09/11/2015 Newsnight

You wouldn't have thought you could hear a report about drug cheats or

corruption in international sports and still be shocked.

But here's one, on Russia and athletics.

Have happened without everybody knowing about it or consenting to

it, so it's worse than we thought. Layers of the Russian sporting

establishment, the Government there, and international athletics

and anti-doping authorities. We'll ask this former Olympic

athlete how, why and with what consequence has

the sport been sullied. Also tonight,

Europe has always been a tough issue Are you enjoying the Common Market?

Come and join us in this protest march to Downing Street. Get Britain

out! Things may have changed since 1974,

but David Cameron is set to officially list

his renegotiation demands tomorrow. Can he win enough to break the

Euro-sceptic case for getting out? Ukip's Susan Evans is

here to suggest not. To these scientists the continuous

journey for understanding all that is...

Step aside Nobels, science gets the Oscars treatment.

Will the Breakthrough Prize make the laboratory seem sexier,

It was a German television documentary that

It prompted a follow-up inquiry into doping in athletics,

And that has proceeded to a more dramatic outcome than anyone

You can download the inquiry report and read the charge sheet.

"the acceptance of cheating at all levels is widespread and

"Russian athletes were often willing participants.

However, there are documented cases where athletes who did not want to

participate in 'the program' were informed they

would not be considered as part of the Federation's national team".

"The reported presence of the security services (the FSB)

And "the practice of doping in athletics in Russia remains very

much current, even following the German documentary".

"The Olympic Games in London were, in a sense, sabotaged by the

admission of athletes who should have not been competing" And be

clear, the most explosive chapter of the report has not been published -

the one on the International Association

Material has been given to Interpol for

a proper criminal investigation into charges of corruption and bribery.

The journalist Mark Daly has been investigating doping in sport

The prediction was that it would be one of athletics' darkest days,

publication of the World Anti-Doping Agency independent commission's

findings into doping at the heart of athletics. The reality it was so

much worse than that. For 2016 our recommendation is that the Russian

Federation be suspended. Dick Pound's commission was launched

after allegations were made in a German doubtry last year that the

Russian athletics federation was riddled with corruption and was

involved in covering up positive dope terrorists by its athletes.

Today the documentary was proved correct. Russia had been involved in

state-sponsored doping, perhaps even reminiscent of the old Soviet days,

corruptly covering up positive drug terrorists and destroying more than

1,400 test samples. Russia has been the Wild West of dopings if illtated

by officials who acted more like gangsters. Now they could be banned

from the next Olympics. It is not just Russia that is in the frame.

There's a second part a this story that's missing from this report. And

that's because the former head of athletics governing body, the IAAF,

Lamine Diack, and several others, are subject to a criminal

investigation. But what the report does say is that it found corruption

and bribery at the very highest level of the IAAF. So, what does

that mean for its newly crowned President, Seb Coe. . Is Seb Coe the

right man to lead the IAAF out of this mess? I believe that Seb Coe is

somebody who can grasp this and be transform arable enough to bring

about change in athletics. I hope so, because his sport is at risk if

he doesn't. I think the difficulty that Seb's got is he was there

throughout the period, he was a Vice-President under Lamine Diack

and he has long-standing links to the IAAF. He that to get on the

front foot and create a separation between his era and that of Lamine

Diack. He will find that difficult to do. Just three months ago when he

took the presidency Lord Coe was fulsome in his praise for Lamine

Diack, calling him the spiritual leader of the IAA. If. Those

comments must haunt him. He said yesterday he wasn't in favour of

banning Russia. Today he's been forced to recalibrate his comments

and is now seeking approval from his fellow IAAF members to consider

sanctions. Dick Pound, well he's been heralded as the man who might

save athletics. And that's a role that Seb Coe was hoping to fill

himself. This will not with a swift road. So can Lord Coe, who famously

delivered the Olympics to London, deliver the rehabilitation of his

sport's wounded reputation? It is not the first time that Seb's been

quick to defend someone who is under investigation. We saw it in the case

of Alberto Salazar. We are waiting for the report into those

allegations. Yet he was quick to come out and say that Salazar would

be cleared of those claims. Likewise with the Russians he's said they

would probably refer to rehabilitate them from within and within 24 hours

Dick Pound has said they should be banned. He would have been wise er

to have kept his powder dry. Dick Pound publicly thanked the

journalist who broke the story, Hajo Seppelt. The only thanks he says

he's received so far was a threat to sue him. We can talk to that German

journalist who got all this going for ARD, the German broadcaster,

Hajo Seppelt. He joins us from Geneva. Congratulations on scoop of

the decade. Tell us, all the talk of suology you presumably has gone out

of the window. What are they saying to you now, the IAAF? Nothing so

far. I have no contact with IAAF officials. No-one contacted us since

the beginning of the year. We tried several times to get interviews, Seb

Coe is the first time we tried to get, in Monaco after our first

documentary was aired in December 2014. Refused to talk to us. I was

waiting for five hours. He promised me to come but he didn't show up.

Later on we sent him several e-mails, official requests by ARD

German television to get interviews in regards to our second documentary

about the suspicion of widespread blood doping in athletics. But

refused to comment. In Beijing at the World Championships it was

exactly the same. He refused to talk to me and he gave an interview to

ARD German television but not to me. He was insisting on the interviewer

has to be something else. Sorry, the he in this case is who? Excuse me?

When you say he refused to give you an interview, you are talking about

who, Seb Coe? Yes, I talk about Seb Coe all the time, yes. Yes, and have

you been surprised by anything that Dick Pound has uncovered that you

hadn't uncovered? Maybe you are surprised that it has been going on

since you made your documentary about it? Sorry, I didn't understand

the questions. The line is very bad, can you repeat. I'm sorry. Have you

been surprised by anything they found, Dick Pound found? I was

surprised, the Russians continued since your documentary, it is going

on now. I tell you to be very honest I'm not surprised about the Russian

reaction. It is always the same. When we aired the first documentary

the Russians said it was a pack of lies what we did. They told me I'm

an ignorant journalist, that I have no clue about anything. I'm working

on doping stories as a doping research investigative journalist

for 20 years and the Russians claimed I don't know the rules or

how to work on this. To be honest always in sport people react in a

harsh way. Maybe the Russians a little more aggressive but in

general you have always to consider that in doping in sports, mostly the

mess I thinkers are the sports, mostly the mess I thinkers are the

people who are -- maybe the messengers will be blamed by the

federation and not the people responsible for the doping problem.

Hajo Seppelt, your point haw now been taken and reported the world

over. Thank you very much indeed. Now, there were two layers

of charges today. First are the ones against at the

Russians, as if there weren't enough complicated relationship issues with

the Russians at the moment. The second, though, are the ones

against the IAAF - the international I'm joined by the European

Championships 10,000 metres medallist, Jo Pavey, from her home

in Devon. She lost out to athletics subsequently disqualified for

doping, including missing out on a medal in 2007. With in the studio is

Mihir Bose. Good evening to you both. How aware of you at the time

were you that the Russians were doped? If I'm honest, I did have my

suspicions about certain athletes, but I think this report has been

shocking to everyone in the sport. You have your suspicions about

certain athletes, but the fact that it has uncovered that a nation was

involved in systemically doping their athletes. You thought the days

where that could happen in sport were behind us. It is very

devastating and shocking. Times were I finished lying flat on my back on

the track giving it everybody I've got and I've missed those moments on

the podium. I can never get those back. It is really disappointing.

What now, Jo, sorry to interrupt you. What now do you think the

effect of Russian cheating was on your career? I think there has been

Russian athletes at times that have finished ahead of me. It will be

hard to mention certain names, but one of them has been banned in

certain competitions and she's an athlete that in the past has kept me

out of medal positions. The fact it seems that it was systemic in that

country is devastating. It is likely I might be awarded a bronze medal

retrospectively from 2007 World Championships. I finished fourth

that day lying on the track flat on my back, I gave it everything.

Rather than it being a moment of disappointment it should have been a

moment where I was on the podium having won a medal for my country.

Can I never get that moment back. It is destroying not just my career but

other athletes' career. Mihir Bose, let's start with the Seb Coe

question. Who's a popular guy, he ran London 2012. Do you think he's

the guy to clean up athletics? He's been an insider in the IAAF hasn't

he? Seb is a trusted guy. He got the games and ran it very well. He was

eight years Vice-President and he comes in as Lamine Diack's

successor. If you notice what the head of the Russian Federation has

said is that any suspension will have to go to the IAAF council.

There again you go back if you like into the old council, which is still

existing, deciding on suspending a federation member. So how does Coe

step outside and become the man who cleans everything up? That's a

difficult thing to do. I'm not saying he can't do it buts

difficult. We'll be saying Sepp Blatter can't clean up Fifa and

suddenly our guy is in charge of an institution that's been systemically

corrupt. Where does this one stand, do you think? This takes the gold

medal. First of all Fifa's corruption is if you like business

corruption. Very bad, no question about it, but the banks could have

done it in other walks of life. People taking money, envelopes

passing because you want to bid for the World Cup. This is about sport.

If you watch Messi score a goal you don't want to believe he's passed a

five er to the goalkeeper. Similarly in athletics, you don't want to

believe that the one who won the gold medal has done it through

cheating. That's one aspect. And the second aspect is in the last 15

years we've believed or been led to believe with the existence of WADA,

laboratories like Moscow and so on, that we are coming to grips with

this, but the system doesn't work. There's a flaw that can't be

corrected. Jo, do you trust Seb Coe as the man who clean up athletics?

It is your sport. I think Seb Coe is very passionate about sport. I think

he would admit himself that it is going to be a much harder job than

even he first realised. Realised. He said he's been shocked and dismayed

by the report and has got a harder job to do than he first thought. But

his ideas of an independent Anti-Doping Agency, all athletes

worldwide need to go through the same rigorous testing procedures and

there should be nowhere for anyone to hide. Even when there's talk of

considering banning Russia from the Olympic Games, if that's what is

necessary to make sure that there's no cheats on the start line, tough

measures are going to be carried out. Clean athletes could suffer in

that respect but if that's what's necessary at this stage.

If Russia isn't banned... It will raise enormous questions about the

Olympics. It will raise enormous questions about the International

Olympic Committee. It doesn't run the individual sport. It provides a

festival of sport over two weeks. We will ask the question: How powerful

is it? Remember, this is sports connected with politics. There is as

you mention, Mr Putin who sees sport and if you like a weapon of Russian

foreign policy. Is he going to accept a ban? You've been involved

in a lot of sports, covering them for many years, why is sport, why

international sporting organisations so prone to corruption of one form

or northerning? Because they're badly run. Because the people who

run them are not very good. The best people don't come in to run sport.

They go elsewhere. The best people are actually the advisors. They make

a lot of money out of sport, the lawyers and accountants surrounding

them. The best sportsmen don't come in. They've got their honours and

they go away. That is the basic problem with sport. Sport has become

business. As it has become business it hasn't acquired any ideas of how

accountable it should be, how transparent it should be. It's run

by very, very incompetent, not always corrupt, very incompetent

people who can be easily corrupted. Thank you both very much indoed.

Tomorrow David Cameron will write to the president of the

European Council, the former Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, to

spell out how he wants the EU, and British membership of it, reformed.

We've got a pretty good idea of a lot of what's

on the shopping list, but this will be the official version.

To prepare, the PM was speaking at the CBI conference today,

saying he was deadly serious about reform, in a speech that was briefly

First though, here's our diplomatic correspondent, Mark Urban.

Come on guys. If you sit down now, can you ask me a question rather

than making fools of yourself by just standing up and protesting.

Even as David Cameron tried to make his case this morning, evidence that

those who want out will only get more vocal. Even I can remember that

script without any notes. This audience was on side, at least as

far as wanting to hear the PM's shopping list. The things I want

fixed, whether it's making a more competitive Europe, whether it's

making sure we're out of ever closer union, whether it's making sure

there's proper fairness of those in the eurozone and those out of the

eurozone or whether it's reducing the pressures that we face through

immigration, these are big and important changes. I think it's

vital that we achieve them. The EU concept of ever closer union

is part of its founding Rome treaty language, long cherished by

federalists and offensive to sceptics. Number Ten want the phrase

dropped. Other countries will try to limit such linguistic back sliding

to Britain alone. If you look at what's happened electorally in

places like Greece and Portugal, the political elites may be trying to

take the European Union in One Direction, but the people going to

the ballot boxes are saying something different. The Portuguese

people made it clear at the recent elections they do not want to see

ever closer union. That's something very much not on the table for the

British people. Election of a more Euro-sceptic government in Poland is

just one sign that Downing Street optimists see that the UK may find

supporters for its ideas, both at non-eurozone countries shouldn't be

put at a competitive disadvantage or outvoted. Accommodations will be

urged by those who really don't want brexitment Ireland regards the

prospect of their leaving the European Union as a major strategic

risk. In truth the full risks are unknown. As much would depend on the

process and detail of what the process would actually look like.

However, it's an outcome that the Irish government does not wish to

see materialise in the first place. That kind of support will also help

with Mr Cameron's suggestion that the single market should be extended

to some areas, like energy, where it still operates very imperfectly. But

while the CBI might like that, is it really a winner on the doorstep? The

things that resonate on the doorstep and in the boardroom might be

different. I think the Prime Minister is absolutely right to look

at a whole range of issues that will make a real difference to the

British people and the British economy. So what about that key

doorstep issue - migration? The ongoing crisis keeps it in the

public eye. But internal EU migration poses Mr Cameron with his

toughest challenge. He talked before about stopping benefits, but that

won't be easy. In all the other areas he can get something. This is

going to be really hard. The thing he probably can't get is his

requirement that EU migrants shouldn't be able to claim in-work

benefits like tax credits until they've lived in the UK for four

years. That would be incompatible with the treaty's provision on

nondiscrimination on nationals from another country. It's hard to see

how he could get that. In the months ahead, it will be important for the

Prime Minister and his allies to maintain a sense of jeopardy, that

they are really trying to get the best deal and that it may not work

out. But those close to him insist that the jeopardy is very real and

that on some of these key issues, he may have to say that he hasn't got

exactly what he set out to achieve. Long-term economic security...

Today's skirmish was hardly the first and it certainly won't be the

last. At some time in the coming months, David Cameron will have to

pick his moment to say whether the deal he's got is really worth voting

for. To discuss another crunch week

for Britain's upcoming referendum on the EU, we're joined from Poland

by Radek Shikorski, Poland's former foreign minister, who has just been

appointed as a senior fellow at Harvard University,

and from Edinburgh, UKIP's deputy Radek Shikorski, do you think it's

possible for David Cameron to win the sorts of things we suspect he's

asking for? First of all, I'd rather be talking about British leadership

in Europe and it's there for the taking, for example, in the area of

defence, of foreign policy, where Europe needs it and it would give

Britain a great deal of influence. But yes, this is very cleverly

crafted, because on the issues that have been mentioned, David Cameron

will find allies in Europe. Energy union in particular in Poland. But

also, completing the single market, a British idea in the area of

digital trade, of services. Here, he is entitled to speak for millions of

Europeans and to make the EU itself a better organism. I expect this to

chime well with the kinds of governments that he needs to support

his agenda. Aren't you overspeaking here? Sorry to interrupt. You're

going too far here. You're meant to say, oh, it's going to be very

difficult. There will be enormous fight over these. His main objective

is to look as though he's having a big fight with you. Well, there will

be problems with the benefits business. Remember, we in Poland do

not encourage our citizens to travel for work to Britain. We would rather

see our Poles coming back to Poland. But any Polish government will not

agree to anything that smacks of discrimination or picking on

particular nationalities. Remember that countries that are outside the

EU, but are inside the European Economic Area, Norway for example,

also has had to open its labour market. There are 100,000 or so

Poles working in Norway. To avoid that, Britain would have to leave

not just the EU, but also the European Economic Area. Then you are

on a very long journey into the unknown. Let me just ask, sorry let

me put that point to Suzanne Evans. Firstly, do you agree that David

Cameron can win most of what he's going to ask them for? I know that's

not enough for you, can he win that? I don't think he can actually. I

think what David Cameron is doing is making a jolly good show. He's

trying to show that he is committed to reform, that he can win reform.

The fact is in order to get what most people want in Britain, which

is sovereignty back to the Westminster Parliament, to get

control back of our democracy, control of our economy, get control

back of our borders, that involves treaty change. David Cameron clearly

isn't even asking for that. What he's asking for, the shopping list,

as far as we know, is a simple set of questions. He's, despite the

economic crisis in the eurozone, despite the immigration crisis, when

actually arguably, he could be making significant demands, he's set

his sites very, very low. He should be setting his sights at a much

higher target. But he's setting his sights at a low target and he seems

to be expecting to miss it. The target on benefits and trying to

restrict the tax subsidies, tax credits to migration through the

benefits system that, for you, is not big enough, he needs control of

the border in full? This isn't a referendum about the benefits

system. It is a referendum about our membership of the European Union. Of

course, Ukip and both the out campaigns we have are making a

strong case that we can survive outside the European Union, but we

can thrive. We will make that case until referendum day. Let me ask

Radek Shikorski whether if Britain was to leave, vote to leave, WWEed'

have to negotiate -- we'd have to negotiate with access to the

European market, and the terms, how easy would it be for Britain to

negotiate trade deals with partners with whom the EU has trade deals?

Well, let me just also pick a point on what Suzanne has said. You do

have control over your borders. You're not part of the Schengen

area. In fact, I was taking the EuroStar from Paris to London and

you had British border control in Paris. Of course, we still have to

have the free movement of people. And controls in Calais. Let's not

get bogged down. We have a bit of control but not full control. How

easy will it be for us to negotiate trade deals and the like, if we

leave? Well, this would be the mother of all divorce cases.

Divorces like this are always messy and very expensive. If you were to

leave, you would need to conclude new trade agreements with over 100

countries. I suspect you wouldn't get as good a deal on your own as we

get as the EU, when the commission negotiates on our behalf,

representing us, the largest economy on earth. Also remember, that for

the continent, trade with the UK is about 10% of our trade. Whereas for

you, the UK, your trade with the continent is 50% of your trade, no

prizes are given as to who has the advantage in such negotiation.

Suzanne Evans, you say we have to negotiate treaty change for you to

be satisfied. We will have to negotiate treaty change if we leave,

aren't we? We will have to negotiate a free trade deal. What people

always forget, they talk about the EU as being the only negotiating

factor here. Of course, at the moment, we have a seat on the World

Trade Organisation that we are not allowed to sit on. Once we leave the

European Union we take back our seat on the World Trade Organisation.

Then we have that powerful body behind us in order to secure free

trade deals. To pick up on what was said, the European Union needs us in

terms of trade far more than we actually need them. We have a 50

billion trade deficit with the European Union, which means that we

actually buy a lot more from them and they could not do without our

trade. That's the simple matter of fact. If you talk to somebody, I

remember a few years ago, Sir Dig by Jones, the former president of the

CBI said such is the European Union's need of Britain that he

reckoned we would be negotiating a free trade deal with the EU upon

brexit very quickly, within a matter of hours. There's a long way between

the two of you on that. We'd better drill down to that later. Thanks

both very much. The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra

Modi, visits the UK this week. And it means that

for the third time in about three weeks, there will be a controversial

foreign leader here, generating Modi is Hindu nationalist,

who was Chief Ninister in Gujarat state back in 2002, when communal

rioting there caused the death Our reporter, Secunder Kermani, has

been talking to one of the British Prime Minister Modi is coming to

London... Narendra Modi was boycotted by Britain for a decade.

Now he's India's Prime Minister and this week will get a massive

reception at Wembley Stadium and an overnight stay with David Cameron at

Chequers. That's angered human rights activists, who projected this

image on the Parliament last night. Night. They accuse him of being a

Hindu fundamentalist who allowed deadly communal riots to unfold in

2002 while in charge of Gujarat, something he denies. Hindu mobs

burned their neighbours alive and raped women, while the police and

authorities were accused of standing back and at times encouraging it.

The violence began when a trainful of Hindu pilgrims was set alight.

Many Muslims were killed. There was a big gang of people surrounding us.

We were pleading for our lives, showing our passports, saying we

were from the UK, but no, they didn't want anything to do with it.

They said to us, take your trousers down, we want the to see if you've

been circumcised, if you are a Muslim. If you are, we'll kill you.

I got stabbed in the leg. Hit in the head. God knows how I'm still here

today. Imran was on his first trip to India, with his uncle Syed and

their friends. Driving from the Taj Mahal into Gujarat they were

attacked by a mob. This is what was left of their car. Despite his

injuries Imran survived. The family only later discovered how the others

were killed. Killed. They had lost consciousness. They had been taken

to a nearby factory and they had been tortured and they had been

brutalised and murdered. Narendra Modi, a self declared Hindu

nationalist, was cheer Minister of Gujarat at the time. No case against

Modi has been successful so far. He strongly denies any wrongdoing,

though he once said he regretted Muslim suffering as he would a puppy

being run over by a car. His critics say he should not be getting this

kind of welcome from Britain. They've behaved in a very shameless

way, because they are no longer putting human rights and what

happened in 2002 on the agenda. That's quite disgusting. The English

Government has shown a lack of sensitivity towards family and this

isn't acceptable. After the murders, the families travelled to India to

try and gather evidence along with the Foreign Office. But they still

haven't got justice. Six men accused of the murders were acquit canned

earlier this year after witnesses turned hostile. Human rights groups

say many are intimidated. With Modi due to arrive in Britain, the family

wants an apology, justice and for the remains of their relatives to at

last be returned. The saddest thing is 13 years on we still, this

remains in India of the family, haven't been able to get hold of and

put closure. Having an apology would be a start. And not to just push it

under the carpet. Until 2012, Britain cut all ties with Modi

because of what happened in Gujarat. America even denied him a visa, but

that's changed as he has risen in power in India. Here politicians

like Priti Patel have championed him as someone Britain should engage

with. The significant ran date that Narendra Modi has is as a politician

inspiring to see... The family say beganment shouldn't mean a welcome

with open arms. They want to do business with India, that's up to

them, but at least honour the dignity of the families, the

victims. What meme would you like to send out to the British Government?

They are actually not justlying what happened in Gujarat but they are

actually perverting British values. When Modi came to power last year

there were fears of more communal violence. In September a Muslim man

was lunched after wrongly being accused of eating beef, considered

sacred by Hindus. Modi has been accused of not condemning it

strongly enough. But does the Government here care about that when

lucrative contracts are at stake? If we don't honour the memories, if we

don't speak for the truth, then history can repeat itself. Does it

make you feel like the Government is, cares about you, effectively?

No. Simple as that. Imran Dawood ending that report

from Secunder Kermani. The geneticist John Hardy, from UCL,

finds himself a couple He was awarded something less

well known but considerably more It's called a breakthrough prize,

funded by a Russian billionaire with a bit of help from Facebook

founder Mark Zuckerberg and others. Now, awards were made to several

scientists, and the awards event appeared to be modelled on

the Oscars rather than the Nobels. Here is John Hardy and others

having collected their prizes. The whole thing appears designed

to bring glamour to science, to It has to be said that celeb label

is not one that fits Professor Hardy very well, who is generally seen

as more substance than style. And I'm happy to say he joins

us now from California. Good evening to you. How did you

find the ceremony? Not the sort of thing you are accustomed to, I would

imagine? No, it was great actually. Of course it was woks. I really

appreciated it. Maybe I could get used to it. We do think of

scientists as not worrying about how they dress or look, worrying about

the substance, not style. Do you want science to have more glitz, for

goodness sake? I think it is good that scientists are held in more

esteem and so on. That's a very good thing. Not me personally of course.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not famous for my dress sense, so I

think there's a good thing for science, science itself to be made

more glamorous perhaps. For sure I do. Tell us a little about what it

is you won the prize for. It is a series of things to do with

dementias really. We found in the early 1990s in Alzheimer's disease

mute aces in the ameloid gene, which is deposited in Alzheimer's disease.

That led us to suggest that amyloid is the essence of the start of the

disease. Later we found other genetic causes which fitted with the

process started from amyloid and going through other things to cell

death and then to dementia and so on. So it allowed us to map out a

pathway to disease. What we of course hope is that this pathway to

disease will be something we can intervene in and stop the disease

process. That's of course the purpose of the work. It is great to

have it acknowledged, obviously. You won about ?2 million, but you have

to pay tax on that. How much do you get out of the end of that? I don't

know exactly, but something well over, considerably over ?1 million.

And of course it is an amazing, of course that's amazing. Of course it

is. What are you going to do with the money? Is it one where you are

obliged to give it back to science, or are you allowed to buy a two

bedroom flat in Camden with it? That's right, I am allowed to buy a

two bedroom flat in Camden. We are trying to build a new Institute of

Neurology building and an institute of dementia there. I'm going try to

push that fundraising for that new building along, but yes I am going

to build a little house in London. That's exactly what I will do. It

doesn't go very far if you want to by a house in London. This kind of

thing isn't a substitute for serious science funding presumably. No, it

isn't, but I think it is very important that the public realise

what science is about. Indirectly I think that helps science funding. I

think it is very important to scientists that we explain what we

are doing. That's a virtuous circle. If we explain what we are doing to

the public, the public put pressure on the politicians and science

funding increases. So if we can get into a virtuous circle for science

funding, that's a great outcome. And you've worked in the UK, you have

worked in the United States. I wonder if three sentence which is of

those do you think is now a better environment for scientists to

discover things in. You know, America had consistently good

funding, which hasn't been the case in the UK. It goes up and down with

political will. One thing that we have in the UK has they don't have

in the US, which is immensely powerful and for example the

Institute of Neurology is very important, we have the NHS and the

single unitary NHS behind us, which makes clinical research so much

better in the UK than it is in the US. So some things are easier in the

US but much research is better in the UK. John, well done. Thank you

very much for joining us. It's a pleasure. Thank you very much.

If you had a bad weekend, spare a thought for the customers

at the IHOP restaurant in Meridian, Mississipi, on Saturday

night where a 50-foot-wide sink hole gobbled up the carpark.