:00:00. > :00:19.Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen Sackur. The size and capacity of the
:00:20. > :00:22.human brain distinguishes us from all other forms of life on Earth.
:00:23. > :00:25.But how well do we really understand the functioning of our brains? My
:00:26. > :00:28.guest today, Baroness Susan Greenfield, carved out a reputation
:00:29. > :00:36.as a leader in the study of degenerative brain diseases. Of late
:00:37. > :00:39.though, she's focused her attention on the impact of 21st`century
:00:40. > :00:42.digital technologies on brain development. She believes our screen
:00:43. > :00:43.habits could be doing us damage ` but is her warning based on sound
:00:44. > :01:18.science? Baroness Greenfield, Susan
:01:19. > :01:21.Greenfield, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You have spent most of
:01:22. > :01:24.your professional life studying the brain. My entire professional life.
:01:25. > :01:28.You're a neuroscientist. Here is an odd first question. How much to you
:01:29. > :01:33.think we do not know about our brains? OK. When I was at school and
:01:34. > :01:49.I did Greek ` I'm sure you have heard about the Hydra, where you cut
:01:50. > :01:52.off one head and seven appear. It is a little like that. Where the more
:01:53. > :01:58.you know, the more you know you don't know. So the more you learn
:01:59. > :02:00.about the brain, the more you realise how exciting and puzzling
:02:01. > :02:03.and frustrating it is. So if you think about other element of
:02:04. > :02:06.scientific discovery, and work on the human body, think about the
:02:07. > :02:09.knowledge we now have of other organs, of the heart for example.
:02:10. > :02:13.The brain is completely different, isn't it? It is not different in
:02:14. > :02:15.that it is made of cells and the same stuff, but that is the exact
:02:16. > :02:19.thing. Because this same stuff somehow gives you a subjectivity. It
:02:20. > :02:22.gives you an inner world that no`one else can hack into. However much you
:02:23. > :02:31.love someone, or how articulate you are, you will never see the world as
:02:32. > :02:34.they see it, or vice`versa. And it is this subjectivity, this seeing of
:02:35. > :02:38.the world. This is consciousness, the notion of the mind. Indeed ` we
:02:39. > :02:40.can unpack those two terms, because they are different. Although one
:02:41. > :02:43.informs and influences the other, they can be differentiated. But
:02:44. > :02:46.suffice to say it is this subjectivity that makes the brain so
:02:47. > :02:50.tantalising, so hard. For example, scientists know how Prozac works,
:02:51. > :02:52.the well`known antidepressant. We know it increases the availability
:02:53. > :02:56.of a certain chemical messenger. But if you say to me, then why is it
:02:57. > :02:59.that increasing the availability of this chemical messenger translates
:03:00. > :03:01.into a feeling of well`being? So while the heart of the lungs are
:03:02. > :03:04.mechanical, and remain mechanical, and very complex and intricate
:03:05. > :03:07.though they may be, they are just objective, physically tangible
:03:08. > :03:23.things, and you just work out all the machinations of them. The reason
:03:24. > :03:26.I like it is that you can look under your fingernail, but you still don't
:03:27. > :03:29.quite understand how to frame that complete gap between the objective
:03:30. > :03:31.and subjective. And because you have spent a lot of your scientific life
:03:32. > :03:36.looking at the degenerative effects that can harm the brain, would you
:03:37. > :03:44.say that you now see the brain as a fundamentally very fragile, very
:03:45. > :03:52.vulnerable organ? It is certainly vulnerable, but at the same time it
:03:53. > :03:56.has huge potential. So it is both at once. Its strength is its weakness,
:03:57. > :03:59.if you like, in that because it is adaptable to the environment,
:04:00. > :04:02.because it is changing all the time, it means on the one hand, it can
:04:03. > :04:05.really flourish and develop unique connections between brain cells.
:04:06. > :04:08.That makes you the person you are ` even if you are a clone or an
:04:09. > :04:23.identical twin, your genes are the same but your brain is not. And that
:04:24. > :04:26.is what makes it so exciting. But before we go further we should
:04:27. > :04:28.differentiate the loss of mind, and dementia, from consciousness.
:04:29. > :04:32.Because people often confuse the two, and say they are going to lose
:04:33. > :04:35.their mind, or blow their mind. You will not lose your consciousness.
:04:36. > :04:41.And when you do lose your consciousness and go to bed, you
:04:42. > :04:45.don't say I'm going to lose my mind. So try as you can, as simply as
:04:46. > :04:48.possible, to explain to me, given that so much of your work has been
:04:49. > :04:51.connected to dementia and Alzheimer's, explain to me what is
:04:52. > :04:54.going on in the brain when somebody gets Alzheimer's? OK, so this is the
:04:55. > :05:05.fastest ever neuroscience course in the world. It will need to be very
:05:06. > :05:09.quick, as we have a lot to talk about. OK, so when you were born,
:05:10. > :05:15.you were born with a full condiment of brain cells. But what
:05:16. > :05:18.distinguishes the human from, for example, a goldfish, who don't have
:05:19. > :05:21.great personalities, is that as you are born, or when you are born, it
:05:22. > :05:24.is the connections between brain cells that distinguish and
:05:25. > :05:33.characterise the growth of the brain after birth. Why is that interesting
:05:34. > :05:36.or important? It is interesting or important because as you are having
:05:37. > :05:38.experiences, what will happen is different connections will
:05:39. > :05:41.strengthen or weaken or flourish or atrophy according to your particular
:05:42. > :05:45.experience. So an example I like to give is your mother, who initially
:05:46. > :05:47.when you are born, in the words of the great William James, into a
:05:48. > :05:50.booming, buzzing confusion, you evaluate the world in sensory terms
:05:51. > :05:54.` how sweet, how bright, how loud. As these connections form around the
:05:55. > :05:56.pattern of your mother's face, it is slowly becomes a face, and gradually
:05:57. > :05:59.will be differentiated from other faces. So this face, mum's face,
:06:00. > :06:02.will mean something that other faces, other ladies, don't mean. So
:06:03. > :06:05.you start to personalise your brain through these connections, and go
:06:06. > :06:08.from a purely sensory take on the world to what we call cognitive,
:06:09. > :06:12.from the Latin cogito, where you have a unique perspective. So if you
:06:13. > :06:15.saw my mother's face, you would have a different take on it than when I
:06:16. > :06:21.see it. Another example is a wedding ring. The gold, shiny, regular thing
:06:22. > :06:24.` but as you grow you learn it mean something other rings don't. Then
:06:25. > :06:27.you might have your own, bringing either happiness or bitterness. And
:06:28. > :06:30.over time, these connections expand, and the brain becomes ever more
:06:31. > :06:33.sophisticated, more personalised. So my question was and remains, what
:06:34. > :06:40.happens to a brain when Alzheimer's kicks in? You have now answered it
:06:41. > :06:42.yourself. If we say it is the connections in the brain that
:06:43. > :06:45.personalise it and give it meaning, that liberate you from your senses,
:06:46. > :06:49.so that you now have a highly individual view of the world, and
:06:50. > :06:51.take on the world, where things mean something beyond their physical
:06:52. > :07:01.properties, imagine if those connections are slowly dismantled.
:07:02. > :07:05.You're recapitulating childhood, you will go back to infancy. You will go
:07:06. > :07:08.back to a world of booming, buzzing, confusion. You will be conscious and
:07:09. > :07:11.enjoy ice cream and enjoy people smiling at you, like small children
:07:12. > :07:15.do. And that is where Alzheimer's takes those who suffer from it.
:07:16. > :07:18.Sadly, yes. That is why are you then take the world literally at face
:07:19. > :07:21.value, in the way an infant will do. You now have far fewer connections
:07:22. > :07:30.that give you the checks and balances. If I came in now dressed
:07:31. > :07:33.up as, for example, a ghost, you would probably work out it is just
:07:34. > :07:37.some stupid brain scientist dressed up as a ghost. But a small child
:07:38. > :07:40.would be very frightened by that, as would a dementia patient. They don't
:07:41. > :07:43.have the conceptual framework, the connections, anymore, that liberate
:07:44. > :07:44.you from the present moment. And I am very interested in how we live
:07:45. > :07:47.our lives dominated by senses our lives dominated by senses
:07:48. > :07:51.sometimes, when we choose to lose our mind, or blow our minds, and
:07:52. > :07:54.other times when we can put the senses on hold and actually have a
:07:55. > :08:06.very strongly cognitive take on the world. Now a lot of people watching
:08:07. > :08:08.this around the world will be aware that the numbers of people suffering
:08:09. > :08:11.from dementia, from Alzheimer's, and related diseases of the brain, is
:08:12. > :08:14.expanding massively ` partly because of the ageing demographic. And it is
:08:15. > :08:18.the cruellest. Because with heart disease or cancer you are still the
:08:19. > :08:21.person you were. So what people will want to know, including the two
:08:22. > :08:25.million in the UK who are believed to be expected to suffer from this
:08:26. > :08:28.by 2050 ` huge numbers ` where is the hope of a cure? It is worse than
:08:29. > :08:31.that, because for everyone who is sick, how many people love you? How
:08:32. > :08:43.many people care about you? Complicated question. So for those
:08:44. > :08:45.two million people, it means 20 million people who are giving up
:08:46. > :08:48.their lives, their jobs, their lives are devastated, they're having
:08:49. > :08:51.personal tragedies. It is not just the patients, it is the carers. A
:08:52. > :08:55.very important point. So what we want to know is, after all the work,
:08:56. > :08:59.and the time and effort you have invested in this study of the brain,
:09:00. > :09:03.how close are we to a cure, to an effective treatment, and then a
:09:04. > :09:06.cure? What I have to say it first is ` I'm sure you are aware of this,
:09:07. > :09:10.that any drug, even when there has been proof of concept, it takes
:09:11. > :09:20.about ten to 15 years before it comes on. We have heard about this
:09:21. > :09:23.in regard to the Ebola vaccine. So leaving that to one side, the
:09:24. > :09:26.mandatory ten years before, however brilliant a concept or effective
:09:27. > :09:30.drug in a monkey, it will still take ten years. So leave that to one
:09:31. > :09:49.side. My own view is it is within a reasonable time, but not tomorrow.
:09:50. > :09:53.And the reason I say that is because for the last 15 years there has not
:09:54. > :09:55.been a new drug for Alzheimer's. Given all the muscle of the
:09:56. > :09:58.pharmaceutical industry, you would expect with a clearly defined
:09:59. > :10:00.target, and an agreed mechanism, then people would have sold
:10:01. > :10:03.something by now. Is that because they are actually not targeting
:10:04. > :10:06.Alzheimer's with the money, and resources, and expertise they are
:10:07. > :10:08.applying to things like cancer? Obviously because people are still
:10:09. > :10:11.embarrassed by mental disorders, embarrassed by dementia, it may be
:10:12. > :10:14.that until very recently, given the wonderful work of people like Terry
:10:15. > :10:17.Pratchett who actually comes out and talks about it. He made the point, I
:10:18. > :10:21.think figures for 2010, the latest I could find, showed that money in the
:10:22. > :10:24.UK put into Alzheimer's research, dementia, etc ` ?50 million. And
:10:25. > :10:26.into cancer and related subjects, ?590 million. Yes, and another
:10:27. > :10:29.figure I was reading recently about ongoing projects and clinical
:10:30. > :10:31.trials, is very small compared to what is going on with cancer. It is
:10:32. > :10:34.not just money, and people often not just money, and people often
:10:35. > :10:37.hear politicians say they are going to pump more money in. Of course we
:10:38. > :10:40.need money. But just throwing money at something, as the pharmaceutical
:10:41. > :10:44.industry has done for ten or 15 years, patently isn't... My own
:10:45. > :10:47.view, and this is where I am quite radical, I am left of field and I do
:10:48. > :10:50.a different approach to other people, is that the scientific
:10:51. > :11:03.community is a very conservative community actually, with a lowercase
:11:04. > :11:06.c. Most public`sector grants are done by reviews and committees, and
:11:07. > :11:15.the tendency of the committee is sometimes to be risk`averse. You
:11:16. > :11:18.want to show how sound you are to your colleagues, and screen out the
:11:19. > :11:22.frankly loony or crazy things that might waste taxpayers' money. The
:11:23. > :11:25.price you pay for that is there might be some new idea, something
:11:26. > :11:35.novel or exciting, that also is getting that treatment. Yes, but we
:11:36. > :11:38.are going to make a turn in a minute in your career, and talk about other
:11:39. > :11:42.environmental impact you see today on the brain, which you are very
:11:43. > :11:45.worried about. But you have raised a very important point, which is that
:11:46. > :11:48.you have suggested to me that the very foundation of scientific
:11:49. > :11:50.research, that is peer review, the notion that you go out, do research,
:11:51. > :11:53.gather evidence, draw some conclusions, and then present that
:11:54. > :11:57.your peers, who can criticise it, and dig away at it as much they want
:11:58. > :12:01.` are you suggesting that is not the best way of looking at the brain?
:12:02. > :12:03.No, because immediately you will say what is the alternative? And clearly
:12:04. > :12:07.you need some kind of expert appraisal for what you are doing. I
:12:08. > :12:09.think the issue of money does constrain things, and people's
:12:10. > :12:13.careers, and certainly in the public sector it is a problem that people
:12:14. > :12:16.can be overly cautious. What I would like to see is more diversity, so
:12:17. > :12:19.let 1,000 flowers bloom. I'm not saying I have the right approach,
:12:20. > :12:23.but let's say I did, or someone else has, it will be very sad that was
:12:24. > :12:32.throttled at birth simply because it didn't adhere to the current dogma.
:12:33. > :12:42.Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn? The Structure of Science
:12:43. > :12:46.Revolutions? He introduced the notion of paradigm`shift. He said in
:12:47. > :12:49.science, what happens is people have a certain paradigm or fashion, and
:12:50. > :12:52.then some anomalies or things that don't quite make sense, and it is
:12:53. > :13:01.only after a while when you have too many anomalies to shove under the
:13:02. > :13:04.carpet that there is a revolution. Paradigms shift, and I think that is
:13:05. > :13:06.what we need for neural degeneration. I want to turn to
:13:07. > :13:10.something which has preoccupied you of late, which isn't so much about
:13:11. > :13:16.the degeneration that we think of in Alzheimer's, but a different form of
:13:17. > :13:20.damage done to the brain. You say the damage potentially done to the
:13:21. > :13:23.brain by, if I can put it this way, digital lifestyles ` by the fact
:13:24. > :13:26.that more and more of us, particularly young people, live so
:13:27. > :13:28.much of their lives through 2`dimensional screens, either using
:13:29. > :13:31.social networks on their computers of mobile phones, or gaming, using
:13:32. > :13:34.video games. You say that there is evidence, you say, that this is
:13:35. > :13:37.having a damaging effect on the brain.
:13:38. > :13:44.Can we unpack that slightly? The word damaging is a strong one and
:13:45. > :13:48.it's a value judgement. Although there is evidence of damage to the
:13:49. > :13:54.brain, I don't want to give the impression this is like smoking or
:13:55. > :13:58.cancer. In one of the most high profile articles you've doone on
:13:59. > :14:01.this, and it's notable you've done a lot of this through the press, you
:14:02. > :14:12.used the word "threat" in The Daily Mail in 2008. You called it screen
:14:13. > :14:15.`based internet, computer`based lifestyle a threat. There is a
:14:16. > :14:19.difference between a threat and damage. I try to be cautious, though
:14:20. > :14:21.people take me to task for using the subjunctive rather than the
:14:22. > :14:24.indicative, so I can't really win. In terms of evidence, anyone can
:14:25. > :14:28.look at my website, it has been up there for a year, there is 500
:14:29. > :14:33.peer`reviewed papers in support of the possible problematic effects.
:14:34. > :14:41.How much of the research has been done by you and teams commissioned
:14:42. > :14:44.by you? That is irrelevant. If it is in a peer`reviewed journal it is
:14:45. > :14:48.irrelevant who's done it, it doesn't make it any less valid if I haven't
:14:49. > :14:51.done it. Why were you not motivated to do some research yourself? I
:14:52. > :14:54.have. The whole range, because this is such a big subject. It spans from
:14:55. > :14:59.molecular biology to psychiatry. I am a neuroscientist so I do what I
:15:00. > :15:07.do. It has been said to me before so I am used to it as a comeback. Lots
:15:08. > :15:10.of scientists have said to you, where is your evidence? Who are
:15:11. > :15:15.they? That's different. You are confusing things between people
:15:16. > :15:17.saying where is your evidence... Evidence that you yourself have
:15:18. > :15:23.discovered. I don't think scientists would say that. I would like to know
:15:24. > :15:26.who they are. Simply because... We'll go through a few. Ben Goldacre
:15:27. > :15:29.for example... He isn't a scientist, he's a journalist. He is a
:15:30. > :15:32.scientist. He is a trained scientist, but he's also a
:15:33. > :15:35.journalist and he blogs on science. Doesn't mean he isn't a scientist.
:15:36. > :15:37.Depends how you define scientist. How many peer`reviewed journals...
:15:38. > :15:40.He is a trained scientist. He said, "why can't she publish her claims in
:15:41. > :15:43.a peer`reviewed academic paper with the accompanying evidence that can
:15:44. > :15:48.then be properly assessed?" Let's unpack that. On the whole, a
:15:49. > :15:53.scientist would go by the paper, they wouldn't give a stuff, frankly,
:15:54. > :15:57.who actually did it. It doesn't make it more or less valid. If I have
:15:58. > :16:00.cited it and it's been through... Our audience won't know much about
:16:01. > :16:10.these names, but there's Dean Burnett at Cardiff University, Peter
:16:11. > :16:12.Etchells at Bath Spa. They both work in neuroscience. Etchells is a
:16:13. > :16:16.biological psychologist. What do they say? "She has the influence and
:16:17. > :16:19.ability to set up a study into her theories on the impact of gaming and
:16:20. > :16:22.social media and then publish her findings, so why doesn't she do it?"
:16:23. > :16:24.In my area of expertise I have published the effects of
:16:25. > :16:27.environmental enrichment on the brain. And extensively on dopamine,
:16:28. > :16:29.something that features a lot. I have published on neuroscience and
:16:30. > :16:32.education. Within my expertise, given I can't go from molecular
:16:33. > :16:35.biology to psychiatry through the etymology, within my expertise I
:16:36. > :16:38.have published. I would challenge him and I am flattered he thinks I
:16:39. > :16:41.have the expert, money and resources and influence to set up a
:16:42. > :16:44.centralised study. You are pretty influential, you are a director of
:16:45. > :17:00.the Royal Institution and one of Britain's leading scientists. It is
:17:01. > :17:05.so important to so many people. You've taken it in so many different
:17:06. > :17:08.directions. It appears to many people, as you have pointed out for
:17:09. > :17:11.example, that there is a rise in rate of diagnosis of autism
:17:12. > :17:25.alongside, it seems, the widespread use of the internet and social
:17:26. > :17:28.media. You appear to many people to have drawn a correlation and causal
:17:29. > :17:30.link between them. That upsets many scientists. They say there's no
:17:31. > :17:33.causation. We are conflating things. Conflating things about how much I
:17:34. > :17:38.have done and the validity of the claim, irrespective of whether I
:17:39. > :17:41.have done it. Let me clear it up. I cannot do molecular biology through
:17:42. > :17:48.to psychiatry and I don't have infinite resources. Someone watching
:17:49. > :17:54.wants to give me money, fine. You are honest about your expertise but
:17:55. > :17:56.you are also making big claims. The Daily Mail, scientists said she
:17:57. > :18:03.communicates her ideas through the press rather than through journals
:18:04. > :18:06.and peer reviews. You say things like... I have published 200
:18:07. > :18:09.peer`reviewed papers. I understand that, but much on the degenerative
:18:10. > :18:12.effect of Alzheimer's. Also on dopamine and environmental
:18:13. > :18:22.enrichment. The claims are so sweeping. Back to The Daily Mail.
:18:23. > :18:24.You say, "A growing number of adults inhabit a world producing changes in
:18:25. > :18:26.behaviour, attention spans shortening, communication skills
:18:27. > :18:31.reduced, reduction in abstract thinking, digital technology is
:18:32. > :18:37.rewiring our brain". These are huge claims. Look at my website or buy
:18:38. > :18:47.the book and you will see it is based on five or 600 papers. Nothing
:18:48. > :18:50.in science is definitive. I stand by those claims. If they are sweeping,
:18:51. > :18:53.shouldn't we be thinking about that rather than chopping me off at the
:18:54. > :18:57.knees and saying it isn't right. Shouldn't we be looking at those
:18:58. > :19:03.things? Don't you owe it to the next generation? Do we not have to be
:19:04. > :19:07.careful to be absolutely responsible in the ideas that we spread. Not so
:19:08. > :19:09.long ago we saw a scientist not long ago who was convinced, publishing
:19:10. > :19:14.papers suggesting the link between autism and vaccinations. It has been
:19:15. > :19:16.debunked. The national autism Society and others accuse you of
:19:17. > :19:25.scaremongering in your linkage between autism and this use of
:19:26. > :19:28.digital technology. Have to be careful, because what I say is
:19:29. > :19:31.Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which isn't the same as autism. I don't
:19:32. > :19:46.have all of the references at my fingertips but there are authorities
:19:47. > :19:48.that said... One paper I remember, someone with autistic spectrum
:19:49. > :19:59.disorder, if they are shown a table and a face, their EG will be similar
:20:00. > :20:02.to both presentations. Someone without autistic spectrum Disorder,
:20:03. > :20:05.if you show them a table and a face, the response would be much more
:20:06. > :20:08.exaggerated. The face being more important than tables. People who
:20:09. > :20:10.are heavy internet users have the same response to someone with
:20:11. > :20:25.autistic Spectrum disorder. That's one example. Are you saying that any
:20:26. > :20:29.of us, whether diagnosed autistic or not, any of us with human brains, if
:20:30. > :20:32.we spend a lot of time on screens, from video games to social
:20:33. > :20:35.networking, we run the risk of displaying autistic like behaviours?
:20:36. > :20:42.Some people say that. Do you think that? Yes, and I will tell you why.
:20:43. > :20:46.When you talk to someone like we are talking now, looking at each other
:20:47. > :20:47.in the eye, if you are averting your eyes and folding your arms, I
:20:48. > :20:53.wouldn't feel a report. are being too sweeping, generalising
:20:54. > :21:05.way too much. Let me finish. using interpersonal communication
:21:06. > :21:08.skills, processing what we say and judging from voice tone and body
:21:09. > :21:11.language what the person is feeling. Those cues are unavailable on
:21:12. > :21:13.screen. People with Autistic Spectrum Disorders have a problem
:21:14. > :21:18.anyway understanding how other people are feeling and thinking.
:21:19. > :21:24.you are constantly rehearsing a form of communication where you don't
:21:25. > :21:27.practice eye contact, body language, voice tone interpretation it seems
:21:28. > :21:31.not unreasonable to say you won't be so good at those things. That is not
:21:32. > :21:38.a sweeping generalisation. How is it sweeping? It seems a reasonable
:21:39. > :21:45.suggestion. You have turned this into a sweeping idea, it you call it
:21:46. > :21:47.mind change. You say all of this digital technology introduces mind
:21:48. > :21:50.change, which you say is important and as far`reaching as climate
:21:51. > :21:55.change, but happening inside of all our individual heads. The thing
:21:56. > :21:57.about climate change is, once it happens, there are negative
:21:58. > :22:04.feedbacks which many believe makes it irreversible. The difference is
:22:05. > :22:11.that this isn't irreversible because your theory is that the brain is
:22:12. > :22:20.incredibly plastic. Absolutely. Like all analogies, they only go so far.
:22:21. > :22:28.There are four analogies. It is global, firstly. Second, it is
:22:29. > :22:35.unprecedented. Third, as you are displaying admirably, it is
:22:36. > :22:39.controversial. Fourth, multifaceted. No such thing as whether or not
:22:40. > :22:44.climate change is good or bad, the same as mind change, are computers
:22:45. > :22:46.good or bad? You have to break it down into social interaction and
:22:47. > :22:51.empathy and social networking, video gaming and attention. Search engines
:22:52. > :22:59.and information versus knowledge. It is a multifaceted issue. Another
:23:00. > :23:07.reason why you can't do the single smoking gun experiment. Because of
:23:08. > :23:09.those four parallels, I would strongly suggest mind change is
:23:10. > :23:13.comparable with climate change. The difference, something I say at the
:23:14. > :23:16.end of my book, I am demonised as a luddite pessimist, I say that no,
:23:17. > :23:18.surely because the brain is adaptable, this is fantastic,
:23:19. > :23:21.because it gives us the chance, unlike climate change, which is
:23:22. > :23:24.putting the brakes on and doing damage limitation, this doesn't have
:23:25. > :23:26.to be... Surely we can harness the technology to deliver the most
:23:27. > :23:29.marvellous environment. Briefly, what do we have to do to change our
:23:30. > :23:32.relationship with the computer and digital age to make sure that we
:23:33. > :23:35.don't damage our brains? Very briefly, we have to ask the most
:23:36. > :23:40.difficult question, what do we want out of life? What do you want your
:23:41. > :23:46.kids to be? What society do you want to live in? This is the first
:23:47. > :23:57.time... Elsewhere, people can't do that. You're hungry, cold, in pain.
:23:58. > :24:00.In this country, we can ask that question. What we should say is,
:24:01. > :24:04.what do we want from our lives and how do we harness this technology to
:24:05. > :24:06.deliver that? We have the end it there unfortunately. Baroness
:24:07. > :24:32.Greenfield, thank you for being on HARDtalk. Pleasure.
:24:33. > :24:35.The past few weeks have been relatively dry but there is some
:24:36. > :24:37.rain in