Extinction looks at the very real and compelling Science Behind an idea one scene as Science Fiction and addresses how the distinction will redefine it in the future. Next is david morris. The former marine officer he worked as a reporter in iraq from 2004 to 2007 his writing has appeared in the new yorker, slate the virginia quarterly review and the best american nonrequired reading. His book a biography of post Traumatic Stress disorder or a memoir it is also an analysis of an ever increasing phenomena that has changed the landscape of our culture. It too is a finalist in the sears competition. He was part of a team of times reporters that one the prize for explanatory reporting for its look into that Business Practices by apple and other Technology Companies that illustrates the darker side oflo a changing Global Economy for workers and consumers. He lives in San Francisco. His book machines of loving grace, the quest for Common Ground will they help us orp will they replace us. This is also a finalist. The author who has covered business and technology he currently serves as a time business columnist and he is with us today to discuss his latest book big science. Effort l it is an untold story of how one invention changed the world and the man responsible for it. And how that effort led to the dependent on government and industry for the big scienceat a we have today. You will have an opportunity to ask the questions. We had four microphones and we ask you to direct your questions there and i will let you know when you can line up for that. So lets begin. Beth schapiro, could they really be brought back to life . It depends on what you are willing to accept for aas mammoth or a pigeon. I when an organism dies all of it sells and the dna begins to decay immediately and that dna which exists now and all of us has long unbroken strands of letters that make up the code that make its look and act the way we do. With that it has been dead before 5,000 years or 10,000 years. Yes, if we go out and collect the bone it will have dna in it but it will have broken fragments and we cant use that dna on the same way that we can use that. That is not actually possiblea with mammoths. Ct we can take those little tiny fragments and start to understand how it differs from an asian elephant. They share about 99 percent of the dna. Then we can take an elephant we take the elephant sell and turn it into an elephant so sure. I follow up. Our ability to do that is that going to come at a cost of the current efforts that we have two protect the dangerous speeches. But the fantastic approaches these are not competing for resources. Those of us who are interested in this and its not to bring to use as a technology to help species that are alive todaydanr but going extinct because they cant adapt quickly enough to be able to keep up with the changes that are happening qe is the same technology to assist that adaptation. Re they are being funded by research that wants to use the same technologies to do things i we are interested in that. What if we could identify the genes that are responsible for that and then go in there with the tools of science and cut and paste our own genomes. S . Thats for the funding from that technology is coming from. His ot a tool with conservation. Think you. Yours is a very personal story about post Traumatic Stress disorder how did you come about deciding to expand it to much larger topics. I feel like going from woolly mammoth to this. Ptsd. Science fiction to dr. Freuds office. The question must how did i get interested . You also tell a wider story not just your story i had been in the marine dash i have seen were from a number of different angles and then came back and felt really at odds with the countrys politically,d and they just feel out of place. The defi they were talking about expanding the definition to include some sense and they have those. It was a larger emotionalemotioa disconnect from society and thats really how i felt. Rps, a i came from a very conservative family. I have voted for George W Bush the first time in my view of the world changed and my relationship with my country change radically in 2004 when i went to a rack for the first time i dont know a lot of people that felt the same way. Most of them didnt think about it the same i did. t tal this emotional or political cultural mecca that i felt a strong as any other symptom so i went to the library and started digging around and i thought rather than being the only one who felt that way ily just discovered it came from the vietnam war they felt thats how they did that. Its a product of 1970s America Today they think of it its essentially a part of a postwar narrative. Basi there was nothing for you. And people basically said but your uniform in a closet and go get a job. There was nothing for veteransjo up until vietnam so that was my discovery i thought i was on my own and i went to the library and discovered that i was not that was for me the genesis of my interest in law for me. And it want to write a sob story. How did this fit in to the whole group of ideas so the book became about that. And a followup to that. What does modern neuroscience had to tell us about ptsd . I have a semi controversial view of this. I dont think it has a whole hell of a lot to say. To real i think that is related to the larger saga of science the age of discovery or to use a bad analogy if a science interest or some sort of const to knit. If you think about that as the continent to be discovered the shifts are just now leaving the harbor to go discover what we might know about the brain. Its very important to keep that in mind and there are a lot of professors on this campus that will tell you we have cure. I think those people are misleading you. I dont think there is a simple care. Simp it touches on the whole part of a human being as as far as more specifically there are some areas i like a lot who had discovered things that h have been replicated but theres not just a one off and specifically they have discovered that there are stress hormones that are secreted in the human body under stress and she discovered that the quartered salt profile of someone who has been exposed to extremeo exm threats like war and genocide through the internal offspring they will have a different cortisol profile and she studied the survivors of the holocaust in the maternal line of people who survived. She found through the line they are different descendents well had a different stress hormone profile. It does change the persons chemistry and how they function. There has been Research Done by tim cahill on the drugg which is a beta blocker. Its a very common heart drug that if you give it it suppresses the adrenal and ift, you give that to someone after a car accident in the er you can reduce that. By 50 . That in my mind is a one data point there is not a miracle a drug or cure on the horizon it is a very safe. Its been off patent for about four decades they are just beginning to use that. And that started just down the road. Some researchers there. John, how close are we to a robot run society. I think it depends on what you mean by that. If you are willing to take a broad definition of the term and i do i would think ofgs things like siri to be virtual robots and we are interacting with them if you mean that they are displacing us that is another question. Two years ago they have an interesting contest here inn the Los Angeles Area they gavea 24 teams several Million Dollars apiece some of the best people in the world competed to design machines to do eight simple tasks. Ve, the and three of them were able to perform this they took aboutum 45 minutes to an hour instead of the five minutes that human would and most of them could not even do a simple task like opening the door which led the guy who led the contest to say that if youre worried about the terminator just keep your door closed. I think that was it. You kn we can have robots in space and underwater but the ground is really hard that as a last place that they will move around freely and that brings us to self driving cars. I think we have this as a society think that self driving cars are almost here im live in San Francisco. Ive taken the same if it shows up in 2025 to drive me to dinner im buying the problem is many of these technologies are gonna make the ability for cars to drive themselves commercial. Its happening right now. Out of but taking the human completely out of the loop is going to be a big challenge because of the random things that humans step in and takee over. , Googles Google has shifted their self driving car program a couple of years ago and i didnt get enough attention they went from trying to build self driving car to these little cars that they are limited to 25 miles per hour. They did that because at a certain point in their project they took of the professional drivers out of the car and they replace them withpl employees and let them commute and they watch to see what happens. What they found was a lot of destructive behavior up into and including falling asleep. What you say when you take control. Youre your neck in a come back and do Situational Awareness when you need too. Thats really hard problem to any of the technologies are neck and salt. It is the way of the future. Lets talk about this. Abo how did he almost singlehandedly develop the big science model of research that we have today. Appens w as often happens with these big leaps in achievement it was a combination of luck necessity and intuition they came on the scene in 1930 at a moment when physics had reached a dead end or a brick wall. The old generation and a small scientist who have been the great researchers of physics up to that point. They have gotten about as far as they could get with the tools that nature have given them and they have achieved and learned a tremendous amount but they understood that to delve deeper into the mysteries of the item they were and gonna need energies that were beyond what nature could provide they need something that required human ingenuity. Rutherford was the one that stood out and set forth the challenge for the colleagues and what i would like to see is an apparatus that can produce a thousand volts and fit into a comfortably sized room and all over the world they took him up on the challenge of what they tried to do was apply a thousand volts to an apparatus and if it was glass they ended up with a laboratory filled with pieces of glass. S. It was lawrences intuition was if you wanted a thousand volts what you have to do is build it up on the particle that you are using as a projectile knot on the apparatus. He realized if you could deliver a series of jolts to approach on you could build ath and the way to do that it was to move in a spiral if you put it through. His first integration of what became that was something he called the proton merrygoround. Now, once he started with the sort of apparatus it fit in the palm of his hand and caused less than a hundred dollars hundred dollars in Raw Materials but it opens more powerful machines and more expensive machines. Decade w but before the decade was outt he was going through the foundation and saying i need a Million Dollars. It would have been the largest single some that they have ever given to a singlen scientist in its history ands they said why yes, okay we will do that. And that really set the stage for the series of continuednued generations that got bigger and bigger the latest weve seen today where lawrence is first one fit in his hand it has several in it occupies the tunnel 17 miles in circumference. Its buried under the landscape on the border off france and switzerland and caused 9 billion to build and its not quite done yet. More gen there will be more generations and questions about whether all of this money really needs to be spent. Th are there other lawrence is out there today. Where are they today . Ally wan do we really want or need them . I think we need people like that in a scientist of his generation who spoke up for the idea that delving into the laws of nature the Natural World that we live in was something very important and i think that there is a lot of skepticism today about the sort of endeavor that we didnt have in the days of lawrence in part because he was such an effective spokesperson for the principal the biggest science project that this country has tried at least in physics was the superconducting collider whichr was on the drawing board in the 1990s it was in a cost something and the neighborhood in the neighborhood of 5 billion and we actually wouldve been more powerful. But it raised a lot of questions in congress and a congress that at that point was skeptical about Government SpendingSteven Weinberg who is a physicist at the university of texas was a great supporter of thisog program tells a story of going on a weighty radio show when congress was debating whether to continue this project after it have already spent 2 billion. He was on the show with a texas congressman who is opposing it im not in favor of spending government money on anything that is and can have practical uses. He responded this can open thehe door to new knowledge of our Natural World that practical enough. He remembered every word of the congressmans reply and itit was no. And they killed the super conducting politer because it did not had effective spokesmen who could speak for science in general people like Ernest Lawrence they have all passed on by that point. Ill i will ask of this this as a general question for the panel any surprises along the way as you were writing your book in other words, you came to a topic did your finished book different from what you started out to accomplish andom i think i see john nodding his head. My book began about every two decades our nation passes through this. Of in society about we passed through this. Of anxiety about technology. I began to see ai based technologies actually working and not just displacing manual workers but displacingkilled whitecollar skilled professions and doctors. E were g i have my hair on fire and that we work thought we were going to see this dramatic discontinuity where these technologies would actuallyns transform the workforce. I have actually come full circle they wrote in 1930 that technology destroys jobs. It doesnt destroy it work. It is continued to grow despite three or four decades of a computerization nicely around the world. My hair i have my hair on fire and i was talking to and instead of making the argument that as these technologies came to china they were in the lead to social disruption. He said you dont get it, if her lucky in china the robots will come just in time. And i said excuse me . He got me to take a close look at whats going on with the demography of china. Its a demand dramatically aging society. The actual working age population is shrinking. And, and china is aging. Globally in the number of people over 80 and the world will double 2050. Right now for the first time in history the fewer people under five that over 65. I began to realize that you cant look at these things in a static sense i began to say demography trumps technology and in fact we will be lucky if the robots come just in time. Furthermore i also have come around on the issue of job destruction. I think were seen mores task destruction. Lawyers, at the time a class of technology that reads documents that can do a better job of leading documents than a human being and now widely used in the human profession. What has happened is that there has been some job displacement but not dramaticc in fact you look at what they do they do about 11 Different Things they going to court, the council their clients they read documents also but thats only one of their tasks. And it looks like the impact of e discovery has been about single digit kind singledigit kind of displacement. I really reframed how i looked at this wave of technology. It is having impact but in fact the thing you have to deal with about the United States right now is that theres more people in the United States working today that have ever worked in history in the face of this past automation timeframe that weve head. I really came out on the other side. What surprised me or what it learned that i didnt expect to learn was the role of the scientists of society and how it evolves from generation to generation intel easily it can be politicized and i think that is something we see these days and the biggest big science project i think we have before us. It is the quest to solve the dilemma of Climate Change. We are in an era today when,t sc public funding which became so important to science. , when government is withdrawn from patronage of basic science which requires government funding to move ahead, no other industry would do it. We get less of it and at the same time has really become vulnerable because it is a threat discovering what causes Climate Change, figuring out ways to combat it which requires extensive Earth Science that requires satellites to help us understand what is happening on the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere. I think what we see is an attack on Climate Change science because its such a threat in going back to what we said a few minutes ago, because we dont have enough stature and authority to speak up for it, the salk science is under attack and i think thats a real threat. I basically almost every preconception i had about postTraumatic Stress disorder was basically overturned. I understood it for very particular popculture frame of reference and i sort of expected that there would be this long clear lineage reaching back into antiquity where you could clearly see where ptsd could bec found in world war i and world war ii, the korean war and the trojan war etc. And what i found is in this really shocked me and they didnt understand this idea which is pretty obvious to most working psychiatrists. The symptoms of ptsd are culturally determined and they have evolved over time. Just to give you one quick example the flashback which is considered a cardinal symptom of ptsd, the flashback, that was something that was basically a product of the age of film and the recent flashbacks were considered such an important symptom was that there was a researcher from you see San Francisco on the panel that created a ptsd diagnosis diagnosis and a group of british researchers went back and looked and tried to examine the reports of soldiers prior to the age of film and found that war veterans of the British Empire and American Civil War veterans for example for far more likely to report that they are being visited by ghosts, spirits and demons and phantoms and the ghosts of dead relatives so it is this thing that is appalled. I think it speaks to one of the three lines in this panel, how Technology Changes and one of the things that shocked the hell out of me was that the flashbacks, the thing that we take to be the central kind of thing that memory can do to us this intrusive thing that happens to us, this is basically because how much film and tv and cinema and video has simple traded our brains. It infiltrates the way we think in the way we conceive of ourselves and the way we organize our consciousness. That is i think one interesting thing in talking about robots and technology is that ptsd, i a said earlier it was a product of the 1970s. As we do find ptsd today its very much a product of film. Some of you out there might bef saying, well that because ptsd is not real are you telling me that my symptoms are real or that somehow i am being conned into this thing because of films and thats not what im arguing. Im just saying that the symptoms of ptsd even though they even though they have they have appalled over time are very very real and i think its one of the Difficult Conversations we are having about ptsd and really all Mental Health conditions and theres a strong push to locate conditions, locate symptoms and cures and the hard biology of it and biology the neuroscience of it is one peak and you really want to understand what someone is going through, you have to understand the context and you have to understand the place, their family their life story if they are veteran particularly if they come from a vegan family and the kind of relationship they have with their father. All of these things informed this new ecosystem where someone may be struggling postwar and biology is a very important part of it. Its related to the politics ofa science. Ptsd often talked about amongte veterans is being a sign of weakness, like if you are messed up you are going to see a shrink , the head shrink or the wizard as they call them in some some and if you can located and said theres a chemical imbalance in my brain it takes a lot of stigma off so thats oned of the motivations behind this drive towards for grounding the neuroScience Behind ptsd. Im not saying they shouldnt do that but its interesting, one of the importunate important things about the modern American University as was referred to be earlier is there is this desire for hard science and to make stuff practical you can get a job with. , there the idea that english and literature departments might have something specifically tangible and productive to add to the scientific conversation is very rarely considered but in fact the concerns of the narrative and how a person assembles a narrative and how we tell stories all the way through ancient myth to the modern fragmented antinovelist a slaughterhouse five or timim obrien thinks they carry in the way we look at film structure has evolved back and tell us a lot of consciousness. This is one of the things that i advocate in the book is thinking about practical ways that literature and storytelling and the stories we tell ourselves and the story our culture tells ourselves about who veterans are , how rape survivor should be treated by society, all thes different ways that trauma center. Higher culture which is a form of storytelling. That all feeds into how a veteran or a trauma survivor their recovery or reintegration period happens. , their recoveryr reintegration period happens. Almost everything i thought was completely overturned. Ive been trying to think inadvertently created narrative that hides other thing so it took me a while because the trauma narrative is soeate a repetitive and medically focus. These seem to focus on the same things and theres not enoughep ripping the bandaid off to use the ferry and kind of look a little bit deeper. Im going to stop talking. Com any surprises along your journey writing the book . I think its not the one that most people would expect. I went into writing this book probably taking stories from white media and movies have told me about. The work that i do. Do when i went into writing this my word was animals that used to be like things like mammoths and mastodons and to see what we can learn on their dna about how they responded. , look at the genetics of animals that used to be alive,alive, things like mammoths and mastodons. See what we can learn from their dna about how they responded to past periods of Climate Change that we could then applied to problems werewe are facing in the present day. Journalists would call the only thing that they would want to know was whether this meant we could clone or not. And i was so frustrated by this question and really just wanted to explain why it was impossible. But as i wrote the book and go through thinking about the technology and how far we have, scientists and how absolutely far we would have to go to do this it dawned on me gradually that there were parts of this that were incredibly relevant and potentially useful for modernday conservation problems. One of the projects based out of San Francisco, they are focusing on the population, black hooded ferrets, annoying things. We tried to kill them and succeeded in doing that and then somebody discovered there was a population of them left. They want to keep them around. Around. And theres a problem though, there are very many. Genetically there is almost no diversity among them. The moment that they are released they get sick and die and they dont have any sort of genetic diversity. However, there are black hooded ferrets that are in different collections, what is called the frozen zoo where you guys been collecting bits and pieces of all sorts of species are still alive, many of which are now no longer still live, but there are frozen tissue samples and you can use that dna. We can sequence the genomes i used to be alive that have more diversity and isolate the parts that provide a fighting chance against different diseases and copy and paste that to the black hooded ferrets we still have thereby providing them an actual way to survive. This survive. This is crazy sciencefiction technology that we are close to being able to do. And i can see now how this could be a new and important tool and what should be a growinga growing toolbox, something we can use to fight contemporary extinction. We are going to leave if you have questions for the authors, i ask you now to lineup. We have two microphones here. While we are doing a transition our final question i would like to ask the panel in general. About the role of science journalism in the future as well as scientists authors and telling the story. Isis that changing as well as the science . It is certainly becoming more important. Especially science journalists to understand better the topics they are writing about in making sure that the facts are clear, the implication of science is clear and we really are talking about genuine science rather than pseudoscience. We have seen fairly recently writing about the anti vaccine movement, the notion that the mmr vaccine is linked to autism. Very difficult topic for journalists to deal with because the mandate that we be protective really comes apart when youre dealing with the theory that is essentially a hoax, how do you do that in make that clear that sometimes there are not two sides to a scientific story. And that to promote the other side is actually to create a danger to public health. So i think as scientific journalists we all have a greater task than we used to so, Mainstream Media has slowly begun to vanish off the landscape. This new kind of media has begun to emerge. There is plenty of science writing out there. What i think is changing, there is a tremendous amount of technology and Popular Science writing, but it is done in this framework. The standards no longer pertain. And much of it is click paste. It is done through the prism of popularization, which popularization, which can be good or bad. What i am afraid of is their people around here and do the kind of stuff that michael is donehas done historically. I dont know how to bring them back. Im not at all worried about journalism, but im worried about journalistic standards. The scientist another journalist,journalist, increasingly important to have journalists who are trained in science and able to interpret the various things coming out of different labs. Scientists are not particularly good at being able to express clearly what they have done so in this layer of educated and well versed science journalists is absolutely critical to doing what has been pointed out, communicating with the people who make funding decisions. When he people who are able to effectively translate science into what basic science can provide in the present day or has application so the politicians and stakeholders can be as impressed as they should be. Take the 1st question. A question for john. Why is technology not taken us to a shorter workday . It is a wonderful question. So, what we do, it is not just technology. I think it is more by culture than technology. For all kinds of nontechnological reasons like income inequality and other kinds of structural issues we are seeing this thing called the geek economy right now. Thats what i find fascinating is that people are either working mall to pull jobs or their moving from job to job as the standard model and you know there have been innovations work sample software, thats one of the tools that corporations use to allow you to have your workers work only 29 hours a week and i cant tell you how many lyft rides ive gotten were the drivers said they like lyft is gazette lets them go to their the job easily because they have control and control is a positive thing and the fact fact that they are working two jobs. Technology you cant keep in isolation. Other i would underscore that is a Business Writer as well as the science and Technology Writer. Its not an artifact of technology. Some artifact of politics into a certain extent of economics. It was instilled in our society by Franklin Roosevelt which also put an end to child labor andev started basically the idea of the weekend. I think if employers had their way, workers would work 24 hours a day and in some places they do because Technology Allows that to happen rather than cutting hours. They would expand hours into the reach of the employer over the employee. Its political pushback to have that happen. A question on the right. First i would like to thank mr. Hiltzik. I wouldnt typically choose to read the business section that i have for years and years now. My question is actually for mr. Morris and its about the cortisol levels found in subsequent generations of traumatized populations and i wonder if there is a danger that as more data is collected and the behaviors from the differentiated cortisol levels, politically it might be used as a rationale for fear of intake of traumatized Large Population like refugees from middle east or Central America or other hotspots. Thats a tricky question. Im not sure if i will be able to give you a satisfactory answer for that. To collect these cortisol samples its usually done in isolation and done after a particular stimulus is shown to a patient and most of what we now relates to, in the studies she would show disturbing slide imagery to subjects and then collect serum samples and measure the cortisol based on that. Sample so i think it would be, this is one of the areas where its difficult to know where the science will take us because we know a little bit about how cortisol is this regulated in trauma survivors but the ability for the government to comprehensively samplent populations of people and get some sort of sense of their level of trauma decision, not sure if we are going to reachh that point anytime soon because you have to, i mean taking a serum sample from a random syrian refugee, im not sure how you would interpret that data exactly because you are getting, you dont know what that person and level is listen you dont know what the stress level of that person at the time it is and its very difficult to take a sample like that and exploited. I share what i believe its her dystopian concern about how what happens when we learn about trauma and what happened in one of the questions i grappled with in the book is if some other drug can radically reduce the incidence of ptsd what happens to work wexler there some sort of memory wiped technology that will make endless wars possible because you will be able to wipe those memories . Theres a substantial body of research from humanities and Legal Community looking into the possible legal ramifications ofo a murder using propranolol toal diminish the strength of their dramatic memories of killing a person. What would be the possible Science Fiction question . I cant think of a single thing that could go wrong with that. [laughter] the Jurassic Park scene and from my spam point your question is a very good one and actually i dont think im qualified toha answer it satisfactorily but i u think that work was done by rachel roth who do that with some of the dust work being done on ptsd and that was done after 9 11 and she is just now, we are just now getting a greater sense of what that might mean. Cortisol is a very common stress hormone that changes you all depending on your stress level will be elevated. Its difficult to know where that research will lead but its interesting because her research was acceptable to could she asked important questions to Holocaust Survivors respond differently to dramatic images board for city and she found that they did. The idea of descendents of trauma having someone of a different response. Ha thank you very much. Back on the topic of science and journalism i was wondering if the journalist did speak to you and at what point did your story become more than the story at what point did it become a book and something you wanted to delve into deeper . In my case it started with the book. To a certain extent the roots of it were science journalism because i was writing a lotn about big science in terms ofxth business phenomenon and we have science all around us including the campus and all around california. I was writing about that and when you write about capital offense you dont go very fari before you start seeing the name of lawrence come up because his work really was the foundationss of it all but i think you knowwo for me the role of journalism and my book is that i implied the techniques that i used as a journalist to tell the story, looking for incidents and episodes and characters who i could bring to life that i could use to tell the story essentially through their own eyes but a very important technique in journalism and something i did to write the book. Im a Technology Writer and i write about Computer Science and intelligence and robotics which are engineering disciplines. Logi they came to my subject to guess i was away from another subject. Im a Computer Security writer at the New York Times for many years. We have been writing about Computer Security for a long time and i got more and more depressed. Ec it kept getting worse and worse and after anonymous i said if i had to write about another testosterone with an attitudd i was going to have an aneurysm and id have to find something new to do. Robotics is actually a lot of fun. I first started as a war correspondent and i enlisted in the marine corps to fairly early aging came and came from a military family but for me it was issa personal story. I taught nonfiction writing in the past. Theres this very strong drive in publishing to put the first person into the story and include your personal story and i think that is done to the peril of the story because a lot of times you see people andcommh appropriately and not skillfully incorporate their own personal experiences into the story. To me thats a bit like i have seen it done very well and in many of the books that have influenced our culture greatly in the last 10 years, its done really interestingly but sometimes its funny because you will hear and i think this is more you know the real journalists of this panel can remark on that. There is this increased desire to make it a firstperson thing thats more than emotional so the readers can get emotional view of it. Can do in terms of the way the genres have been pushed in believe it or not in my experience in Book Publishing to include firstperson experience and being a reporter is asked to report on himself. To me its an interestinggexperi problem for the risks andnd potential payoffs. David on poster medics dressed as order is wrote to avoid the term moral injury has been popular for the last year or two and im wondering if you addressed that in your book or how you feel about it. I know one of the articles i read recently was talking about Drone Operators who arent actually not that they have severe moral injury which incapacitates them and i just wondered if you could address that. Moral injury i am a big proponent of that and it incorporates a lot of what i mentioned where there has been kind of in scientist nation ofop ptsd and the softer philosophical part. My argument that the original ptsd diagnosis included what a reasonable definition was in the moral injury component was more or less excised by hard scientist he found it inconvenient and squishy and difficult to quantify so was more shoved aside and the strong push from 198025 or six years ago was towards the behavioral science for lack of a better term to focus on ptsd which i think was a big mistake to what youre seeing now with the moral injury thing is people are talking about that a lot so im very supportive of that but the small historical twists. That concludes the time that we have for the session. Im sorry we couldnt get to all of your questions. [applause] i wish to thank the l. A. Times best books for organizing the panel. Thank you to the audience for your patience, your questions and thank you beth shapiro, john markoff, Michael Hiltzik and lynn friedmann. Enjoy the rest of the festival. [applause] we have fun for a couple of reasons. To be have cspan here. [applause] there is no better in the metro Washington Area through the viewers of cspan i think are in this room right now. We love you and the regular viewers of course that we welcome everyone from cspan but there are couple of other things that we do know russell are going to to hear. For somebody to tell you about the difference between history and destiny and history is what happened and this is true. I cant believe this is happening but my father may he rest in peace was struck by lightning. His father, my grandfather, im