there was a fantastic doctor, who was very unusual,

有一位很優秀，不尋常的醫生，

named Alice Stewart.

她叫Alice Stewart。

And Alice was unusual partly because, of course,

她的特別之處在於

she was a woman, which was pretty rare in the 1950s.

她是個女醫生，這在1950年代很罕見。

And she was brilliant, she was one of the,

而且她非常厲害，她是當時被選為

at the time, the youngest Fellow to be elected to the Royal College of Physicians.

"皇家醫師學院"最年輕的學員之一。

She was unusual too because she continued to work after she got married,

還有特別在於她在結婚生子後

after she had kids,

還繼續工作，

and even after she got divorced and was a single parent,

甚至當她離婚成為單親媽媽之後，

she continued her medical work.

她持續做她的醫學工作。

And she was unusual because she was really interested in a new science,

還因為她對一門新科學十分感興趣，

the emerging field of epidemiology,

也就是新興的流行病學，

the study of patterns in disease.

專門研究疾病的型態。

But like every scientist, she appreciated

但跟每個科學家一樣，她了解

that to make her mark, what she needed to do

若要出名，她需要

was find a hard problem and solve it.

找到難題然後解決它。

The hard problem that Alice chose

Alice當時選擇的難題是

was the rising incidence of childhood cancers.

增加的兒童癌症發生率。

Most disease is correlated with poverty,

大多數疾病都跟貧窮有關，

but in the case of childhood cancers,

不過在兒童癌症的例子來說，

the children who were dying seemed mostly to come

這些垂死的孩子似乎大多數

from affluent families.

來自富裕家庭。

So, what, she wanted to know,

所以她想知道

could explain this anomaly?

怎麼解釋這個異常現象?

Now, Alice had trouble getting funding for her research.

當時，Alice很難幫她的研究籌備到資金。

In the end, she got just 1,000 pounds

最後，她只從Lady Tata紀念獎

from the Lady Tata Memorial prize.

得到1000英鎊。

And that meant she knew she only had one shot

她知道她只有一次機會

at collecting her data.

可以蒐集資料。

Now, she had no idea what to look for.

但她完全不知道該尋找什麼。

This really was a needle in a haystack sort of search,

這研究就像大海撈針一樣，

so she asked everything she could think of.

因此她問了所有她能想到的問題。

Had the children eaten boiled sweets?

這些孩子有沒有吃煮沸的甜食?

Had they consumed colored drinks?

他們有沒有喝有顏色飲料?

Did they eat fish and chips?

他們是不是吃了炸魚和薯條了?

Did they have indoor or outdoor plumbing?

他們生活環境中是否有戶內或者戶外的管線裝置?

What time of life had they started school?

他們什麼時候開始上學的?

And when her carbon copied questionnaire started to come back,

而當她開始收回用碳粉印製成的問卷時，

one thing and one thing only jumped out

一個，只有一個明確的統計數據

with the statistical clarity of a kind that

顯現出來，

most scientists can only dream of.

這是大多數科學家只能幻想的。

By a rate of two to one,

這些死亡的孩子中，

the children who had died

他們的母親在懷孕的時候

had had mothers who had been X-rayed when pregnant.

做過X光檢查的人數是沒做過的兩倍。

Now that finding flew in the face of conventional wisdom.

這個發現挑戰了傳統看法。

Conventional wisdom held

傳統看法是

that everything was safe up to a point, a threshold.

任何事情在一種程度上都是安全的，有一個門檻。

It flew in the face of conventional wisdom,

這對於傳統看法是很大的衝擊，

which was huge enthusiasm for the cool new technology

你要知道當代的酷炫新科技，也就是X光機，

of that age, which was the X-ray machine.

可是非常熱門的。

And it flew in the face of doctors' idea of themselves,

而這也挑戰醫生對自己的想法，

which was as people who helped patients,

因為他們是要幫助病人，

they didn't harm them.

而不是傷害他們。

Nevertheless, Alice Stewart rushed to publish

儘管如此，Alice Stewart急切地

her preliminary findings in The Lancet in 1956.

在1956年的刺胳針雜誌(The Lancet)雜誌中發表了她的初步發現。

People got very excited, there was talk of the Nobel Prize,

人們都很興奮，還有提到得諾貝爾獎的可能性。

and Alice really was in a big hurry

Alice也很著急

to try to study all the cases of childhood cancer she could find

試著在案例消失之前，

before they disappeared.

研究所有她能找到的兒童癌症病例。

In fact, she need not have hurried.

事實上，她不需要著急。

It was fully 25 years before the British and medical --

過了整整25年之後，

British and American medical establishments

英國和美國的醫療機構

abandoned the practice of X-raying pregnant women.

禁止讓懷孕女人照X光。

The data was out there, it was open, it was freely available,

數據都存在，開放且唾手可得，

but nobody wanted to know.

但是沒人想知道。

A child a week was dying,

每週都有一個小孩快死掉，

but nothing changed.

但什麼都沒發生。

Openness alone can't drive change.

單究開放性是無法帶來改變的。

So for 25 years Alice Stewart had a very big fight on her hands.

25年來，Alice Stewart一直在奮鬥。

So, how did she know that she was right?

所以她怎麼知道她當時是對的?

Well, she had a fantastic model for thinking.

她有一個極佳的思考模式。

She worked with a statistician named George Kneale,

她當時與一位名叫George Kneale的統計學家合作，

and George was pretty much everything that Alice wasn't.

而George剛好與Alice互補。

So, Alice was very outgoing and sociable,

Alice非常和善且擅交際，

and George was a recluse.

而George是個隱居者。

Alice was very warm, very empathetic with her patients.

Alice很熱情，用同理心和她的病人互動。

George frankly preferred numbers to people.

而George則喜歡數字甚於人類。

But he said this fantastic thing about their working relationship.

不過他提到件他們工作關係最棒的事。

He said, "My job is to prove Dr. Stewart wrong."

他說：「我的工作就是證明Stewart博士是錯的。」

He actively sought disconfirmation.

他積極地尋找錯誤的證明。

Different ways of looking at her models,

以不同方式研究她的模型，

at her statistics, different ways of crunching the data

她的數據，以及不同方式分析數據，

in order to disprove her.

來證明她是錯的。

He saw his job as creating conflict around her theories.

他把他自己的工作當作為Alice的理論創造矛盾。

Because it was only by not being able to prove

因為只有當他無法證明

that she was wrong,

Alice是錯的時候，

that George could give Alice the confidence she needed

George就可以給Alice所需要的自信

to know that she was right.

讓她知道她是正確的。

It's a fantastic model of collaboration --

這是完美的合作的模式 --

thinking partners who aren't echo chambers.

思考夥伴不當你的回聲蟲。

I wonder how many of us have,

我想知道有多少人有過，

or dare to have, such collaborators.

或者敢有這樣的合作夥伴。

Alice and George were very good at conflict.

Alice和George擅長處理矛盾。

They saw it as thinking.

他們認為這就是思考。

So what does that kind of constructive conflict require?

那麼這種建設性的矛盾需要什麼呢?

Well, first of all, it requires that we find people

首先，它需要我們去找到

who are very different from ourselves.

與我們大不相同的人們。

That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive,

這意味著我們必須抗拒神經生物學的驅力，

which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves,

也就是我們喜歡像我們的人們，

and it means we have to seek out people

而我們必須尋找

with different backgrounds, different disciplines,

有不同背景，不同教養，

different ways of thinking and different experience,

不同思考方法和不同經驗的人們，

and find ways to engage with them.

而且去想辦法與他們交流。

That requires a lot of patience and a lot of energy.

這需要很多耐心和精力。

And the more I've thought about this,

當我更深層思考，

the more I think, really, that that's a kind of love.

我更認為這真的是一種愛。

Because you simply won't commit that kind of energy

因為如果你不在乎的話，

and time if you don't really care.

你不可能付出這般的能量。

And it also means that we have to be prepared to change our minds.

這也意味著我們必須準備去改變我們的想法。

Alice's daughter told me

Alice的女兒告訴我

that every time Alice went head-to-head with a fellow scientist,

每次Alice和一個同事科學家正面交鋒時，

they made her think and think and think again.

他們讓她一次又一次的思考。

"My mother," she said, "My mother didn't enjoy a fight,

「我的母親，」她說，「我的母親不喜歡爭吵，

but she was really good at them."

但是她很擅長。」

So it's one thing to do that in a one-to-one relationship.

所以這是在一對一的關係中要做的事。

But it strikes me that the biggest problems we face,

但這使我想到那些我們面對的最大難題，

many of the biggest disasters that we've experienced,

很多我們經歷過的最嚴重災難，

mostly haven't come from individuals,

大多都不是由個人引起的，

they've come from organizations,

而是從組織中來的，

some of them bigger than countries,

當中有些還比國家還大，

many of them capable of affecting hundreds,

大多數都有影響上百人，

thousands, even millions of lives.

上千人，甚至上百萬人生命的能力。

So how do organizations think?

那麼這些組織是怎麼想的呢?

Well, for the most part, they don't.

大多數情況下，他們不思考。

And that isn't because they don't want to,

這不是因為他們不要，

it's really because they can't.

而是因為他們不能。

And they can't because the people inside of them

他們不能是因為在組織裡的人

are too afraid of conflict.

太害怕衝突。

In surveys of European and American executives,

在對歐洲和美國經理人所作的調查中，

fully 85 percent of them acknowledged

當中有百分之85承認

that they had issues or concerns at work

他們害怕提出一些

that they were afraid to raise.

工作上的話題和擔憂。

Afraid of the conflict that that would provoke,

對可能挑起的衝突有恐懼，

afraid to get embroiled in arguments

害怕被捲入

that they did not know how to manage,

他們不知道該怎麼處理的爭論中，

and felt that they were bound to lose.

而且感到他們肯定會輸。

Eighty-five percent is a really big number.

百分之85可是很大的數字。

It means that organizations mostly can't do

這意味著大多數組織沒法做

what George and Alice so triumphantly did.

George和Alice成功做到的事情。

They can't think together.

他們不能一起思考。

And it means that people like many of us,

而這代表著許多跟我們一樣

who have run organizations,

帶領組織的人，

and gone out of our way to try to find the very best people we can,

都盡我們能力找尋最好的人，

mostly fail to get the best out of them.

但大多數無法帶出他們最好的一面。

So how do we develop the skills that we need?

那麼我們要如何培養所需要的技巧呢?

Because it does take skill and practice, too.

因為這的確需要技巧和練習。

If we aren't going to be afraid of conflict,

如果我們要不懼怕衝突的話，

we have to see it as thinking,

我們必須把它是為思考，

and then we have to get really good at it.

然後我們必須上手。

So, recently, I worked with an executive named Joe,

因此，最近我在和一個叫Joe的管理者工作，

and Joe worked for a medical device company.

Joe在一家醫療設備公司工作。

And Joe was very worried about the device that he was working on.

Joe非常擔心他正在作的這台設備。

He thought that it was too complicated

他覺得這機器實在太複雜了，

and he thought that its complexity

以至於它可能

created margins of error that could really hurt people.

會產生一些錯誤去傷害人們。

He was afraid of doing damage to the patients he was trying to help.

他很害怕去傷害那些他想幫助的病人。

But when he looked around his organization,

但當他看了組織周遭的人，

nobody else seemed to be at all worried.

似乎沒有人會擔心。

So, he didn't really want to say anything.

所以他不想把自己的想法說出來。

After all, maybe they knew something he didn't.

畢竟其他人可能知道他不知道的東西。

Maybe he'd look stupid.

或許他會看起來很愚蠢。

But he kept worrying about it,

但是他一直在擔心，

and he worried about it so much that he got to the point

擔心到達一種程度

where he thought the only thing he could do

他覺得唯一可以做的事情

was leave a job he loved.

就是辭掉他熱愛的工作。

In the end, Joe and I found a way

最後Joe和我找到一個

for him to raise his concerns.

提出他擔憂的方法。

And what happened then is what almost always

接著發生的是這種情況中

happens in this situation.

總是在發生的事。

It turned out everybody had exactly the same

結果是所有人都有著相同的

questions and doubts.

問題和懷疑。

So now Joe had allies. They could think together.

所以現在Joe和他的夥伴，他們可以一起思考。

And yes, there was a lot of conflict and debate

是的，這其中有很多的衝突，辯論

and argument, but that allowed everyone around the table

和爭執，不過這使得所有相關的人

to be creative, to solve the problem,

有創造力，能解決問題，

and to change the device.

和改變這台設備。

Joe was what a lot of people might think of

Joe有點像是大多數人認為的

as a whistle-blower,

告密者，

except that like almost all whistle-blowers,

但不像大多數的告密者，

he wasn't a crank at all,

他不是在異想天開，

he was passionately devoted to the organization

他激情地為組織付出，

and the higher purposes that that organization served.

以及為組織的目標所努力。

But he had been so afraid of conflict,

不過他太過於懼怕衝突，

until finally he became more afraid of the silence.

直到最後沉默對他來說更為可怕。

And when he dared to speak,

當他敢說出口的時候，

he discovered much more inside himself

他發現更深層的自己

and much more give in the system than he had ever imagined.

以及他付出比想象中更多的貢獻到系統中。

And his colleagues don't think of him as a crank.

而且他的同事不認為他的想法是天方夜譚。

They think of him as a leader.

他們視他為領導者。

So, how do we have these conversations more easily

所以我們要如何簡單且經常地

and more often?

進行這些對話呢?

Well, the University of Delft

Delft 大學

requires that its PhD students

要求所有的博士班學生

have to submit five statements that they're prepared to defend.

提交他們已經準備好可以辯護的五個陳述。

It doesn't really matter what the statements are about,

這些陳述的內容是什麼無所謂，

what matters is that the candidates are willing and able

重要的是這些候選人願意而且有能力

to stand up to authority.

挑戰權威。

I think it's a fantastic system,

我認為這是一個絕佳的系統，

but I think leaving it to PhD candidates

不過我覺得留給博士候選人來做

is far too few people, and way too late in life.

實在太少人，而且時機太晚了。

I think we need to be teaching these skills

我認為我們應該在小孩和大人

to kids and adults at every stage of their development,

發展的每個階段都教授這些技巧。

if we want to have thinking organizations

如果我們想要能夠思考的組織

and a thinking society.

和能思考的社會。

The fact is that most of the biggest catastrophes that we've witnessed

事實是多數我們曾經見證過的最大的災難，

rarely come from information that is secret or hidden.

很少是從一些祕密或者隱藏的信息中產生。

It comes from information that is freely available and out there,

都是從那些公開可取得的信息中而來的，

but that we are willfully blind to,

不過我們蓄意忽略了，

because we can't handle, don't want to handle,

因為我們不能也不想去處理

the conflict that it provokes.

會挑起的各種衝突。

But when we dare to break that silence,

但是當我們敢打破沉默，

or when we dare to see,

或者我們敢於看見，

and we create conflict,

並且製造衝突，

we enable ourselves and the people around us

我們讓自己和周圍的人

to do our very best thinking.

進行最有效的思考。

Open information is fantastic,

公開信息是很棒的，

open networks are essential.

公開的網絡很關鍵。

But the truth won't set us free

但是直到我們發揮技能，習慣，天賦

until we develop the skills and the habit and the talent

以及道德上的勇氣去利用它

and the moral courage to use it.

事實才會讓我們自由。

Openness isn't the end.

公開並不是結束

It's the beginning.

它只是開始。

(Applause)

(鼓掌)