, and in terms of plant care, we need to wipe the leaves every day in Delhi, and perhaps once a week in cleaner-air cities. We had to grow them in vermi manure, which is sterile, or hydroponics, and take them outdoors every three to four months. The second plant is Mother-in-law’s Tongue, which is again a very common plant, and we call it a bedroom plant, because it converts CO2 into oxygen at night. And we need six to eight waist-high plants per person. The third plant is money plant, and this is again a very common plant; preferably grows in hydroponics. And this particular plant removes formaldehydes and other volatile chemicals.

1:51 With these three plants, you can grow all the fresh air you need. In fact, you could be in a bottle with a cap on top, and you would not die at all, and you would not need any fresh air. We have tried these plants at our own building in Delhi, which is a 50,000- square-feet, 20-year-old building. And it has close to 1,200 such plants for 300 occupants. Our studies have found that there is a 42 percent probability of one’s blood oxygen going up by one percent if one stays indoors in this building for 10 hours. The government of India has discovered or published a study to show that this is the healthiest building in New Delhi. And the study showed that, compared to other buildings, there is a reduced incidence of eye irritation by 52 percent, respiratory systems by 34 percent, headaches by 24 percent, lung impairment by 12 percent and asthma by nine percent. And this study has been published on September 8, 2008, and it’s available on the government of India website.

58

2:59 Our experience points to an amazing increase in human productivity by over 20 percent by using these plants. And also a reduction in energy requirements in buildings by an outstanding 15 percent, because you need less fresh air. We are now replicating this in a 1.75-million-square-feet building, which will have 60,000 indoor plants.

3:24 Why is this important? It is also important for the environment, because the world’s energy requirements are expected to grow by 30 percent in the next decade. 40 percent of the world’s energy is taken up by buildings currently, and 60 percent of the world’s population will be living in buildings in cities with a population of over one million in the next 15 years. And there is a growing preference for living and working in air-conditioned places. “Be the change you want to see in the world”, said Mahatma Gandhi. And thank you for listening. (Applause)

Damian Palin: Mining minerals from seawater

0:11 I collaborate with bacteria. And I’m about to show you some stop-motion footage that I made recently where you’ll see bacteria accumulating minerals from their environment over the period of an hour.

0:22 So what you’re seeing here is the bacteria metabolizing, and as they do so they create an electrical charge. And this attracts metals from their local environment. And these metals accumulate as minerals on the surface of the bacteria.

0:37 One of the most pervasive problems in the world today for people is inadequate access to clean drinking water. And the desalination process is one where we take out salts. We can use it for drinking and agriculture. Removing the salts from water – particularly seawater – through reverse osmosis is a critical technique for countries who do not have access to clean drinking water around the globe.

1:01 So seawater reverse osmosis is a membrane-filtration technology. We take the water from the sea and we apply pressure. And this pressure forces the seawater through a membrane. This takes energy, producing clean water. But we’re also left with a concentrated salt solution, or brine.

59

1:21 But the process is very expensive and it’s cost-prohibitive for many countries around the globe. And also, the brine that’s produced is oftentimes just pumped back out into the sea. And this is detrimental to the local ecology of the sea area that it’s pumped back out into.

1:34 So I work in Singapore at the moment, and this is a place that’s really a leading place for desalination technology. And Singapore proposes by 2060 to produce [900] million liters per day of desalinated water. But this will produce an equally massive amount of desalination brine. And this is where my collaboration with bacteria comes into play.

1:57 So what we’re doing at the moment is we’re accumulating metals like calcium, potassium and magnesium from out of desalination brine. And this, in terms of magnesium and the amount of water that I just mentioned, equates to a $4.5 billion mining industry for Singapore – a place that doesn’t have any natural resources.

2:19 So I’d like you to image a mining industry in a way that one hasn’t existed before; imagine a mining industry that doesn’t mean defiling the Earth; imagine bacteria helping us do this by accumulating and precipitating and sedimenting minerals out of desalination brine. And what you can see here is the beginning of an industry in a test tube, a mining industry that is in harmony with nature.

2:45 Thank you. 2:46 (Applause)

Daniele Quercia: Happy maps

0:12 I have a confession to make. As a scientist and engineer, I’ve focused on efficiency for many years. But efficiency can be a cult, and today I’d like to tell you about a journey that moved me out of the cult and back to a far richer reality.

0:39 A few years ago, after finishing my Ph.D. in London, I moved to Boston. I lived in Boston and worked in Cambridge. I bought a racing bicycle that summer, and I bicycled every day to work. To find my way, I used my phone. It sent me over Mass. Ave., Massachusetts Avenue, the shortest route from Boston to Cambridge. But after a month that I was cycling every day on the car-packed Mass. Ave., I took a different route one

60