BS: A lot of the things you were talking about were doing it yourself and seeing it yourself and the humour as well. And you also said that there's some things in science that are difficult to explain in texts. Would you say that that really encompasses the way in which you think science should be communicated?
AS: Well I have to say I'm not - I don't think always that - you need humour or fun or anything cause some things you know again, going back I feel I'm talking about this a lot. You know things that have issues that you know you wouldn't get up and start joking about what peoples' opinions were on stem cell research for example. So I don't, I don't necessarily think that everything needs to be you know, based on something that is really usually difficult to understand and you have to present it in a funny way and interactive. However for some things that's - when I say funny as well God there's nothing worse than having a - a sort of a hackneyed script that everyone uses where the jokes actually aren't funny or the person presenting them doesn't - can't deliver them properly, whatever, you know. So I would rather not use humour. I mean it's sort of innate for me you know. I actually think that's funny without - without maybe it meaning to be, do you know what I- I can't really describe that very well but you know. ( ) not the only one standing there and sort of saying "oh look" you know "here's something really funny" and doing it in a really particularly funny way. I think it's just quite a - yeah - I mean it's just....