- In an age of fake news and so-called truthiness, the world sometimes feels untethered from reality.

Today's guest uses her reporting and storytelling to ground her audience in science, even while her words reconnect us to our shared humanity and our relationship to the natural world.

She's Alanna Mitchell, this week on "Story in the Public Square".

(upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) Hello and welcome to "Story in the Public Square" where storytelling meets public affairs.

I'm Jim Ludes from the Pell Center at Salve Regina University.

- And I'm G Wayne Miller, also with the Pell Center at Salve Regina University.

- This week we're joined by Alanna Mitchell, an award-winning Canadian author, science journalist and playwright whose work you may have seen in "The New York Times", "National Geographic", "The Guardian", and many others.

She joins us today from Toronto.

Alanna, thank you so much for being with us.

- It's a pleasure.

- You know, so I mentioned you have all of these talents, author, playwright.

I'm curious though, what drew you to science writing in the first place?

- Well, my dad was a scientist and I grew up with it.

I mean, it was sort of, we sort of feasted on it at the dinner table.

You know, my dad would teach his his classes at the University of Regina, which is a small university in the middle of, you know, Saskatchewan.

But he would come home and, you know, describe to us some of the experiments that he had done.

He was a biologist and I think it's kind of, it just was sort of bred in the bone actually.

- Yeah, but you didn't become a scientist per se.

You decided to write about it.

- Well, the other part of this is that my mother was an artist, and so for me, the quest has always been to marry science and art.

And so I became a journalist, you know, to try to bring science to life with words.

I mean, it seems to me that it's really important now, more than ever, for science to have a translator.

And that's sort of how I see myself.

- So one of the things that drew you to our attention was a piece that you wrote recently in "The New York Times" about the leap second.

And I was just simply charmed by this article.

I mentioned this to you before we started talking.

It sort of brings together science and people and international diplomacy.

There are so many different layers to this.

So let's maybe walk through it just a little bit.

First of all, what is a leap second and why do we even have it?

- Right?

Well, a leap second is a recent invention in the history of human timekeeping.

We used to tell time exclusively by where our planet is in the universe.

You know, a day was the rise of sun 'til the setting of the sun or the rise of the sun the next morning.

So for most of our span as humans, we've told time that way.

But in 1967, the metrologists of the world decided that we were gonna tell time instead by what's happening inside an atom.

And so they set the length of a second to a certain resonance frequency in a type of atom called the Cesium 133 atom.

And when they did that, they set the second very slightly shorter than the second that the earth tells as it moves around in its axis in a day.

And so every now and again, because we tell time officially by the atomic scale, every now and again, the atomic scale has to stop for a moment to allow the earth to catch up.

So astronomical time and atomic time have to mesh.

You have to get those two timescales in sync.

So we've had, since the leap second was invented in 1972, we've had a total of 37 leap seconds inserted into the atomic time scale to make it coordinate with astronomical time.

- So I'm curious to know, why did these scientists, and who were they also, but why did they decide to go to the atomic clock?

What was wrong with what you were describing earlier, the sun rises and sets, and then you'd begin a new day?

That's something that'd been around forever.

- Right, well, there's nothing actually wrong with it, except it's not very precise.

So this, and actually it's a little bit, the rotation of the earth is a little bit irregular.

So the time of the day is slightly different over time, if you think about just using the earth as the timepiece.

Atoms, by contrast are extremely precise.

They do the same thing all the time.

They never wear out, kind of the perfect time pieces, actually.

- So who were the scientists?

I mean, I don't mean by name, but you know, what countries did they come from?

What disciplines were they studying, or scholars in and so forth?

- You mean the people who invented atomic time?

- Yeah, yeah, going back to '67.

- Well, they were American and British actually, the great inventions on this were both American and British.

And they independently, so at the same time, figured out how they were gonna define the atomic second, and then did it.

- Well, so you mentioned how precise the decay of Cesium 133 was, but we're eliminating the leap second now because it's too precise?

Is that what's happening here?

- What they're doing is actually, they're saying that what's happened is that, so since 1972, when they started inserting these leap seconds, society has become ever more interconnected.

Digital technologies have taken over to a much greater extent.

The precision of time needs to be greater and greater and greater.

And so when you try to insert a leap second into the atomic timescale, it turns out that it's incredibly difficult technologically to do it.

It's just very, very difficult to insert that time.

And so different network providers, for example, Facebook, or let's say Meta and Alibaba and different types of digital networks have decided to do it in a different way.

It's kind of, they figure out their own way of inserting this leap second.

And so it turns out that there's a slight mismatch during the adjustment period among the different networks.

So they're telling time slightly differently.

And in today's era of hyper precision and timing, this is really a problem.

So the metrologists of our world, who, they're who are a fascinating group of people, by the way, they're the most amazing people I've ever spoken with.

They're just, I mean, the imagination that these people have is extraordinary.

Anyway, they have been lobbying for about 20 years.

They've said, look, this is getting way too complicated.

What we should do is temporarily sever atomic time from astronomical time.

So let's do away with the leap second and figure out a better way, eventually a better way for the two time scales to be coordinated.

And so what they did, just last month at a big meeting, so you probably know all this anyway, but the nations of the world have signed a treaty, they signed a treaty back in the 1800s to make sure that measurement is uniform across no matter where you live.

So whether you live in Ashtabula, Ohio, or in Singapore or wherever you, when you measure a meter, it's the same meter no matter where you go.

When you measure a second, it's the same second.

So there's this uniformity of measurement that is really the language of science and commerce.

And you know, the way we govern our lives is according to these basic units of measurement.

Those are all governed by something called the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures.

So the BIPM, which is based just outside of Paris.

They are the people who set all of these units.

And the signatories to the treaty of the meter are all these countries around the world say, yes, we buy into this.

We agree that we, you know, we have a way of measuring things.

So the metrologists at the BIPM, which is this organization just outside of Paris, have been for 20 years saying, look, there must be a better way to do this, to reconcile the timekeeping of the stars with the timekeeping of the atoms.

So they've been lobbying for a better system.

So last month in Versailles, there was a big meeting of all the countries that are signatories to this treaty of the meter, and they decided that they would temporarily do away with the leap second.

So they're gonna, by 2035 the leap second will not exist anymore.

And they'll figure out another way to reconcile the two timekeeping systems.

- And if I remember correctly, it's 100 years that they've got to figure out what to do next, because it'll be, you know, it's a manageable amount of time between now and then that they would have to actually adjust for.

One of the things that I wanted to ask you about though, was why did it takes so long to do this?

You mentioned that for 20 years the metrologists have been saying, we need to do this.

Why did it take so long?

- Well, because it's a really fraught diplomatic process.

You've got a whole bunch of different players here.

But one of them, for example, is Russia.

So Russia has a satellite navigation system called GLONASS.

GLONASS incorporates the leap seconds into its timescale.

It's the only satellite timekeeping system, satellite navigation system that incorporates leap seconds into its into its timekeeping.

So GPS for example, doesn't, BeiDou doesn't, the Galileo, which is the European system, none of these incorporate the leap seconds, but GLONASS does.

And so Russia is saying if we do away with the leap second, we have to do a whole bunch of adjustments, not just the software, but the hardware in our satellite navigation system.

And they want extra time to do that.

- So you've talked about these metrologists and you clearly are fascinated by them.

They sound interesting, creative.

Give us sort of a portrait of some of them or all of them.

What makes them, I guess the word would be unique and creative?

Tell us about these people.

- Well, I just love talking to them because they are, the degree of precision that they are capable of, the degree of imagination that they are capable of is just unparalleled to me.

I mean, I talk to scientists all the time, but I'm thinking of one of them who's such a joy to talk to, who's named Dr. Judah Levine.

He is at NIST.

And he just has this incredible understanding of frequency.

So when we talk about time, we're also talking about frequency.

It's not just a timescale, it's also the frequency of radio signals and, you know, which is a much more important way of our understanding of time.

Now it's considered time and frequency.

And he's able to talk about this in an extraordinarily passionate and precise way.

- So, Alanna, one of the things that I learned from your article as well is that the rotation of the earth is actually variable.

And almost in a sort of ironic postscript, they're actually gonna have to add a negative leap second, because the earth's rotation has started to accelerate a little bit.

Did I read that right?

- Well, it's kind of complicated.

So essentially the reason that this leap second has to happen is that astronomical time has been slowing down very, very, very, very slightly, very minutely since about 1972, when the, well, since before that.

But they've noticed it very strongly since 1972 when they first started inserting leap seconds.

So the earth's rotation has been slowing down.

All of a sudden it's slowing down more slowly.

So that astronomical time is on its own gonna catch up with atomic time by about 2030.

This is part of a pattern, a long-term pattern of slowing down of the Earth's rotations.

So it's not that the earth is gonna start speeding up permanently.

- So the rate of decay is slowing down.

- Exactly.

And so what it really means is that atomic time is stable, of course, it's exactly the same all the time, but astronomical time is catching up to it.

And so, exactly.

So by about 2030, if the trends continue, which is a big if, and this is very unpredictable, there's no formula for trying to understand exactly when these changes will happen.

But by about 2030 metrologists are in the position of thinking that they're gonna have to insert a negative leap second.

So they're gonna have to lose a second from the atomic scale instead of adding a second.

And this is mind bending, if you are the digital network, (interviewers laughing) you have to try to figure out how to make a second disappear in the atomic timescale.

And they're kind of worried about it, actually.

- So Alanna, the article we're talking about included a reference to the Vatican, sort of a divine touch.

They were against eliminating the leap second, what was their case?

What was their argument, and did they finally agree?

- Oh, I think that they, what I understand, I mean, it's difficult to get, for somebody like, you know, an outsider to get a really good handle on what the Vatican is saying.

But when I spoke with one of their timekeepers, he explained to me that it is really an existential issue, so philosophical.

And I love the paper that ended up being referenced on this, that was written on this.

It was just full of poetry, it was beautiful.

It was, the sense was that, you know, humans have constantly, from the beginning of time felt connected to our place in the universe, on the earth, in the heavens as it were.

And that it would take something away from us to sever that entirely.

So the Vatican, as I understand it, is saying, you know, we can live with this as long as eventually the two time scales will again be reconciled.

You know, so they're saying that astronomical time and atomic time are not gonna be forever severed, but that there will be some way, somehow eventually, you know, in the future to make those two time scales get together again.

- Alanna, you know, so much of your writing touches on this relationship between science and humanity.

And I wonder if it gives you any reason to just sort of think a little bit more broadly about what it means to be human, and what is that relationship between humanity and science?

- It's the ultimate quest, isn't it?

I mean, that is what all of my writing is about.

It's what makes us human?

What makes us different from other creatures?

What is our place in this universe?

And I mean, these are the questions that endlessly fascinate me.

And it's one of the things that I try to explore.

- [Jim] Do you have any answers?

(laughing) - [Wayne] Because we would love to have an answer, and so would our audience.

- Yeah, I guess part of it that, one of the things I think about, I'm not sure if it's unique to us, because there have been other types of humans.

There've been Neanderthals and Denisovans and all sorts of other types of, you know, creatures who are very similar to us, our kin in the world, who may have had huge imaginations and huge creativity.

And we certainly know that there has been Neanderthal art, for example.

We know that there has been consciousness of death and death ritual among other species of humans, types of humans, let's say, our kin.

But it seems to me that of the creatures now living, this is one of the things that does seem to distinguish us, that we have this ability to think of where we are in relationship to other species and in relationship to not only our own galaxy, not only our own solar system and our galaxy, but the universe.

And we're able to imagine, and now in some ways actually perceive how the universe came to evolve over time and how we came to be here.

And that kind of enterprise, trying to figure out how we came to be here, how it all worked to make us come to this moment is fascinating.

The fact that we even have any language or any science to describe that, or any math to describe that, to me, means that we're set apart to some degree.

- So that really is the essential question.

I mean, there's no question about that.

So far we've been talking about the issues related to one article you wrote, but as Jim mentioned in his introduction, you're an accomplished journalist, playwright, and author.

And let's start with the author side of things.

Your first book was "Seasick".

Tell us about that book, what the findings were.

- Well, actually that was my second book.

- Oh, second, I'm sorry.

- No, it's fine.

"Seasick" is a book that came out a long time ago.

So it came out in 2010 in the US.

And it was this passionate quest of mine.

Again, you know, I keep seeming to go on these quests, but it was this passionate quest to try to figure out what is happening to the ocean.

'Cause I kept, as a journalist, kept reading things about how the ocean was dying.

And I thought, oh, come on, there's gotta be a much, much bigger story to that.

So I just started going on journeys with scientists.

Usually on boats.

And so I went on 13 journeys in three years with scientists all around the world, different places on the ocean and on land to try to understand what we're doing, what our species is doing to the ocean.

And I arrived at the conclusion that we are making it sick.

But the thing that is so interesting to me about that book is that ultimately, it is about how the carbon load in the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels and cutting down trees and things like that, how that load in the atmosphere is affecting the ocean.

And that is the most critical thing.

- You know, Alanna, one of the things that I found fascinating in learning a little bit about you and your story, is that you published "Seasick".

You're doing what authors do, you're giving a series of talks and you're selling the book, and somebody comes to you and says, would you ever consider adapting this into a one person play?

And you did that.

And so "Seasick" is now a play.

- Total insanity.

- Tell us about that experience, both the creative process of adapting a book like that into a play, but also the performance piece of it.

- Oh, yeah, it's the hardest thing I do, I have to say, it's really the hardest thing I do.

I mean, this all started because a theater director in Toronto, whose name is Franco Boni, heard me give a talk.

And I was kind of hamming it up a bit, you know, I mean, I was just giving a talk about the book.

And there are some really funny stories.

I mean, scientists are intrinsically fascinating and passionate and funny, often.

And so, you know, you hang around with them and you get a lot of stories about how funny they are.

And I had spent a lot of time with a bunch of really brilliant scientists when I was writing this book.

So I just started telling your stories and Franco said, you know, I think we could make this into a play.

So, oh, well, I sat in a room with him and with another artistic director whose name is Ravi Jain, and we crafted some of the talks.

I mean, what we did was tape a whole bunch of the talks that I gave and then figure out which stories would work the best in play.

And then we wrote a whole bunch of connective tissue and an intro and an ending and, you know, a whole bunch of words that are not, that are more poetic, I guess.

And, you know, crafted this play out of the material.

And then of course, I had to memorize it.

(interviewers laughing) 11,000 words, all in the same order every day.

It's a horrifying proposition for a journalist to, I'm not trained for this at all.

And you know, as journalists, we're trained to use new words all the time, to try to figure out new ways of saying things and describing things.

And you never tell the same story twice if you're a journalist, right?

You are always telling a different story.

So there's this philosophical shift to being on stage and, you know, telling the same story, but also it's a play that is, because it's very difficult to talk about science and to explain science in a way that people will hear, the play by default became about me.

So it's my story.

And so it becomes very personal, very difficult to, it's one thing to get up on stage and talk about a scientist's research and findings.

It's another thing to get up on stage and talk about why you as a journalist want to tell that story.

And that's what the play is about.

- So, Alanna, like you, I'm a journalist and an author.

I cannot imagine writing a play from any of my books, and I certainly cannot imagine performing anything, nor memorizing 11,000 words, How did you learn to do that?

What is it, how did you become a performer?

I mean, that just to me just seems incredible.

- You know, the funny thing is that I do perform it, but I don't act it.

And I don't know if it's possible to describe the difference, but when I'm on stage, I'm actually just telling these stories that I, you know, bore witness to as a journalist.

And I'm just telling these stories that I love to tell that explain the thing.

So it's really me on stage just as me, I'm not in another character.

I'm not trying to be someone else.

So the thing that makes it work is that I'm not actually acting.

And the thing that makes it hard to do is that I'm reliving all of these experiences that I actually went through.

For example, at one point I went 3000 feet to the bottom of the ocean in a submersible, and, you know, which was a terrifying experience.

And I'm actually, when I'm on stage, I'm in the submersible and I am, you know, in that place of terror.

So I think that's what makes it work.

And I mean, the other part of it is simply that I'm Irish, you know, by background, and storytelling was a huge part of my childhood and my family life.

- Yeah, Alanna, we've got about a minute and a half left here.

I'm curious, the different types of writing that you do, are there things that you can do in a play that you can't do in a science article or in a book and vice versa?

I mean, I guess what I'm asking is, are you sneaking your vegetables in the ice cream, right?

(all laughing) - [Wayne] Well, that's a stray metaphor.

- Well, you know, what's different about performing a play is that it is a conversation.

People may not be speaking directly to, sometimes they do talk to me in the play, but the fact is that there is this emotional experience that is happening in a small theater where there is an interplay between me and the audience.

And the audience is interacting among themselves as they listen to me.

And so there's this incredible level of emotion and passion that is apparent to me on the stage.

It's funny, every single performance is different because every single audience is different.

And I can feel the emotion that is being emitted.

It's a strange thing.

And so you don't get that, of course, when you're writing and you're writing an article or when you're writing a book or any of the other types of writing that I do.

The intimacy of live theater is unparalleled.

- And it's been critically acclaimed.

I know you had your American tour last year.

We hope that it comes around again because it sounds remarkable.

She is Alanna Mitchell, author, journalist, playwright.

Thank you so much for being with us today.

That's all the time we have this week.

But if you wanna know more about "Story in the Public Square", you can find us on Facebook or visit pellcenter.org where you can always catch up on previous episodes.

For G Wayne Miller, I'm Jim Ludes asking you to join us again next time for more "Story in the Public Square".

(upbeat music) (music continues) (music continues) (cheerful jingle)