>>STEVE: THANKS FOR JOINING US.
I'M STEVE HSU.
>>COREY: AND I'M COREY WASHINGTON, AND WE'RE
HOST FOR MANIFOLD.
>>STEVE: IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH JAMIE, WE
GOT ONTO A SIDE TRACK BECAUSE HE HAD DONE
PHD DISSERTATION ON THE GENOCIDE IN CAMBODIA.
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OFF THE MAIN FOCUS OF
THE EPISODE, WHICH WAS HIS BOOK HACKING DARWIN.
SO, WE'VE MOVED THAT CONTENT TO THE VERY END
OF THE PODCAST, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN
TO IT UNLESS YOU'RE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN
IT, BUT WE DO REFERENCED IT A COUPLE OF TIMES
IN OUR DISCUSSION.
SO, THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUTTING THIS NOTE AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE PODCAST.
>>STEVE: COREY, OUR GUEST TODAY IS JAMIE METZL,
AN OLD FRIEND OF MINE.
JAMIE COMES AS CLOSE AS ANYONE I KNOW TO BEING
A RENAISSANCE MAN.
HE DOES SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
HE IS A TECHNOLOGY FUTURIST, A GEOPOLITICAL
EXPERT, AND ALSO A WRITER.
HE'S A SENIOR FELLOW AT THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL,
AND FORMERLY THE ASIA SOCIETY'S EXECUTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT.
I'M JUST GETTING STARTED HERE.
>>STEVE: HE IS A FORMER WHITE HOUSE FELLOW.
HE HELD POSITIONS IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION,
BOTH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND ALSO PREVIOUSLY
WITH THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.
HE IS A GRADUATE OF BROWN UNIVERSITY.
HE HAS A HARVARD LAW SCHOOL JD, AND HE HAS
A PHD FROM OXFORD IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN HISTORY.
>>STEVE: NOW, HIS WRITING COVERS BOTH FICTION
AND NONFICTION.
HE'S WRITTEN TWO SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS, GENESIS
CODE AND ETERNAL SONATA.
TODAY, WHAT WE'RE MAINLY GOING TO FOCUS ON
IS HIS NEW NONFICTION WORK CALLED HACKING
DARWIN: GENETIC ENGINEERING AND THE FUTURE
OF HUMANITY.
>>STEVE: JAMIE, WELCOME TO OUR SHOW.
>>JAMIE: THANKS SO MUCH, STEVE.
THRILLED TO BE HERE WITH YOU.
>>STEVE: BACK TO GENETICS AND GENETIC ENGINEERING.
SO, JAMIE, WHAT CAUSED YOU TO GET INTERESTED
IN THAT PARTICULAR, AND WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?
>>JAMIE: SURE.
SO, I TALKED ABOUT MY BACKGROUND WITH CAMBODIA.
I THEN WORKED WHEN I WAS 18, WORKED IN A REFUGEE
CAMP IN THAILAND WITH CAMBODIAN REFUGEES.
THEN I WORKED FOR TWO YEARS AS A HUMAN RIGHTS
OFFICER FOR THE UN IN CAMBODIA.
ALL OF THOSE EXPERIENCES MADE ME FEEL, ONE,
THAT WE ALL HAVE A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY
TO TRY TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS BECAUSE WHEN
YOU SEE PEOPLE LIVING IN CIVIL WARS OR LIVING
IN REFUGEE CAMPS, IT'S JUST HORRIBLE.
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
>>JAMIE: MY SECOND REALIZATION IS THAT YOU
COULD SPEND YOUR ENTIRE LIFE WORKING IN REFUGEE
CAMPS, AND YOU WOULDN'T FIX ANYTHING BECAUSE
REFUGEES ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STREAM.
SO, THE TOP OF THE STREAM IS MAKING SMARTER
POLITICAL DECISIONS, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE
THESE TERRIBLE CRISES.
>>JAMIE: SO, THEN AFTER, THAT WAS WHAT SET
ME ON THE PATH TO GOVERNMENT.
SO, AFTER I GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL, YOU
MENTIONED THAT I WAS A WHITE HOUSE FELLOW,
MY FIRST JOB WAS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL WORKING FOR A REALLY GREAT GUY, MENTOR,
AND NOW A VERY CLOSE FRIEND NAMED RICHARD
CLARK.
>>JAMIE: THIS WAS IN 1997-1998.
AT THAT TIME, DICK WAS TELLING EVERYBODY WHO
WOULD LISTEN, WHICH WAS PRETTY MUCH NOBODY,
THAT TERRORISM WAS THIS HUGE AND FUNDAMENTAL
THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT WE HAD
TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT IT, AND WE HAD TO GO AFTER
THIS OBSCURE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION CALLED
AL QAEDA AND, PARTICULARLY, ITS LEADER, OSAMA
BIN LADEN.
ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE SAYING, "OH, THIS IS
DEAD.
THE COLD WAR IS OVER."
HE'S LOOKING FOR A NEW JOB, AND HE WAS REALLY
IGNORED.
>>JAMIE: OF COURSE, DICK'S CRESCENT MEMO WAS
ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S DESK THE DAY THAT 9/11
HAPPENED.
DICK HAD A WHOLE PLAN THAT WASN'T REALIZED
FOR WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE POTENTIALLY TO
PREVENT IT.
>>JAMIE: SO, EVEN BEFORE 9/11, DICK ALWAYS
USED TO SAY THAT IF EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON
WAS FOCUSING ON ONE THING, YOU CAN BE SURE
THAT THERE'S SOMETHING MUCH MORE IMPORTANT
THAT'S BEING MISSED.
SO, FOR HIM, IT WAS TERRORISM AND CYBER.
FOR ME, AS I LOOKED AROUND THE WORLD, I SAW
THESE LITTLE DATA POINTS THAT TOLD ME THE
STORY, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THAT GENETICS
AND BIOTECH REVOLUTIONS WERE GOING TO FUNDAMENTALLY
CHANGE OUR WORLD, AND NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE
WERE THINKING ABOUT THAT.
SO, I STARTED EDUCATING MYSELF.
I'M A VERACIOUS READER, READING EVERYTHING
I COULD, TRACKING DOWN PEOPLE I THOUGHT I
COULD LEARN FROM, AND TALKING WITH THEM.
>>JAMIE: WHEN I WAS READY, STARTED WRITING
ARTICLES ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS,
THE POTENTIAL NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
OF THE GENETICS REVOLUTION, AND THEN A CRAZY
ECCENTRIC CONGRESSMAN, STILL IN CONGRESS,
NAMED BRAD SHERMAN GAVE ME A CALL, AND HE'D
READ ONE OF MY ARTICLES, AND HE SAID, "THIS
IS SO IMPORTANT.
YOU'RE THE ONLY PERSON TALKING ABOUT IT.
I WANT TO DO HEARINGS BASED AROUND YOUR ARTICLE,
THIS ONE ARTICLE.
WILL YOU BE THE LEAD WITNESS AND HELP ME ORGANIZE
THE HEARING?"
>>JAMIE: SO, I DID THAT, AND THEN WAS DOING
A LOT MORE WRITING AND SPEAKING.
I FELT LIKE DICK IN THE '90S LIKE THIS IS
SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, BUT I'M NOT BREAKING
THROUGH.
THERE'S A FEW EXPERTS WHO WERE LISTENING.
I PUBLISHED ARTICLES AND JOURNALS LIKE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS THAT ARE WONKY.
SO, I FELT LIKE I NEEDED TO REACH A BROADER
AUDIENCE.
THAT WAS WHAT LED ME TO WRITE MY TWO NEAR
TERM SCI-FI NOVELS, GENESIS CODE AND ETERNAL
SONATA.
>>JAMIE: WHEN I WAS ON MY BOOK TOURS DESCRIBING
THE UNDERLYING SCIENCE THAT WENT IN TO THE
STORIES, WHEN I EXPLAINED THE SCIENCE IN WAYS
THAT THIS REGULAR PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND,
I COULD JUST SEE THEIR EYES WIDENING, THAT
THEY'D HEARD THE WORDS, BUT THEY HADN'T HEARD
THE STORY OF WHAT THIS REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE
IS AND WHAT IT MEANT TO THEM.
>>JAMIE: IT WAS THEN THAT I REALIZED THAT
I NEEDED TO WRITE A BOOK FOR EVERYONE, THE
NONFICTION STORY OF THE GENETICS REVOLUTION,
WHERE IT COME FROM, WHERE IT IS COMING FROM,
WHERE IT IS NOW, AND WHERE IT'S HEADING, BUT
NOT AS SOME KIND OF WONKY BOOK THAT PEOPLE
WOULD READ LIKE PEOPLE USED TO TAKE CASTOR
OIL LIKE IT'S PROBABLY GOOD FOR YOU, BUT YOU
DON'T WANT TO DO IT, BUT SOMETHING LIKE A
BOOK THAT YOU COULD TAKE TO THE BEACH, THAT
YOU COULD READ ON THE SUBWAY, THAT YOU'D BE
EXCITED TO READ.
SO, THAT'S WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO IN HACKING
DARWIN.
>>STEVE: SO, BOTH OF YOUR SCI-FI NOVELS, I
THINK, HAVE GENETIC ENGINEERING COMPONENTS.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>>JAMIE: CORRECT.
YEAH.
GENESIS CODE ON A US-CHINA GENETICS ARMS RACE,
AND THEN ETERNAL SONATA FOCUSES ON THE SCIENCE
OF EXTREME HUMAN LIFE EXTENSION.
>>STEVE: SO, YOU'VE COVERED BOTH THE FICTIONAL
NARRATIVE APPROACH TO IT, AND THEN ALSO MORE
A SCIENCE FACT-BASED VERSION OF IT.
LET ME READ A COUPLE OF SENTENCES FROM THE
DUST JACKET OF HACKING DARWIN, AND THEN YOU
CAN REACT TO IT.
>>JAMIE: SURE.
>>STEVE: "GENETIC ENGINEERING ISN'T SOME FAR-OFF
FANTASY.
IT'S ARRIVING FASTER THAN MOST OF US UNDERSTAND
OR ARE PREPARED FOR.
WHEN WE CAN ENGINEER OUR FUTURE CHILDREN,
MASSIVELY EXTEND OUR LIFE SPANS, BUILD LIFE
FROM SCRATCH, AND RECREATE THE PLANET AND
ANIMAL WORLD, SHOULD WE?
AT THE DAWN OF THE GENETICS REVOLUTION, OUR
DNA IS BECOMING AS READABLE, WRITABLE, AND
HACKABLE AS OUR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, BUT
AS HUMANITY STARTS RETOOLING OUR OWN GENETIC
CODE, THE CHOICES WE MAKE TODAY WILL BE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALIZING BREATHTAKING
ADVANCES IN HUMAN WELLBEING, AND DESCENDING
INTO A DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY DEADLY GENETIC
ARMS RACE."
>>STEVE: SO, I THINK YOU HIT ON ALMOST ALL
THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THIS TOPIC.
ANY THOUGHTS SINCE YOU WROTE THAT?
>>JAMIE: WELL, LOTS.
I MEAN, I CERTAINLY STAND BY EVERYTHING IN
THE BOOK, BUT OR I SHOULD SAY AND THE SCIENCE
IS MOVING FORWARD SO RAPIDLY.
I'M JUST NOW FINISHING THE EDITS FOR THE PAPERBACK
VERSION, WHICH IS COMING OUT IN APRIL 2020.
IT'S JUST INCREDIBLE.
THIS ONE YEAR OF SCIENCE, THE RATE OF THIS,
I MEAN, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE NOW AT LEAST
FOR PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD THAT IT WAS ONLY
2012 THAT THE CRISPR-CAS9 GENE-EDITING SYSTEM
WAS ESSENTIALLY INVENTED, AND IT WAS SIX YEARS
AFTER THAT THAT THE WORLD'S FIRST GENE-EDITED
HUMAN BABIES WERE BORN, SIX YEARS FROM THIS
ABSTRACT CONCEPT-
>>STEVE: WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG?
OH, SORRY.
>>JAMIE: EXACTLY.
NO, NO, BUT THAT'S THE THING.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF ALL OF THIS
IS THE SPEED OF CHANGE, AND THAT'S WHY I TELL
EVERYBODY THAT IF YOU'RE LOOKING HISTORICALLY
FOR HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR TECHNOLOGIES TO
EMERGE, YOU ARE BY DEFINITION BEING TOO CONSERVATIVE.
I MEAN, THAT ALL OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE
SUPER CONVERGENCE OF TECHNOLOGIES, AND THEY'RE
ALL LEANING AGAINST EACH OTHER, AND PROPELLING
EACH OTHER FORWARD.
WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE LITERATE, EDUCATED,
CONNECTED TO THE WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE, CONNECTED
TO EACH OTHER THAN EVER BEFORE, AND ALL OF
THOSE FIGURES ARE JUST GOING UP AND UP AND
UP, AND YOU THINK THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE
WORLD FIGURED OUT COPPER, BRONZE OR WHATEVER
THOUSANDS OF YEARS APART.
>>JAMIE: SO, IMAGINE IF, AT FIRST, WHEREVER
IN THE WORLD THEY FIGURED OUT COPPER FIRST,
THEY JUST SENT AN EMAIL TO EVERYONE ELSE ON
EARTH SAYING, "HEY, JUST FIGURED OUT COPPER.
HERE'S HOW TO DO IT.
THAT'S A 2,000-YEAR DEVELOPMENTAL JUMP FOR
SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD.
THEN THAT'S THE STARTING PLACE.
THEN THE NEXT DAY, SOMEBODY FIGURES OUT BRONZE,
BOOM!
EMAILED TO EVERYBODY, AND WE'RE DOING THAT
IN EVERY FIELD AROUND THE WORLD, AND IT'S
UNBELIEVABLE.
SO, WHERE THIS IS HEADING IS JUST BEYOND IN
MANY WAYS WHAT OUR VERY PRACTICAL BRAINS ARE
DESIGNED TO FOLLOW.
>>STEVE: SOON AFTER THE FIRST CRISPR RESULTS
CAME OUT, COREY HERE WAS LEADING AN EFFORT
AT MSU TO BUILD OUR OWN GENE-EDITING CORE
ON CAMPUS.
SO, WE HAVE A GENE-EDITING CORE UP AND RUNNING
HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LATEST STATISTICS
ARE, BUT PLENTY OF MODIFIED MOUSE MODELS AND
OTHER SPECIES WELL HAVE BEEN PRODUCED THERE.
>>COREY: I THINK THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS TO
EVERYONE WHO'S ENGAGED IN BIOLOGY, THE CRISPR
WAS HUGE AND IT, IN FACT, DIDN'T COME OUT
OF THE BLUE RIGHT THERE OR ZINC FINGERS AND
TALENS, WHICH WERE OPTIMIZED JUST A COUPLE
OF YEARS BEFORE, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE WAS
AN ACCELERATION, AND HAS BEEN ACCELERATION
OVER TIME.
>>COREY: I WANT TO PUSH BACK BECAUSE I THINK
I AGREE WITH PART OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT
I THINK IT'S COMPLICATED.
IN SOME WAYS, TECHNOLOGY, I THINK IN A GROSS
LEVEL CLEARLY ACCELERATING, BUT THERE'S A
LONG HISTORY OF PREDICTIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENTS FROM DISCOVERIES THAT NEVER HAPPENED
OR TOOK MUCH LONGER TO HAPPEN THAN WE EXPECTED.
YOU SELF-DISCUSSED STEM CELLS.
REMEMBER, JUST AFTER STEM CELLS WERE INVENTED,
THERE'S ALL THIS HYPE ABOUT CURING A HUGE
RANGE OF DISEASES WITH THESE NEW TECH.
WE MAY BE INJECTING THEM INTO OUR BRAINS,
AND OUR BONE MARROW, AND ALL THESE CHRONIC
CONDITIONS, NEURODEGENERATIVE CONDITIONS WE
HAD WOULD BE CURED WITHIN A FEW YEARS.
THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TRUE.
>>COREY: SAME THING HAPPENED WITH THE HUMAN
GENOME PROJECT, THOSE INITIAL BURST OF ENTHUSIASM
ABOUT IDENTIFYING ALL OF THESE DISEASES THAT
HAD GENETIC BASIS.
THAT PROVED FAR MORE DIFFICULT.
I THINK YOU HAVE ALIGNED YOUR BOOK BY A SCIENTIST
WHO WAS HAVING A MEA CULPA SAYING, "WE'RE
CONFUSED UNDERSTANDING FROM, I DON'T KNOW,
CLINICAL PRACTICE OR CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS."
SO, IT'S COMPLICATED.
I AGREE THAT THERE'S A BROAD TREND OF ACCELERATION,
BUT IT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY, VERY HARD TO
PREDICT ACTUAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERIES.
I JUST LIKE TO HEAR YOUR REACTION TO MY-
>>JAMIE: YEAH, I KNOW.
I TOTALLY AGREE, AND THERE'S EVEN A WHOLE
FIELD OF RESEARCH ON THE HYPE CYCLE, AND WHAT
IT LOOKS LIKE.
THERE'S SOME KIND OF GROUNDBREAKING DISCOVERY.
EVERYBODY SAYS, "WOW!
THIS IS IT.
IT'S GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING."
THEN WE GET TOO EXCITED, AND THEN IT TURNS
OUT THAT IT'S COMPLICATED, AND IT'S LOW AND
PAINSTAKING.
THEN PEOPLE SAY, AND YOU CAN JUST INSERT ANY
TECHNOLOGY, "GOD, WE THOUGHT THIS ROBOTICS
THING WAS ..." OR JUST INSERT ANYTHING, "WHAT
A DUD!"
>>JAMIE: THEN ALONG THE WAY, AFTER THIS DISAPPOINTMENT,
IT TURNS OUT THERE'S REALLY A THERE THERE,
AND IT ENDS UP BUILDING AND BUILDING AND BUILDING,
AND EVENTUALLY FOR MANY OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES
OVER TIME IT BECOMES EVEN MORE REVOLUTIONARY
THAN PEOPLE IN THE EARLY STAGES MAY HAVE THOUGHT.
THAT HYPE CYCLE, REALLY, IT APPLIES ACROSS
LOTS OF TECHNOLOGIES.
JUST BECAUSE ALL OF THIS OF LIFE IS ALWAYS
MORE COMPLICATED THAN OUR SIMPLIFYING NARRATIVES
WOULD LIKE IT TO BE.
I STILL STAND BY THIS GENERAL THESIS THAT
IF YOU GET BILLIONS OF PEOPLE INTERCONNECTED,
SOLVING PROBLEMS, NOBODY HAS TO SOLVE A PROBLEM
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SOLVED.
>>JAMIE: SO, YOU'RE JUST OPTIMIZING HUMAN
BRAIN POWER IN A WAY THAT JUST NEVER HAPPENED
BEFORE IN OUR HISTORY, AND WE HAVE A ... IT'S
NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST IMAGINING, WHATEVER, SOME
UNIMAGINABLE TECHNOLOGY.
WE ARE LAYING FOUNDATIONS UPON WHICH MANY,
MANY THINGS WILL BE BUILD.
WILL THEY BE EXACTLY LIKE WE ARE IMAGINING?
NO, BUT WILL THERE BE OTHER THINGS THAT WE
CAN'T IMAGINE?
YES.
>>JAMIE: SO, FOR ME, I GUESS, AS A SELF-DECLARED
FUTURIST BECAUSE THERE'S NO GOVERNING BODY
OF FUTURISM.
YOU DIDN'T PLAY MUSIC AND GIVE YOU THAT LITTLE
PAPER.
THAT'S ALWAYS THE THING IS THAT YOU TRY TO
HAVE AS MUCH INTELLECTUAL RIGOR IN MAKING
PREDICTIONS BASED ON YOUR ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK
AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT, "WELL, WHAT'S REAL
AND WHAT JUST SOUNDS GOOD BUT DOESN'T HAVE
THE POTENTIAL TO BE REAL?"
LIFE IS ALWAYS MORE COMPLICATED THAN OUR NARRATIVES
WOULD SUGGEST.
>>STEVE: I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT OLDER SCIENCE
FICTION, AND I'D LIKE TO ACTUALLY GET YOUR
REACTIONS LATER, JAMIE, TO SOME OF THE MORE
FAMOUS SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS OR TV SHOWS
THAT INCORPORATED GENETICS IN THEM, BUT I
THINK THE POSSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH OUR CIVILIZATION,
HUMANITY COULD BE CHANGED BY GENETIC ENGINEERING
HAVE BEEN EXPLORED QUITE A BIT CONCEPTUALLY,
BUT I THINK WHAT'S DIFFERENT AT THIS MOMENT
IN TIME IS THAT I WOULD SAY THERE'S ALMOST
NO CHANCE.
I'M HIGHLY CONFIDENT THAT IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS
WE WILL SEE REALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON
SOCIETY AND HUMAN LIFE FROM GENETICS.
I JUST WANT TO ASK COREY WHETHER HE THINKS
THAT THAT'S STILL TOO OPTIMISTIC, 10-YEAR
TIMESCALE.
>>COREY: YOU THINK THERE WON'T BE?
>>STEVE: THERE WILL BE.
>>COREY: THERE WILL BE.
>>STEVE: I THINK THERE WILL BE.
>>COREY: I'M PRETTY SKEPTICAL OF THAT, BUT
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR ALL OF US TO TRY TO GET A LITTLE FEEDBACK
ON OUR OWN PREDICTIONS.
I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN KEEPING TRACK OF MY PREDICTIONS
ON THIS TOPIC.
SO, WHAT WE-
>>STEVE: MINE ARE PUBLISHED.
>>COREY: OKAY.
WELL, HAVE YOU BEEN LOOKING AT WHETHER THEY
COME TRUE OR NOT?
>>STEVE: YEAH.
THEY'RE RIGHT ON SCALE.
THEY'RE RIGHT ON TIME.
I MEAN, I PREDICTED THAT WE WOULD GET THE
FIRST ACCURATE COMPLEX STRAIGHT PREDICTOR.
I'VE PREDICTED THAT IN ABOUT 2014.
IT HAPPENED ACTUALLY A LITTLE EARLIER THAN
I SUSPECTED.
I HAVE A PREDICTION FOR WHEN WE'LL BE ABLE
TO DO COGNITIVE ABILITY WITH SOME ACCURACY.
THAT'S ANOTHER FIVE YEARS.
>>COREY: THAT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, I THINK.
THAT'S NOT ... I AGREE THAT'S IN THE LINE
BETWEEN RESEARCH AND, I WOULDN'T CALL IT ENGINEERING,
I WOULDN'T CALL IT TECHNOLOGY, BUT I'M ASKING
ABOUT ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT IN LIFESPAN.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING.
>>STEVE: OH, I DON'T HAVE ANY PREDICTIONS
ABOUT THAT.
>>JAMIE: LET ME JUMP IN BECAUSE I THINK DEFINING
THE TERMS IS ACTUALLY REALLY IMPORTANT.
SO, THE REASON WHY I USED THE WORD IN THE
TITLE OF MY BOOK GENETIC ENGINEERING IS I'M
REALLY THINKING OF THE BROAD CATEGORY.
SO, WHEN I TELL PEOPLE I'VE WRITTEN A BOOK
ON HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING, NINE PEOPLE
OUT OF 10 WILL SAY, "OH, YOU MEAN CRISPR?"
>>JAMIE: I SAY, "NO, NO.
I DON'T MEAN CRISPR.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS IMAGINE THAT THERE'S A
PIE THAT'S GENETIC ENGINEERING, AND IN THAT
PIE, THERE'S A SLICE THAT'S GENE-EDITING,
AND IN THAT SLICE, THERE'S A SLIVER THAT'S
CRISPR."
>>JAMIE: SO, STEVE, WITH THE WORK THAT HE'S
BEEN DOING, HE AND OTHERS, ON POLYGENIC SCORING,
THERE IS A REAL WORLD APPLICATION.
NOW, THAT REAL WORLD APPLICATION, NOW, THERE
A FEW OF THEM.
I MEAN, THE SIMPLER ONE IS JUST PEOPLE GETTING
THEIR DIRECT TO CONSUMER GENETIC INFORMATION,
AND THAT'S ALREADY STARTING TO HAPPEN.
THEN SECOND IS THIS MIGRATION INTO IVF AND
EMBRYO SCREENING, AND THAT'S ALSO, IT'S VERY
EARLY DAYS.
THAT IS STARTING TO HAPPEN.
THEN THERE'S THE THING OF GENE-EDITING EMBRYOS,
AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WE HAD THE WORLD'S
FIRST TWO GENE-EDITED BABIES WERE BORN IN
CHINA LAST YEAR.
THE THIRD HAS VERY, VERY LIKELY ALREADY BEEN
BORN, ALTHOUGH NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW FOR SURE.
>>JAMIE: SO, I THINK THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING.
ALL OF THE CATEGORIES THAT I WRITE ABOUT IN
MY BOOK IN BROAD TERMS ARE THINGS THAT HAVE
ALREADY HAPPENED, AND THE QUESTION IS, IS
HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO BE?
WHAT IS THE ADOPTION CURVE GOING TO LOOK LIKE?
IT'S NOT A BINARY.
IT'S NOT A YES OR NO BECAUSE, YES, IT HAS
ALREADY HAPPENED.
>>STEVE: YEAH.
GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION TO COREY, I THINK
WE HAD IN MIND DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMPACTS.
SO, 50% INCREASE IN HUMAN LONGEVITY OR SOMETHING.
THAT ISN'T WHAT I WAS THINKING OF WOULD HAPPEN
IN 10 YEARS, BUT I MEANT THINGS THAT ARE AT
LEAST IN MY MIND VERY SUBSTANTIVE, BUT IN
YOUR MIND MIGHT HAVE BEEN LIKE, "OH, THESE
ARE NOT REALLY VERY IMPACTFUL THINGS."
>>COREY: NO.
WE SHOULD BE PRECISE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF
THE FUDGE FACTOR HAPPENS.
>>STEVE: YES.
ABSOLUTELY.
>>COREY: PREDICTIONS ARE SUITABLY VAGUE, AND
THEN IT GETS INTERPRETED RETROSPECTIVELY ACCURATELY.
>>STEVE: SO, YOU NEED SOME RIGOROUS DEFINITIONS
OF WHAT YOU MEAN.
>>COREY: EXACTLY.
>>STEVE: YEAH.
JAMIE, GIVE US ONE EXAMPLE THAT YOU'RE CONFIDENT
WILL COME TO FRUITION IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
>>JAMIE: I'LL GIVE A BUNCH.
ONE IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE INCREASED USE
OF IVF AND EMBRYO SCREENING BY A MUCH BROADER
SET OF POTENTIAL PARENTS.
SO, RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A LITTLE UNDER 2% OF
PEOPLE IN THE US ARE HAVING KIDS THROUGH IVF.
IT'S ABOUT 5% IN JAPAN, AND AROUND 10% IN
DENMARK AND NORWAY.
I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THOSE PERCENTAGES
ARE GOING TO GO UP BECAUSE TAKING CONCEPTION
OUTSIDE OF THE HUMAN BODY JUST IT ALLOWS US
TO APPLY SCIENCE TO THE PROCESS OF BABY-MAKING.
>>JAMIE: I ALSO THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO
CHANGE IN A LITTLE BIT BY A LITTLE BIT, BUT
IT'S GOING TO ADD UP, JUST THE WAY WE THINK
ABOUT WHAT A HUMAN IS AND WHAT HUMAN POTENTIAL
IS.
RIGHT NOW, A KID IS BORN, AND WE SAY, "WOW!
THIS KID, THEY COULD BE A GREAT MATHEMATICIAN
OR MAYBE THEY'LL WIN THE OLYMPICS IN THE 100
METERS."
MOST KIDS AREN'T GOING TO WIN THE OLYMPICS
IN 100 METERS.
TAKE ME, FOR EXAMPLE.
I LIKE TO RUN.
I DO EXTREME SPORTS.
THERE'S NOTHING I COULD DO TO WIN THE 100
METERS WITH THE BIOLOGY THAT I HAVE.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION,
NOT ENTIRELY PREDICTIVE, BUT PROBABILISTIC
INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US THAT'S
REAL.
THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT
FATE AND POTENTIAL, AND EVEN WHAT A PERSON
IS.
>>JAMIE: SO, THAT, I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OVER IN 10 YEARS.
RIGHT NOW, AS I SAID, THERE'S TWO, MAYBE THREE
GENE-EDITED BABIES HAVE BEEN BORN.
MY GUESS IS IN 10 YEARS, THERE WILL BE 20,000,
30,000, VERY, VERY BIG NUMBERS.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ... I TALK WITH GEORGE
CHURCH FROM TIME TO TIME ABOUT THIS.
HE THINKS WE'RE GOING TO MAKE 10,000 CHANGES.
I DON'T THINK THAT, BUT I THINK THERE'LL BE
SINGLE GENE MUTATION CHANGES TO LOTS OF PRE-IMPLANTED
EMBRYOS EITHER TO REDUCE SOME KINDS OF RISKS
OR TO PROVIDE SOME KIND OF ENHANCEMENTS, AND
IT'S GOING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CATEGORIZE
WHAT IS A THERAPY, AND WHAT IS AN ENHANCEMENT.
>>JAMIE: SO, I THINK THAT WE, AND I'M PRETTY
CONFIDENT THAT THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE,
AND NONE OF THEM ARE GOING TO HAPPEN IN THESE
HUGE STEPS.
IT'S JUST GOING TO BE, AS I WRITE ABOUT IT
IN THE BOOK, A BUNCH OF GRADUAL STEPS, EACH
VERY LOGICALLY EMANATING FROM THE LAST.
>>STEVE: SO, I FELT THAT ON A 10-YEAR TIMESCALE,
I COUNTED THREE PREDICTIONS FROM YOU.
I AGREE WITH ALL OF THEM.
I JUST WANT NOW YOU AND COREY TO FIGHT.
>>COREY: LOOK, I'D GIVE YOU A PASS ON THE
FIRST PREDICTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A
VERY HIGH PROBABILITY EVENT ALREADY.
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT IVF IS OUT THERE.
WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE DOING SCREENING FOR
CERTAIN KINDS OF CONDITIONS, AND THAT'S GOING
TO EXPAND.
SO, THAT'S ALMOST NOT A PREDICTION.
I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO HARSH ON YOU, BUT THAT'S
ALMOST NOT A PREDICTION.
>>STEVE: IT'S OKAY.
THESE ARE JUST CATEGORY THINGS, RIGHT?
>>COREY: I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE GENE-EDITED
QUESTION.
I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE ONE.
THE OTHER IS THE PREDICTION ON TRAITS.
THE GENE-EDITED ONE IS REALLY INTERESTING
BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A CHINESE SCIENTIST ALLEGEDLY
DOING THIS UNDERCOVER, ALTHOUGH WE, IN FACT,
DON'T KNOW THAT HE DID IT UNDERCOVER OR WITH
THE SUPPORT OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE HOSPITALS.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE REGULATORY BODIES
OR AT LEAST HAVE THE REGULATORS LOOK THE OTHER
WAY IN THESE CASES.
SO, I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE ON PUBLIC POLICY
AND THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PEOPLE ACTUALLY
TRY TO FORCE THESE BANS OR NOT.
>>JAMIE: THERE ARE NO BANS.
>>COREY: YOU'RE RIGHT.
THERE ARE NO BANS.
THERE ARE THESE DISCUSSIONS OF BANS, RIGHT?
YEAH.
THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS GOING TO TURN INTO
ANYTHING REAL OR IS IT JUST A LOT OF HOT AIR?
>>STEVE: RIGHT.
LET'S TAKE JUST THAT ONE BECAUSE YOU HAVE
ANOTHER ONE AFTER THAT.
>>COREY: SURE.
>>STEVE: LET'S TAKE THAT ONE.
SO, I WOULD SAY THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED
IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE AT ANY MEDIUM,
LARGE IVF CLINIC, ACTUALLY, TO DO THIS.
THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE HE DID IT, HU DID IT.
SO, THE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT IS RELATIVELY
LOW, AND THERE ARE MANY COUNTRIES, SO MANY
DIFFERENT REGULATORY SITUATIONS.
SO, EVEN IF 90% OF THEM BAN IT OUTRIGHT, THERE'LL
STILL BE AT LEAST A HANDFUL OF COUNTRIES WHERE
IT'S LEGAL.
SO, SO FAR I THINK YOUR COMMENTS DON'T PRECLUDE
IT HAPPENING.
I THINK TO ME THE BIGGEST VARIABLE IS-
>>COREY: NO, I'M NOT ARGUING IT'S NOT GOING
TO HAPPEN.
I'M JUST SAYING I THINK A LOT OF OTHER ATTENDANT
CHANGES WILL HAVE TO OCCUR.
>>STEVE: OKAY, BUT 10,000, BY THE END OF 10
YEARS, 10,000 WILL HAVE BEEN BORN, 20,000
WILL HAVE BEEN BORN.
DOES THAT SEEM TOO AGGRESSIVE TO YOU OR-
>>COREY: NO.
HONESTLY, I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW YOU'D
ASSESS EVEN BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE RIGHT
AT THIS STAGE, BUT I'M HOPING THAT MANIFOLD
GOES ON FOR 10 YEARS, WE'LL HAVE JAMIE BACK,
AND WE WILL CHECK.
THAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
>>STEVE: OKAY.
SO, YOU'RE ON THE FENCE.
YOU THINK 10,000 COULD BE WAY UP.
>>COREY: YEAH.
10,000 IS PLAUSIBLE, RIGHT?
>>STEVE: OH, IT'S PLAUSIBLE.
OKAY.
>>COREY: IT'S PLAUSIBLE.
I MEAN, 2,000 IS PLAUSIBLE.
20,000 FEELS-
>>STEVE: TOO HIGH.
>>COREY: TOO HIGH.
YEAH.
>>STEVE: I'M IN THE SAME BALLPARK AS YOU.
I THINK THE MAIN VARIABLE TO ME IS WHAT IS
THE MAIN BENEFIT THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY FROM,
SAY, A SINGLE-
>>COREY: SO, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO ASK.
I WAS GOING TO ASK JAMIE WHAT TRAITS DO YOU
THINK WILL BE ENGINEERED OVER THE NEXT 10
YEARS.
>>JAMIE: YES.
SO, IN ENGINEERED IS A STRONG WORD.
SO, BECAUSE, JUST IN MY GENERAL PHILOSOPHY,
WHEN I THINK, "WELL, WHAT ARE ... THERE ARE
THESE VERY COMPLEX SYSTEMS THAT WE ALWAYS
DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND," AND THEN THERE ARE
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF INTERVENTION, AND
IN VERY CRUDE TERMS, I WILL SAY THERE ARE
CATEGORIES OF INTERVENTION THAT DON'T REQUIRE
A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYSTEMS THAT
ARE BEING MANIPULATED AND ONES THAT DO.
>>JAMIE: SO, FOR THE APPLICATIONS WHERE YOU
DON'T REALLY HAVE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE
SYSTEM, THOSE ARE MUCH EASIER FOR US TO DO.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE MICROBIOME, I MEAN,
THERE'S THIS WHOLE EFFORT TO FULLY UNDERSTAND
THE MICROBIOME AND HOW IT FUNCTIONS.
IT'S SO MASSIVELY COMPLEX.
IT'S REALLY TOUGH TO DO.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING
THE MICROBIOME, YOU JUST GIVE A FAT MOUSE
A FECAL TRANSPLANT WITH SOME SKINNY MOUSE'S
FECAL MATTER AND SOMEHOW THE FAT MOUSE GETS
SKINNY.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING.
THAT'S WHY WHEN I TALK ABOUT IVF-
>>COREY: IT'S NOT JUST MICE.
IT'S NOT JUST MICE.
THIS PHENOMENA HAS HAPPENED IN PEOPLE, TOO.
>>JAMIE: YES, YES, YES.
SO, SHIFTING THAT TO GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES,
THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT THE REAL DRIVER OF
THESE TECHNOLOGIES IS GOING TO BE IVF AND
EMBRYO SCREENING BECAUSE WE'LL JUST HAVE MORE
AND MORE INFORMATION FOREVER, AND THAT'S WHY
THE WORK ON POLYGENIC RISK SCORING OR JUST
POLYGENIC LIFE SCORING IS SO IMPORTANT, AND
WE WON'T NEED TO HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING,
AND IF YOU'RE SELECTING FROM AMONG 15 PRE-IMPLANTED
EMBRYOS, THEY JUST HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION.
SOMEDAY USING INDUCED STEM CELL, YOU MAY BE
CHOOSING FROM 10,000 OR A MILLION PRE-IMPLANTED
EMBRYOS, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE
A LOT OF CHANGE THROUGH THAT.
>>JAMIE: SO, THEN AFTER WE'VE DONE THE EMBRYO
SELECTION, PROVIDED THAT IT'S SAFE AND PROVEN,
AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THERE YET, I'M PART
OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION INTERNATIONAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN GENOME-EDITING.
IT'S A MOUTHFUL.
SO, WE'VE PUT OUT A VERY STRONG STATEMENT
SAYING ANYBODY WHO GENE EDITS A HUMAN EMBRYO
DESIGNED TO BE TAKEN TO TERM IS ACTING UNETHICALLY
AT THIS TIME.
SO, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S ALWAYS GOING
TO BE THE CASE.
>>JAMIE: SO, I THINK THAT THE INTERVENTIONS
THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, AS I SAID EARLIER,
WHEN THEY'RE SAFE, IF AND WHEN THEY'RE SAFE,
ARE GOING TO BE SINGLE GENE MUTATION CHANGES
THAT CONFER THAT ELIMINATES SOME KIND OF HARM,
AND FOR THAT KIND OF HARM, I WILL OFTEN BE
DOMINANT SINGLE GENE MUTATION MENDELIAN DISORDERS
OR IT WILL BE BENEFITS WHERE THERE'S A SINGLE
GENE MUTATION THAT CONFERS SOME KIND OF ADVANTAGE,
WHETHER IT'S VIRUS RESISTANCE.
THERE'S A LONG LIST.
>>JAMIE: ACTUALLY, GEORGE CHURCH PROBABLY
DOES THE BEST JOB OF MAINTAINING THIS LIST
OF THESE SINGLE GENE MUTATION CHANGES THAT
COULD BE POTENTIALLY TARGETS.
THAT'S WHERE [INAUDIBLE 00:26:28] I MEAN,
THAT'S HOW HE GOT TO THE CCR5.
>>JAMIE: SO, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ... IT
WON'T BE ENGINEERING WHOLE TRAITS BECAUSE
MOST OF OUR MEANINGFUL TRAITS ARE GENETICALLY
COMPLEX.
FOR THOSE TRAITS, WE'RE GOING TO USE PROBABILISTIC
EMBRYO SELECTION.
THERE WILL BE RELATIVELY SMALL AND DISCRETE
NUMBERS OF SINGLE GENE MUTATION CHANGE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE GROWTH
AREA.
>>STEVE: SO, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, I THINK WE
MAYBE ALL AGREE THAT TO GET TO THAT 20,000
NUMBER 10 YEARS FROM NOW, THERE WILL HAVE
TO BE SOME COUNTRIES IN WHICH IT'S LEGAL,
THERE WILL BE SOME BENEFICIAL SINGLE GENE,
SINGLE EDIT MUTATIONS THAT PEOPLE FIND ARE
DESIRABLE, AND THEN THE OFF TARGET SAFETY
ISSUE WILL BE LARGELY SOLVED BY IMPROVEMENTS
OR FURTHER TESTING OF CRISPR.
THOSE ARE THE THREE INGREDIENTS, AND THEN
20,000 IS NOT A CRAZY NUMBER.
OKAY.
>>JAMIE: YEAH, YEAH.
I AGREE.
SO, FOR THE OFF TARGET, I MEAN, OFF TARGET
HAS BEEN A HUGE ISSUE, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE SPEED WITH WHICH THAT PROBLEM IS BEING
SOLVED, IT'S NOT FULLY SOLVED YET, BUT IT'S
GETTING MORE AND MORE AND MORE PRECISE.
>>STEVE: I WAS ON A PANEL THIS SUMMER WITH
A UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST
NAMED BRUCE LAHN, WHO CLAIMED TO ME THAT,
ACTUALLY, ALREADY FROM WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT
MOUSE, THE OFF TARGET PROBLEM IS A VERY MINIMAL
RISK RIGHT NOW FOR MANY CHOICES OF VECTOR.
HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SOLVED FOR SURE IN
THE RELATIVELY NEAR TERM.
>>COREY: JUST TO ADD A LITTLE CONTEXT, YOU
JUST GOT A FACT FROM YOUR BOOK, JAMIE, YOU
STATE THAT ON AVERAGE AS A MAN AGES, THERE
ARE 2.9 MUTATIONS THAT OCCUR IN SPERM CELLS
EACH YEAR, AND IT'S BEEN REALIZED THAT THAT'S
THE MAIN THING THAT IS HAPPENING PRETTY MUCH
FROM THE TIME YOU'RE 18 OR OVER.
IF WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT OFF TARGET EFFECTS,
WHICH MIGHT BE ONE OFF TARGET EDIT IN A WHOLE
GENOME FROM CRISPR, A GUY LIKE ME WHO WAITED
TILL AGE 47 TO HAVE KIDS LOOKS LIKE I'M PUTTING-
>>STEVE: YOU'RE A CRIMINAL.
WELL, I THINK YOU RAISED A GREAT POINT, COREY,
BECAUSE, OKAY, AGAIN, FOR OUR AUDIENCE, WHAT
HE'S POINTING OUT IS THAT OLDER MEN HAVE A
HIGHER ERROR RATE IN THE PRODUCTION OF THEIR
SPERMS, SO THAT THEY GET MORE MUTATIONS IN
THEIR SPERM.
YOU COULD COMPARE WHAT'S THE ADDED RISK TO
YOUR PROGENY FROM WAITING A YEAR TO HAVE THE
KID VERSUS DOING THE CRISPR EDIT, RIGHT?
I THINK THAT'S THE ANALOGY YOU'RE TRYING TO
MAKE.
>>COREY: THAT'S RIGHT.
WELL, IT'S PARTLY THAT, BUT IT'S ALSO THE
QUESTION OF JUST WHAT'S THE OVERALL RISK THAT
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
WE SEEM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT RISK IN CRISPR
FOR OFF TARGET EFFECTS.
WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY FOCUSING ON JUST NATURAL.
>>STEVE: NO.
ABSOLUTELY.
RIGHT.
>>COREY: BE CONCRETE, RIGHT?
THESE ARE NOT ABSTRACT DISCUSSIONS.
IT'S QUITE WELL-KNOWN THAT AS MEN GET OLDER,
RATES OF AUTISM IN THEIR CHILDREN GO UP.
IN FACT, THEY START GOING UP BY AROUND MID
30S.
>>STEVE: RIGHT.
WE EVEN KNOW A PHENOTYPICAL EFFECT OF THOSE
EXTREME MUTATIONS IS HIGHER RISK OF AUTISM.
>>COREY: EXACTLY.
YEAH.
>>STEVE: I THINK YOU'RE MAKING THE POINT THAT
PEOPLE, THEY DON'T THINK CONSISTENTLY ABOUT
RISK.
SO, FAMILIAR RISKS, THEY TEND TO DISCOUNT.
THEN IF SOMEBODY COMES WITH, "HEY, NEW TREATMENT,"
THEN THE BIOETHICISTS LOOK AT IT EXTREMELY
CRITICALLY AND THEY SAY, "YEAH, BUT WHAT ABOUT
THIS TAIL RISK?"
AND THEN YOUR POINT IS THAT WE'RE ALREADY
DEALING WITH TAIL RISKS OF THAT SIZE OR LARGER
IN JUST MEN WAITING LONGER TO HAVE KIDS.
>>COREY: THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S TRUE FOR RISKS ACROSS THE BOARD, WHETHER
A NUMBER OF PEOPLE DYING FROM STORMS, LIGHTNING
STRIKES, MASS SHOOTINGS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
>>STEVE: CAR ACCIDENTS, YEAH.
>>COREY: TERRORISM EVENTS.
>>JAMIE: YEAH.
YUP.
EXACTLY.
NATURE HAS AN ERROR RATE.
SO, IF THIS NATURE, WHATEVER THAT IS, WAS
PERFECT, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS ... WE
PROBABLY STILL BE-
>>COREY: WE WOULDN'T BE EVOLVING.
>>JAMIE: ... BUT NATURE HAS AN ERROR RATE.
SO, THAT'S, I MEAN, IT'S THE RATIONALE CONVERSATION
ABOUT SELF-DRIVING CARS THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE
TO HAVE.
WE HAVE A MILLION PEOPLE DYING FROM CAR ACCIDENTS
EVERY YEAR.
IF WE CONVERT ENTIRELY TO SELF-DRIVING CARS,
AND ONLY 900,000 PEOPLE BUY, WELL, THAT'S
A VICTORY, BUT PEOPLE DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY.
SO, WE NEED TO DO BETTER THAN NATURE, BUT
WE NEED TO DO HUGELY BETTER THAN NATURE TO
HAVE VERY PREVALENT ADOPTION OF ANY TECHNOLOGY.
>>COREY: ONE OF MY FAVORITE STATS IS REGARDS
AUTO FATALITIES WAS THE RISE IN FATALITIES
AFTER 9/11 BECAUSE AFTER 9/11, A LOT OF PEOPLE
STOPPED FLYING AND STARTED DRIVING EVERYWHERE.
IT TURNS OUT THE INCREASED ON AUTO FATALITIES
DURING THAT TIME WAS GOOD THAN THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE KILLED IN 9/11.
>>STEVE: RIGHT.
>>COREY: SO, MORE PEOPLE DIED BASICALLY BY
TRYING TO AVOID PLANES THEN.
>>STEVE: SO, I DON'T MIND WHEN AVERAGE PEOPLE
OR EVEN POLICYMAKERS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT STATISTICALLY
TRAINED TYPICALLY THINK INCONSISTENTLY ABOUT
RISKS AND UTILITY, BUT WHEN "BIOETHICISTS"
THINK INCONSISTENTLY ABOUT UTILITY, THAT DOES
BOTHER ME BECAUSE THEY OFTEN MAKE ARGUMENTS
IN WHICH THEY'RE SUPER, SUPER CRITICAL ABOUT
ANY NEW TECHNOLOGY, BUT THEY DON'T DO THE
CORRECT CALCULATION COMPARING TO RISKS THAT
WE ALREADY DEAL WITH IN OUR EVERYDAY LIFE.
>>COREY: I WOULD HOP ON BIOETHICISTS AS OPPOSED
TO ANYBODY ELSE PUSHING POLICY OF CERTAIN
KIND.
MOST POLICYMAKERS, MOST PEOPLE ADVOCATING
SOME KIND OF POLICY HAVE A BLIND SPOT.
OFTEN, MOST PEOPLE HAVE BLIND SPOTS.
>>STEVE: OH, I'M NOT DISAGREEING.
I'M JUST SAYING I EXPECT A HIGHER ... I HAVE
A HIGHER BAR FOR PEOPLE IN THE ACADEMY WHO
ARE PURPORTING TO ACTUALLY ADVISE SOCIETY
ON WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
>>COREY: WHY?
>>STEVE: I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST DO.
>>JAMIE: WELL, THEY'RE GETTING PAID.
>>STEVE: YEAH.
THEY'RE GETTING PAID FOR IT.
>>COREY: PEOPLE GET PAID FOR ALL SORTS OF
STUFF.
>>STEVE: SO, NOW, BACK TO THE THIRD PREDICTION
10-YEAR TIMESCALE, YOU WERE GOING TO COMMENT
ON IT.
>>COREY: SO, THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT POPPED
IN MY HEAD IS, AGAIN, ALTHOUGH THE TECHNOLOGIES
CATEGORICALLY DIFFER, AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT'S NEW TO US.
REMEMBER, EAST GERMANY HAD INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL
OLYMPIC TEAMS FOR YEARS AND YEARS WITHOUT
REAL GENETIC INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE, BUT
THEY COULD LOOK AT KIDS EARLY ON, THEY RUN
THEM THROUGH THE OBSTACLE COURSES, ALL SORTS
OF ATHLETIC ABILITIES, AND THEY COULD ... IT'S
BEFORE THEY GET THE KIDS TO THEIR RIGHTS,
BUT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PICK OUT WHO WAS
POTENTIALLY VERY, VERY TALENTED ATHLETE.
>>COREY: I THINK IT'S QUITE PLAUSIBLE THAT
YOU COULD GET THIS INFORMATION VERY EARLY
ON FROM AN EMBRYO.
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
THE QUESTION IS HOW WIDESPREAD THIS WILL BE
AND WHETHER PEOPLE WOULD BE ACTING ON IT.
>>JAMIE: YEAH.
EXACTLY.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
MY NOVEL GENESIS CODE IS REALLY ABOUT THIS,
WHERE US LEARNS THAT CHINA HAS A SECRET GENETIC
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM WHERE THEY'RE IDENTIFYING
THESE KIDS WHO HAVE CERTAIN CAPABILITIES AND
ENHANCING THOSE CAPABILITIES USING GENE EDITING,
AND THEN PLACING IN THEM THE EQUIVALENT OF
THEIR OLYMPIC SPORT SCHOOLS, BUT FOR SCIENCE
AND MATH AND ENGINEERING AND ALL SORTS OF
THINGS, AND THEN WEEDING OUT THOSE PEOPLE
TO FIND OUT WHO ARE THE CHAMPIONS AMONG CHAMPIONS.
>>JAMIE: SO, CERTAINLY, JUST THE PHENOTYPIC
EXPRESSION OF LIFE WILL ALLOW US.
IT DOES ALLOW US TO IDENTIFY WHO HAS THE POTENTIAL
TO BE GOOD AT SOMETHING, BUT AS I WRITE ABOUT
IN THE BOOK, HOW MANY MOZARTS, POTENTIAL MOZARTS
ARE LANGUISHING IN REFUGEE CAMPS IN SYRIA?
SO, I THINK THAT WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, WE'RE
AT LEAST GOING TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY POTENTIALLY
MUCH LARGER POOLS OF PEOPLE WHO COULD BE EINSTEINS,
AND THEN SOME OF THEM MAY NOT BE ENSTEINS,
BUT FOR SOCIETIES TO DECIDE TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES
AROUND THAT MODEL OF HOW HUMAN POTENTIAL COULD
BE REALIZED, THEN THIS WILL BE VERY APPEALING.
IT' ALREADY STARTING TO HAPPEN.
>>JAMIE: I MEAN, KAZAKHSTAN IS SCREENING THEIR
POTENTIAL ATHLETES TO SEE WHO GOES WITH THE
RUSSIAN MILITARY AS ANNOUNCED, AND THAT THEY'RE
DOING GENOME SEQUENCING OF THE RECRUITS TO
TRY TO USE THAT INFORMATION FIGURING OUT WHO
GOES INTO WHAT FUNCTION.
I MEAN, IT'S VERY RUDIMENTARY NOW, BUT IT
WON'T ALWAYS-
>>STEVE: I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO STATE
SELECTION FOR TALENT IN VERY, VERY NARROW
THINGS LIKE, SAY, YOU WANT TO FIND THE TALLEST
KID TO BE ON YOUR NATIONAL BASKETBALL TEAM,
IT IS CLEAR THAT GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES WILL
ACTUALLY DO BETTER THAN WHAT THE OLD SOVIET
SYSTEM OR THE OLD CHINESE SYSTEM WAS DOING
LIKE MEASURING THE X-RAY IN YOUR HAND TO SEE
HOW LONG YOUR VARIOUS BONES WERE, THINGS LIKE
THAT.
YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT NOW.
>>STEVE: I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS THINKING
OF WHEN JAMIE MENTIONED IMPACTS ON SOCIETY
AND THE WAY SOCIETY THINKS ABOUT LIFE AND
FATE, AND THINGS LIKE THAT FROM BETTER GENETIC
TECHNOLOGY, ONE OF THE OBVIOUS ONES TO ME
IS THAT ALREADY WITH THE COGNITIVE PREDICTORS
THAT WE HAVE, YOU CAN PREDICT UPWARD AND DOWNWARD
SOCIAL MOBILITY WITHIN A FAMILY OR WITHIN
A GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON DNA ALONE.
SO, ONCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC AFTER WILLFUL
OBFUSCATION BY THE POWERS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY,
AFTER THE GENERAL PUBLIC BECOMES AWARE THAT
THIS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE, I THINK WE'LL CHANGE
THE WAY PEOPLE VIEW THE DYNAMICS OF SOCIETY
LIKE HOW FAIR IS SOCIETY, HOW MUCH IS HARDWIRED
IN AT THE BEGINNING.
THESE ARE ALL REALLY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GRAPPLING WITH SINCE THE
DAWN OF TIME, BUT WE'RE GETTING CLOSER AND
CLOSER TO BEING ABLE TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THEM.
THAT COULD HAVE A SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT, I THINK.
>>COREY: I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENTS
YOU MENTIONED, JAMIE, DON'T EXACTLY WARM THE
HEART, KAZAKHSTAN, RUSSIA, EAST GERMANY.
I GUESS I MENTIONED EAST GERMANY, AND I'M
WONDERING WHETHER THIS IS LIKELY THE KIND
OF TECHNOLOGY THAT GETS EXPLOITED BY ESSENTIALLY
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS
BEFORE IT ACTUALLY MOVES IN TO THE MAINSTREAM
IF IT DOES AND IF IT SHOULD, BUT YOU HAVE
TO ADMIT, YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, WE'RE NOT IN
GREAT COMPANY WHEN WE SAY THAT THESE ARE THE
LEADING STATES ON THIS AREA.
>>JAMIE: THAT'S ONE POSSIBILITY, BUT WELL
BEYOND WHAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT MAY WELL
DO, WHAT THE RUSSIANS MAY WELL DO, WHAT THE
KAZAKHS MAY WELL DO IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER
OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.
THIS DRIVER IS GOING TO BE SO AGGRESSIVE THAT
IT'S GOING TO BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR ANY
POLITICAL SYSTEM TO RESIST THEM, AND THAT
WILL BE PARENTS WHO ONCE THEY BELIEVE THIS
TECHNOLOGY PROVIDES A BENEFIT ARE GOING TO
DEMAND IT, AND IF THEY CAN'T GET IT, THEY'RE
GOING TO EITHER GO WHERE THEY CAN GET IT OR
THEY ARE GOING TO ORGANIZE AND FORCE THEIR
GOVERNMENTS TO ADAPT TO THEIR WISHES.
>>JAMIE: THE FIRST TIER OF THIS WILL BE PEOPLE
WHO ARE CARRIERS OF SINGLE GENE MUTATION DISEASES
AND DISORDERS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
THERE IS A GROUP FOR, BASICALLY, EVERY DISEASE
HAS ITS COMMUNITY.
SOME OF THEM ARE EXTREMELY WELL-ORGANIZED,
EXTREMELY POLITICAL, EXTREMELY POWERFUL, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO DEMAND THIS.
I HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS IN KOREA.
IN KOREA, THEY HAVE A NATIONAL LAW REQUIRING
CRAM SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE THESE EXTRA EDUCATION
SCHOOLS PEOPLE GO TO, TO CLOSE AT 10:00 PM
BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVING THEIR SEVEN AND EIGHT-YEAR-OLD
KIDS GOING TO THESE CRAM SCHOOLS PAST MIDNIGHT
EVERY SINGLE NIGHT TO PREPARE FOR COLLEGE
ENTRANCE EXAMS THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE A DECADE
IN THE FUTURE.
>>JAMIE: WHEN I TOLD MY FRIEND WHO HAD 12
TUTORS COMING TO HIS HOUSE EVERY WEEK, I SAID,
"IF YOU COULD SCREEN EMBRYOS TO SELECT ONE
IMPLANTATION THAT HAS HIGHER IQ, WOULD YOU
DO IT?"
HE LOOKED AT ME LIKE I WAS AN IDIOT.
THAT WAS AN UNIMAGINABLE QUESTION BECAUSE
WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO DOING IT?
NOT DOING IT?
IT WAS ALMOST UNIMAGINABLE.
>>JAMIE: I THINK THAT PARENTS, YES, THERE
WILL BE STATES PUSHING THIS, YES, THERE WILL
BE A REGULATORY ISSUE OF WHERE IT IS, WHATEVER
IT IS, IS LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL OR GRAY AREA,
BUT ONCE IT'S SAFE OR PEOPLE THINK IT'S SAFE
AND BENEFICIAL, PARENTS ARE GOING TO DEMAND
IT.
>>STEVE: I WANT TO QUOTE A LINE FROM YOUR
BOOK PARAPHRASING, NOT EXACTLY QUOTING.
CHINA, BY 2020, WANTS TO SEQUENCE 50% OF ALL
NEWBORNS AS INVESTING NINE BILLION OVER THE
NEXT 15 YEARS IN THIS PROJECT WITH NO PRIVACY
CONCERNS.
WHAT IMPLICATIONS DOES THIS HAVE FOR US POLICY
IN YOUR VIEW?
>>JAMIE: ABSOLUTELY HUGE.
FOR ALL OF US, WE FEEL VERY RIGHTLY THAT PRIVACY
IS A PERSONAL ISSUE.
IF SOMEBODY COMES IN TO MY HOUSE AND SNOOPS
AROUND, I FEEL VIOLATED.
IF SOMEBODY GETS INTO MY EMAIL ACCOUNT AND
READS MY MESSAGES, I FEEL VIOLATED.
IF I HAVE SENT IN MY MOUTH SWAB INTO 23ANDME
AND THEY SHOULD SELL, FOR EXAMPLE, MY PERSONAL
INFORMATION TO GSK, I FEEL VIOLATED.
YET, THERE IS THAT JUST THE BASIC FACT THAT
FOR EVERYBODY TO BENEFIT FROM GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES,
WE NEED BIG DATASETS.
WE NEED POOLS OF MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE'S
GENOTYPIC AND PHENOTYPIC INFORMATION, AND
SEE THE BIG EXPERTS IN THIS ON HOW BIG ARE
THE DATABASES THAT WE NEED, BUT IT DOESN'T
MATTER HOW BIG THEY ARE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING
TO GET DATABASES IN THE TENS, HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS AND THEN BILLIONS.
>>JAMIE: THERE WILL BE A RIGHT ANSWER TO WHAT'S
THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF PRIVACY THAT WILL CREATE
A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FOR A SOCIETY BECAUSE
YOU CAN IMAGINE SOCIETIES WHERE EVERYBODY
HAS 100% COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF
THEIR PERSONAL GENETIC INFORMATION, AND EVERY
USE OF THEIR GENETIC INFORMATION NEEDS TO
BE, WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THEM, EVERY
RESEARCH STUDY, EVERYTHING.
IN THAT CASE, THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETY WILL
HAVE LOTS OF PROTECTION.
THEY JUST WOULDN'T HAVE REALLY ANY INNOVATION
IN THE FIELD OF UNDERSTANDING COMPLEX GENETICS.
>>JAMIE: YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE OTHER END
OF THE SPECTRUM WHERE THERE'S NO PRIVACY PROTECTIONS.
EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS, THE RESEARCHERS AND
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE ACCESS TO EVERYTHING.
YOU COULD UNDERSTAND THAT ON ONE HAND, THAT
COULD UNLOCK A LOT OF RESEARCH AND A LOT OF
ABILITY TO FIGURE OUT DECODE THE SECRETS OF
THE GENOME, BUT YOU COULD IMAGINE, "WELL,
MAYBE PEOPLE MIGHT REVOLT BECAUSE THEY WOULD
FEEL THAT THEIR GENETIC INFORMATION WAS BEING
MANIPULATED AND USED AGAINST THEM."
>>JAMIE: SO, IF YOU SAY NO PRIVACY AND COMPLETE
INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY HAS TWO ENDS OF A SPECTRUM,
OVER TIME, WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE
IS THE OPTIMAL PLACE ON THAT SPECTRUM, BUT
THE COMMUNAL ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, AND
EACH PERSON'S PERCEIVED INDIVIDUAL ANSWER
TO THAT QUESTION MAY BE DIFFERENT.
THAT COULD MEAN THAT SOCIETIES WHERE INDIVIDUALS
ARE MORE EMPOWERED END UP LOSING SOME OF THEIR
NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS, AND SOCIETIES WHERE THERE AREN'T THOSE
KINDS OF PRIVACY PROTECTION, AND CHINA IS
CERTAINLY A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT, BUT YOU
COULD EVEN GO MORE EXTREME LIKE NORTH KOREA,
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE POTENTIALLY SOME KIND
OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, BUT THIS ISN'T AN
ABSTRACT QUESTION.
>>JAMIE: I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO ... THE WAY
WE'RE GOING TO TEST THIS JUST LIKE THE WAY
WE'RE GOING TO TEST WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
BEFORE WITH GOLD MEDALS IS BY WHO GETS MORE
GOLD MEDALS.
IN 20 YEARS, THERE'LL BE A GENETIC AMAZON,
AND IT'S GOING TO BE BASED SOMEWHERE, AND
THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL DETERMINE
WHERE IT'S BASED.
>>STEVE: SO, JAMIE, I'M CURIOUS.
IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT WHERE POLICYMAKERS
IN WASHINGTON ARE REALLY OBSESSED WITH CHINA
AS A STRATEGIC COMPETITOR, ARE YOU SENSING
SOME POTENTIAL FOR ACTION ON THE US SIDE GIVEN
THESE WHAT CHINA MIGHT DO IN THIS AREA?
>>JAMIE: YEAH.
WE'RE ALREADY SEEING IT.
SO, YOU KNOW THIS STEVE THROUGH YOUR WORK
WITH BGI.
ICARBONX ACQUIRED PATIENTS LIKE ME, WHICH
IT SEEMED LIKE A RELATIVELY BENIGN THING,
THIS LITTLE COMPANY THAT CONNECTED DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD ORGANIZE AROUND
MOSTLY SINGLE-GENE MUTATION DISEASES, BUT
NOW, THAT ACQUISITION HAS BEEN BLOCKED BY
CFIUS.
MARCO RUBIO AND SOME OTHERS HAVE BEEN MAKING
SOUNDS ABOUT HOW GENETIC DATA HAS BECOME A
NATIONAL SECURITY RESOURCE.
SO, YES, THIS IS VERY MUCH IN THE SIGHTS OF
OUR INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS,
AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO BECOME MORE SO.
>>STEVE: YEAH.
I WAS AWARE OF CFIUS BLOCKING THAT WHAT SEEMED
TO BE PRETTY BENIGN ACQUISITION, BUT I HAVE
NOT YET SEEN ANY REALLY MEANINGFUL INVESTMENT
ON THE PART OF THE US GOVERNMENT IN ADVANCING
THE SCIENCE ON OUR SIDE OF THINGS.
THAT'S WHAT I HAVE MY EYES PEELED FOR.
>>JAMIE: THEN WE HAVE GREAT INVESTMENT IN
THE BASIC SCIENCES.
SO, THAT CERTAINLY, I MEAN, CHINA IS INVESTING
A LOT, BUT ALL IN ALL, THE US STILL TOPS THE
WORLD BY A LONG SHOT IN INVESTMENT IN THE
BASIC SCIENCES.
THAT'S WHY OUR UNIVERSITIES, I MEAN, NO UNIVERSITIES
IN CHINA ON THE WHOLE CAN EVEN REMOTELY COMPETE
IN THESE AREAS WITH OUR BEST UNIVERSITIES.
>>JAMIE: SO, WE MOVE TOWARD APPLICATION, AND
IN THE WORLD OF APPLICATIONS, CHINA IS MUCH
MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN THE UNITED STATES.
THE NEAR TERM APPLICATION, IT'S NOT GOING
TO THE PRIMARY APPLICATION ISN'T GOING TO
BE REPRODUCTION OR DIRECT TO CONSUMER GENETICS,
IT'S THIS TRANSITION FROM GENERALIZED TO PRECISION,
TO PREDICTIVE MEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE.
>>JAMIE: SO, CHINA IS CERTAINLY ALL IN, AND
THEY'RE ABLE TO MOVE MUCH QUICKLY THAN WE
ARE, AND IN A WAY, THEY'D BENEFIT FROM THESE
ECONOMIES OF SCALE, THAT THEY HAVE TO MOVE
TOWARD ALGORITHMIC MEDICINE IN CHINA BECAUSE
THEY JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DOCTORS, AND THEY
NEED TO FIND A WAY JUST TO DECENTRALIZE CARE.
IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE WE'RE SPENDING
JUST AN OBSCENE AMOUNT OF PERCENTAGE OR OUR
GDP ON HEALTHCARE, WE HAVE SO MANY BUILTIN
STAKEHOLDERS THAT CREATES A LEVEL OF CONSERVATISM
THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME.
>>JAMIE: SO, AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY,
MOST OF IT IS NOT PROPRIETARY, IT'S IN THE
APPLICATIONS AND CHINA IS REALLY MOVING QUICKLY
ON THE APPLICATION.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE US ISN'T DOING ANYTHING.
THE NIH IS PAYING A LOT OF ATTENTION ON PRECISION
MEDICINE WANTING TO GET IT RIGHT, BUT IT'S
GAME ON BETWEEN, CERTAINLY, THE UNITED STATES
AND CHINA.
>>COREY: I HAVE ANOTHER TOPIC, ACTUALLY, THAT
I THINK I HOPE WE DON'T MISS BECAUSE WE ARE
RUNNING OUT OF TIME, BUT IT WAS THE THOUGHT
EXPERIMENT THAT YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR BOOK
OF ACCELERATING THE REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE, BASICALLY
SHRINKING THE GENERATION TIME POTENTIALLY
DOWN TO SIX MONTHS OR LESS.
I'D NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS POSSIBLE APPLICATION
OF IPSCS AS WE CAN CALL THEM, AS THEY'RE CALLED.
>>STEVE: CAN YOU DEFINE THAT FOR OUR AUDIENCE?
>>COREY: SO, INDUCIBLE PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS,
THESE ARE, BASICALLY, CELLS THAT WE CAN CREATE
FROM ANY NORMAL CELL, AND WE CAN ... SINCE
YOU WALK IT BACK IN TIME TO AN EARLY STAGE
IN THIS DEVELOPMENTAL POINT WHERE IT HAS CAPABILITY
OF TURNING INTO ANY POSSIBLE CELL IN THE HUMAN
BODY, AND JAMIE LAYS OUT A VERY INTERESTING
THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY, MAYBE PRACTICAL POSSIBILITY
OF SIMPLY, I DON'T WANT TO STATE YOUR THOUGHT
EXPERIMENT FOR YOU, BUT USING EARLY STAGE
EMBRYOS TO GENERATE SPERM AND EGG CELLS, AND
THEN BASICALLY REPRODUCE WHILE EVER GETTING
TO THE ADULT STAGE.
SO, THAT SETS THE STAGE.
PLEASE DESCRIBE IN MORE DETAIL.
>>JAMIE: YEAH.
SO, IT'S EXACTLY AS YOU'VE SAID.
RIGHT NOW, WHAT YOU COULD DO IS IF YOU ARE
USING THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED,
YOU HAVE ONE SET OF PARENTS, AND THEY WANT
TO HAVE A CHILD USING THESE TECHNOLOGIES OF
IVF AND EMBRYO SCREENING, BUT THEY WANT TO
HAVE A LARGER NUMBER OF EGGS TO CHOOSE FROM,
AND SO WE'LL MAKE IT NEAR TERM, SO THE MOTHER
HAS A SKIN GRAFT TAKEN.
THOSE SKIN CELLS ARE INDUCED INTO STEM CELLS
INTO EGG PRECURSOR CELLS, AND THEN INTO EGGS.
>>JAMIE: NOW, LET'S SAY SHE HAS 10,000 EGGS,
WHICH ARE FERTILIZED BY THE MALE SPERM.
AVERAGE MALE EJACULATION HAS ABOUT A BILLION
SPERM CELLS.
SO, NOW, YOU HAVE THESE 10,000 PRE-IMPLANTED
FERTILIZED EMBRYOS, AND YOU GROW THEM ALL
ABOUT FIVE DAYS, EXTRACT A FEW CELLS FROM
EACH USING AN AUTOMATED PROCESS, AND SEQUENCE
THEM ALL BECAUSE THE COST OF SEQUENCING IS
TRENDING TOWARD NEGLIGIBILITY.
>>JAMIE: NOW, FROM THESE 10,000, YOU PICK
ONE.
LET'S JUST SAY THAT YOU PICK ONE, WHICH IS
A MALE EMBRYO, AND THEN, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE
AT FIVE DAYS YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HAD FULL DIFFERENTIATION
INTO GENDER, YOU COULD JUST HAVE ANY EMBRYO,
BUT JUST TO MAKE IT SIMPLE, WE'LL CALL IT
A MALE EMBRYO, AND THEN ANOTHER SET OF PARENTS,
THEY DO THE EXACT SAME THING AND THEY THEN
SELECT A FEMALE EMBRYO.
AGAIN, FORGET THE GENDER ISSUE.
NOW, IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED.
>>JAMIE: NOW, YOU HAVE A FIVE-DAY-OLD MALE
EMBRYO AND A FIVE-DAY-OLD FEMALE EMBRYO.
WHEN YOU EXTRACT CELLS FROM EACH OF THEM,
THESE ARE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.
SO, THE WHOLE POINT OF AN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL
IS IT CAN BECOME ANYTHING.
SO, THEN YOU HAVE THE BOY EMBRYO AND THE GIRL
EMBRYO, AND YOU EXTRACT SPERM CELLS FROM THE
BOY AND EGG CELLS FROM THE GIRL, AND THEN
YOU MAKE 10,000 MORE OF THESE EARLY STAGE
EMBRYOS, SEQUENCE THEM ALL, SELECT ONE OF
THOSE BASED ON WHATEVER IT IS YOU ARE OPTIMIZING
FOR.
MOST LIKELY, IT WOULD BE FOR SOME KIND OF
POLYGENIC TRAIT YOU COULD BE GENETIC COMPONENT
OF IQ OR HEIGHT OR PERSONALITY STYLE OF WHATEVER
IT IS.
>>JAMIE: YOU COULD JUST KEEP DOING THAT OVER
AND OVER AND OVER FOREVER.
SO, BECAUSE OF ALL THE TECHNOLOGIES, LET'S
SAY IT TAKES SIX MONTHS PER GENERATION.
THAT MEANS IN 10 YEARS, YOU HAVE 20 GENERATIONS,
WHICH IS WHEN THE AVERAGE HUMAN, IT'S ABOUT
A LITTLE LESS THAN 30-YEAR PER GENERATION.
SO, USING THAT, YOU COULD REALLY PUSH CHANGE
ACROSS THE POPULATION.
WHAT I WRITE ABOUT IN THE BOOK IS YOU'RE KNOWING
NOTHING ABOUT GENETICS, OUR ANCESTORS TOOK
WILD CHICKEN LAYING ONE EGG A MONTH AND TURN
THEM INTO DOMESTIC CHICKEN LAYING ONE EGG
A DAY WITH ALL OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.
>>JAMIE: LET'S SAY WE WERE OPTIMIZING FOR
SOMETHING.
WHATEVER IT IS, WE COULD REALLY PUSH THAT
THING IN WAYS THAT WOULD BE VERY UNFAMILIAR,
COULD BE VERY UNFAMILIAR TO BE ABLE TO THINK
ABOUT HUMANS IN OUR CURRENT FORMAT.
>>STEVE: NOW, FOR OUR AUDIENCE, I JUST WANTED
TO POINT OUT THAT THAT FIRST STAGE WHERE YOU
TAKE A SKIN CELL AND YOU INDUCE IT TO BEHAVE
LIKE AN EGG, BECOME AN EGG CELL, THAT HAS
BEEN SUCCESSFULLY DONE IN MOUSE.
I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY WELL-ACCEPTED RESULT,
AND THERE ARE AT LEAST A COUPLE LABS AND I
THINK ONE STARTUP TRYING TO ACTUALLY PERFECT
THE PROCESS FOR HUMAN.
>>COREY: YOU'VE DONE IT FOR ALL SORTS OF CELL
TYPES IN MICE, NEURONS.
YOU'VE DONE IT FOR MUSCLE CELLS.
>>STEVE: SPECIFICALLY FOR EGGS, FOR OOCYTES,
IT'S BEEN DONE, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE TRYING
TO WORK IT OUT IN PRIMATE OR HUMAN.
>>JAMIE: YEAH.
I WAS IN THE LAB ABOUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS
AGO, I'M IN THE LAB OF MITINORI SAITOU IN
KYOTO.
I ACTUALLY SPENT A FULL DAY WITH HIM AND HIS
TEAM, AND IT'S A GREAT DINNER REALLY TALKING
ABOUT THIS.
SO, IT'S NOT LIKE JUST THERE'S A DIRECT LINE
FROM ANYTHING YOU CAN DO IN A MOUSE YOU CAN
DO IN A HUMAN, BUT WE KNOW THAT IPS, THAT
THIS WHOLE THING OF TAKING BACK CELLS IN TIME,
WE KNOW IT WORKS IN HUMAN CELL.
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN.
>>JAMIE: SO, I THINK IT'S A PRETTY GOOD BET
THAT THIS SCIENCE IS GOING TO PROGRESS WHETHER
IT'S GOING TO BE THAT THE ERROR RATE OF THIS
PROCESS WILL APPROXIMATE THE ERROR RATE OF
NATURE THAT'S FOR HUMANS THAT'S DOING ON THEM.
>>STEVE: RIGHT.
SO, AT LEAST THAT FIRST STEP OF YOUR GENERATIONAL
PROCESS, I WOULD FEEL FAIRLY CONFIDENT OR
I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF 10 YEARS FROM
NOW THAT WERE FAIRLY WELL-PERFECTED.
I'M CURIOUS WHAT PEOPLE IN KYOTO THOUGHT.
>>JAMIE: WELL, THEY WERE VERY CONSERVATIVE
BECAUSE WHAT SAITOU-SAN SAID WAS THE ONLY
WAY WE'RE GOING TO KNOW THIS IS SAFE IS IF
SOMEBODY BORN THROUGH THIS PROCESS LIVES AN
ENTIRE LIFE BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN IN SOME OF
THE CLONED ANIMALS, THEY SEEMED PRETTY GOOD
EARLIER IN LIFE, AND THEN THEY HAVE PROBLEMS
LATER.
>>STEVE: THAT CONSERVATISM COULD HAVE BEEN
APPLIED TO TEST TUBE BABIES, THE FIRST IVF
BABY.
SO, YEAH.
>>JAMIE: THAT WAS MY POINT.
SO, HE THOUGHT THREE GENERATIONS.
SO, HE THOUGHT, "WELL," HE SAID, "WELL, IT'S
GOING TO TAKE ABOUT 10 YEARS TO GET WHERE
THE TECH WORKS, AND THEN THREE BACK-TO-BACK
GENERATIONS."
THEN HE'D PUT THOSE, BECAUSE IT WAS JAPAN,
80 YEARS EACH, WHICH WAS 250.
THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY HUMANS WORK.
I MEAN, I TOLD YOU ABOUT SIX YEARS FROM CRIPS-CAS9
TO THE FIRST HUMAN BABY, NOBODY'S WAITING.
I MEAN, LOUISE BROWN IS 41 THIS YEAR.
IT COULD BE THAT ALL IVF BABIES DROP DEAD
AT 42.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW, BUT NOBODY IS WAITING.
WE HAVE, WHATEVER, SIX, SEVEN MILLION KIDS
HAVE NOW BEEN BORN.
NO ONE IS WAITING THREE GENERATIONS.
I DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN YET.
>>STEVE: RIGHT.
SO, IT SOUNDED LIKE TAKING A PART THAT THREE
GENERATION CAREFUL CHECKING.
THEY THINK 10 YEARS IS ALSO ROUGHLY THE RIGHT
TIMESCALE.
>>JAMIE: THE 10 YEARS IS FOR PEOPLE MAKING
PREDICTIONS.
10 YEARS IS A SWEET SPOT BECAUSE IT'S FAR
AWAY TO BE FAR AWAY, BUT NO ONE IS GOING TO
COME BACK TO YOU NEXT YEAR AND SAY, "YOU REMEMBER."
LOTS OF THINGS SEEM TO BE 10 YEARS.
>>STEVE: UNDERSTOOD.
I THINK WE'VE FOCUSED IN THIS DISCUSSION ON
ABOUT A DECADE AS THE TIMESCALE, NOT INFINITY.
WE'RE ALL YOUNG ENOUGH TO AT LEAST SEE ANOTHER
10 YEARS.
NOW, I WOULD POINT OUT TO THESE KYOTO FOLKS
THAT, OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY THE TECHNOLOGY PRETTY
WELL WORKING AND THEY CAN TRY IT OUT ON, SAY,
MONKEYS, WHOSE LIFE EXPECTANCY IS MUCH SHORTER,
THEN I THINK THE SAFETY ISSUE COULD BE LARGELY
NOT COMPLETELY RESOLVED, BUT LARGELY RESOLVED
IF YOU DID THREE GENERATIONS OF MONKEY.
>>JAMIE: I TOLD THEM THAT.
YEAH.
I TOLD THEM THAT.
I THINK THAT THERE'S ALSO JUST A BUILTIN CONSERVATISM
TO MOST SCIENTISTS.
MOST SCIENTISTS, IF YOU SAY, "HEY, THIS IS
REALLY EXCITING SCIENCE.
MY PLAN IS TO TOTALLY RECREATE LIFE ON EARTH,"
YOUR FUNDING DRIES UP.
YOU'RE ACTUALLY LIKE, "I'M TRYING TO BE EXTREMELY
CONSERVATIVE.
I'M TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE."
>>STEVE: SO, I THINK COREY RAISED THIS AS
A WAY THAT HUMAN EVOLUTION COULD JUST SPEED
UP TREMENDOUSLY.
I THINK IT'S NOT TECHNOLOGICALLY OUT OF OUR
HANDS.
IN A CENTURY, I WOULD BE VERY SHOCKED IF WE
DIDN'T HAVE MASTERY OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
>>COREY: IT'S A KIND OF TECHNOLOGY THAT REMINDS
ME OF A WAY IN WHICH WE CAN BRIDGE THE GAP
BETWEEN BIOLOGY AND SILICON BECAUSE IN SOME
SENSE, THIS IS HOW SILICON GENERATION TAP
IN.
YOU TRY SOMETHING OUT, YOU MAKE SMALL ITERATIONS
IN IT, AND OVER TIME, THINGS CHANGE MUCH FASTER
THAN THEY DO IN BIOLOGY.
IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS,
I'M NOT ARGUING THAT ONE SHOULD, BUT YOU COULD
EASILY SEE BASICALLY REVISING HUMAN BIOLOGY
VERY, VERY QUICKLY IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT
QUITE GIVE YOU MOORE'S LAW, BUT THAT WOULD
DEFINITELY BE FASCINATING THAN ANYTHING WE'VE
EVER SEEN.
>>STEVE: THERE ARE OLD ESSAYS BY FREEMAN DYSON
POINTING OUT THAT WHAT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN
WHEN HUMANS FINALLY GET OUT INTO SPACE IS
THAT WE GENETICALLY MODIFY OURSELVES TO, FOR
EXAMPLE, BE ABLE TO DO PHOTOSYNTHESIS OR BE
MUCH RESISTANT TO RADIATION, MUCH MORE RESISTANT
TO LOW GRAVITY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
HE THOUGHT WHEN WE FINALLY PEOPLE THE SOLAR
SYSTEM, IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT PEOPLE HUMANS,
BUT ENGINEERING, TOO.
>>JAMIE: WELL, IT MUST BE.
IT MUST BE.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE THING.
I MEAN, WE'LL JUST USE IT'S EASIER TO TALK
ABOUT CROPS.
WE'RE CHANGING OUR CLIMATE SO RAPIDLY THAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE CROPS IN ORDER
SO THAT PEOPLE CAN DO FARMING AND STAY WHERE
THEY ARE.
I MEAN, WE ARE A SPECIE THAT'S OPTIMIZED FOR
THIS KIND OF LIFE.
IF THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND US CHANGES, THE
OLD-FASHIONED WAY IS, WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT
OPTIMIZED, YOU JUST DIE, AND THAT'S WHY SO
MANY SPECIES JUST DIE OUT.
>>JAMIE: WE DON'T LIKE THAT AS HUMANS, AND
IF WE ARE, I MEAN, WE HAVE TO BECOME AN INTERCELLULAR
SPECIES BECAUSE OUR PLANET WE KNOW AND OUR
SUN ARE GOING AWAY.
WE CAN'T DO IT IN THIS FORM.
THAT'S WHY WITH ALL OF THIS, WE HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT WHAT'S THE CONNECTION BETWEEN NOW AND
WHAT'S POSSIBLE NOW AND WHAT'S ETHICAL NOW,
AND TOMORROW WHERE WE MAY BE FACING A DIFFERENT
SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
>>JAMIE: SO, EVERYBODY LIKES TO THINK, "WELL,
THE WORLD STAYS EXACTLY LIKE IT IS WHETHER
THIS SET OF OPTIONS, BUT MAYBE OUR WORLD COULD
CHANGE FUNDAMENTALLY BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE,
BECAUSE SOME KIND OF PATHOGENS THAT WIPE PEOPLE
OUT BECAUSE OF SOME EXPOSURE THAT SOMETHING,
SOME ASTEROID CRASHES HERE.
WHO KNOWS?
>>STEVE: ... OR WANTING TO LIVE ON MARS OR
TITAN.
>>COREY: SO, I'M NOT REALLY CONVINCED THAT
WE'LL BE INHABITING OTHER PLANETS COMFORTABLY
AS A RESULT OF CHANGES IN OUR BIOLOGY.
I THINK IT'S ALMOST CERTAIN THAT WE WILL DEVELOP
TECHNOLOGY THAT ALLOWS US TO LIVE THERE FAR
SOONER AND TO FAR GREATER EXTENT THAN WE WILL
TO OUR ABILITY TO GENERATE ENERGY BY USING
PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
>>STEVE: OKAY.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS IS A PRETTY BIG REACH, BUT
IF YOU ACCEPT THIS HUNDRED-YEAR TIMESCALE
THAT WE'LL HAVE THIS FAST SIX-MONTH GENERATION
EVOLUTION UNDER CONTROL, THEN THE TIMESCALE
TO DEVELOP THE STAR TREK LIKE TECHNOLOGIES
THAT YOU NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE IN SPACE WITHOUT
CHANGING US, AND THE BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES
THAT THEY ARE COMPETING ON A SIMILAR TIMESCALE,
RIGHT?
>>COREY: I THINK THEY'D BE COMPETING, BUT
I THINK THEIR DETAILS OF THIS SPED OF EVOLUTION
IF WE REALLY THINK ABOUT, AND THAT'S THAT
OFTEN EVOLVING TRAITS HAS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
THAT WOULD TAKE A WHILE TO RECOGNIZE.
I USED TO STUDY FRUIT FLIES, AND ONE OF THE
WELL-KNOWN PAPERS INVOLVES SELECTING FRUIT
FLIES FOR LEARNING ABILITY.
YOU COULD BASICALLY RAISE A FRUIT FLY'S ABILITY
TO LEARN A TASK PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE IN A COUPLE
OF GENERATIONS, BUT THESE FLIES HAD SERIOUS
PROBLEMS, AND MAYBE WE'LL HAVE GENETIC TECHNOLOGY
TO IDENTIFY THOSE PROBLEMS IN THE EMBRYONIC,
BUT THEY'RE MUCH SUSCEPTIBLE TO STRESS.
I THINK THEY HAD LOW REPRODUCTIVE RATES.
>>COREY: SO, ALL THESE CONSEQUENCES THAT I
THINK CREATING RESEARCHERS DRAWING ATTENTION
TO POTENTIAL FOR, AND YOU MAY NOT SEE THAT
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY RUN THE LIVE EXPERIMENT
WHERE YOU ALLOW THE ANIMAL TO DEVELOP FOR
AT LEAST A FEW YEARS, AND THAT'S GOING TO
RAPIDLY SLOW THINGS DOWN.
I THINK WE'D BE RUNNING THIS EXPERIMENT IN
THE EMBRYONIC STAGE PRETTY QUICKLY, BUT AS
FAR AS HAVING PEOPLE WALKING AROUND 10 GENERATIONS
DOWN.
>>JAMIE: I AGREE BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A BALANCE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE CERTAINLY LOTS OF BUGS IN
EVOLUTION, AND SOMETIMES WE CALL THEM CANCERS
OR DISEASES OR WHATEVER, BUT EVOLUTION IS
A BALANCE THAT'S HAPPENED OVER BILLIONS OF
YEARS.
I MEAN, WE MAY BE OPTIMIZED IN CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS
AND THINGS CAN CHANGE QUICKLY.
SO, WE MUST HAVE A LEVEL OF HUMILITY.
WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS REALLY SERIOUS
STUFF.
WE CAN'T BE QUASI ABOUT IT.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A SERIES OF INCLUSIVE AND
FOREVER DIALOGS ABOUT THE ETHICS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE VALUES-DRIVEN, BUT THIS SCIENCE
IS VERY, VERY REAL.
IT'S MOVING RAPIDLY, AND MY VIEW IS WE SHOULD
SHAPE IT WITH OUR BEST VALUES RATHER THAN
SIT BACK AND LET OTHER PEOPLE'S DECISIONS
SHAPE OUR WORLD AND OURSELVES.
>>STEVE: YEAH.
I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING
FASTER THAN SOCIETY'S RATE OF LEARNING ABOUT
IT OR RATE OF HAVING A DEEP UNDERSTANDING
OF IT.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHAT YOU'RE
DOING TO TRY TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF WHAT'S
GOING ON HERE.
>>COREY: I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT OF A CYNIC
AS FAR AS THE WORLD VALUES IN THIS DISCUSSION.
I DON'T THINK THIS STUFF IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED
ON THE BASIS OF OUR BEST VALUE.
I THINK, IN FACT, ANOTHER ARGUMENT YOU PUSHED,
WHICH IT'S GOING TO BE PARENTS' DESIRE TO
SEE CERTAIN OFFSPRING JUST THE RAW DESIRE
TO SUCCEED AND HAVE YOUR KID BE BETTER THAN
OTHER KIDS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S BASED ON
THE BEST VALUES.
I THINK THAT'S THE DRIVE THINGS.
>>JAMIE: YEAH, AND YET SOCIETY HAS DEVELOPED
NORMS FOR WHAT IS, AND ISN'T OKAY.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE DO HAVE THESE ELEMENTS
OF SOCIAL CONSENSUS, AND SOMETIMES WE CAN'T
EVEN SEE THEM, BUT I THINK THAT ... SO, NOW
THAT I FEEL LIKE THE NORMS WILL DRIVE EVERYTHING,
BUT I ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE THAT SOCIAL NORMS
SET A RANGE OF AT LEAST SOCIALLY ACCEPTED
BEHAVIOR, AND THAT ACCOUNTS FOR SOMETHING.
>>STEVE: COREY, I MIGHT AGREE WITH YOU, THE
CYNICAL VIEW, YOUR CYNICAL VIEW THAT NORMS
ARE NOT GOING TO DRIVE THINGS SELF-INTEREST
MAY BE WILL AND MAYBE POSSIBLY MORE IN A DYSTOPIAN
THAN A UTOPIAN DIRECTION.
HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S QUITE NOBLE
TO TRY TO BE A PERSON WHO TALKS TO POLICYMAKERS
AND LEADERS LIKE JAMIE DOES AND TRIES TO MAKE
THEM AWARE OF WHAT WE CAN TRY.
>>JAMIE: HOPEFULLY MORE THAN NOBLE.
HOPEFULLY, IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT, BUT I'M
DOING MY BEST.
>>STEVE: WELL, COREY IS SAYING THAT YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO GET THERE.
I THINK HE-
>>COREY: I THINK WHAT HE'S DOING IS REALLY
NOBLE AND IT'S A GOOD ANALYTICAL AND INTELLECTUAL
INVOLVEMENT IN A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE, BUT I
DON'T KNOW IF GOOD ARGUMENTS AND REASON IS
GOING TO WIN THE DAY IN THIS CONTEXT.
>>STEVE: RIGHT.
NONE OF US DO.
>>JAMIE: THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
NONE OF US DO BELIEVE HAD TECHNOLOGIES THAT
COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS.
FOR EXAMPLE, BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS OR NUCLEAR
POWER, AND THE NORMS HAVE ACTUALLY GUIDED
HOW THEY HAVE AND HAVE NOT BEEN USED.
I FEEL LIKE THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS
WHERE NORMS AREN'T EVERYTHING, BUT THEY'RE
ALSO NOT NOTHING.
>>STEVE: DO YOU REMEMBER THE ASILOMAR CONFERENCE
WHEN THEY ... YEAH.
SO, IN THE EARLY DNA DAYS, THEY HAD THIS MEETING
TO TRY TO SET WORLD STANDARDS FOR WHAT SCIENTISTS
SHOULD DO AND SHOULDN'T DO.
I FELT LIKE THAT WASN'T REALLY ACTUALLY NECESSARY
AT THAT TIME SO MUCH, BUT IT IS BECOMING MORE
NECESSARY NOW, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT
PEOPLE LIKE JAMIE ARE TRYING TO DO.
>>JAMIE: IT'S FUNNY.
I'M JUST WRITING ... I'M JUST IN THE MIDDLE
OF WRITING A LITTLE BLOG POST THAT I HAVEN'T
FINISHED OR WERE PUT UP, AND BASICALLY, I
TALK ABOUT ASILOMAR.
EVERYONE IN THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY SAYS.
"ASILOMAR, THAT'S THE MODEL OF WHAT YOU SHOULD
DO IS THAT EARLY STAGES OF RECOMBINANT DNA."
THE SCIENTISTS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS GOT
TOGETHER.
THEY LAID OUT A RESPONSIBLE SET OF GUIDELINES.
THOSE GUIDELINES WERE FOLLOWED.
THAT'S WHY CONSUMING GMO CROPS TODAY IS 100%
SAFE.
THERE'VE BEEN MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF STUDIES,
AND IT'S NEVER BEEN SHOWN THAT CONSUMING GMOS
IS ANY, HUMAN CROP IS ANY LESS HEALTHY FOR
PEOPLE THAN OTHERWISE.
>>JAMIE: ASILOMAR, IN MY VIEW, WAS A TOTAL
FAILURE.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE, BUT BECAUSE THERE
WASN'T A BROAD PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, THE PUBLIC
FELT THAT ALL THESE SCIENTISTS AND COMPANIES
LIKE MONSANTO ARE PULLING A FAST ONE ON US.
THAT'S WHY NOW MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE IN AFRICA
AND SOUTH ASIA BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ACCESS,
THEY CAN'T USE GMO CROPS.
OTHERWISE, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO EXPORT MOSTLY
TO EUROPE.
>>JAMIE: SO, EVEN IF THE SCIENTISTS ORGANIZE
THEMSELVES WELL, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK UNLESS
WE HAVE AN INCLUSIVE PUBLIC, NOT JUST ENGAGEMENT,
BUT ENGAGEMENT AND EMPOWERMENT PROCESS, SO
THAT EVERYBODY FEELS AT LEAST LIKE THEY'RE
PART OF SOMETHING, AND PART OF A DECISION
MAKING PROCESS.
>>COREY: I THINK YOU'RE ENTIRELY RIGHT ABOUT
GMOS.
I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE THERE'S MUCH YOU CAN
DO BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THE FEAR ABOUT
THEM IS DEEPLY, DEEPLY IRRATIONAL.
YOU HAVE SCIENTISTS OUT AND FRONT TRYING TO
EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE THE POSITIVE BENEFITS OF
GMOS AND THE LOW RISKS.
YOU'RE GOING UP AGAINST FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN,
AND I THINK WHAT I CALL TYRANNY OF THE NATURAL.
>>STEVE: YEAH.
I THINK YOU'RE COUNTERFACTUAL THAT THEY RAN
ASILOMAR WITH MORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THEN
THAT WOULD HAVE FIXED THIS PROBLEM.
THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT TOO OPTIMISTIC.
I THINK I AGREE WITH COREY.
>>JAMIE: NO, BUT IT'S NOT A 100% STORY, BUT
IT'S NOT A 0% STORY.
I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE LIKE WITH THE
EARLY STAGES OF IMMUNIZATIONS, THE JEWISH
COMMUNITY WITH TAY–SACHS SCREENING.
I MEAN, THERE ARE THINGS WHERE PEOPLE GET
THAT THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING, AND IT'S
SIGNIFICANT.
>>JAMIE: SO, I THINK THERE ARE THESE MOMENTS
EARLY ON WITH THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL.
IN THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS THIS WHOLE NEGOTIATION
WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE THE PEOPLE
WHO DEVELOPED THE PILL WERE TRYING TO SAY,
"LOOK, THIS IS JUST PERFECTLY NATURAL.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THE OFF DAYS AND THEY
HAVE THE MONTHLY MENSTRUAL CYCLE."
>>JAMIE: SO, THE FRAMING OF THESE ISSUES AT
THE BEGINNING CAN OFTEN HAVE, IN SOME WAYS,
DETERMINATIVE EFFECT ON HOW AT LEAST THE PUBLIC
DISCOURSE PLAYS OUT OVER TIME, IN MY VIEW.
>>STEVE: I AGREE WITH YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, WE REALLY ARE OUT OF TIME.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE YOU BACK, JAMIE,
BECAUSE THIS WAS SO MUCH FUN.
>>JAMIE: GOOD.
>>COREY: YEAH.
IT'S REALLY A PLEASURE.
>>JAMIE: I LOVED IT.
>>STEVE: AS MY FINAL ITEM, I'M GOING TO THROW
OUT THREE SCI-FI ITEMS, ONE A MOVIE, ONE A
TV SHOW, AND ONE A BOOK RELATED TO GENETIC
ENGINEERING THAT I REALLY LIKE, AND YOU JUST
ADD WHAT FOR OUR LISTENERS.
SO, AS MOVIES, GATTACA, TV SHOW, SPACE SEED,
WHICH IS WHERE THE CHARACTER KHAN IS INTRODUCED
IN STAR TREK, AND THE BOOK IS DUNE BY FRANK
HERBERT.
SO, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SUGGEST.
>>JAMIE: WOW!
OLD SCHOOL.
WELL, I ACTUALLY-
>>STEVE: I'M OLD, MAN.
>>JAMIE: I DON'T WATCH MUCH ... NO, I'M OLD.
SO, I DON'T WATCH A LOT OF TELEVISION, BUT
I WAS ADDICTED TO THE BATTLESTAR GALACTICA
REMAKE.
SO, I'M SURE BECAUSE YOUR PODCAST IS YOUNG,
MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING OR LISTENING
ARE TOTAL NERDY PEOPLE LIKE US.
SO, I HIGHLY, HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT.
FOR BOOKS, I'M A HUGE FAN OF RICHARD PRESTON,
AND JUST EVERYTHING THAT HE WRITES.
I JUST READ A BOOK, ORFEO THAT IS GREAT, AND
IT'S A WONDERFUL STORY ABOUT A GUY WHO'S A
... HE'S A COMPOSER BUT WHO DEVELOPS THIS
JUST COMPLETE PASSION FOR BIOLOGY, AND CREATES
HIS BIOLOGY LAB AND THEN HE'S ACCUSED OF BEING
A TERRORIST, AND HE'S DRIVING ACROSS THE COUNTRY
TO GO VISIT HIS DAUGHTER, BUT RELIVING HIS
WHOLE LIFE, BUT IT'S THIS BEAUTIFUL THING,
THE CONNECTION OF THE SYMPHONY OF MUSIC AND
THE SYMPHONY OF BIOLOGY.
>>JAMIE: THEN MOVIES, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S
A GENETICS MOVIE THAT I'VE PARTICULARLY LOVED.
I MEAN, I LIKED GATTACA.
ALTHOUGH GATTACA JUST IT REALLY PISSED ME
OFF BECAUSE I FELT LIKE THE ETHAN HAWKE CHARACTER,
HE'S PUTTING EVERYBODY'S LIFE AT RISK.
>>STEVE: YES.
>>JAMIE: THE LAST PERSON YOU WANT ON A SPACE
PROGRAM IS SOMEONE WHO'S NOT GENETICALLY OPTIMIZED.
I MEAN, THEY SHOULD ARREST HIM FOR THAT.
>>STEVE: ... AND A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, A DECEIVER.
>>JAMIE: YES.
EXACTLY.
EXACTLY.
>>COREY: ... BUT HE'S HUMAN.
>>JAMIE: THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
I LOVE HUMANS, BUT WE'RE NOT OPTIMIZED FOR
EVERYTHING.
EVERY INDIVIDUAL ISN'T OPTIMIZED FOR EVERY
OUTCOME.
IT'S PAINFUL FOR US BECAUSE WE ARE ADDICTED
TO THIS WONDERFUL BELIEF THAT ANYBODY CAN
BE ANYTHING.
I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS THIS CHANGE THAT'S
COMING.
WE ARE LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD OF WHAT IT MEANS
TO BE A HUMAN BEING.
HUNDRED YEARS AGO, EVERYBODY IS SAYING, "OH,
WE ARE HORMONES.
HORMONES ARE EVERYTHING.
THAT JUST DEFINES WHO YOU ARE."
SO, WE ARE MUCH MORE THAN OUR GENETICS, BUT
OUR GENETICS REALLY DEFY IN MANY WAYS A RANGE
OF POSSIBILITIES OF WHAT WE CAN BE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FACE THAT.
>>STEVE: GREAT.
JAMIE, THANKS VERY MUCH.
>>JAMIE: ALL RIGHT, GUYS.
I REALLY ENJOYED IT.
>>STEVE: TAKE CARE.
>>JAMIE: ALL RIGHT.
BYE.
>>STEVE: BYE.
>>COREY: STEVE, I SHOULD POINT THAT YOU ACTUALLY
MISSED TWO PRETTY IMPORTANT WORKS OF JAMIE
THAT I WAS FASCINATED BY, BUT WE MAY HAVE
A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY BUT TWO BOOKS
ON THE CAMBODIAN GENOCIDE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>>JAMIE: YEAH.
MY FIRST BOOK WAS A HISTORY OF THE CAMBODIAN
GENOCIDE, AND SPECIFICALLY WHY THE WORLD FAILED
TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING SO TERRIBLE.
THE SECOND BOOK, WHICH IS ALSO, I'LL EXPLAIN
LATER, CONNECTED TO MY BELIEF AND THE CONNECTIVITY
BETWEEN NONFICTION AND FICTION, THAT WE HAVE
TO LEARN ABOUT THE WORLD, BUT THEN TELL STORIES
ABOUT THE WORLD TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE CONVERSATION.
SO, MY SECOND BOOK WAS A NOVEL CALLED THE
DEPTHS OF THE SEA, WHICH EXPLORED ISSUES AROUND
THE CAMBODIAN GENOCIDE, BUT IN THE CONTEXT
OF STORIES OF DIFFERENT IMAGINED PEOPLE INVOLVED.
>>STEVE: WELL, I WAS TRYING TO FOCUS US MORE
ON FUTURISM AND GENETIC TECHNOLOGY, AND MAYBE
ITS RELATIONSHIP TO POLICY, BUT IT'S AMAZING
STUFF THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, COREY.
I AM CURIOUS SINCE WE'RE ON THE SLIGHT DIGRESSION,
MAYBE THIS WILL GET CUT OUT, BUT JAMIE, HAVE
YOU SEEN THIS DOCUMENTARY WHERE I THINK THEY
GO BACK AND THEY ACTUALLY INTERVIEW SOME OF
THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GENOCIDE?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?
>>JAMIE: I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE.
I CERTAINLY HAVE SEEN A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT
THE GENOCIDE AND THERE WAS THIS WHOLE HYBRID
UN CAMBODIAN TRIBUNAL THAT'S INTERVIEWED A
LOT OF PEOPLE.
SO, IT'S REALLY UNIMAGINABLY TERRIBLE, AND
THAT IT'S SO RECENT.
IT'S IN ALL OF OUR, AT LEAST THE THREE OF
OUR LIFETIMES, AND I THINK THAT THESE KINDS
OF THINGS, WE REALLY, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
AND JUST SWEEP THEM UNDER THE RUG.
>>COREY: I THINK GENOCIDE IS REALLY A FASCINATING
TOPIC TO UNDERSTAND POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES
FROM BECAUSE WHETHER SOMEONE CARES ABOUT PARTICULARLY
GENOCIDE, OFTEN, IT SEEMS TO DEPEND UPON THEIR
POLITICAL ORIENTATION, AND WHAT HAPPENED IS
THAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE LEFT DID NOT PARTICULARLY
CARE ABOUT THE CAMBODIAN GENOCIDE OFTEN PLAYED
IT DOWN IN SOME WAYS.
YOU FIND OFTEN ATROCITIES THAT PEOPLE DON'T
HAPPEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES, PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT
DON'T CARE ABOUT.
SO, IT'S A FASCINATING PRISM TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN OBJECTIVE EVIL, BUT PEOPLE
BRING THEIR POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES TO IT AND
THEY'RE MINIMIZED OR PLAYED UP FOR THOSE REASONS.
>>JAMIE: WELL, PEOPLE BRING THEIR POLITICAL
PERSPECTIVES TO LIFE.
WHEN I WAS AT OXFORD AND I WAS WORKING ON
MY DISSERTATION, WHICH BECAME THAT FIRST BOOK
NOAM CHOMSKY CAME, AND AT THAT TIME, WHEN
YOU'RE WRITING A PHD, YOU ARE THE WORLD EXPERT
IN YOUR LITTLE NARROW THING.
SO, I KNEW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, EVERY DETAIL
ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE CAMBODIAN
GENOCIDE.
>>JAMIE: SO, I ASKED NOAM CHOMSKY THIS QUESTION
BECAUSE HE'S A REAL VILLAIN IN THIS STORY,
AND HE WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS DENYING
THESE VERY CREDIBLE STORIES THAT THE GENOCIDE
WAS TAKING PLACE.
SO, HE BRUSHED ME OFF, AND THEN HE SAID, "ALL
RIGHT.
WELL, SEND ME A LETTER ABOUT IT."
>>JAMIE: I SENT HIM THIS LETTER, AND IT WAS
THIS POINT-BY-POINT AS ONLY A PHD STUDENT
CAN DO JUST SAYING, "HERE WAS WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
HERE'S WHAT YOU SAID."
THEN WE GOT HIM THIS VERY HEATED RESPONSE.
SO, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
I THINK THAT MAYBE THEN TO PIVOT TO OUR TOPIC
OF TODAY, IN EVERY GENERATION, THERE ARE SO
MANY DIFFERENT HUGE MORALLY VEXING ISSUES,
AND FOR THE CHALLENGE FOR ALL OF US AS HUMANS,
WHATEVER OUR POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, IS TO
TAKE A STEP BACK FROM OURSELVES AND REALLY
TRY TO SAY, "HOW DO WE DO THE RIGHT THING?"
DOING THE RIGHT THING IS OFTEN REALLY COMPLICATED
BECAUSE WHEN IT'S CLEAR, AND IF IT WAS CLEAR
AND EASY, EVERYBODY WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING,
BUT IT'S ALWAYS COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT.
>>JAMIE: WHETHER THE ISSUE IS HOW TO RESPOND
TO A GENOCIDE AND MAYBE WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN
HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION OR MAYBE WHEN THERE
ARE POLITICAL FORCES THAT MAKE INTERVENING
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT OR EVEN SOMETHING LIKE
NOW WHERE WE HAVE THE TOOLS TO RECREATE LIFE
ON EARTH, AND WE COULD DO IT IN A WAY THAT
HELPS OUR PLANET AND HELPS EVERYBODY OR WE
COULD DO IT IN A WAY THAT HARMS US ALL OR
WIPES US ALL OUT OR OTHER SPECIES OUT.
WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO REALLY ENGAGE WITH
THESE TOUGH, DIFFICULT, COMPLEX ISSUES, SO
THAT WE CAN FIND THE BEST WAY FORWARD THAT
OPTIMIZES THE GOOD STUFF AND MINIMIZES THE
BAD STUFF.
>>COREY: JUST ONE LAST POINT I SHOULD SAY
BECAUSE CHOMSKY IS ACTUALLY, HE'S AN OLD FRIEND
OF MINE.
I WAS A STUDENT OF HIS, AND I WAS ACTUALLY
THINKING OF HIM AS I WAS MAKING THOSE COMMENTS.
ONE THING I REALLY DO LIKE ABOUT NOAM IS THAT
FOR ALL OF HIS IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY ON MANY
POINTS, HE WILL ENGAGE.
YOU WRITE HIM A LETTER, AND HE WRITE BACK.
HE'LL WRITE A LONG LETTER BACK.
I MEAN, HE'S NOT WRITING THESE NOW.
HE'S 90, BUT I'VE HAD FRIENDS WHO HAD DEBATES
WITH CHOMSKY THAT WENT IN THE TENS OF SINGLE
SPACE PAGES.
>>JAMIE: YEAH, ME, TOO.
>>COREY: THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS
COMPLETELY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT DISAPPEARED.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY EVER REALLY DID IT AT
THE EXTENT HE DID IT, BUT THESE DAYS ARE EVEN
IT'S OFTEN DEVOLVED INTO NAME CALLING, AND
CHOMSKY DIDN'T DO THAT.
HE'D RESPOND FROM THE FACTS FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE.
HE'D WAIT FOR THEM TO COME BACK WITH YOUR
PERSPECTIVE.
IT WAS A RESPECTFUL ARGUMENT.
I WISH WE COULD REALLY GO BACK TO THOSE DAYS.
I THINK SOMETHING WAS ... IT'S REALLY A WONDERFUL
TIME THAT I THINK IS LOST IN CURRENT POLITICAL
DEBATES.
>>STEVE: OKAY.
I HAVE TO TELL MY CHOMSKY STORY JUST BECAUSE
IT TURNS OUT I GUESS ALL OF US KNOW CHOMSKY
A LITTLE BIT.
>>JAMIE: YEAH.
>>STEVE: WHEN I WAS A JUNIOR FELLOW, HE HAD
BEEN A JUNIOR FELLOW AS WELL.
WE COULD HAVE GUESTS FOR DINNERS AND LUNCHES.
SO, I INVITED HIM TO DINNER, BUT HE HAD A
VERY TOUGH RELATIONSHIP WITH SOME OF THE SENIOR
FELLOWS.
HE DIDN'T GET ALONG WITH BERT DROBBIN, MAYBE
YOU KNOW THAT NAME.
SO, HE CAME TO LUNCH BECAUSE HE WANTED TO
MEET THE YOUNGER JUNIOR FELLOWS, NOT THE SENIOR
FELLOWS.
>>STEVE: SO, HE CAME AND WE HUNG OUT AND WE
HAD A GREAT TIME.
I REALLY ENJOYED GETTING TO KNOW HIM.
HE ACTUALLY HAS A PRETTY DECENT SENSE OF HUMOR.
I WORKED WITH A MATHEMATICIAN WHO ALSO HAD
AN INTEREST IN CHOMSKIAN GRAMMAR.
THIS GUY WAS LIKE CHOMSKY'S PROOF CHECKER.
SO, HE ATTENDED EVERY ONE OF THESE SEMINARS
AT MIT THAT CHOMSKY USED TO HAVE.
WHENEVER CHOMSKY GOT STUCK, HE WOULD ASK MY
FRIEND, "OH, CAN YOU FIX THIS FOR ME?"
>>STEVE: SO, I ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH, I FORGOT
WHAT IT'S CALLED, THE NAME FOR HIS STRUCTURAL,
THE WAY THAT HE DECONSTRUCT SENTENCES.
>>COREY: THE TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR?
>>STEVE: YES.
SO, I WENT THROUGH THAT IN GREAT DETAIL WITH
MY FRIEND, AND I WAS A SKEPTIC.
I DIDN'T THINK ACTUALLY IT FOLLOWED RIGID
RULES.
I THINK CHOMSKY WAS MAKING THINGS UP AT VARIOUS
TIMES, AND HE WAS NEVER ABLE TO CONVINCE ME
THAT, ACTUALLY, WHAT CHOMSKY WAS DOING WAS
FULLY AXIOMATIZED OR RIGOROUS.
SO, ANYWAY, WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT ON SOME
OTHER EPISODE.
