December 2, 2025 • 41 mins
Dr Anne-Marie Imafidon lights up our podcast with her remarkable journey from child math prodigy to founder of STEMETTES, an organization transforming how young women engage with science and technology. With disarming candor, she shares the pivotal moment at a 2012 tech conference where she realized she belonged to a "shrinking minority" as a woman in tech, a revelation that sparked what she calls her "road to Damascus moment" and ultimately led to STEMETTES' creation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey Gwilym, hey, how are you?
I'm going to say this is a fineday because I'm looking at my
hotel bedroom window.
I'm in Leeds, by the way, forthe Yorkshire Regional Meeting.
I'm really excited to be doingthat today and I was told when I
was coming up to Leeds bring areally big coat.
But it's absolutely beautifulout there, a big blue sky, sun
shining.
It's amazing.
I'm in a Costa Coffee inElephanton Castle and the
(00:26):
weather's lovely.
So there we go.
I'm sorry to have brought outthe envy in you for my
globetrotting.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I got a good coffee.
I'm not complaining.
They are a client.
I shouldn't endorse them.
There we go.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Cambridge last week, Leeds this week, San Diego in a
few weeks.
That's a bit more impressivethan Cambridge and Leeds, isn't
it?
But not for people fromCambridge and Leeds, obviously.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
That wasn't meant as any offence.
All to San.
Diego, of course, anything youwant to tell me about.
Well, it's been a, I think, asyou know, it's been a poignant
week of One of the things I'vebeen doing for Actually, let me
notice how long Between 15 and20 years is, um, I've been
president of this group calledunion.
We have three lovely dinners ayear with really high-powered
speakers, um, and I can host itand everything, and I decided it
(01:12):
was fb time for something else.
I had a crack, so tuesday withmy last one of them, you nearly
came, but then your daughter hada surprise 21st birthday.
Um, I can't blame you for notknowing about that, lee,
obviously, yeah, I mean shedidn't surprise me with her 21st
birthday.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I forgot, okay, I was being polite, but yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So I think we agree we'll do a podcast with the
union, with the new president,matt Wrigley, who's a good
friend of Steve, a councilmember, etc.
Etc.
Anyway.
But it was nice and then wewent for a couple of cocktails
afterwards.
That was a good, fun evening.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
We missed you.
Sorry I missed that.
Well done for your work overthe years with Union.
I know you put a lot into thatand good luck to Matt as he
takes on the rudder of the Unionship.
That's what it was.
Am I mixing my maritimemetaphors?
Yeah, I was a rudder wrangler,that was my job.
(02:07):
We probably should crack onwith the podcast, um, because
obviously we have a guestwaiting in the wings.
Really, really, really excitedto um to be doing this podcast
today because, um, you knowacross the across the series,
we've been doing it for fouryears now and you know that we
often touch on subjects aboutinclusivity, um, and widen
participation, particularly inthe baton attorney world, where
we're always trying to make surethat the profession is diverse
(02:30):
and represents the people thatit serves.
And, anne-marie, welcome to thepodcast.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Hi, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
So tell us a wee bit about yourself.
Well, actually, why not tell usa wee bit about yourself?
Tell the audience a wee bitabout yourself.
Take as long long as you like,because obviously, guillem and I
have had the opportunity tohave a little read through your
um for your bio and we can't doyou justice, so you're gonna
have to do it yourself.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Oh no, oh gosh, the pressure is on.
I'm, I'm really.
I mean, I like to say, well, Ilike maths, I like tech and I
like helping people.
That's normally where I start.
I spend most of my time runningan organisation called STEMETS.
That's all about engaging,informing and connecting young
women, young non-binary folk, tothe STEM and STEAM industry
(03:14):
STEM being science, technology,engineering and maths, and STEAM
being science, technology,engineering, art and design and
maths.
I also appear in differentplaces at different times.
I'm the author of a book calledshe's in Control.
I'm the co-chair at theInstitute for the Future of Work
.
I hosted a couple of episodesof Countdown maybe 60 episodes
(03:37):
of Countdown as thearithmetician at one point while
Rachel Riley was on mat leave.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I'm a big Countdown fan and remember your
appearances vividly, so I wasdoubly excited when you were
coming on.
For that reason.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
Yeah, and Chancellor of University, like Chancellor
of Glasgow Caledonia University,so I wear a lot of hats and do
a lot of things, but ultimatelyit's because I like maths, tech
and I like helping people, andso that means that there are any
number of places I could turnup on any given week.
Um, speaking about variousdifferent things that are all
about, yeah, ensuring that wejust do better in general across
science and here you are on ageeky um science, techie and law
(04:20):
podcast.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So so where should we start?
Where did the STEMET sort ofinitiative come from?
What was the impetus?
Speaker 4 (04:30):
So I had a road to Damascus moment.
So I've always loved maths andtech, like I said, since I was a
child, had one of theseWunderkind child prodigy
journeys.
So I had two GCSEs by the timeI left primary school, one in
maths and one in ICT, went up,did my master's at Oxford in
maths and comp and was done bythe time I was 20 and ended up
(04:54):
working in industry in technicalroles.
I actually was at an investmentbank, a universal bank, really
really enjoying it Really reallykind of getting stuck into the
tech, solving problems, beingpaid really well, being heard,
being listened to, beingrespected, and ended up, as kind
of part of that, speaking at aconference in the States, which
(05:17):
for me was super exciting.
You know, free trip across whynot?
But also it just so happenedthat this was the Grace Hopper
celebration of women incomputing and this was kind of
Q3, q4 of 2012.
Turned up at this conference.
There were three and a halfthousand people there and around
and about and all of them werewomen and it was.
(05:38):
It was so interesting for mebecause I'd never been in a
majority female technical spacebefore, because I'd never been
in a majority female technicalspace before, but I'd never
noticed that that was somethingthat I was missing right or that
kind of didn't happen veryoften, even though I'd always
been a girl and always been inthose technical and those
mathematical spaces.
And so I had a bit of a road toDamascus moment in hearing from
(05:59):
the keynote that the number ofwomen in technical fields, in
the US at least, had been infree fall over the kind of the
years and the decades beforethat conference.
And so she implored all of usto stay.
She gave us five reasons tostay in the industry and she
gave us five reasons to recruita friend to try and reverse that
trend.
And I remember being sat in thataudience and thinking, my
(06:21):
goodness, maybe this is anAmerican problem.
You know, I'm discovering somany things on this trip
discovering I'm a woman in techI didn't know that I was one of
those before.
Discovering I'm a black womanin tech didn't know I was one of
those before.
But also thinking, okay, cool,like the Americans have this
problem and the Institute ofPhysics around that time had
just put out a report, I think,called no Girl Left Behind or
something along those lines dida little bit more reading and
(06:42):
spotted that you know thiswasn't an American problem.
This is something we had backwhere I'd come from, but also
that I was, you know, one ofthese STEM people and someone
needed to do something about it,really back here in the UK, and
so ended up starting Stamets asa response to how I felt being
in that space, to the, to what Ithought the problem was at that
(07:04):
point.
I didn't realise that 12 yearslater, I'd still be in this
space doing this work, makingthings happen.
But all of it really came frombeing in that conference and
realising, wow, if I'm part of ashrinking minority, that's not
going to be right.
If I ever have kids, I don'twant them to think I'm never
going to do anything else.
Full disclosure.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
I mean, I've started nothing as grand or successful
as STEM Act, but things likeAssociations Week and stuff like
that, where you bring peopletogether and when you found
something, it's finding thoseinitial sort of early adopters
to form a kind of a small butimportant critical mass.
How did you get those peoplearound you?
Speaker 4 (07:45):
So that ended up being easier than I thought it
would be.
So, as someone that was alreadyin industry, there were a lot
of people that I knew and I'donly ever done this right.
So a couple of folks I'd saidyou know, this is the thing I'm
thinking about, what do youthink They'd be like, yeah, sure
, happy to support?
There was this thing calledTwitter at that point that was
kind of growing in popularitygrowing in popularity.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Anne-Marie, tell us a little bit about some of your
early successes.
What was it, in the sort oflike the early days, that you
wanted to achieve, and did youdo it?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Early successes for me.
You've got to kind of be clearas well that initially this was
a punt.
It was like it was a tryout.
It's New Year and you'll knowthe same.
Like we're saying, I kind offounded things, you, you or I
don't actually feel the same way, but I didn't find it.
I didn't start it and I waslike this is definitely the
answer.
It was this works in AmericaOne.
I'll give it a go here.
(08:38):
It was actually my new year'sresolution in 2013.
And most other people would havesaid I'm going to do more yoga
or I'm going to stretch more,and mine was I'm going to try
this Stamets project thing, andso kind of measures of success
wasn't necessarily kind of whereI started.
It was, hey, I want to putthese spaces together and let's
see what happens.
Right, if we take this in adifferent way, if we're more
(09:01):
modern about the way that wetalk about STEM, if we're
allowing them to see people theywouldn't normally see.
So I think a lot of the earlysuccesses were seeing that it
was quite a simple principle.
You know, like if you've neverever met a scientist and you get
to meet a particular woman andyou know you both are enjoying
the same toppings on yourpancake because it's pancake day
(09:21):
and we've got unlimitedpancakes at the launch event,
right?
I don't know how many peoplehave ever got to meet a
physicist and understand.
You know they also want Biscoffand bananas on their pancakes,
and so that proximity that youhave to them is much more than
the proximity you might have toyour physics teacher or the
people that you see in yourtextbook or what we have in kind
of common in mediarepresentations and depictions
(09:43):
of all these people.
So a lot of the early successescame from folks just getting to
see the industry in a differentlight, in a way that it wouldn't
normally be presented, becausewe've never really prioritised
connection or belonging.
When we've got folks to engagewith industry, we've prioritised
no, you must know the knowledge, or this must be the definition
(10:04):
of excellence, or you must belike one of the greats in order
for you to be someone that we'regoing to value, or you must
have gone to this school, or youmust have studied this and had
this pathway and, you know, donethe GCSEs, age two, and so a
lot of the successes came fromjust breaking that down and
being like no, there are a lotof different types of people
that thrive in this space.
That exists in this space, andyou could be one of them.
(10:24):
You don't have to fit that kindof narrow definition of success
or narrow definition ofexcellence and so successes were
.
You know, these girls makingdifferent choices in their
subjects, then feeling morecomfortable in these spaces,
then building an app for thefirst time and realizing that
that was something that was wellwithin their means to do,
without necessarily being theperson that's the loudest in
their maths classes or thattheir computer science teacher
(10:46):
really liked.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
So I know that Gwilym is sort of champing at the bit
to come in, because you'vementioned physics, physicists a
number of times and I knowthat's normally his cue to come
in.
But if I can just do one morequestion on the sort of like the
setting up, the establishmentand then.
So let's move on a couple ofyears and the initiative is
grounded, it's doing stuff.
So I found in the sort ofcouple of initiatives I've been
(11:10):
involved in, particularly whenthey involve politicians and
needing to get a bit ofawareness there, that quite
often politicians feel likethey've seen it, done it and
it's ready to to move on.
Did you experience that?
Did you get that sort of thatlag that you get when people
think think, oh, it's done, wecan move on now?
Speaker 4 (11:26):
no, the nature of this problem means that I would
love for us to even get there,but it's so bad and so dire that
, no, so I we've I've hadgenerations of, I've been, I've
had to engage with generationsof politicians.
So the end of that first year,2013, so february 2013, we
started by the first week, Ithink it was, of december.
(11:47):
We're at number 10 with michaelgove, david Willett.
So Michael Gove was thenEducation Secretary, david
Willett was then UniversitiesMinister, science.
(12:09):
This year, as part of our 12thbirthday celebrations, again
with a brand new crop of mpsalso talking about this problem,
and it's something thateveryone is still having to
grapple with because it's, youknow, now it's growth.
Right now, politically, growthis the thing that folks are
looking for, and we've got theai action plan and the
government is taking technologyseriously in a particular way.
There's geopolitical elements onsemiconductor.
You know, there's a lot ofplaces where this is showing up
much more as time goes on,because technology and all of
(12:32):
what we're doing across STEM andSTEAM only grows with economic
importance, and so the idea thatwe don't have the right brains,
the right potential, the rightpeople going into these sectors
and serving means that it's notreally one that politicians can
ignore or say been there, donethat and we've solved it.
It's one, actually, thatthey're wanting to see more
scale right and more impactfaster, and so I don't know if
(12:56):
it's a privilege or a curse.
Really I don't know if it's apositive or a negative that, you
know, none of them really havesaid been there, done that and
we've solved it.
I think it's more likely,actually, that big companies and
big corporations are pretendingthat they've solved it or
pretending that it's not aproblem.
Yeah, and so that that ends upbeing the issue, I think, much
more than politicians.
Well, do you want to come in?
Speaker 2 (13:15):
I want to and I want to go back a little bit.
I want to come back to thattech thing as well, because
that's something that in part,the profession is super involved
in.
That should be highly relevantthing.
But actually, just going back abit and you've you mentioned
that you know you don't one ofthe messages to all the class,
that is, you don't have to havethe spectacular academic career
that you've had Anne-Marie to beable to do this.
(13:35):
I think that's a reallyimportant message.
But on the other hand, I thinksome people don't realize they
even have this ability.
You know these kind of theskill set and so actually, if
you don't mind, it was alwaysfun's backstories.
How did you find out you wereso good at maths?
Speaker 4 (13:49):
It was by accident.
So I can't sit still.
I don't sit still, and inprimary school this showed up in
various different ways and soin a class of 30, normally in
maths class, sometimes in otherlessons not numeracy lessons, of
course it is in primary schoolI kind of finish the work ahead
(14:12):
of everybody else and then havea chat with the mate or crack a
few jokes or just distract theclassroom in general, and you
know I probably was most of myteachers nightmares in that.
Then you'd say, hey, amory,have you finished your work?
And I'd be like, yeah, I have,and then carry on with whatever
it was.
So it ended up looking almostlike disruptive behaviour at
points.
Or you'd say, hey, anne-marie,what did I just say?
And I'd deliver it back betterthan the teacher did.
(14:34):
The extreme example, extremeincident was Ofsted were in and
my year four teacher waspanicking ever so slightly
because Ofsted are in andwatching the classroom you know
what it is and I think theypopped up on the board a top
heavy fraction and so asked thegroup a question which of course
they were all stumped andcouldn't answer because they put
(14:54):
the numbers the wrong wayaround to which at one point I
kind of stood up, I put my handup and I said, well, this is the
answer.
But if you put it the other wayaround, then this is probably
what you're looking for.
And that was my way of helpingmy teacher out during the Ofsted
inspection.
So so what a parent's eveningthen rolled around and I think
(15:15):
there's a mounting exasperation.
So they kind of said to myparents look, anne-marie knows
some stuff.
I've heard of people had havingaccelerated learning.
Can we give her some secondaryschool stuff?
So, for goodness sake, she cansit in the corner and chew on
that and leave the rest of usalone.
And so that was what it was andit do.
You know what's so sad and sofrustrating about it?
(15:37):
So the head of numeracy in myprimary school was a guy called
mr davies.
Until now, actually, I think wenow know his first name was
john.
But john davies is, like youknow, trying to find him.
He's like trying to find aneedle in the haystack.
So we actually recordedsomething for the BBC last year
back at my primary school andwe're still trying to look for
him and we can't find him.
I did Life Scientific on Radio4 and you know looking for and
(15:59):
the national search for Mr JohnDavies continues.
But I was really reallyfortunate because it could have
been seen, as you know,behavioral problems.
It could have been thatpipeline to suspension, all
those kinds of things, whereasactually it was like no, amory
knows what she's talking about.
Just for goodness sake, we needher to sit still so that the
other 29 kids can get aneducation without her, you know,
getting to entertain them inthe meantime.
(16:20):
And I wouldn't.
I never take for granted, I'venever taken for granted that I
know these things.
Never take for granted, I'venever taken for granted that I
know these things.
So I remember sitting the paperand thinking, yeah, I wonder if
this person knows that it'slike a 10 year old that's
answering these questions.
And I was as surprised asanyone when the results came
back and I was super happy.
My dad took me to McDonald's.
I didn't have to wash up for aweek.
That was great.
(16:40):
But I think it's not somethingthat I've ever been fully
conscious of and it's hard.
It's hard to reflect.
It's hard to reflect becauseI've never not been me, if that
makes sense.
I've never.
There's never been a time thatI've been able to kind of do it
one way and then do it the otherway and then see this was the
difference.
Um, so yeah, I don't, I don'ttake for granted these are
things that I know and Iunderstand.
I just I just enjoy them.
And funny things happenthroughout life, even the
(17:02):
countdown right.
There's so many things that I'vedone that I don't go into it
being like, yeah, this isdefinitely going to work.
I'm always willing to givethings a go and I'll always
learn, and I say with that aswell um, it's interesting what
you said in your question thatyeah, there's so many folks that
probably could have done this,because if you look at the maths
curriculum, it builds over timeand there's quite a lot of
overlap between what we do atkey stage two and what we do at
key stage three, and so thereare there's quite a lot of
(17:24):
people that if you gave themthat exam, they'd probably deal
all right at it.
Right.
But we don't give folks theopportunity because we think we
know what a genius should looklike, or we think we know from
people's behaviours, you know,if they're a bit of a
know-it-all, you know, youassume that they're going to
know better, whereas actually no.
The folks that have to work atit harder, often end up doing
(17:46):
better because they've put thateffort in, because they've
refined it and because theelement of self-doubt means that
they check and they're a bitmore honest with the work,
rather than just assuming it'ssomething they can do naturally
right off the bat.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
It's really interesting.
I mean, there's the BletchleyPark, possibly the most powerful
story that they sent a puzzleout to people in the newspapers
saying, you know, go for thiscompetition.
And then they just found awhole bunch of people who'd
never studied maths, just nailedthe puzzle.
They just hired them all forbletchley bar to do code
breaking.
I don't know if that's true,but it's a great kind of story
for finding talents insurprising ways, you know it's
definitely true.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
It definitely used to be the way that they did
recruiting, which which is kindof why I made that comment
earlier used it used to be thatyou did open a bit like almost
11 plus type thing.
You did open kind of exams oropen assessments for folks.
I mean, if they had thisnatural aptitude, then you take
them in.
And so in the 60s, I think inthe 70s, a lot of folks that
ended up in IT, for examplethat's how they come in it
wasn't with IT training, it wasbecause they had this aptitude
(18:38):
to see particular logics inparticular ways.
We've obviously gone away fromthat now for various reasons.
But yeah, definitely a lot offolks have the affinity they're
just, you know, the systemdoesn't recognize it.
Or, like I said, we we limitopportunity to what we think is
the pattern matching for what agenius could look like you
mentioned also, kind of yourfascinating career.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Yeah, I don't think anybody goes into science
thinking they're going to end upon countdown.
But you never know, you neverknow.
But I do quite a lot oftutoring through one of the
access projects.
I'm always having to plug itit's one of the charities, um,
and you know, you tutor gcse anda level students from
backgrounds inside and I domaths and physics teaching quite
badly, but the principle I tryand it's people who are good at
(19:17):
it want to do it.
But when I say what you're goingto do next anyone doing physics
they always say I want to be anastrophysicist, now, great
career, don't get me wrong,there's not that much room for
that.
When the astrophysicist Nowgreat career, don't get me wrong
, there's not that much room forthat many astrophysicists.
It always occurs to me that thereason you're saying that isn't
because you really want to bean astrophysicist.
It's because you don't actuallyknow what else physicists do.
It's probably the only jobtitle with physicist in it Now,
(19:38):
if you've read it.
And so I think to me one of thebig challenges saying you do
realize that when you got thatdegree you can go in all kinds
of different directions.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
I guess that's part of the kind of teaching and
support you guys give as wellexactly, and I think it it ends
up being quite a hard task aswell because it's constantly
involving and constantlychanging.
So we do end up saying this toa lot of our young people I I
had actually the job the, thefinal job, that final corporate
job I had didn't exist when Istarted at that company.
(20:09):
Um, and with the way thatthings are going right, there's.
There's all these new rolesthat keep popping up.
There's all these new.
I don't know, we'll get to 6gand there'll be a whole new, and
quantum is coming right, sothere'll be a whole new suite of
things that happen with ourspace exploration.
There's so many things that arecoming up, and so it ends up
being, you know whether knowwhether we should be asking the
question what do you want to dowhen you're older?
Or whether we should be sayingwhat are the problems that
(20:31):
you're interested in, that you'dlike to solve, and helping them
understand that, actually,rather than it being that you
have to go into a predefinedfield or a predefined role, that
you want to keep your optionsopen Because, yeah, you can't
plan.
I couldn't have planned in the90s what I would have ended up
doing, because there's so manythings since then that I've got
(20:52):
to see and got to understand.
And now new options and there'snew ones that are opening up,
you know, any given time, and soit's pretty, it's pretty hard,
you're right.
You know it's the work of theindustry also to ensure that
you're visible or ensure thatyou're in those spaces and, you
know, connecting with folks,allowing them to see the options
, but I think it's pretty hard.
Physics, I think, is one that'spretty hard for folks to see.
Maths is the other one.
You know a lot of folks here.
You know you stay in academia,you become a maths teacher and
(21:14):
we don't have that visibility ofall the different places that
maths ends up being useful orends up being kind of coming to
play or coming to the fore.
And I think we also make folksfeel like you're kind of your
science or your technical oryour artistic and the two never
(21:34):
kind of come together, which iswhy we we have emphasis on STEAM
.
But this idea that you're doingthe physics to open up options
rather than to narrow down whatyou end up doing again isn't in
the language that we have ofdelivering.
Physics isn't in the languagewe have of A-level choices,
isn't in the language that wehave of delivering physics isn't
in the language we have ofA-level choices isn't in the
language that we have of evenkind of degree programmes.
So I think we definitely shouldbe able to do better to say,
(21:55):
hey, you know, physics and lawcome together in the IP
profession.
You know how are we able totell those narratives in a way
that means that folks can seethat it's opening up rather than
narrowing down what they'regoing to be able to do?
Speaker 2 (22:08):
it's all ties in with the point you make about
government.
I kind of recognize theimportance of technology and
linking it with growth andeverything else, but somehow not
everything's being linked up inquite the right way.
So I mean, I think, incrediblyimportantly, we need to get all
the right people into thescience pipeline, or the steam
pipeline, by the way, I likesteam easily, but the a is r, I
(22:28):
think, isn't it because I'mstill?
I'm still thinking stem.
I think this other time maybelisteners don't know, I didn't
know that uh, scheme good, extra, extra letter like it.
But I think getting people intothis pipeline really, really
important, uh, and then you know, say, hey, there's all kinds of
things you can do once you're,once you're in there, I think
it's really important as well.
The other bit that then becomesimportant, which is a bit
beyond stem, there I think it'sreally important as well.
The other bit that then becomesimportant, which is a bit
(22:49):
beyond STEM-esque but I thinkit's really important to our
profession, is the importance oflinking up innovation and
growth.
We do it on the legal side to acertain extent, but really
actually what we do isinnovation support as a
profession.
So please, when you talk to thepoliticians make sure they're
always aware that we've got theworld's best patent
professionals sitting thereready to monetize everything
everyone thinks of foreverybody's benefit.
(23:12):
I promise I will it's actuallyreally important to us.
I think and I think only we'veactually talked about whether
the I needs to turn in secretshould become innovation, rather
than the I in terms of propertyor something like that.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Well, you know I have the scars from trying to change
SEPA's name and I'm not goingthere again.
Can I just ask a quick question?
I mean we've talked about it inthe round, but I'm wondering
how much of an issue this wasfor you in the early days and
whether it sort of remains itnow.
But I'm not a scientist.
Ok, in fact, confession comesup on the podcast occasionally.
(23:46):
I'm a plumber.
I have no idea.
I have no idea how I ended upbeing the chief executive of the
Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneys.
It's a bit of a mad lie.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
It comes up on every podcast we have ever done.
If we don't talk about plumbingin the podcast, something's
gone wrong.
Speaker 4 (23:59):
We should note for solicitors.
It's come up unsolicited though, sorry, we should note for the
listeners.
Sorry it's come up unsolicited,but I mean we'll always need
plumbers, we'll always needplumbers.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
When I was working at Tiles Further Education teacher
for quite a while, and one ofthe issues for FE teachers
particularly when you're tryingto get young women into
non-traditional careers likeconstruction, engineering et
cetera is to try and give them asense of what the work
opportunities are and thatthey're not the stereotypical
sort of opportunities that theysee.
And I'm imagining the same istrue of the science and tech
(24:32):
world.
Are you still looking forexamples that you can give to
young people, young women, thatsays you know you're not going
to be stuck in a white coat in alab.
This is what science looks likein the real world.
Speaker 4 (24:43):
Yeah, I mean, that's a big part of what we're so we
it's a big part of what we'retrying to do.
Yes, there are lots ofdifferent options.
There are lots of differentplaces that you might do this.
Some of them are stereotypicaland many of them are not.
Some of them you'll have towear overalls and some of them
you won't.
So definitely, it's somethingwe're always trying to open up,
but I think, because itcontinuously changes, so
(25:04):
plumbers will always have rightAge-old industry, something
we'll always need.
I think the difficulty comeswith, rather than defining
specific roles, showing thatthere's a plethora and there's
an opportunity to find lots ofdifferent types of roles and the
one that fits with you.
But also and I guess thisspeaks a little bit to retention
, I'm sure you know you'llyou'll be kind of talking about
(25:26):
across cpa and the other kind ofip inclusive programs that you
run also that a role is not forlife, which I think you know,
you being a plumber.
Evidence is that, and so,actually, if they're going to
make this decision, that it'snot a permanent decision, it's
not a lifelong decision, it'sone about the next role or
potential roles, rather than itbeing you're committing yourself
to the life of being a minor orthe life of being someone
(25:47):
that's doing the particular roleon a construction.
So for us it is about showingthat there's options and that
this isn't fixed, and actuallythey should be open to exploring
those as time goes rather thansaying that they want to narrow
it down.
That's why, you know, I talkabout being a multi-hyphenate,
it's why we have the way that werun our events and we have
people.
It's always someone new forthem to come and to start to see
(26:09):
those patterns of what folkscan do.
But I think the pressure or thework really, you know, needs to
be done for those industries.
So what are they doing to makesure that if we do end up
sending a young person to dosome work experience on site or
to spend time with them on site,or you know they're walking
past and they get to engage andsee what that environment looks
like how are we making sure thatit looks like somewhere that a
(26:31):
young woman thinks they can comeand thrive in?
And I think that ends up beingreally the task.
There's only so much we can do,or I can do, for attraction and
getting folks kind ofrecruiting in the door.
But what are we doing in theindustry to ensure that those
people then want to stay, wantto be there and get to thrive in
those spaces?
And I think that's the thingthat that's the message that
kind of can't go missing.
(26:52):
Really, are we paying them?
Like?
What do our pay gaps look like?
Do we have policies thatrecognise that they might be
more likely to have kind of careresponsibilities that go on
outside of work, and how we'rereflecting that?
You know we at Stamets have gota four-day work week.
We've got menstrual leave.
You know we've got all mannerof different things that we've
got.
You've got returnship.
So if someone's left plumbingfor a while because they've gone
on again, extended care leavewhen they come back, how we're
(27:15):
recognising those skills andallowing them to then transfer
across.
It's something we talk about alot and exploring a lot at the
Institute for the Future of Workthis idea of reskilling and
upskilling, because again, a lotof these industries are
transforming With this fourthindustrial revolution.
You've got AI, you've got allkinds of different technology
that's coming in.
So how are we empowering peopleto be able to then switch and
(27:36):
move across?
And I think there were certainsectors and certain parts of the
industry that if you didn'tmake that decision at 14, you'll
never be allowed to ever haveeven a look in, you know, to
come and join our ranks and comeand do what we do, whereas
actually that's not the wayreally to run things.
If you want to be inclusive andit's not very good for
innovation in your space anyway,right, if everyone's gone on
(27:57):
the same journey, the samepathway and come through the
same way and there's no otherdoors for them to come in and
join you.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
I've got a couple of couple of questions and then
guillem.
So at the end of the podcast weusually do some sort of
tangential, closer question.
Guillem's going to do this one.
I've got no idea what's comingup.
We'll tell you you about thatin a moment, but a couple of
proper questions still first.
First one obviously we'll havea lot of people listening to
this who are working in science,tech, engineering, maths fields
(28:28):
, either because they are patentattorneys and those are their
backgrounds, or because they'reinterested in invention and
creativity.
What can they do to help?
What can CIPA do to help?
How?
What can they do to help?
Speaker 4 (28:38):
What can SIPA do to help?
How can we get involved?
So, volunteer we're alwayslooking for folks to volunteer
and help out at events and onprogrammes and behind the scenes
.
So volunteerstametsorg I'dhighly recommend.
Folks can come and be mentors,can come and clean laptops, can
come and, you know, help us doresearch.
Actually, because we have anadvocacy stream when we're
working with the politicians todo some of the kind of desk
research for what's going on onthat front.
(28:59):
Um.
So that's one.
I mean also fundraisers.
I think we've got a spot inlondon, marathon 2026.
So if there's someone thatthinks that they're a great
fundraiser or wants to do a bakesale or anything like that, I'm
always kind of keen to havethat where we've got our charity
that runs alongside us to metfutures 1188774, um.
But I think the other thing isunderstanding and just doing the
(29:21):
work, doing the iterative workto ensure that you are playing
your role in that retentionpiece.
So you know, how can you beinvolved in recruitment panels,
how can you join affinity groupsin your organisation, how can
you show up and be an ally fordifferent people across the
organisations that you're in?
You know?
Know what are the tweaks thatwe need to make for some of
(29:41):
those policies, or what's thesupport that you want to ensure
that you've got in, to make surethat you've got different
people around the table when youare in your meetings, when you
are, you know, at conferences,when you are doing promotion
rounds, right, all of thosetypes of things.
I think everybody's got it intheir gift.
Everyone, everyone has a sphereof influence, and so how are
you using that to do better andensure that the profession can
(30:02):
do better?
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Sure, we'll make sure those links go out with the
podcast when it's published.
Now I've got a really selfishquestion for my last question,
if that's okay.
And this comes back to my loveof Countdown, and I've always
thought that there must be somekind of magic going on behind
the maths stuff in in solvingthose sort of equations.
(30:24):
I was gonna say conundrums, butthat's the word bit, isn't it?
But I suppose you're gonna massconundrum as well, can't you?
Speaker 4 (30:28):
and I know conundrum is the nine, the nine letters at
the end are the tricks?
Speaker 1 (30:33):
are that tricks that you use?
Are there sort of some mentaltricks that help you do it
quickly?
Speaker 4 (30:39):
There are loads of tricks.
What I would say, though, is topractice is the ultimate trick,
isn't it?
Really.
The other thing and I have to becareful because you know you
almost don't want to give awaykind of secrets of TV too much,
but we film five episodes in aday, three days on the trot, and
so what I found and I thinkwith Rachel even more so because
(30:59):
she's done it for decades, likeover a decade now is the
numbers do end up, they do starttalking to you, do start to see
patterns and how things come,and so then sometimes I don't
know if you'd quite call itautopilot.
My thing was that the numberswere talking to me by episode 13
, 14, 15, they were, they werejust talking to you.
But then the other thing thatthat does help, I guess, is they
will tell you in your ear ifit's not possible.
(31:21):
So then you don't waste energy.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
We might have to cut that one out, because that's too
much of a giveaway now.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
The numbers talk to you.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
That's just broken my heart and sort of ruined my
feelings.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
She's just good at it , lee.
Can I have a quick 10 secondson the?
And sort of ruined my life?
She's just good at it, lee.
She's just good at it.
Can I have a quick ten secondson the beauty of maths, by the
way?
Because I have this kind ofphysics-y theory that the only
universes that could possiblywork are universes where maths
works.
What I love about maths is theway that, however deep you get,
it remains totally consistent.
(31:57):
It doesn't matter how far yougo in.
It never stops working.
It's kind of like the universeand the only places the universe
and maths break down.
How's about this?
For a bit of a segue, this ismy theory is zero and infinity.
Math doesn't work for that, andthe universe struggles with it
as well don't, don't go there.
Speaker 4 (32:13):
One of our first year lectures and I'll never, I'll
never forget this was we had anhour on.
Zero doesn't equal to one.
And I remember thinking my good, like, what an hour of what are
you all still?
Still now I haven't got over it, um, but I think what?
So my, my take on so I fullyagree with you.
My take on it is that it's thebeauty of maths and it's the
(32:36):
reliability of maths, and itfrustrates me that I have to
live in the real world, becausein the real world nothing makes
sense.
Things change all the time andI don't know if it's human
beings.
I think it goes as far asbiology.
It's very, very irritatingbecause it's not very reliable,
(32:57):
whereas with maths you just knowit just works and you don't
have to.
And I always say this to folks,and folks are like oh, you know
, did you have a toughupbringing?
And I was like no, it wasn'tsuper traumatic, I was just with
human beings where if I sayhello to you today and I say
hello tomorrow, I get acompletely different response,
even though I've said it.
Bang on 10, 20 in the same tone, and it drives me wild.
(33:18):
But you can't, I can't not livewith human beings.
So I always say this to folks.
You know, when folks kind ofask different, varying versions
of.
I did a thing with Stanley Tucci, for example, a couple of weeks
ago, and it was if you had noresponsibilities, what would you
do?
Right?
And I'm like I would go and I'dsit on a beach on the east
coast of Kenya and I would doslow mathematics.
(33:38):
I'd just sit there and it'd beon a beach on the east coast of
Kenya and I would do slowmathematics.
I just sit there and it'd be meand the numbers and you know,
and it would all just make sense.
I wouldn't have to try andexplain to folks why women
should be able to be in thisspace or why you can't build an
AI system if you haven't thoughtabout accountability, all of
(34:00):
these things.
So you're having to kind ofgrapple with concepts Like no,
let me just sit here and writethis proof that is completely
bulletproof and will always workand will always be correct and
will forever.
You know, if someone's born in300 years, that thing's still.
Those prime numbers are stillprime.
(34:20):
They haven changed.
It's the beauty of maths, butno one, you know, you see eyes,
I know for you both.
Maybe not, but you see eyesglaze over because folks had
terrible times in their mathslessons.
I was like I don't care if yourmaths teacher was like that.
The maths itself maintained itwas highly reliable, but anyway.
(34:41):
Anyway, you started it I did.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
That's a fabulous.
I didn't close over, I lit upand you should have been a
patent.
Certainly that's the highest,highest background I could
provide at this moment law,don't even get me started.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
and my problem with lawyers and it's not your fault
as a lawyer, it should just belogical.
But it's not, because you'vegot clauses and you've got
precedents, so then things don'tfollow.
No, it's not deterministic.
No, that's the only reason Iwasn't a patent lawyer.
It's the law side.
It's the law side.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
You're going to close us off with a tangential
question, aren't you?
Are you going to explain to ushow Marie Outworks?
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Yeah, so at the end of it, we always come up with a
closer question just to finishoff, normally inspired by
something during the podcast.
Lee normally has a reallyprofound and deep one.
I have a silly one, so I'mgetting it today, and you
mentioned ages ago that you hadyour new year's resolution in 20
, I think it was 2013.
Um, sounds like you have one ayear, which sounds very
mathematical to me.
(35:48):
But um, out of interest, um, Ithink I'll start with you.
Don't know, lee, the league,what's?
your best ever new year'sresolution.
Yeah, what's your best ever newyear's resolution?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
well, I wasn't.
Wasn't expecting that as aquestion.
Where did that come from?
Of course not.
You just explained where itcame from.
I don't do you know what Idon't generally do New Year's
resolutions so that's probablynot a fair question to ask me,
because I can't remember thelast time I made one.
It's just sorry.
Yeah, I'm going to fall down onthis one.
Willem, I don't do resolutions.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Lee, we would like you to make a New Year's
resolution at the beginning of2026.
What would it be?
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Why are you doing this to me?
Is this some kind ofpersecution complex?
What would my New Year'sresolution be?
I don't know.
I'd probably like to get morefishing in.
I don't do enough fishing.
I don't make enough time to besat on the beach where I'm at my
happiest.
Oh, actually, no, I've got abetter one.
I've got a better one.
(36:43):
I will resolve my own internaltensions with numbers.
So and I don't know whetherI've talked to you about this
before, Gwilym, but I have areal thing about odd numbers.
I avoid odd numbers like theplague.
My children annoy me hugely byalways leaving the television on
(37:03):
like 17 or 13 or volume or somevolume wise.
I mean not channel and stufflike that both primes, both
prime numbers as well.
Interesting, interesting yeah,yeah, I do.
I have this real thing about umand I count a lot and make sure
that you know.
If there are 13 stairs andthere are nearly always 13
stairs in a flight you'veprobably noticed that I have to
go down one and back up to makeit 14.
(37:24):
Because I can't have oddnumbers in my life.
So my New Year's Resolution2026 will be to resolve that
internal tension.
Gwilym, there you go, thank you.
You've done a bit ofcounselling for me without
knowing.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
There's a lot to unpick there.
I'm going to pass to Anne-Marie.
I'm going to pass to you, a tocomment on what Lee just said
because it's fascinating, andthen B to give us your next this
year's resolution.
Speaker 4 (37:49):
I was going to comment and say that's quite a
tall order to ask someone aquarter of the way through one
demand last minute to set thenew year's resolution for the
following year.
Given they didn't three monthsago, they're not in the loop of
doing it, but lee lee rose tothe challenge and what I will
say is so I stopped it afterthat year because of, because of
what happened, with me stilldoing now, I stopped doing new
(38:11):
year's resolutions.
Um, I actually have a word forthe year.
Um, each year.
This year I wasn't, I didn't gopublic with it and I will do
eventually, but I didn't gopublic with it.
Um, but the, the, the funniestone, or the best one, or the
interesting, most interestingone.
It's not funny.
Actually, the weirdest one wasin 2020.
My word for the year was jomo,which means the joy of missing
(38:35):
out, which is almost theopposite of FOMO, which is the
fear of missing out, and what Isaid in 2020 was um, I'd spent
the years prior running aroundlike a chicken doing lots of
different things and it wasreally nice for me to sit out of
particular things.
So I was going to sit out ofmore and be at home more and
have the joy of missing out andwatching other people end up at
(38:58):
these events doing other,whatever else it might be.
And then lockdown was announced, so the whole world had to Jomo
with me.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
It was you, yeah, sorry.
Speaker 1 (39:08):
Come on, gwilym, you know how it works and you
obviously already know youranswer, because you're clever
and you think of your answerbefore you create the question,
so go on.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
So I actually also don't do news resolutions.
What I do is I choose one thingI want to focus on, because I'm
getting old now and there'sonly things you want to do in
your life.
You can't do all of them, so Ikind of pick one thing at a time
.
Uh, as I may have mentionedbefore, for a while it was
getting my head around a bit ofrelativity, because I've always
actually hidden from that.
Really interesting.
I can't actually talk about itgoing forwards currently, having
married um a spanish lady, mydaughter speaks Spanish.
(39:38):
I need to learn some Spanish.
So that's what's happening atthe moment.
I am struggling Again.
The words go in one side andcome out the other, but that's
where I'm up to at the moment.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
That's nice.
That's quite ordinary for youto answer a question.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
I'm proud of you.
I also try to learn the guitar.
I want to be able to slash thatinto solo.
I can't do that either, butthat's the other one.
If you want the silly one,there you go.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
Anne-marie, thank you so much for coming on the
podcast.
It's been an absolute pleasureto have you on and I can't wait
to have a listen back to this.
If you've listened to thepodcast, of course you've
listened to the podcast, or youwouldn't know I was speaking,
would you?
So, as, obviously, because it'sbeen a great one.
Leave us a little review onwherever it is you get your
podcasts from, and that'll helpother people find us.
And, gwilym, I will see you onthe next one, and Marie, best
(40:23):
wishes for the future.
I hope the program continues togo from strength to strength.
Thank you next time.
Hey Gwilym, hey, how are you?
I'm going to say this is a fineday because I'm looking at my
hotel bedroom window.
I'm in Leeds, by the way, forthe Yorkshire Regional Meeting.
I'm really excited to be doingthat today and I was told when I
was coming up to Leeds bring areally big coat.
But it's absolutely beautifulout there, a big blue sky, sun
shining.
It's amazing.
I'm in a Costa Coffee inElephanton Castle and the
(00:26):
weather's lovely.
So there we go.
I'm sorry to have brought outthe envy in you for my
globetrotting.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I got a good coffee.
I'm not complaining.
They are a client.
I shouldn't endorse them.
There we go.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Cambridge last week, Leeds this week, San Diego in a
few weeks.
That's a bit more impressivethan Cambridge and Leeds, isn't
it?
But not for people fromCambridge and Leeds, obviously.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
That wasn't meant as any offence.
All to San.
Diego, of course, anything youwant to tell me about.
Well, it's been a, I think, asyou know, it's been a poignant
week of One of the things I'vebeen doing for Actually, let me
notice how long Between 15 and20 years is, um, I've been
president of this group calledunion.
We have three lovely dinners ayear with really high-powered
speakers, um, and I can host itand everything, and I decided it
(01:12):
was fb time for something else.
I had a crack, so tuesday withmy last one of them, you nearly
came, but then your daughter hada surprise 21st birthday.
Um, I can't blame you for notknowing about that, lee,
obviously, yeah, I mean shedidn't surprise me with her 21st
birthday.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I forgot, okay, I was being polite, but yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So I think we agree we'll do a podcast with the
union, with the new president,matt Wrigley, who's a good
friend of Steve, a councilmember, etc.
Etc.
Anyway.
But it was nice and then wewent for a couple of cocktails
afterwards.
That was a good, fun evening.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
We missed you.
Sorry I missed that.
Well done for your work overthe years with Union.
I know you put a lot into thatand good luck to Matt as he
takes on the rudder of the Unionship.
That's what it was.
Am I mixing my maritimemetaphors?
Yeah, I was a rudder wrangler,that was my job.
(02:07):
We probably should crack onwith the podcast, um, because
obviously we have a guestwaiting in the wings.
Really, really, really excitedto um to be doing this podcast
today because, um, you knowacross the across the series,
we've been doing it for fouryears now and you know that we
often touch on subjects aboutinclusivity, um, and widen
participation, particularly inthe baton attorney world, where
we're always trying to make surethat the profession is diverse
(02:30):
and represents the people thatit serves.
And, anne-marie, welcome to thepodcast.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Hi, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
So tell us a wee bit about yourself.
Well, actually, why not tell usa wee bit about yourself?
Tell the audience a wee bitabout yourself.
Take as long long as you like,because obviously, guillem and I
have had the opportunity tohave a little read through your
um for your bio and we can't doyou justice, so you're gonna
have to do it yourself.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Oh no, oh gosh, the pressure is on.
I'm, I'm really.
I mean, I like to say, well, Ilike maths, I like tech and I
like helping people.
That's normally where I start.
I spend most of my time runningan organisation called STEMETS.
That's all about engaging,informing and connecting young
women, young non-binary folk, tothe STEM and STEAM industry
(03:14):
STEM being science, technology,engineering and maths, and STEAM
being science, technology,engineering, art and design and
maths.
I also appear in differentplaces at different times.
I'm the author of a book calledshe's in Control.
I'm the co-chair at theInstitute for the Future of Work
.
I hosted a couple of episodesof Countdown maybe 60 episodes
(03:37):
of Countdown as thearithmetician at one point while
Rachel Riley was on mat leave.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
I'm a big Countdown fan and remember your
appearances vividly, so I wasdoubly excited when you were
coming on.
For that reason.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
Yeah, and Chancellor of University, like Chancellor
of Glasgow Caledonia University,so I wear a lot of hats and do
a lot of things, but ultimatelyit's because I like maths, tech
and I like helping people, andso that means that there are any
number of places I could turnup on any given week.
Um, speaking about variousdifferent things that are all
about, yeah, ensuring that wejust do better in general across
science and here you are on ageeky um science, techie and law
(04:20):
podcast.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So so where should we start?
Where did the STEMET sort ofinitiative come from?
What was the impetus?
Speaker 4 (04:30):
So I had a road to Damascus moment.
So I've always loved maths andtech, like I said, since I was a
child, had one of theseWunderkind child prodigy
journeys.
So I had two GCSEs by the timeI left primary school, one in
maths and one in ICT, went up,did my master's at Oxford in
maths and comp and was done bythe time I was 20 and ended up
(04:54):
working in industry in technicalroles.
I actually was at an investmentbank, a universal bank, really
really enjoying it Really reallykind of getting stuck into the
tech, solving problems, beingpaid really well, being heard,
being listened to, beingrespected, and ended up, as kind
of part of that, speaking at aconference in the States, which
(05:17):
for me was super exciting.
You know, free trip across whynot?
But also it just so happenedthat this was the Grace Hopper
celebration of women incomputing and this was kind of
Q3, q4 of 2012.
Turned up at this conference.
There were three and a halfthousand people there and around
and about and all of them werewomen and it was.
(05:38):
It was so interesting for mebecause I'd never been in a
majority female technical spacebefore, because I'd never been
in a majority female technicalspace before, but I'd never
noticed that that was somethingthat I was missing right or that
kind of didn't happen veryoften, even though I'd always
been a girl and always been inthose technical and those
mathematical spaces.
And so I had a bit of a road toDamascus moment in hearing from
(05:59):
the keynote that the number ofwomen in technical fields, in
the US at least, had been infree fall over the kind of the
years and the decades beforethat conference.
And so she implored all of usto stay.
She gave us five reasons tostay in the industry and she
gave us five reasons to recruita friend to try and reverse that
trend.
And I remember being sat in thataudience and thinking, my
(06:21):
goodness, maybe this is anAmerican problem.
You know, I'm discovering somany things on this trip
discovering I'm a woman in techI didn't know that I was one of
those before.
Discovering I'm a black womanin tech didn't know I was one of
those before.
But also thinking, okay, cool,like the Americans have this
problem and the Institute ofPhysics around that time had
just put out a report, I think,called no Girl Left Behind or
something along those lines dida little bit more reading and
(06:42):
spotted that you know thiswasn't an American problem.
This is something we had backwhere I'd come from, but also
that I was, you know, one ofthese STEM people and someone
needed to do something about it,really back here in the UK, and
so ended up starting Stamets asa response to how I felt being
in that space, to the, to what Ithought the problem was at that
(07:04):
point.
I didn't realise that 12 yearslater, I'd still be in this
space doing this work, makingthings happen.
But all of it really came frombeing in that conference and
realising, wow, if I'm part of ashrinking minority, that's not
going to be right.
If I ever have kids, I don'twant them to think I'm never
going to do anything else.
Full disclosure.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
I mean, I've started nothing as grand or successful
as STEM Act, but things likeAssociations Week and stuff like
that, where you bring peopletogether and when you found
something, it's finding thoseinitial sort of early adopters
to form a kind of a small butimportant critical mass.
How did you get those peoplearound you?
Speaker 4 (07:45):
So that ended up being easier than I thought it
would be.
So, as someone that was alreadyin industry, there were a lot
of people that I knew and I'donly ever done this right.
So a couple of folks I'd saidyou know, this is the thing I'm
thinking about, what do youthink They'd be like, yeah, sure
, happy to support?
There was this thing calledTwitter at that point that was
kind of growing in popularitygrowing in popularity.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Anne-Marie, tell us a little bit about some of your
early successes.
What was it, in the sort oflike the early days, that you
wanted to achieve, and did youdo it?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Early successes for me.
You've got to kind of be clearas well that initially this was
a punt.
It was like it was a tryout.
It's New Year and you'll knowthe same.
Like we're saying, I kind offounded things, you, you or I
don't actually feel the same way, but I didn't find it.
I didn't start it and I waslike this is definitely the
answer.
It was this works in AmericaOne.
I'll give it a go here.
(08:38):
It was actually my new year'sresolution in 2013.
And most other people would havesaid I'm going to do more yoga
or I'm going to stretch more,and mine was I'm going to try
this Stamets project thing, andso kind of measures of success
wasn't necessarily kind of whereI started.
It was, hey, I want to putthese spaces together and let's
see what happens.
Right, if we take this in adifferent way, if we're more
(09:01):
modern about the way that wetalk about STEM, if we're
allowing them to see people theywouldn't normally see.
So I think a lot of the earlysuccesses were seeing that it
was quite a simple principle.
You know, like if you've neverever met a scientist and you get
to meet a particular woman andyou know you both are enjoying
the same toppings on yourpancake because it's pancake day
(09:21):
and we've got unlimitedpancakes at the launch event,
right?
I don't know how many peoplehave ever got to meet a
physicist and understand.
You know they also want Biscoffand bananas on their pancakes,
and so that proximity that youhave to them is much more than
the proximity you might have toyour physics teacher or the
people that you see in yourtextbook or what we have in kind
of common in mediarepresentations and depictions
(09:43):
of all these people.
So a lot of the early successescame from folks just getting to
see the industry in a differentlight, in a way that it wouldn't
normally be presented, becausewe've never really prioritised
connection or belonging.
When we've got folks to engagewith industry, we've prioritised
no, you must know the knowledge, or this must be the definition
(10:04):
of excellence, or you must belike one of the greats in order
for you to be someone that we'regoing to value, or you must
have gone to this school, or youmust have studied this and had
this pathway and, you know, donethe GCSEs, age two, and so a
lot of the successes came fromjust breaking that down and
being like no, there are a lotof different types of people
that thrive in this space.
That exists in this space, andyou could be one of them.
(10:24):
You don't have to fit that kindof narrow definition of success
or narrow definition ofexcellence and so successes were
.
You know, these girls makingdifferent choices in their
subjects, then feeling morecomfortable in these spaces,
then building an app for thefirst time and realizing that
that was something that was wellwithin their means to do,
without necessarily being theperson that's the loudest in
their maths classes or thattheir computer science teacher
(10:46):
really liked.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
So I know that Gwilym is sort of champing at the bit
to come in, because you'vementioned physics, physicists a
number of times and I knowthat's normally his cue to come
in.
But if I can just do one morequestion on the sort of like the
setting up, the establishmentand then.
So let's move on a couple ofyears and the initiative is
grounded, it's doing stuff.
So I found in the sort ofcouple of initiatives I've been
(11:10):
involved in, particularly whenthey involve politicians and
needing to get a bit ofawareness there, that quite
often politicians feel likethey've seen it, done it and
it's ready to to move on.
Did you experience that?
Did you get that sort of thatlag that you get when people
think think, oh, it's done, wecan move on now?
Speaker 4 (11:26):
no, the nature of this problem means that I would
love for us to even get there,but it's so bad and so dire that
, no, so I we've I've hadgenerations of, I've been, I've
had to engage with generationsof politicians.
So the end of that first year,2013, so february 2013, we
started by the first week, Ithink it was, of december.
(11:47):
We're at number 10 with michaelgove, david Willett.
So Michael Gove was thenEducation Secretary, david
Willett was then UniversitiesMinister, science.
(12:09):
This year, as part of our 12thbirthday celebrations, again
with a brand new crop of mpsalso talking about this problem,
and it's something thateveryone is still having to
grapple with because it's, youknow, now it's growth.
Right now, politically, growthis the thing that folks are
looking for, and we've got theai action plan and the
government is taking technologyseriously in a particular way.
There's geopolitical elements onsemiconductor.
You know, there's a lot ofplaces where this is showing up
much more as time goes on,because technology and all of
(12:32):
what we're doing across STEM andSTEAM only grows with economic
importance, and so the idea thatwe don't have the right brains,
the right potential, the rightpeople going into these sectors
and serving means that it's notreally one that politicians can
ignore or say been there, donethat and we've solved it.
It's one, actually, thatthey're wanting to see more
scale right and more impactfaster, and so I don't know if
(12:56):
it's a privilege or a curse.
Really I don't know if it's apositive or a negative that, you
know, none of them really havesaid been there, done that and
we've solved it.
I think it's more likely,actually, that big companies and
big corporations are pretendingthat they've solved it or
pretending that it's not aproblem.
Yeah, and so that that ends upbeing the issue, I think, much
more than politicians.
Well, do you want to come in?
Speaker 2 (13:15):
I want to and I want to go back a little bit.
I want to come back to thattech thing as well, because
that's something that in part,the profession is super involved
in.
That should be highly relevantthing.
But actually, just going back abit and you've you mentioned
that you know you don't one ofthe messages to all the class,
that is, you don't have to havethe spectacular academic career
that you've had Anne-Marie to beable to do this.
(13:35):
I think that's a reallyimportant message.
But on the other hand, I thinksome people don't realize they
even have this ability.
You know these kind of theskill set and so actually, if
you don't mind, it was alwaysfun's backstories.
How did you find out you wereso good at maths?
Speaker 4 (13:49):
It was by accident.
So I can't sit still.
I don't sit still, and inprimary school this showed up in
various different ways and soin a class of 30, normally in
maths class, sometimes in otherlessons not numeracy lessons, of
course it is in primary schoolI kind of finish the work ahead
(14:12):
of everybody else and then havea chat with the mate or crack a
few jokes or just distract theclassroom in general, and you
know I probably was most of myteachers nightmares in that.
Then you'd say, hey, amory,have you finished your work?
And I'd be like, yeah, I have,and then carry on with whatever
it was.
So it ended up looking almostlike disruptive behaviour at
points.
Or you'd say, hey, anne-marie,what did I just say?
And I'd deliver it back betterthan the teacher did.
(14:34):
The extreme example, extremeincident was Ofsted were in and
my year four teacher waspanicking ever so slightly
because Ofsted are in andwatching the classroom you know
what it is and I think theypopped up on the board a top
heavy fraction and so asked thegroup a question which of course
they were all stumped andcouldn't answer because they put
(14:54):
the numbers the wrong wayaround to which at one point I
kind of stood up, I put my handup and I said, well, this is the
answer.
But if you put it the other wayaround, then this is probably
what you're looking for.
And that was my way of helpingmy teacher out during the Ofsted
inspection.
So so what a parent's eveningthen rolled around and I think
(15:15):
there's a mounting exasperation.
So they kind of said to myparents look, anne-marie knows
some stuff.
I've heard of people had havingaccelerated learning.
Can we give her some secondaryschool stuff?
So, for goodness sake, she cansit in the corner and chew on
that and leave the rest of usalone.
And so that was what it was andit do.
You know what's so sad and sofrustrating about it?
(15:37):
So the head of numeracy in myprimary school was a guy called
mr davies.
Until now, actually, I think wenow know his first name was
john.
But john davies is, like youknow, trying to find him.
He's like trying to find aneedle in the haystack.
So we actually recordedsomething for the BBC last year
back at my primary school andwe're still trying to look for
him and we can't find him.
I did Life Scientific on Radio4 and you know looking for and
(15:59):
the national search for Mr JohnDavies continues.
But I was really reallyfortunate because it could have
been seen, as you know,behavioral problems.
It could have been thatpipeline to suspension, all
those kinds of things, whereasactually it was like no, amory
knows what she's talking about.
Just for goodness sake, we needher to sit still so that the
other 29 kids can get aneducation without her, you know,
getting to entertain them inthe meantime.
(16:20):
And I wouldn't.
I never take for granted, I'venever taken for granted that I
know these things.
Never take for granted, I'venever taken for granted that I
know these things.
So I remember sitting the paperand thinking, yeah, I wonder if
this person knows that it'slike a 10 year old that's
answering these questions.
And I was as surprised asanyone when the results came
back and I was super happy.
My dad took me to McDonald's.
I didn't have to wash up for aweek.
That was great.
(16:40):
But I think it's not somethingthat I've ever been fully
conscious of and it's hard.
It's hard to reflect.
It's hard to reflect becauseI've never not been me, if that
makes sense.
I've never.
There's never been a time thatI've been able to kind of do it
one way and then do it the otherway and then see this was the
difference.
Um, so yeah, I don't, I don'ttake for granted these are
things that I know and Iunderstand.
I just I just enjoy them.
And funny things happenthroughout life, even the
(17:02):
countdown right.
There's so many things that I'vedone that I don't go into it
being like, yeah, this isdefinitely going to work.
I'm always willing to givethings a go and I'll always
learn, and I say with that aswell um, it's interesting what
you said in your question thatyeah, there's so many folks that
probably could have done this,because if you look at the maths
curriculum, it builds over timeand there's quite a lot of
overlap between what we do atkey stage two and what we do at
key stage three, and so thereare there's quite a lot of
(17:24):
people that if you gave themthat exam, they'd probably deal
all right at it.
Right.
But we don't give folks theopportunity because we think we
know what a genius should looklike, or we think we know from
people's behaviours, you know,if they're a bit of a
know-it-all, you know, youassume that they're going to
know better, whereas actually no.
The folks that have to work atit harder, often end up doing
(17:46):
better because they've put thateffort in, because they've
refined it and because theelement of self-doubt means that
they check and they're a bitmore honest with the work,
rather than just assuming it'ssomething they can do naturally
right off the bat.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
It's really interesting.
I mean, there's the BletchleyPark, possibly the most powerful
story that they sent a puzzleout to people in the newspapers
saying, you know, go for thiscompetition.
And then they just found awhole bunch of people who'd
never studied maths, just nailedthe puzzle.
They just hired them all forbletchley bar to do code
breaking.
I don't know if that's true,but it's a great kind of story
for finding talents insurprising ways, you know it's
definitely true.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
It definitely used to be the way that they did
recruiting, which which is kindof why I made that comment
earlier used it used to be thatyou did open a bit like almost
11 plus type thing.
You did open kind of exams oropen assessments for folks.
I mean, if they had thisnatural aptitude, then you take
them in.
And so in the 60s, I think inthe 70s, a lot of folks that
ended up in IT, for examplethat's how they come in it
wasn't with IT training, it wasbecause they had this aptitude
(18:38):
to see particular logics inparticular ways.
We've obviously gone away fromthat now for various reasons.
But yeah, definitely a lot offolks have the affinity they're
just, you know, the systemdoesn't recognize it.
Or, like I said, we we limitopportunity to what we think is
the pattern matching for what agenius could look like you
mentioned also, kind of yourfascinating career.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Yeah, I don't think anybody goes into science
thinking they're going to end upon countdown.
But you never know, you neverknow.
But I do quite a lot oftutoring through one of the
access projects.
I'm always having to plug itit's one of the charities, um,
and you know, you tutor gcse anda level students from
backgrounds inside and I domaths and physics teaching quite
badly, but the principle I tryand it's people who are good at
(19:17):
it want to do it.
But when I say what you're goingto do next anyone doing physics
they always say I want to be anastrophysicist, now, great
career, don't get me wrong,there's not that much room for
that.
When the astrophysicist Nowgreat career, don't get me wrong
, there's not that much room forthat many astrophysicists.
It always occurs to me that thereason you're saying that isn't
because you really want to bean astrophysicist.
It's because you don't actuallyknow what else physicists do.
It's probably the only jobtitle with physicist in it Now,
(19:38):
if you've read it.
And so I think to me one of thebig challenges saying you do
realize that when you got thatdegree you can go in all kinds
of different directions.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
I guess that's part of the kind of teaching and
support you guys give as wellexactly, and I think it it ends
up being quite a hard task aswell because it's constantly
involving and constantlychanging.
So we do end up saying this toa lot of our young people I I
had actually the job the, thefinal job, that final corporate
job I had didn't exist when Istarted at that company.
(20:09):
Um, and with the way thatthings are going right, there's.
There's all these new rolesthat keep popping up.
There's all these new.
I don't know, we'll get to 6gand there'll be a whole new, and
quantum is coming right, sothere'll be a whole new suite of
things that happen with ourspace exploration.
There's so many things that arecoming up, and so it ends up
being, you know whether knowwhether we should be asking the
question what do you want to dowhen you're older?
Or whether we should be sayingwhat are the problems that
(20:31):
you're interested in, that you'dlike to solve, and helping them
understand that, actually,rather than it being that you
have to go into a predefinedfield or a predefined role, that
you want to keep your optionsopen Because, yeah, you can't
plan.
I couldn't have planned in the90s what I would have ended up
doing, because there's so manythings since then that I've got
(20:52):
to see and got to understand.
And now new options and there'snew ones that are opening up,
you know, any given time, and soit's pretty, it's pretty hard,
you're right.
You know it's the work of theindustry also to ensure that
you're visible or ensure thatyou're in those spaces and, you
know, connecting with folks,allowing them to see the options
, but I think it's pretty hard.
Physics, I think, is one that'spretty hard for folks to see.
Maths is the other one.
You know a lot of folks here.
You know you stay in academia,you become a maths teacher and
(21:14):
we don't have that visibility ofall the different places that
maths ends up being useful orends up being kind of coming to
play or coming to the fore.
And I think we also make folksfeel like you're kind of your
science or your technical oryour artistic and the two never
(21:34):
kind of come together, which iswhy we we have emphasis on STEAM
.
But this idea that you're doingthe physics to open up options
rather than to narrow down whatyou end up doing again isn't in
the language that we have ofdelivering.
Physics isn't in the languagewe have of A-level choices,
isn't in the language that wehave of delivering physics isn't
in the language we have ofA-level choices isn't in the
language that we have of evenkind of degree programmes.
So I think we definitely shouldbe able to do better to say,
(21:55):
hey, you know, physics and lawcome together in the IP
profession.
You know how are we able totell those narratives in a way
that means that folks can seethat it's opening up rather than
narrowing down what they'regoing to be able to do?
Speaker 2 (22:08):
it's all ties in with the point you make about
government.
I kind of recognize theimportance of technology and
linking it with growth andeverything else, but somehow not
everything's being linked up inquite the right way.
So I mean, I think, incrediblyimportantly, we need to get all
the right people into thescience pipeline, or the steam
pipeline, by the way, I likesteam easily, but the a is r, I
(22:28):
think, isn't it because I'mstill?
I'm still thinking stem.
I think this other time maybelisteners don't know, I didn't
know that uh, scheme good, extra, extra letter like it.
But I think getting people intothis pipeline really, really
important, uh, and then you know, say, hey, there's all kinds of
things you can do once you're,once you're in there, I think
it's really important as well.
The other bit that then becomesimportant, which is a bit
beyond stem, there I think it'sreally important as well.
The other bit that then becomesimportant, which is a bit
(22:49):
beyond STEM-esque but I thinkit's really important to our
profession, is the importance oflinking up innovation and
growth.
We do it on the legal side to acertain extent, but really
actually what we do isinnovation support as a
profession.
So please, when you talk to thepoliticians make sure they're
always aware that we've got theworld's best patent
professionals sitting thereready to monetize everything
everyone thinks of foreverybody's benefit.
(23:12):
I promise I will it's actuallyreally important to us.
I think and I think only we'veactually talked about whether
the I needs to turn in secretshould become innovation, rather
than the I in terms of propertyor something like that.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Well, you know I have the scars from trying to change
SEPA's name and I'm not goingthere again.
Can I just ask a quick question?
I mean we've talked about it inthe round, but I'm wondering
how much of an issue this wasfor you in the early days and
whether it sort of remains itnow.
But I'm not a scientist.
Ok, in fact, confession comesup on the podcast occasionally.
(23:46):
I'm a plumber.
I have no idea.
I have no idea how I ended upbeing the chief executive of the
Chartered Institute of PatentAttorneys.
It's a bit of a mad lie.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
It comes up on every podcast we have ever done.
If we don't talk about plumbingin the podcast, something's
gone wrong.
Speaker 4 (23:59):
We should note for solicitors.
It's come up unsolicited though, sorry, we should note for the
listeners.
Sorry it's come up unsolicited,but I mean we'll always need
plumbers, we'll always needplumbers.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
When I was working at Tiles Further Education teacher
for quite a while, and one ofthe issues for FE teachers
particularly when you're tryingto get young women into
non-traditional careers likeconstruction, engineering et
cetera is to try and give them asense of what the work
opportunities are and thatthey're not the stereotypical
sort of opportunities that theysee.
And I'm imagining the same istrue of the science and tech
(24:32):
world.
Are you still looking forexamples that you can give to
young people, young women, thatsays you know you're not going
to be stuck in a white coat in alab.
This is what science looks likein the real world.
Speaker 4 (24:43):
Yeah, I mean, that's a big part of what we're so we
it's a big part of what we'retrying to do.
Yes, there are lots ofdifferent options.
There are lots of differentplaces that you might do this.
Some of them are stereotypicaland many of them are not.
Some of them you'll have towear overalls and some of them
you won't.
So definitely, it's somethingwe're always trying to open up,
but I think, because itcontinuously changes, so
(25:04):
plumbers will always have rightAge-old industry, something
we'll always need.
I think the difficulty comeswith, rather than defining
specific roles, showing thatthere's a plethora and there's
an opportunity to find lots ofdifferent types of roles and the
one that fits with you.
But also and I guess thisspeaks a little bit to retention
, I'm sure you know you'llyou'll be kind of talking about
(25:26):
across cpa and the other kind ofip inclusive programs that you
run also that a role is not forlife, which I think you know,
you being a plumber.
Evidence is that, and so,actually, if they're going to
make this decision, that it'snot a permanent decision, it's
not a lifelong decision, it'sone about the next role or
potential roles, rather than itbeing you're committing yourself
to the life of being a minor orthe life of being someone
(25:47):
that's doing the particular roleon a construction.
So for us it is about showingthat there's options and that
this isn't fixed, and actuallythey should be open to exploring
those as time goes rather thansaying that they want to narrow
it down.
That's why, you know, I talkabout being a multi-hyphenate,
it's why we have the way that werun our events and we have
people.
It's always someone new forthem to come and to start to see
(26:09):
those patterns of what folkscan do.
But I think the pressure or thework really, you know, needs to
be done for those industries.
So what are they doing to makesure that if we do end up
sending a young person to dosome work experience on site or
to spend time with them on site,or you know they're walking
past and they get to engage andsee what that environment looks
like how are we making sure thatit looks like somewhere that a
(26:31):
young woman thinks they can comeand thrive in?
And I think that ends up beingreally the task.
There's only so much we can do,or I can do, for attraction and
getting folks kind ofrecruiting in the door.
But what are we doing in theindustry to ensure that those
people then want to stay, wantto be there and get to thrive in
those spaces?
And I think that's the thingthat that's the message that
kind of can't go missing.
(26:52):
Really, are we paying them?
Like?
What do our pay gaps look like?
Do we have policies thatrecognise that they might be
more likely to have kind of careresponsibilities that go on
outside of work, and how we'rereflecting that?
You know we at Stamets have gota four-day work week.
We've got menstrual leave.
You know we've got all mannerof different things that we've
got.
You've got returnship.
So if someone's left plumbingfor a while because they've gone
on again, extended care leavewhen they come back, how we're
(27:15):
recognising those skills andallowing them to then transfer
across.
It's something we talk about alot and exploring a lot at the
Institute for the Future of Workthis idea of reskilling and
upskilling, because again, a lotof these industries are
transforming With this fourthindustrial revolution.
You've got AI, you've got allkinds of different technology
that's coming in.
So how are we empowering peopleto be able to then switch and
(27:36):
move across?
And I think there were certainsectors and certain parts of the
industry that if you didn'tmake that decision at 14, you'll
never be allowed to ever haveeven a look in, you know, to
come and join our ranks and comeand do what we do, whereas
actually that's not the wayreally to run things.
If you want to be inclusive andit's not very good for
innovation in your space anyway,right, if everyone's gone on
(27:57):
the same journey, the samepathway and come through the
same way and there's no otherdoors for them to come in and
join you.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
I've got a couple of couple of questions and then
guillem.
So at the end of the podcast weusually do some sort of
tangential, closer question.
Guillem's going to do this one.
I've got no idea what's comingup.
We'll tell you you about thatin a moment, but a couple of
proper questions still first.
First one obviously we'll havea lot of people listening to
this who are working in science,tech, engineering, maths fields
(28:28):
, either because they are patentattorneys and those are their
backgrounds, or because they'reinterested in invention and
creativity.
What can they do to help?
What can CIPA do to help?
How?
What can they do to help?
Speaker 4 (28:38):
What can SIPA do to help?
How can we get involved?
So, volunteer we're alwayslooking for folks to volunteer
and help out at events and onprogrammes and behind the scenes
.
So volunteerstametsorg I'dhighly recommend.
Folks can come and be mentors,can come and clean laptops, can
come and, you know, help us doresearch.
Actually, because we have anadvocacy stream when we're
working with the politicians todo some of the kind of desk
research for what's going on onthat front.
(28:59):
Um.
So that's one.
I mean also fundraisers.
I think we've got a spot inlondon, marathon 2026.
So if there's someone thatthinks that they're a great
fundraiser or wants to do a bakesale or anything like that, I'm
always kind of keen to havethat where we've got our charity
that runs alongside us to metfutures 1188774, um.
But I think the other thing isunderstanding and just doing the
(29:21):
work, doing the iterative workto ensure that you are playing
your role in that retentionpiece.
So you know, how can you beinvolved in recruitment panels,
how can you join affinity groupsin your organisation, how can
you show up and be an ally fordifferent people across the
organisations that you're in?
You know?
Know what are the tweaks thatwe need to make for some of
(29:41):
those policies, or what's thesupport that you want to ensure
that you've got in, to make surethat you've got different
people around the table when youare in your meetings, when you
are, you know, at conferences,when you are doing promotion
rounds, right, all of thosetypes of things.
I think everybody's got it intheir gift.
Everyone, everyone has a sphereof influence, and so how are
you using that to do better andensure that the profession can
(30:02):
do better?
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Sure, we'll make sure those links go out with the
podcast when it's published.
Now I've got a really selfishquestion for my last question,
if that's okay.
And this comes back to my loveof Countdown, and I've always
thought that there must be somekind of magic going on behind
the maths stuff in in solvingthose sort of equations.
(30:24):
I was gonna say conundrums, butthat's the word bit, isn't it?
But I suppose you're gonna massconundrum as well, can't you?
Speaker 4 (30:28):
and I know conundrum is the nine, the nine letters at
the end are the tricks?
Speaker 1 (30:33):
are that tricks that you use?
Are there sort of some mentaltricks that help you do it
quickly?
Speaker 4 (30:39):
There are loads of tricks.
What I would say, though, is topractice is the ultimate trick,
isn't it?
Really.
The other thing and I have to becareful because you know you
almost don't want to give awaykind of secrets of TV too much,
but we film five episodes in aday, three days on the trot, and
so what I found and I thinkwith Rachel even more so because
(30:59):
she's done it for decades, likeover a decade now is the
numbers do end up, they do starttalking to you, do start to see
patterns and how things come,and so then sometimes I don't
know if you'd quite call itautopilot.
My thing was that the numberswere talking to me by episode 13
, 14, 15, they were, they werejust talking to you.
But then the other thing thatthat does help, I guess, is they
will tell you in your ear ifit's not possible.
(31:21):
So then you don't waste energy.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
We might have to cut that one out, because that's too
much of a giveaway now.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
The numbers talk to you.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
That's just broken my heart and sort of ruined my
feelings.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
She's just good at it , lee.
Can I have a quick 10 secondson the?
And sort of ruined my life?
She's just good at it, lee.
She's just good at it.
Can I have a quick ten secondson the beauty of maths, by the
way?
Because I have this kind ofphysics-y theory that the only
universes that could possiblywork are universes where maths
works.
What I love about maths is theway that, however deep you get,
it remains totally consistent.
(31:57):
It doesn't matter how far yougo in.
It never stops working.
It's kind of like the universeand the only places the universe
and maths break down.
How's about this?
For a bit of a segue, this ismy theory is zero and infinity.
Math doesn't work for that, andthe universe struggles with it
as well don't, don't go there.
Speaker 4 (32:13):
One of our first year lectures and I'll never, I'll
never forget this was we had anhour on.
Zero doesn't equal to one.
And I remember thinking my good, like, what an hour of what are
you all still?
Still now I haven't got over it, um, but I think what?
So my, my take on so I fullyagree with you.
My take on it is that it's thebeauty of maths and it's the
(32:36):
reliability of maths, and itfrustrates me that I have to
live in the real world, becausein the real world nothing makes
sense.
Things change all the time andI don't know if it's human
beings.
I think it goes as far asbiology.
It's very, very irritatingbecause it's not very reliable,
(32:57):
whereas with maths you just knowit just works and you don't
have to.
And I always say this to folks,and folks are like oh, you know
, did you have a toughupbringing?
And I was like no, it wasn'tsuper traumatic, I was just with
human beings where if I sayhello to you today and I say
hello tomorrow, I get acompletely different response,
even though I've said it.
Bang on 10, 20 in the same tone, and it drives me wild.
(33:18):
But you can't, I can't not livewith human beings.
So I always say this to folks.
You know, when folks kind ofask different, varying versions
of.
I did a thing with Stanley Tucci, for example, a couple of weeks
ago, and it was if you had noresponsibilities, what would you
do?
Right?
And I'm like I would go and I'dsit on a beach on the east
coast of Kenya and I would doslow mathematics.
(33:38):
I'd just sit there and it'd beon a beach on the east coast of
Kenya and I would do slowmathematics.
I just sit there and it'd be meand the numbers and you know,
and it would all just make sense.
I wouldn't have to try andexplain to folks why women
should be able to be in thisspace or why you can't build an
AI system if you haven't thoughtabout accountability, all of
(34:00):
these things.
So you're having to kind ofgrapple with concepts Like no,
let me just sit here and writethis proof that is completely
bulletproof and will always workand will always be correct and
will forever.
You know, if someone's born in300 years, that thing's still.
Those prime numbers are stillprime.
(34:20):
They haven changed.
It's the beauty of maths, butno one, you know, you see eyes,
I know for you both.
Maybe not, but you see eyesglaze over because folks had
terrible times in their mathslessons.
I was like I don't care if yourmaths teacher was like that.
The maths itself maintained itwas highly reliable, but anyway.
(34:41):
Anyway, you started it I did.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
That's a fabulous.
I didn't close over, I lit upand you should have been a
patent.
Certainly that's the highest,highest background I could
provide at this moment law,don't even get me started.
Speaker 4 (34:57):
and my problem with lawyers and it's not your fault
as a lawyer, it should just belogical.
But it's not, because you'vegot clauses and you've got
precedents, so then things don'tfollow.
No, it's not deterministic.
No, that's the only reason Iwasn't a patent lawyer.
It's the law side.
It's the law side.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
You're going to close us off with a tangential
question, aren't you?
Are you going to explain to ushow Marie Outworks?
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Yeah, so at the end of it, we always come up with a
closer question just to finishoff, normally inspired by
something during the podcast.
Lee normally has a reallyprofound and deep one.
I have a silly one, so I'mgetting it today, and you
mentioned ages ago that you hadyour new year's resolution in 20
, I think it was 2013.
Um, sounds like you have one ayear, which sounds very
mathematical to me.
(35:48):
But um, out of interest, um, Ithink I'll start with you.
Don't know, lee, the league,what's?
your best ever new year'sresolution.
Yeah, what's your best ever newyear's resolution?
Speaker 1 (35:56):
well, I wasn't.
Wasn't expecting that as aquestion.
Where did that come from?
Of course not.
You just explained where itcame from.
I don't do you know what Idon't generally do New Year's
resolutions so that's probablynot a fair question to ask me,
because I can't remember thelast time I made one.
It's just sorry.
Yeah, I'm going to fall down onthis one.
Willem, I don't do resolutions.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Lee, we would like you to make a New Year's
resolution at the beginning of2026.
What would it be?
Speaker 1 (36:23):
Why are you doing this to me?
Is this some kind ofpersecution complex?
What would my New Year'sresolution be?
I don't know.
I'd probably like to get morefishing in.
I don't do enough fishing.
I don't make enough time to besat on the beach where I'm at my
happiest.
Oh, actually, no, I've got abetter one.
I've got a better one.
(36:43):
I will resolve my own internaltensions with numbers.
So and I don't know whetherI've talked to you about this
before, Gwilym, but I have areal thing about odd numbers.
I avoid odd numbers like theplague.
My children annoy me hugely byalways leaving the television on
(37:03):
like 17 or 13 or volume or somevolume wise.
I mean not channel and stufflike that both primes, both
prime numbers as well.
Interesting, interesting yeah,yeah, I do.
I have this real thing about umand I count a lot and make sure
that you know.
If there are 13 stairs andthere are nearly always 13
stairs in a flight you'veprobably noticed that I have to
go down one and back up to makeit 14.
(37:24):
Because I can't have oddnumbers in my life.
So my New Year's Resolution2026 will be to resolve that
internal tension.
Gwilym, there you go, thank you.
You've done a bit ofcounselling for me without
knowing.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
There's a lot to unpick there.
I'm going to pass to Anne-Marie.
I'm going to pass to you, a tocomment on what Lee just said
because it's fascinating, andthen B to give us your next this
year's resolution.
Speaker 4 (37:49):
I was going to comment and say that's quite a
tall order to ask someone aquarter of the way through one
demand last minute to set thenew year's resolution for the
following year.
Given they didn't three monthsago, they're not in the loop of
doing it, but lee lee rose tothe challenge and what I will
say is so I stopped it afterthat year because of, because of
what happened, with me stilldoing now, I stopped doing new
(38:11):
year's resolutions.
Um, I actually have a word forthe year.
Um, each year.
This year I wasn't, I didn't gopublic with it and I will do
eventually, but I didn't gopublic with it.
Um, but the, the, the funniestone, or the best one, or the
interesting, most interestingone.
It's not funny.
Actually, the weirdest one wasin 2020.
My word for the year was jomo,which means the joy of missing
(38:35):
out, which is almost theopposite of FOMO, which is the
fear of missing out, and what Isaid in 2020 was um, I'd spent
the years prior running aroundlike a chicken doing lots of
different things and it wasreally nice for me to sit out of
particular things.
So I was going to sit out ofmore and be at home more and
have the joy of missing out andwatching other people end up at
(38:58):
these events doing other,whatever else it might be.
And then lockdown was announced, so the whole world had to Jomo
with me.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
It was you, yeah, sorry.
Speaker 1 (39:08):
Come on, gwilym, you know how it works and you
obviously already know youranswer, because you're clever
and you think of your answerbefore you create the question,
so go on.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
So I actually also don't do news resolutions.
What I do is I choose one thingI want to focus on, because I'm
getting old now and there'sonly things you want to do in
your life.
You can't do all of them, so Ikind of pick one thing at a time
.
Uh, as I may have mentionedbefore, for a while it was
getting my head around a bit ofrelativity, because I've always
actually hidden from that.
Really interesting.
I can't actually talk about itgoing forwards currently, having
married um a spanish lady, mydaughter speaks Spanish.
(39:38):
I need to learn some Spanish.
So that's what's happening atthe moment.
I am struggling Again.
The words go in one side andcome out the other, but that's
where I'm up to at the moment.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
That's nice.
That's quite ordinary for youto answer a question.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
I'm proud of you.
I also try to learn the guitar.
I want to be able to slash thatinto solo.
I can't do that either, butthat's the other one.
If you want the silly one,there you go.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
Anne-marie, thank you so much for coming on the
podcast.
It's been an absolute pleasureto have you on and I can't wait
to have a listen back to this.
If you've listened to thepodcast, of course you've
listened to the podcast, or youwouldn't know I was speaking,
would you?
So, as, obviously, because it'sbeen a great one.
Leave us a little review onwherever it is you get your
podcasts from, and that'll helpother people find us.
And, gwilym, I will see you onthe next one, and Marie, best
(40:23):
wishes for the future.
I hope the program continues togo from strength to strength.
Thank you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com