|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Wallace
CBS News Correspondent
Mike Wallace: Growing up I thought that I was going to be, probably, a lawyer. Then I thought maybe I would be an English teacher. Then one day at Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan, I walked into - I guess it was my sophomore year there -- I walked into the radio station operation there. It wasn't really a station. And I was hooked. I suddenly realized that was going to be my métier. I didn't know how I was going to make it, but I knew damn well I was going to be. All I wanted to be was a radio announcer. That was it. I could rip and read the news. I could announce a soap opera. I wound up doing "Road of Life," the story of Dr. Jim Brent, and 'The Guiding Light." And, I read a hell of a commercial.
View Interview with Mike Wallace
View Biography of Mike Wallace
View Profile of Mike Wallace
View Photo Gallery of Mike Wallace
|
|
Mike Wallace
CBS News Correspondent
I have been in news full time now, I guess, for going on half a century. But, in order to make people want to watch, and as I say, to take charge of the screen, you must know there are some people who are interesting on camera and some people who are not. I didn't have, for instance, I did not particularly have an anchorman's mien. I wanted to carve out something interesting in the way of what I am going to do on television. So, I decided, well, why don't you study, think, research and do -- not the pabulum of ordinary interviews, "What did you write? What did you sing? When did you do this?" and so forth -- but rather go into the psyche, and into the gut [level] of the interviewee. And the interviewee likes to feel comfortable, and challenged sometimes -- if he or she is an interesting person -- by the research that has been done ahead of time by the interviewer. Strangely, that had never been done. Well, I say "never been done," I'm sure it had been done, but for television we were the first to do it, back in 1956 for a program called Night Beat, on a local station in New York at 11:00 at night when people's thresholds were down to the kinds of questions that we were asking. New York likes to discover something new, and this was new. People wanted to come on and wrestle with me, and wanted to be surprised, and wanted to be challenged with difficult, sometimes abrasive, sometimes skeptical questions.
View Interview with Mike Wallace
View Biography of Mike Wallace
View Profile of Mike Wallace
View Photo Gallery of Mike Wallace
|
|
Mike Wallace
CBS News Correspondent
We did what any sensible reporter would do, except that if you have a television camera involved and you have a television tube involved, you want the audience to be able to see what they can see. We had heard that there was corruption going on in laboratories in Chicago, and what we did was, we hid a camera behind a mirror and we talked to some of the people who were committing the fraud. They were quite candid in what they were saying. Then I came out from behind because if I was going to talk to them, I wanted to be on camera talking to them. They were taken aback, and in effect their pudding came spilling out. In effect, what they said was, "Yes, we kited our bills," or "We overcharged," or "We didn't do work that we said that we had done," and so forth. This was back in the '70s, I guess, at a time when this kind of thing in television simply was not done.
View Interview with Mike Wallace
View Biography of Mike Wallace
View Profile of Mike Wallace
View Photo Gallery of Mike Wallace
|
|
James Watson
Discoverer of the DNA Molecule
One should see life as consisting of a script, which is DNA, and the actors, which are largely proteins, which are described in the text to great detail. And so you've got a system of a play where you've got a script and you've got the actors, and you could say, "Well, who is more important? Shakespeare or Gielgud? Whose playing now?" And everyone'll go back and say, "The actors are very important but scripts are more important." So we're getting the script for life and, you know, every species has its own script. And initially people said there's just too many letters and it costs too much money. And so starting about 15 years ago we got together and said, "It won't cost that much. We could do it for $3 billion but it would take us 15 years," and you know, back of the envelope calculations was pretty good! It took a little less and its cost was about what we said it would be.
View Interview with James Watson
View Biography of James Watson
View Profile of James Watson
View Photo Gallery of James Watson
|
|
James Watson
Discoverer of the DNA Molecule
When you go out, people say, "What about super babies?" I said, "None of us know how to produce a super baby, but what would be wrong with a super baby?" And if you could have kids brighter than yourself, you always want to have your kids have opportunities you didn't, and this sort of saying, "Oh, we can't! We shouldn't try and enhance life because we'll make the spread between those who are lucky and those unlucky even greater." That's a very, rather nasty view of human nature. I think we would actually try and help the people at the bottom. And it's always, you know, "The rich are going to get richer,' and, you know, our current tax bill is pretty upsetting because you're thinking the rich get richer, and so I don't like that. But I think, you know, those people really don't want homeless people on the streets because they're schizophrenic. That's not very nice to live with. I mean, those people--it's not nice. So we're trying to help those people. I think you've got to sort of assume we've succeeded as a social species because we really do like each other. We're not fundamentally nasty. The nasty people are the exception. Of course, you know, in individual lives we have our good moments and we have some bad moments, but I think one should see genetics in an optimistic way, not a pessimistic way where you've got to stop everything.
View Interview with James Watson
View Biography of James Watson
View Profile of James Watson
View Photo Gallery of James Watson
|
|
Andrew Weil
Integrative Medicine
If you have a patient with a bacterial pneumonia who's acutely ill and you put them in the hospital and give them intravenous antibiotics and 48 hours later they're out of danger, I think most people would interpret that as being that the antibiotic caused the cure. And what I'm asking people to do is to look at it a little differently. What the antibiotic does in that circumstance is to knock populations of germs down to a level where the immune system can take over and finish a job that it couldn't do because it was overwhelmed. And to me, that's a model for how our treatments work at their best. It's not that they work directly to produce a cure, they work indirectly by impinging on innate mechanisms of healing.
View Interview with Andrew Weil
View Biography of Andrew Weil
View Profile of Andrew Weil
View Photo Gallery of Andrew Weil
|
|
Andrew Weil
Integrative Medicine
It is very clear now I think, including to deans of medical schools, that medical schools are no longer graduating physicians who are satisfying the needs of patients. Now what I would say patients want, based on my talking to lots and lots of patients, are that they want physicians who have the time and can take the time to sit down them, listen to them, explain in a language that they can understand the nature of their problems. And go over with them their options for treatment, who won't just push drugs and surgery as the only way of doing it. Who are at least conversant with nutritional influences on health. Who can answer intelligently questions about use of dietary supplements. Who are sensitive to mind/body interactions. Who will not laugh in your face when you bring up topics like Chinese medicine. Who will look at you as not just a physical body.
View Interview with Andrew Weil
View Biography of Andrew Weil
View Profile of Andrew Weil
View Photo Gallery of Andrew Weil
|
| |
|
