newsmaker It's been a year since Bill Gates left full-time work at Microsoft, but he's found plenty to keep him busy.
In between trying to eradicate polio, tame malaria, and fix the broken U.S. education system, Gates has managed to fulfill a dream of taking some classic physics lectures and making them available free over the Web. The lectures, done in 1964 by noted scientist (and Manhattan Project collaborator) Richard Feynman, take notions such as gravity and explains how they work and the broad implications they have in understanding the ways of the universe.
Gates first saw the series of lectures 20 years ago on vacation and dreamed of being able to make them broadly available. After spending years tracking down the rights--and spending some of his personal fortune--Gates has done just that. Tapping his colleagues in Redmond to create interactive software to accompany the videos, Gates is making the collection available free from the Microsoft Research Web site.
Gates said that he hoped his action would serve as a model for taking great educational content and making it broadly available for free.
"When a lecture is presented as well as this, it draws more people in to understanding science." Gates told ZDNet Asia's sister site CNET News. "And over time I hope there's more like this."
In a wide-ranging interview, Gates also reflected on the changes at Microsoft, spill the beans on the expansive vision for Product Natal and shared his thoughts on Google's just-introduced Chrome OS. Here's an edited transcript of that interview.
Q: You first saw these videos on a vacation 20 years ago. Do you want to talk a little bit about how that happened, and what your reaction was to seeing those lectures?
Gates: Yes. I was in a period where, in order to learn new science, thought it would be a fun thing to see what films there were, and we went to some university catalogs, including University of California system had a catalog of films, and got a lot of health, biology, physics type films--those are those metal cans with big reels--and then we had a projector in a room that we made dark. So even (during) the day, you could thread these films. And there were a lot of interesting ones, but these Feynman lectures that he gave at Cornell...those were just unbelievably good.
After that, I got them put onto videotape, and I got rights to make a small number of videotapes. It was VHS tape at the time, and send it around to some friends who might be interested. But I always had in the back of my mind that it was kind of a crime that there wasn't broad availability of those things, particularly for young people thinking about science.
And so I sort of had this project in mind, and (have been) making some progress in understanding who had the rights, and eventually doing deals for the rights, and then getting these things scanned, and then getting Microsoft Research agreed to host the stuff and create some innovative software around it, which Curtis (Wong) has run. It's taken a long time, but with lots of PCs and the Internet, and my willingness to spend some money, now these things are just going to be out there.
What do you hope people get out of these videos? Who is your ideal audience for them?
Well, I didn't get to see these until I was about 30, and so I would love it if lots of young people saw them, and got a sense of the fun, and how science works, and what's complicated, and what's not. I hope some people who teach science are inspired by the way that Feynman managed to make it interesting without giving up the depth of how it works.
With super-high-quality material like this up there for free, I hope people see the potential, and that they'd benefit from this one in particular, and then it starts to push forward the idea if someone is great lecturer, then their work should be out there and available.
I've heard you talk about the way community college really should change, and really what we should be doing for some of these subjects that are somewhat universal is taking really the best explanations, the best lectures out there, and making those broadly available, and then focusing sort of the local learning around discussion and different sorts of things.
That's right. Education, particularly if you've got motivated students, the idea of specializing in the brilliant lecture and text being done in a very high-quality way, and shared by everyone, and then the sort of lab and discussion piece that's a different thing that you pick people who are very good at that.
Technology brings more to the lecture availability, in terms of sharing best practices and letting somebody have more resources to do amazing lectures. So, you'd hope that some schools would be open minded to this fitting in, and making them more effective.
But, you've also got this huge set of people who like to teach themselves and like to learn things, and yet find science kind of daunting. And when a lecture is presented as well as this, it draws more people in to understanding science. And over time I hope there's more like this, including some about science stuff that's changed since the time these were done.
How big an impact do you think these types of things can have in terms of the overall problem of getting people interested in math and science? Is this type of thing enough, or do we really need to fundamentally do more, younger?
Well, certainly in fifth grade through senior year, most students aren't yet motivated to want to learn a lot in general, and particularly about science and math. The big impact is anything that can help teachers do a better job, where teachers can either see other teachers doing it super-well, or they might incorporate some online things into the classroom experience. As you get older, and you've got people who are motivated more clearly, then it shifts where these online lectures can be a huge part of learning.
That's where Feynman with his clarity of explanation and simplicity of explanation, and love of the subject, and humor around it is such an exemplar.
You mentioned that you didn't get to see these until you were in your 30s. If you had seen them earlier in your career, maybe before you decided to start Microsoft, do you think you might have headed in a different direction?
I'm not sure. I've always liked physics, but I also want the equivalent lectures to be out there for biology, and computer science, and chemistry. Everybody has a level where you can bring in their interest. I mean, people care about animals, and disease, and food, but many of the sciences are so abstract, and the amount of things you have to learn before you start connecting to those practical issues can be very daunting. And yet with a teacher like Feynman they're out there in different fields, it's just that we haven't had a way to magnify their excellence, and make it broadly available.
One of the points that's made in the lectures is this idea that from the discovery of gravity there's basically been since then 400 years of just an avalanche of discoveries, and he sort of puts forth this notion of continuous progress. And I'm curious, do you see that having continued, or have we seen limits to sort of some of the full understanding that the basic sciences can give us? Are there things that are beyond sort of what basic science can teach us?
We're learning more about basic science today by a huge amount than ever before. You just take understanding materials, why they break, why they're strong, how you engineer them to have various properties, and a lot of that was black magic. And it's only now that we're able to say, okay, when we want to make batteries that charge really fast, okay, how do you make something with a lot of surface area that doesn't degrade.
Anyway, in material science, or basic medical things, or basic things about physics that are going to be important for cheap energy as just one example, this is the most interesting time. That's why it's partly an irony that you're not getting the best and the brightest particularly native born to go into science and math. And so you've got to look back and say, what is it we're doing about making it daunting, or abstract that holds that back so much.
There's an American physicist, Fritjof Capra, (who) wrote a lot of books in the '70s on ecology, and the limits of Cartesian thinking. Basically his thing was that by focusing on sort of the Cartesian reductionist approach to things that prioritizes sort of looking at the small parts--that type of thinking has contributed to not getting as deep an understanding of things like ecology, and really complex systems. Is that what's caused us to get into some of the problems we have, or do you think it's more just these are tough choices and require conserving, and things that are kind of hard for us as humans to do?
Well, the tough situation that we're in is that we have electricity, we have medicines, we have vaccines, those were all due to scientific understanding. And as we get new materials, new batteries, solar, nuclear energy that don't cause environmental things, it will be because of these scientific understandings. So, I think the incredible improvement in living standards, and life expectancy, and literacy, and all those things really do come back to the advanced scientific understanding. And when people look at history, that's the one thing that they always undervalue is how scientific progress has allowed us to do those big things.
It's true that as you go forward, you tackle more complex problems, but the tools of modeling and simulation and getting a lot of people who are mainly in politics, but know enough about science to be in the discussion, that's important. You know, there was a book written called
Play video
There are currently no comments for this post.