Of europe on the global marketplace. The most consequential shift of the last hundred years. There is some truth in that since world war ii the military influence of europe has certainly growth has been cod favorably with that of the United States or for example with china or india. And of course efforts to maintain an Economic Union have been more complicated greatly as we all know. But still, i think professor bradford sees things a little differently and in her book the brussels effect of the European Union rules the world w it is here. And also back there. Professor bradford argues that the eu remains critically important superpower. She makes the case very persuasively. It wields unilateral power. It is a phenomenon that has been there. Many examples and shapes policies his every day of the newspapers. What is remarkable is it exerts its influence without coercing anyone to do anything. Its just if you want to so in the European Union, you have to comply. So the book explores this complex topic and the research has received welldeserved and significant praise. Foreign affairs noted recently that the effect, and i quote, maybe the single most important book on the global influence to appear in a decade to read into the Financial Times called this book, quote, the definitive reference guide for those wishing to understand the effect. So, we have a treat ahead of us before we begin just a few words about the organizers of tonights event the interdisciplinary hub of Columbia Business School institute supports research on Global Business, provocative forums like this one instance a student from a host of Global Travel programs including study tours and classes during winter and spring break. Im proud to say next month the institute will send its 10,000 students overseas. That is quite an accomplishment. The other sponsor is the poor Richmond Center for business law and Public Policy at columbia university. Its a joint venture of the business and law schools. The Richmond Centers goal is to Foster Collaboration among the universities distinguished business in order to generate advanced research it has the potential to inform Public Policy as well as the searing practice of law. Again just like the brussels effect. Ke without further ado and to explain the effect in the many implications im pleased to welcome anu bradford with the international organization. Who is also a senior scholar at Columbia Business School. And to help lead the conversation we are very privileged to have the economics of it or we will then had 15 minutes at the end. Thank you all. [applause]. Thank you everybody for being here can i just get a sense of the room how many people are connected with the Business School . How may people are connected but the law school. How may people thought this was about brussels belgium. Enjoy. So great. This is a great book. Im actually not going to monopolize this conversation. On i know there are a lot of smart people who have comments and questions that i might not had thought of. I will probably open it up much sooner and come back in. Your neck and be completely surprised. Just from the introductions of a sentence that really grabs me. Examples of the regulatory influence abound and how hunting is produced in brazil but pesticides and Cocoa Farmers use that. When they start in dairy factories in china. But chemicals are incorporated in plastic toys in japan as well as how much privacy is afforded to Internet Users in latin america. You could have gone on and actually you do. The center chapters of the bookok are actually explaining the brussels effect in great detail. And then the book goes on chapters eight and nine its the kind that policy discussions tend to revolve around. And then what is can happen next. Ad eight is the good or bad chapter. I have a feeling a lot of the questions and remarks would be about those chapters but we agreed we want to spend some time talking about the essential core of the book where does it come from and why does it exist. You right on page 54 that the brussels effect is the same effect that causes host to serve fish at a dinner party. Please explain. If you are having a dinner party and your inviting eight guests and one of them doesnt eat meat and then another one likes meat but doesnt care for that. They had fish and vegetarian. Instead what you decide is that i will skip meet and serve the same food for everybody. We tend to gravitate towards the standards that has everybodys preferences. With catering to the individualized meats of every guest that is coming. And that is the concept of non visibility. Can you elaborate on what that means. Cael it explains why a company would have these things to extend the standard across the global operations. We all understand that if youre your Global Business that you want to trade into the European Markets. E but then you face the question whether you are actually followed the same rules across the other market or whether you want to separate production lines for those other markets. And often other markets lead you to conclude that i actually well prepare uniformity. And i sanders dies the one because that accommodates all the markets. And i can produce one product and Service Across all of the markets in which i operate. Legal is the spot form. I teach competition law and one of the things that we study is emerging. The other regulators around the world have a stakeke on whether they can proceed. If the u. S. Says nothings wrong with allowing n ge and honeywell to move and merge. That transaction is dead worldwide. It is the mos transform regulator. But not in another. That is an example of legal non divisibility. That explains why we have a lot of the Tech Companies follow a single privacy policy. Facebook, Google Microsoft they have a one global policy. Sometimes technically they defied that. They want to forgo the risk. Its technically too difficult. Another example very different one from the era of food safety. If you are a farmer now in brazil and you want to serve the European Market you need to make sure that you dont have gm owes. And then its a fear if even if you have a Market Opportunity in the u. S. Where you could use your gml. There is cross polymerization. The stories in the distribution without crosscontamination. Technically sometimes the products become non divisible. Then i talk about what is some of the biggest task. And that often is the manifest scale economy. It does it make sense if you go through the trouble and remove certain chemicals from your products in order to be safe for the European Market. He will then insert the chemical back into your market. An American Company has made all of its cosmetics consistent with european chemical regulations. It can be scale economies. Benefits related to having a goal global brand. He the Business Model of facebook they want to pride themselves with having one facebook and having a single global conversation. S if they follow different hate speech falls in america and in europe you would have a difficult conversation between an american and a european. Because some speech would not be difficult to some part of them participating in the conversation. Going back to the legal example. Some people would argue that the eu is going too far. These are two American Companies. Shouldnt they be allowed to merge. S would you say it is or is it . Is extraterritorial in defense. It affects the european consumers. If you think about what would be the alternative the companies could just list themselves in a place outside of europe and be allowed to escape the merger review. Its very difficult to think about an area like that where you could have a form of shopping. Where you can opt into some jurisdiction that does not care about the mergers. I think there is a valid criticism. I it doesnt ratchet this standards up. Whether we actually always have the optimal standard government if they get it wrong. G they get it wrong. One of the most fascinating aspects of the brussels of facts is that it represents a race to the top. They naturally gravitate towards a place where there is a least regulation. Is there a race to the bottom or is there a little bit of both in the world. There are a lot of colors associated with this idea that International Trade and economic globalization inevitably leads to the lowering of the standards. The idea that the countries want to gain comparative advantage and boost thehe ability to compete by lowering the environmental standard and very as others regulations. The scholarship does not actually show this one to be true. The companies are not located in trying to relocate the pollution haven or try to engage in practices that will be consistent with this hypothesis. It really lays outut a business rationale that leads the companies voluntarily to ratchet up the standards. What we dont even need to see is the race to the top in the sense that they will be emulating the u. S. Standards. The eu standards get replicated by the government. We see the race to the top but the core of the brussel fact. The American Companies start producing even in america even if they arent required to do so by u. S. Law. I have a lot more question as i said i do want to get the audience involved early on. If you have the deal with the mike. We will bring a mic to you. Does anybody have a question now. I see one right here. Please state your name. I appreciate you are sharing a lot with regards to how the law may affect the companys in america the developed world what does it mean for the entities or the economies in emerging markets such as africa and asia. And how are those shaping the race to the top. I think partially its a question of how they are having that descriptive matter. The Companies Operating in this market to the extent that they are export oriented they are adjusting their practices. Sometimes reluctantly. As the only way. The other question is whether its actually good or bad for the development of the country and there i talk a little bit about this in the book. I think you it can go both ways. They seek conceit to criticism relating to gml that what they are forcing the african farmers to do. Is not good for africa. And they would need the gm owes. But there is also Research Showing that it actually allows them to develop a product that allows them to talk type into the highest level. A lot of the things with example that you mentioned. Now they have a standard approval. In a greater demand in many other markets as will they have shown that the quality in many ways it can serve these companies and also serve some governments they do not have the capacity to stop mergers that may be harming their consumers. They dont have the capacity to enact the chemical regulations. So some of them quite cried happily to stop global cartels that would increase all consumers. I think theres no a single answer that would lead these governments always to embrace or criticize the brussels affect. Th but it the pens on the industry and the actor in question. Here is a question up here in the second row. A very happy colleague. Before you published the brussels affect. They published another book with a kind of a similar overtone are new global rulers. In which they focused on the hegemony of the International Standards organization and i wonder if its part of the brussels is fact that they had 27 votes in the International Standards organization there is some criticism. Of the strategic ability to leverage the 27 votes when it needs to get something done. Yes use it to regulate with a single voice. The standard setting i think hasnt international interaction. If you look at a lot of the their own regulations they cant be modeled after International Standards which then they take on to its regulations is advancing not only eu regulatory visiono but the international organization. T the same time given those 27 they were quite effective in influencing the standards that do emergeo from those organizations. What i come across in the research with the standard setting and allowing itself to be influence. By those standards. I will go to one question and then come to you next. There is an example overreaching. With the mission trading scheme. That was a very fascinating story. We all know that Climate Change is one of the priorities. We also know that the Multi Lateral corporations in tackling Climate Change has been limited. They had decided to try to move ahead on its own but this is where they are needing it to some extent. When the eu try to extend the admissions trading scheme and practice it would have meant if you are American Airlines you are flying from new york to london. You would need to basically buy it for the entire flight even if only a small part of it takes place in the european airspace. If your plane takes off this was extraterritorial in the sense that they caused a massive backlash but also Foreign Airlines who then used the collective power to go against it. So the eu would have lost massive sales. If you have collective response from the Business Community that pushes back. They say they are not Going Forward with this expression and also is more of a modern story. What they manage to do is manage to is manage to in the aviation industry. Because they have the Bargaining Power that they would be doing something unilaterally. I think it is an interesting effect of the limits of the brussels affect but also the contention that they can catalyze international corporations. Can you identify yourself. Can you talk a little bit about how you developed this strong power to be such a judgment maker and what percentage of buying power with food purchase what percentage with the eu be that people are so that we have to tailored to the eu. To say the u. S. Relationship. And then with the issue of the development of the production of the stock market. Can you tell how they affect those two areas. How did they develop the regulatory capacity. It doesnt mean that only eu could exercise such powers. What are the elements that are required. We could see the washington effect. But why dont we see those. One actually that we dont fully appreciate until 1990 it was the United States that set the global standard. They emanated from here. And the countries wereti emulating our standards. But the then they traded places and this is something the father of the california effect has explained affect has explained how u. S. Moves towards deregulation and left the stage for the European Union. They not only stepped in where the u. S. Was retreating it was also the moment when they were very deliberate at building the Single Market. They made it much easier to get all of these regulations through the political process. If you want to deliver you also remove the barriers. And we have more harmonized standards. You can get this environmental regulation and then you get the pro market parties. You get the left and the right. And were under regulations because the regulation was a tool for integration. They loved the Single Market and they left free trade acrossre the common market. In many ways it was easier to build coalition and consensus there were additional reasons that i discuss in the book some of these issues have not taken on as polarized. Bu we have the support for incense for the environmental regulation in the left and in the right the same with data protection. In scene with antitrust. The issues have not been similar to the issues that had faced the u. S. Legislators. And then you talk a little bit about what would it take to affect the food standard. The foundation is that you need to have large enough consumer market. If you are very proenvironment and you want to set the global standard you cannot do it because the company forgoes trade. There is no magic number that i can say that as long as you have this many consumers you will be able to set the standard. What the eu has going for it is that it is a large and generally wealthy consumer market. The gdp per capita in china is going to be for a long time behind. The buying power among the affluent consumers is still hard to follow. There are more people. In the eu. There is no magic number. If you think about in agriculture it was not a major marketin yet we have seen they reached the version possibly to steer them away from gmls. As long as you get along supply chain. You want to make sure everybody in the chain. As is comfortable with not trading in the eu. Im in a goin back here. Please identify yourself. I am cynthia roberts. I teach in the International Security program here at columbia. My question is a little bit out of left field but i could not resist coming. I cannot resist coming to a talk on the brussel effect. There are two other domains besides food that i want to raise for you to get your feedback. Both are areas where the u. S. Is dominant. I wonder if there is any cross domain affects that we could learn from your work on regulatory interest. One is closer than the other and that is the financial world where the u. S. Is by far the dominant player. We close european country at of the Financial System for violating regulations. We pose countries out of u. S. Financial system as a way of coercion through sanctions. Has us hurt the eu recently in the way that they had tried to come back from a financial instrument. One question arises from the experience. Whether the eu will fix the problem and they will see a brussels affect there. There two we see more inefficiencies than efficiency. The European Market for example has more helicopters being sold than there are countries to buy them. Everything is inefficient in defense. It makes the u. S. Actually look quite efficient and we have our own problems. One answer you might give is thats because the europeans dont like to spend money on defense. It is still much worse than you would predict. Why is there not sufficient regulations and why is there some effort to move in that direction. If you could give your thoughts on those two i would be very grateful. The two areas that you identified when we talk about it. His Financial Markets t and when we talk about national security. That is where the powers have not been fully transferred. That amends the state. It has not been coupled with the level of physical policy and political integration that we would be able to complete if you would like the building off the market. A thats why i think what they have taught europe is its a very uncomfortable place to live in the alignment when you have a joint monitoring policy. In the eu has tried to move to that direction with the massive reforms that are underway. There what we still see is what the economy requires and what politics can deliver. It is hard to meet for me to speculate. I think it is a harder road. I think it is that. It will not have the kind of power that the u. S. Has. When it comes to using financial sanctions. It does not try to claim that it is there. It means that in the other areas that is where the eu would need to use political capital. Defense is another interesting issue. Member states are primarily in charge. And youre absolutely right. They havent even have that willingness they have not wanted to be a military superpower. Instead the question in the definition of power. It was never going to win that game. And it has even wanted to win. But right now with the less certainty on whether the u. S. Will be there to support the eu. There is an emerging conversation that the eu needs to do something about this. We may actually see with brexit because the uk has been quiteth where it is partially membership. Whether we will see some of those things in that direction. We already had more investment through that European Defense fund. E he you are deeply familiar with im sure. It is testing those borders and trying to see whether i can get it. E the politics art is more complicated. I will step in with a question. I will raise it. There is one writer who beat you to it when he talked about the powers of brussels and thats boris johnson. As a journalist. It actually makes up fake stories about crazy regulations and now he is prime minister. He managed to pull the country out of the eu. This is something i take only thee bulk. It was in the midst of this utssive development. The claim that i make in the book. With the international brexit. They dont there is no such thing waiting on the other side of brexit. They will not liberate the uk government and the companies from the regulatory reach. About 45 percent of the uk trade depends on access for the u. S. Market. If you think about many of that nature industries in the uk. Even with the number one destination with airspace. For telecommunications. For Financial Services these Companies Need access to the eu market and to have access to that. They need to abide by the eu rules. What they want to have a separate production line to serve the car market which is six times smaller than the eu car market. That is what i feel that boris johnson. Its one of those grand false promises to say that the eu would be tested with that. And if you look at what the u. S. Has said. They have asked to stay as close to the eu regulations because that serves their interest. And even the uk government when you look up the comments of the information commissioner brexit doesnt really need it. Three quarters of the dataflow. Its very hole hard to chalk the old task. All right. Emily take one there. And the most see where we go next. I am patrick steiner. I work with the new york fed and i am a columbia grad. I am interested in innovation and how you think about that. Making regulations takes a long time. If you want an innovative economy some of the choices that u. S. Has made not to regulate things for examplees tsm and the Telecom Space we are a year ahead of standard in the u. S. Im curious how you think about allowing innovation and promoting it given the regulations that can get in the way of that. It is a timely request. Okey are asking for more regulations. Like the u. S. Tech companies. The Tech Companies say that they welcome that. It is unclear whether this regulation is against economic innovation. I think we could and it should give us some positive that pause that the eu is behind when it comess to the big Tech Companies that rely on innovation. It definitely has work to be done there. Whether regulation is hindering innovation i think it is not clear. So some of the Tech Companies say we do not want to be unregulated. We need consumers to trust our products. They need to build on us. And then believe that we take the privacy seriously. They have really made privacy as part of their business. There is a terrific book by nyu. About how america gave up on the free markets. Its called the great reversal. A lot of the research how the markets are actually more competitive than american markets partially because the markets have become so concentrated because of the lack of antitrust regulations. What weve seen. The growth in consumer prices. If you think about many examples in Energy Efficiency when you hold a company to Higher Standards in terms of Energy Efficiency that doesnt mean they innovate towards a better product. That actually allows them to pursue that. Specifically the precautionary principle which is the principle that the eu uses to decide whether something is safe is different from the costbenefit analysis that the use by i t american regulators. It is not wellfounded because there is no safe level that we can meet certain up. Talk about the pros and cons of that. There is fundamentald distinction in terms of where you place your faith. And how much do they head in the markets ability to self correct. In the ability to get it right. And in europe there is much more fear that the regulators dont do that when they should. In the u. S. They had been much more presumption that we would rather trust markets that we trust the government. In a sense it gives the regulators the right to go ahead. You are not certain that some chemical harms the consumers. When there is enough of an evidence that it gives rise to precautionary notions. And the u. S. Draws the line differently but this is actually the commissioner for competition. They invoke that prince paul today. But it comes to Artificial Intelligence saying that there are many risks even though there are opportunities we could be hankering innovation. There are also unintended unexplored consequences that we do not exactly know how these technologies affect individualss and shape the society and we may bend them ntemporarily. Im going to go here and then i have a couple more people. I am a journalist i would like to bring up at the brussels effect that everybody is familiar with. These insincere consent notices on every brand or web page that when you agree in many cases and end up violating the gdp in your being tracked after all. I would like to get your thoughts on that. Gdp our was a monumental shift globally in the regulation of privacy. For instance u. S. Governments and companies opposed. There was no regulations. The Global Politics moved towards the eu. It was much more credibility. To say that look we do need to set some standards for these corporations and what is really the cost when youre privacy is compromised. Whether they got it absolutely right i think it still remains to be seen. There are certain concerns that i head for instance when it comes to the distributional impact. Its much easier for the big companies. It is much harder for small players to do so. It would be the idea that we want to level the playing field. They may need to be some rethinking on the different regulations. When it comes to the evolution of ideas. I think there are very few who say the eu is not getting it right or doing it to the right reasons. Whether the rate regulation needs to be raised by his to make sure it that we that we do not had extensive regulation. Or unintended consequences. Im likely that that is some of that. It is setting the Gold Standard that makes us to rethink the value of individual privacy shaping the global conversation. We had emulated the gdp our. They actually call for the u. S. Federal government there clearly is political support. They are much more in the eu style. More questions. This gentleman right behind me. Dick goldberg. I was curious when you mentioned the standard. Its been extremely conservatives. Tr my impression is europe is the reverse. Am i wrong in that. What the one criteria. That the eu would be the most stringent. There are many examples medication. There are examples of food safety as well. And during the food safety when it comes to pasteurize dairy products. They are more stringent. The claim is not that the eu always prevails because it is the most stringent. Those are really counterexamples. You can actually market a lot of different ways. With the details for one market. At that sense you would not necessarily had either side dominating in that way. They are some examples that i have. They failed to get the approvals. One time thing they did is they did not elevate the production standard. But they ended up pulling out of the eu market. That can sometimes happen and go to the earlier question. And then the eu is big enough in the market. Its also stringent. In the companies have the incentive then to move towards the strange standard. I have a question. I was sort of saving towards mee end. Where to go towards 8 00 here. It is chapter nine what comes next. With the uk out of the eu. You have some really interesting upper observations about how they could continue to have a lot of influence even if it were shrunken it was an internal battle. That the regulatory its always a somewhat uncomfortable position. In trying to criticize the world. The prediction if you would like to use that word. I make in the book that the eus Regulatory Power will outlive to some extent or prolong the economic mind. With the relative market size. In the reasons are following. The obvious question is this a summer where david started. No matter which statistics you look at the relative marketr will decline. They will take over in many ways. It would suggest that most likely the brussels effect would shrink because there are opportunities to forgo the market and trade elsewhere. I think its gonna be a while before that will happen. Why wouldnt the beijing affect all gdp it is not as good of a predictor of the ability to regulate than the gdp. You need to have what enough consumers to have the kind of demand that exists in the eu. And that is can it take a long while before china gets there. And by the time china gets there most likely in their old world gdp it is not at the level where the government would be as willing to impose regulations. And also chinas Growth Strategy relies on exports. I think it will be a while before that. China doesnt have the kind of regulatory architecture that the legal institutions the market size into actual regulatory influence. In china is building it. Theyre actually copying the eu regulations. It is important a lot of the some extent of data as well. May be we will see that as a one argument on the external thread that i do not deny the importance of chinas growth and the importance that china well export the global economy. I think they have more of a runway than pure focus. I also talk a little bit about the role of technology if you think about the concept that we started with. To the extent that companies duuld divide the production and produce different markets it would allow them to restrict the impact. And we have some technologies like 3d printing and others. L that may keep it possible. If you would not need to rely as much as a skilled economy. That could potentially compromise the brussels effect because there is no needs to standardize. These technologies are still from some extent. How quickly they would be deployed. With the large number of industries. I think we will see the brussels effect continue for a long time. Even if you think about all of the internal press. There is a lot of conversations internally that are shaped by the rights of the intake eu parties. They may be a real threat to brussels. If they have started to rain and the powers. And how could they then promulgate these regulations. If you think about the core of the intake eu sentiment and the various policies in poland. S control over the previous, there could be some ripple effects you start having with anything that comes through brussels. Host once you spell it out it make sense. We will take a few questions. You in the back row had something. Identify yourself. Angela. Two questions. Following questions on innovation, what is the brussels effect in those technologies and as markets in china grow do you think the content of the rules they will make, differences with human rights with contentious topics. Guest the most contentious topic they interrelated the question, the eu needs to feel like there is technological and how they influence the economies and it is not one way the governments think about it and there is a concern how china is investing massively in the development of ai. The eu has the infusion of the need to restrain those efforts and that is one of the next frontiers. And it was a monumental day, and and how you move into the space, the eu is aware, through its regulation. The eu shares interest with the United States. And how to handle the centers jointly. Right in front of you. My name is billy. My question is about brexit. This might be an obvious answer, the eu banks up 45 , what is the point of brexit . Very good question. It is one of those, how much misinformation and false promises given to people, when you announce a referendum of something so complicated, it is very risky to handed over to people. You lay the basic argument simply. Of half your trade depend on access to the market it is not hard to understand you need to abide final standards and do it off of brexit but somehow that did not translate. There is still this idea of a Better Future waiting on the other side of brexit, brexit is much easier to deliver as a viable policy. That is something the uk will have to learn. The hard thing is this abrupt departure is very difficult to unfold. This was sent by boris johnson. The extension will not go beyond that. For the uk to leave. We have a year to reach the trade agreement, the Economic Partnership between the uk and the eu. It took 7 years to negotiate a trade agreement with canada, should be the easiest thing to do and get it done. There is a deadline and we need to get it done or it will be very ugly. It needs to take a priority. The initiative for Global Britain negotiating with the us and other trade partners. They need to get it done by the end of the year. I would like to say good luck. It is very difficult and my prediction is we end up with something not even in the eus interest not to have a deal at the end of that but needs to be something rather basic which means we need to continue to build on that so brexit is far from over. In many ways it is just the beginning, trying to understand what the locations are and how do we come up with the kind of rule that will somehow discern the partnership Going Forward. Host one or 2 more questions and this one right here. Good evening. I am martin from portugal. On the china versus eu topic where you were mentioning the eu would prevail on and influencing force with china and their is a topic i dont think i agree with you is renewable energy. Europe had a very positive impact but china with all the volume has been a Real Driving Force through the cost of renewables especially Wind Turbines and more recently solar panels. What is your take on that . In the renewable energy, real impact on Climate Change you have to have volume, a big size, in europe, in the last 20 or 30 years hasnt been able to lead that revolution. The eu needs partners when it comes to fighting Climate Change in the more china is able to pursue development that produces or is more efficient it serves the same goal. They will not solve Climate Change on its own. This is probably going to be one of the most welcomed chinese policies that allow the eu and china to see eye to eye. There could be a question of competitiveness, maybe Chinese Companies can get a better market share when it comes to these technologies but if you think of the driving factor and motivator behind these technologies that is something the eu will be set up with the chinese. Okay. One last question and we will wrap it. One right here. We will make it quick. Microphone right here. My name is joyce, i am a privacy and individual identity activist. We have colleagues at the university of southampton, the four internets, it was about the european internet which is primarily around social and humanistic norms and the american internet which is commercial, the chinese which is topdown and the indian which who knows how it was going to go . That was a question that was open. My question to you in looking at that paper and many of the things that happened in the ensuing year it seems like the eu is like a moment in time, the eu could get over an inferiority complex could really take the lead and find a way to go forward with the things we want for this technology in a global society, and this kind of guts. I am going to brussels, to convince him, that they have not fully internalized it. The eu is internalizing. With one of the questions, they emanated from this internal goal to build a Single Market. It was an accidental byproduct, with communications over the last ten years the eu understands there is the opportunity to shift the global regulatory landscape and if you think about issues like data privacy, the eu cares about the right to be forgotten. It would require platforms to erase the platform which is no longer relevant. It may not be enough in one jurisdiction only. There is the desire to seize the opportunity. There is a huge deal for the difference in the eu has a firm belief, what is required to balance the technology protecting and views advocated by the United States. I want to thank the audience and anu bradford for the conversation on the European Union, the brussels effect how the European Union rules the world. Colleagues at the institute for all their good work. [applause] on booktv in primetime author and historian Victor Davis Hanson talks about covid19 and how americans have that with similar threats in the past and what must be done to prevent future pandemics. Federal reserve chair been burning key ways in on actions the fed is making to mitigate impact of the covid19 crisis. Square cofounder offers his thoughts on competition for start up businesses. And archives to open up programs with historian David Mccullough starts tonight at 7 00 pm eastern. Visit booktv. Org. Journalist Janice Kaplan talks about women who have impacted society. She discovered Nuclear Fission. Lisa morgan in the 1930s discovered Nuclear Fission, the first person to understand that when you split and adam the nucleus of an atom of uranium, there is a big explosion of energy and that led to nuclear energy, it led to Nuclear Weapons which she was not willing to have any part of but it was also something that turned physics on its head. It was really important and it won the nobel prize. Lease meitner did not win the nobel prize. It went to her lab partner, otto hahn, who was a chemist. What i read, otto hahn was a very nice man and a very good chemist and maybe even deserved the nobel prize for Something Else but he sure didnt deserve it for Nuclear Fission because he didnt really understand Nuclear Fission. The men and they were men amenable Committee Just couldnt wrap their heads around the idea that it could have been a woman responsible for this enormous breakthrough. They fell back into what we were talking about, confirmation bias, must be the woman behind the man, the man who does it and it is the one behind the man so they gave the nobel prize to the man. Many years later the proceedings of that Nobel Committee were released. A certain number of years bonobo proceedings are released and a group of physicists looked at that and called it the most agreed to send indefensible oversight ever. For egregious and defensible oversights theres a lot of competition. But what kelly was referring to is many physicists since have tried to make it up to lease meitner. There are statues of her all over berlin. The periodic table has an element named meitnererhim. Type in her name or the title of her book the genius of women in the search box at the top of the page. Next on booktv a program from our archives. In 2014, journalist a. J. Baime talked about the transformation of the Auto Industry in 1941 saved the war effort as the us entered world war ii. Thank you to everyone who is here on a beautiful sunny day. Good to see you. If this is your first time this is one of the great festivals of chicago and glad we are getting a good turnout today. There is a lot to do. There is another event that is wonderful, a friend of mine will be conducting the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.