Hello, readers and listeners! Welcome to another thought-provoking episode of the Redefining Society Podcast. In this episode, host Marco Ciappelli embarks on an insightful journey with Dr. Neal Baer to explore the profound impact of CRISPR technology, as detailed in Dr. Baer’s book, The Promise and Peril of CRISPR.
Guest: ✨ Dr. Neal Baer, Co-Director, Master's Degree Program in Media, Medicine, and Health, Harvard Medical School
On LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/in/neal-baer/
On Twitter | https://x.com/NealBaer
On Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/neal.baer.75/
On Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/nealbaer/
____________________________
Host: Marco Ciappelli, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining Society Podcast
On ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/marco-ciappelli
_____________________________
This Episode’s Sponsors
BlackCloak 👉 https://itspm.ag/itspbcweb
Bugcrowd 👉 https://itspm.ag/itspbgcweb
Episode Introduction
We live in a time where the boundaries between the physical and virtual worlds are increasingly blurred—a Hybrid Analog-Digital Society. The future isn’t just approaching; it’s already here. In this new age, it’s vital to contemplate our intertwined existence with technology and redefine what society means. This blog post captures the enlightening conversation between Marco Ciappelli and Dr. Neal Baer about the potential and pitfalls of CRISPR, a revolutionary technology reshaping human capability and ethical considerations.
Welcome Message
Marco Ciappelli enthusiastically sets the stage for a deeply engaging discussion:
“Hello, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Redefining Society Podcast. I’m thrilled to have Dr. Neal Baer with me today. We were chatting before the show about my other podcast, Audio Signals, where we discuss storytelling. Today, however, we’re here to explore his book about health, technology, and their societal impact.”
The Intersection of Media and Medicine
Dr. Neal Baer, a multifaceted professional—TV writer, producer, and medical doctor—introduces himself and outlines his diverse career:
“Thank you. It’s really nice to be chatting with you from New York City. I live in Paris and Boston because, in Paris, I work as a TV writer and producer—what’s called a showrunner. I worked on shows like ER and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit for a total of 18 years. I also created the first master’s degree program in media, medicine, and health at Harvard Medical School.”
The Origin of Dr. Baer’s Interest in CRISPR
Dr. Baer shares how his exposure to devastating genetic diseases as a pediatrician sparked his interest in CRISPR:
“As a pediatrician, I encountered terrible diseases like sickle cell disease, adrenal leukodystrophy, and Tay-Sachs. CRISPR represented a beacon of hope for treating these conditions. Our ability to precisely edit genes could transform lives—an endeavor that has now become a reality.”
Demystifying CRISPR
To make CRISPR’s conversation accessible, Marco Ciappelli asks for a simplified explanation:
“CRISPR is essentially a tool that allows us to cut and paste genetic material. Imagine correcting a typo in a word. Similarly, we can correct genetic ‘typos’ that cause diseases. CRISPR uses enzymes like Cas9 to cut the DNA and replace faulty segments with the correct ones.”
Ethical Dilemmas and Societal Consensus
Dr. Baer discusses the ethical and philosophical questions surrounding genetic editing, focusing on access and the broader societal impact:
“CRISPR raises fundamental issues about who benefits from such groundbreaking technology. These questions aren’t just scientific—they talk about ethics and societal values. For example, while sickle cell disease can now be treated using CRISPR, the cost is prohibitive—between two and three million dollars per person. This disparity raises profound questions about equity and accessibility.”
The Urgent Need for Public Discourse
The conversation shifts towards the importance of public awareness and societal dialogue in addressing these ethical dilemmas:
“We need a democratic approach to discussing CRISPR and other advanced technologies. Public awareness is crucial. The challenge lies in making these discussions accessible and engaging to everyone—not just scientists and policymakers.”
The Future Is Now: Embrace or Caution?
As technology continues to evolve, the hosts discuss where to draw the line between embracing new advancements and exercising caution:
“We must learn from past technological advancements—fossil fuels and plastics—which brought unforeseen consequences. With CRISPR and AI, the stakes are even higher. It’s crucial to balance innovation with caution.”
Conclusion
Dr. Baer emphasizes that his book aims to spark a broader conversation, including diverse voices and perspectives:
“The book The Promise and Peril of CRISPR aims to open up the dialogue to everyone—from scientists to philosophers to everyday people. It covers personal stories, philosophical essays, and scientific perspectives to present a comprehensive view of the promise and challenges that CRISPR brings.”
About the Book
A timely collection of essays on the pressing possibilities and risks of gene-editing technology.
Scientists and genetic engineers are becoming increasingly adept at editing the human genome. How far can—and should—they go in editing future generations? In The Promise and Peril of CRISPR, editor Neal Baer brings together a timely collection of essays by influential bioethicists, philosophers, and geneticists to explore the moral, ethical, and policy challenges posed by CRISPR technology.
We are at a technological and ethical crossroads in grappling with the impacts of genetic editing. Gene-editing technology holds the promise of curing more than 7,000 known genetic diseases. Yet with that promise comes the peril of using CRISPR to edit the human genome, which could not only lead to manipulating human evolution, but also to creating and releasing pathogens capable of wreaking havoc on human, animal, and plant life. Although CRISPR has already cured several genetic diseases, it could also be used to design biological weapons or to edit the embryos of people who can afford to purchase genetic "enhancements" for their children.
What role can and should the public play in discussing the far-reaching implications of gene editing? What oversights should be put in place to prevent a rogue scientist from engineering another baby – as was recently done with twins in China?
Essay contributors offer informed predictions and guidelines for how the uses of CRISPR today will affect life in the future. Decisions we make now may have unpredictable consequences for future generations. For anyone concerned about the uses and potential abuses of gene editing, these essays provide a critical and comprehensive discussion of the central issues surrounding CRISPR technology.
Contributors: Florence Ashley, R. Alta Charo, Marcy Darnovsky, Kevin Doxzen, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Gigi Kwik Gronvall, Jodi Halpern, Katie Hasson, Andrew C. Heinrich, Jacqueline Humphries, J. Benjamin Hurlbut, Ellen D. Jorgensen, Peter F. R. Mills, Carol Padden, Marcus Schultz-Bergin, Robert Sparrow, Sandra Sufian, Krystal Tsosie, Ethan Weiss, Rachel M. West
_____________________________
Resources
The Promise and Peril of CRISPR: https://press.jhu.edu/books/title/12754/promise-and-peril-crispr
____________________________
To see and hear more Redefining Society stories on ITSPmagazine, visit:
https://www.itspmagazine.com/redefining-society-podcast
Watch the webcast version on-demand on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnYu0psdcllTUoWMGGQHlGVZA575VtGr9
Are you interested in sponsoring an ITSPmagazine Channel?
👉 https://www.itspmagazine.com/advertise-on-itspmagazine-podcast
Book | The Promise and Peril of CRISPR | Exploring the Intricate Relationship Between Healthcare, Technology, Ethics, and Society with Dr. Neal Baer | Redefining Society with Marco Ciappelli
Please note that this transcript was created using AI technology and may contain inaccuracies or deviations from the original audio file. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for the original recording, as errors may exist. At this time, we provide it “as it is,” and we hope it can be helpful for our audience.
_________________________________________
[00:00:19] Marco Ciappelli: Hello, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Redefining Society podcast. I am very excited today to have with me Dr. Neil Baer. And we were talking before the show, and I was talking about my other podcast, Audio Signal, where we talk about storytelling, because we're here to talk about a book that he wrote, and it's about, , Health and technology and the impact it has on society.
And I think we're going to put our philosophical hats on quite a bit during this conversation. But we were also talking about how Neil, , here is origin story, let's say it is about media and he has participated in in writing and producing tv show, , connected with , with the healthcare world and I'm sure you heard some of them , So we'll see maybe we'll have another episode after this, but let's focus on this one.
I would like for you to introduce yourself to our audience and then uh, And we'll talk about your book. I'm very curious.
[00:01:28] Neil Baer: Thank you. Well, it's really nice to be chatting with you from New York City. I live in Paris and in, uh, Boston, and that's because in Paris, I work, uh, now as a TV writer, producer, what's called a showrunner, overseeing some shows, uh, in one in Poland, one in Norway.
Um, but I did the shows ER, Law and Order Special Victims Unit for a total of 18 years, the first seven years of ER. early years of SVU, 11 years. Um, and then, uh, other shows under the dome and designated survivor. And, uh, I created the first master's degree program in media medicine and health at Harvard Medical School, where I teach, um, master degree students how to tell stories to have, um, a forceful impact on, uh, improving health.
Be it equity, access, um, well being, and so we use storytelling to do that. So, um, through any kind of art modality you can think of, from poetry and sculpture to dance and documentary. So my book, uh, The Promise and Peril of CRISPR comes out of my work as a TV writer, but also as a physician. I'm a pediatrician and I attended Harvard Medical School.
And then while I was on ER and SVU, I was doing my internship in pediatrics at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. So I was very lucky to, you know, explore these different realms for my career, and I brought it all together for the book that I'm doing. Uh, that I just, that was just published by Johns Hopkins and also for the master's program that I do.
So I was really interested in CRISPR because as a pediatrician, I saw very, very terrible diseases like sickle cell disease. adrenal leukodystrophy, uh, Tay Sachs that, um, affected children and often caused profound pain, certainly with, with, uh, sickle cell disease and certain death with Tay Sachs and adrenal leukodystrophy at a young age.
And so, um, I was motivated to look at all the treatments that were down the road. You know, in the future and what we could do now, I'll never forget the night I was on call at Children's Hospital Los Angeles and I had a child, a patient with sickle cell disease who had been transfused wrongly, unfortunately, because it was buried in an old paper file when we still had paper, you know, medical records not to transfuse her and she had been transfused.
And so we were You know, madly trying to save her. And fortunately we did with the brilliant help of our attending who came in in the middle of the night. Um, but these Children suffer horribly pain, horrible pain, strokes, often shortened lifespan. So it's a really terrible life. And and lo and behold, we were becoming closer and closer to finding a way to treat them and cure them.
And that was through CRISPR. And now we can. And so we can cure people with sickle cell disease by editing
[00:05:02] Marco Ciappelli: And you're getting there because it's, it's an acronym and I walk a lot in cyber security. So there is a lot of acronyms and, and sometimes people hear them in the news and they don't know exactly what it is.
So I did a little research and I know that. It stands for Cluster Regularly Interspaced Short Polyndromic Repeats, which honestly to somebody like me doesn't say much. So in a few words, we had to explain what it is and what it does. And you started talking about the application. So, you know, kind of like to a one on one on CRISPR.
[00:05:39] Neil Baer: Yeah. So CRISPR really think about When you had a word processor before it automatically fixed your words, um, think about how if you typed, uh, a word incorrectly like house H U O S E. Think about how in DNA we have, uh, you know, four letters that code for proteins and everything that is made by our DNA so that in certain genetic diseases there may be just a few letters that are off or even one, and that can cause alarmingly awful diseases.
So with CRISPR, we, um, have a technique where we can home in on the incorrect DNA, those letters. Use enzymes called Cas9. Now there's many other Cas's. Cut that precisely and they're getting better and better at it because in the past there have been off target effects which we can talk about. So it goes in, locates that piece, cuts it, and then puts in, glues in, so it's a glue, you know, cut and paste, uh, correct gene, correct letters, correct, um, genes for the, for, uh, the mutation that's there.
It's easier to do for bloodborne diseases like sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia because you can deliver it to the blood much harder to figure out how to do this for cystic fibrosis or Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, but they're working on it. And so, um, beta thalassemia, Sickle cell disease, some, some rare protein folding diseases of the liver because blood is, you know, uh, the liver cleanses the blood, blood goes into the liver.
These, these have been, um, done through CRISPR. So essentially what CRISPR does, like, for something like sickle cell disease is when we're born, when we're in utero as a fetus, we breathe through the uterus. Um, uh, you know, our, our blood essentially because our lungs aren't working. We're in amnio fluid, amniotic fluid.
So we have a fetal hemoglobin, which really attaches to the oxygen that we get from our mother's blood. And then when we're born, that fetal hemoglobin turns off. And what Then is on is our normal hemoglobin. Well, the quote normal hemoglobin for someone with sickle cell disease is not normal because they have the mutation, those few letters.
So we have figured out how to turn on. that fetal hemoglobin again. And that is, that kind of floods the, the, the body with the good, quote, good hemoglobin. And these people are doing well. Now they have to go through a process of ablation and things like that, but essentially they get their hemoglobin, their fetal hemoglobin turned back on, um, by CRISPR, by cutting and pasting in.
The gene that will turn it back on. Well, uh, there are a hundred thousand people in the United States. Black Americans is mostly who have sickle cell disease, shortened lifespan, life of horrible pain, um, strokes in children because the blood is sickles and it gets caught in, in joints and in arteries. Um, so.
This, this is amazing because there are so many people who could benefit. It costs between two and three million dollars to treat one person. Um, it costs 1. 6 million dollars in someone's lifetime with sickle cell disease to be treated, often through Medicare, Medicaid, uh, Medicaid, um, and fifty thousand dollars, and I'm taking all these, these, these, these data from, recently published studies, 50, 000 out of pocket for many people who can't afford it.
So this raises a fundamental philosophical ethical question, who gets CRISPR? Um, and so that's going to come down more and more as more of these, uh, these, uh, genetic, uh, engineering, uh, products are made. So we do in our book, The Promise and Peril of CRISPR talk a lot about who gets. Who gets this miraculous treatment and who doesn't?
Um, and you know, we're at the beginnings and I think it's important that we're starting to talk about this now, as opposed to in the future when it's already happened. Um, we have a wonderful essay by Ben Hurlbut, who is a professor at Arizona State University, who talks about how often science leads the ethical discussion.
So what do I mean by that? Well, in 2015, when there was a lot of discussion first starting about CRISPR when it had been developed by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuel Charpentier, France, who, um, won the Nobel prize for it, um, you know, there was agreement that we shouldn't do a certain kind of editing, which means we shouldn't edit embryos, which could then pass on.
the changes to progeny to their offspring. And so I want to also make clear that there are two kinds of CRISPR. There's somatic and germ line. Somatic is what people with sickle cell disease would receive. It is expensive. cutting their gene that makes the fetal hemoglobin turn back on. But if they had children, they're not passing on the quote non sickle cell or good gene.
They still would pass on, uh, the sickle cell trait because they have two copies. That's why they have sickle cell. They got one from their father, one from their mother, and they would definitely pass on one because They have both. And if their, their partner had sickle cell disease, there would be a much higher chance of them having sickle cell.
It would be 50 percent chance instead of a 25 percent chance because the mother, let's say, has two and the father has one, That would be half. So, um, so that's somatic. Germline is when we take an embryo before it's developed into a fetus and then a live birth, that if we go that direction, that then that person has had their, that person who's born has had their DNA changed.
before they're born. And that raises a lot of questions, as you can imagine, about the future about enhancement and who gets this. And should we start crispering embryos so that we don't have certain genetic diseases anymore? And where do we draw the line between a genetic disease and something like Down syndrome or deafness?
And who's going to make those decisions? So That's the difference. One is can be inherited, one is not. And we're, you know, almost everyone I know is in favor of the somatic. Changing lives that are really tough, um, and suffering. Versus changing human development, or maybe human evolution. And so, um, that's really where the book comes in.
That's what the book is about. Like how far
[00:14:05] Marco Ciappelli: that's, that's the big question where I said, we're probably going to get philosophical here because there is no way I had way too many of this conversation about technology and society and put my, you know, sociologist hat on and think philosophy and think every new technology.
Let's look at AI. Everybody talks about AI, generative AI. There is the fears, you know, take jobs. There is the, the, the singularity, you know, I just finished reading, Ray Kurzweil, uh, The Singularity is Nearer, the new version of his book. And I wanted to bring it up because he talks a lot about, you know, this transhumanism where you optimize the human body and.
My question for you was actually going into how different or how connected is the CRISPR with DNA manipulation. And, and, and that's, you went there. So I would like to go a little bit deeper into that. And what are your thoughts on that? Right. Where, where do we draw the line? And, and when do we say let's embrace technology and see where we go?
[00:15:24] Neil Baer: Right. Well, Let's start with the, what I said earlier, which is 2015. We talked about societal, um, agreement, consensus, and then Dr. He in China did his experiment on the embryo, which went into, became twins, split into twins, and that's then the, the academies, uh, like of engineering science and medicine said, well, maybe there are times to do germline editing.
after Dr. Hood did it. And that's what Ben Hurlbut writes about. Maybe there are special circumstances. So I can tell you the major special circumstance is if a, if a couple is, they're both deaf with the same genetic, um, mutation, they're not going to have children who can hear. They're going to have deaf children.
And so, um, of certain, certain kinds of deafness, not all kinds. So. The argument is, is that if they want to have a hearing child, who are we to say they shouldn't? So we have an essay by Carol Patton from the University of California, San Diego, who's deaf, who said, you know, I don't see deafness. I'm deaf and I don't see deafness as pathological.
I see it as human variation. And we're hearing a lot about hearing human variation. Why? Because we're telling a story right now where we see Gus Walls, Tim Walls, vice presidential candidate, his son, who has some neurodiverse elements, and that's opening our eyes to diversity. So Carol says, you know, who's going to make a decision about deafness?
Now, Ben Hurlbut argues that once you go down this path, it's hard to go back. And then what's next? And what's next? And what's next? And so how do you think about You know, something like Down syndrome or, um, different, you know, what diseases like adrenal leukodystrophy or Tay Sachs, which is always fatal versus Down syndrome.
Who's going to decide where you draw the line there. Denmark provides. Uh, prenatal care and amnio to every woman who's pregnant, and they have a very, very low rate of Down syndrome. So, you know, a lot of people feel like we should eliminate Down syndrome. Should we do that? Or should we not? And the, you know, the question is, you You know, who's to decide who's valuable as a human being or not.
And so that's a big question for us to consider. Also, when we start to talk about the promise of CRISPR and say, sickle cell disease, which I embrace CRISPR for that, um, we have to be very careful because we don't know the future. We embraced fossil fuels and it changed society. It changed our culture. It changed policy, politics, wars.
We embraced plastics and They are ruining the ocean, like something like 20 to 40 billion, you know, tons a year. I mean, just incredible. So, you know, the promise of plastics, the promise of fossil fuel, the promise of nuclear energy. We've seen the peril, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island. clogged oceans, dying sea life, um, uh, climate change.
How do we take what we know now about those changes and those, you know, what happened before we jump into CRISPR and AI? And the problem is we don't know. We can't know. It's the future. So how can we be more careful? How can we be more thoughtful about how we approach these things? Um, that gets into how do we control who gets the pieces to make?
DNA. You know, there are companies that sell this. There's really not oversight. There's no international oversight. You know, there's a scientist who made horsepox, which is related to smallpox. You don't need CRISPR to do this, because I've been criticized, well, you don't need CRISPR to do this. Well, I know that, but CRISPR makes things easier, makes bioweapons easier to make.
Um, you don't need CRISPR to, to decide whether to implant an embryo that has Marfan's or sickle cell or whatever you can go through IVF and eliminate the ones that have the genetic malfunction or the, you know, the mutation and it only implant eggs that don't. But that costs a lot of money and a lot of most people can't afford it.
So George Church from Harvard, who's a renowned scientist, says maybe we should do editing instead of somatic editing to treat the problem like sickle cell. We should use germline editing to get rid of these genetic diseases. Now, why do we have genetic diseases? Well, it's evolutionary in many, many, many cases.
So, for instance, with sickle cell disease, if you have, we know if you have sickle cell trait, One out of 13 black americans do. Why is that? Well, evolutionarily, probably happened about 80, 000 years ago, um, people with the trait are more resistant to malaria. So where Africa has endemic, uh, malaria, people started to evolve from the pressure of the malaria.
Unfortunately, if you got two of those genes, Then you died. But if you had one, which more people have, one out of 13 black Americans, that's a lot. Only 100, 000, only I say, that's still a lot, have it. 20 million in the world. Then those people are unlucky, but it still helps most people who are exposed to malaria do better.
Doesn't prevent malaria. So we're not, I think I've read that with um, Uh, the doc, Dr. Who in China manipulated and mutated the, the receptor for, um, HIV in these, in this egg that then became twins because the father in China had HIV. And it's not really clear exactly why he did it. We know more than we used to about it, but there's a lot of stigma about HIV, but we in China, but we also know that it's not very hard.
It's not difficult to have a couple have a child. Where one of the parents or even both have HIV because we can, we can, um, take the sperm, for instance, and we can make sure that we clean it, you know, so it doesn't have the, um, it's washed, so it doesn't have the HIV, so, uh, virus. So, you don't need CRISPR for it.
And we, there's some evidence that if you mutate, that particular receptor and people who were exposed to HIV in the past who didn't get it were, in a sense, very lucky because they had that mutation. It may make them more susceptible to things like West Nile virus refining out. So evolution has a process that is, that is affected by pressure.
And so, um, the pressure of malaria made, we think, um, sickle cell disease. So, you know, when we're starting to tinker, play with genes and turn things off and on, like, should we make a G, you know, should we use CRISPR to make people, you know, not have, um, you know, high cholesterol? Well, we know that there are People who have family cholesterol, high family cholesterol.
Maybe we should take out that gene, but what is, how is that connected to other things? And how is that connected to the evolution of lipids? So we just don't know a lot about that, but we go in at this point and start to cut. So, you know, we have to be careful. And in terms of enhancement, you know, we can't make people stronger, smarter.
We, that's a, uh, in a, um, an agglomeration of, of genes. We can't even make somebody's eye color. It's not one gene, like a lot of these genetic diseases, which is why. CRISPR. So amazing for that. But there are things we can do like we know kids who don't feel pain, who have a genetic mutation, supposedly Russia and China are doing research to make soldiers not feel pain,
[00:24:38] Marco Ciappelli: of course, Captain America.
[00:24:39] Neil Baer: That's an enhancement. So that's the other. That's the peril. So as we learn more about what genes control, we could presumably in the future, um, possibly manipulate them and change human evolution. You know, wouldn't it be great if we could eat grass, you know, like cows, you know, and, and digest it because, uh, you know, problems, you know, with food, food sources and food insecurity.
[00:25:10] Marco Ciappelli: So while evolution takes millions of years to do that, one change and Darwin, we know somebody survived, but two sisters, one develop in one way or another. And you carry. The things that work. But as you mentioned, something that may work in Africa during a certain period where malaria is very active, which unfortunately still is, but at the time, but there's always the other side of the coin, right?
And we just don't know. So I think the big question here when it comes to technology, advanced technology, nanotechnology, AI, and all of that, whatever you can think of, is what you said. It's a balance. And who makes the decision? Because that's, I think, that's the key. Like, who makes the decision for others?
I mean, we, I don't want to get political now, but normally there is some people that want to make decision for everybody else.
[00:26:13] Neil Baer: Have you ever heard a politician talk about CRISPR? No, no, no, exactly. It's too complicated and it's too whatever, so they say. It is discussed. Believe me, it's discussed at DARPA.
It's discussed, and there are writers, provisions, and laws that say you can't, you can't use CRISPR to manipulate embryos like Dr. Ho did. But is that going to really stop somebody? So, um,
[00:26:41] Marco Ciappelli: Do you see the role in public discourse, public awareness? I mean, part of your job is to be a science educator and teach to other scientists how to do that, right?
Do you, do you see the value in the, in the democratic decision and public?
[00:27:01] Neil Baer: Yes, I think absolutely. And the challenge is, you know, it's one thing for the academies to say, We need societal consensus. And then we start to dig into what does that mean? Like who's
[00:27:14] Marco Ciappelli: 51 percent
[00:27:15] Neil Baer: like how many, or how who's going to sit at the table?
Who's going to go to the conference where they have this, these discussions? Is it going to be philosophers? Is it going to be, um, somebody who is, um, you know, laying pipes? Is it, who is it? Plumbers who it could affect everyone. So how do we think about that? And that's really the challenge. Of CRISPR and all technology.
How do we, how do we, you know, we're in a terrible place where people question vaccinations, so we're seeing more whooping cough and we're seeing more measles and we're pretty good at knowing a lot about measles and whooping cough. We're less good about knowing about COVID because it hasn't been around.
It's novel. And so people in general want. Definitive answers from science. And I think one of the problems we faced with COVID is it wasn't definitive, definitive from the beginning. How could it be? It was novel. And so we were learning and learning and we're still learning about long COVID and we're still learning about, you know, the variations of the virus mutations and you know, what kinds of MRNA vaccinations work best, et cetera.
So it's an ongoing process of sciences. And so we have to help people understand that, first of all, that it's not like we have the answer and we can't actually say we have the answer because that makes people really uncomfortable when somebody dies from COVID or they have a vaccine reaction, vaccination reaction, which can happen.
So we're in a place, you know, compounded by social media where there's lots of and disinformation about COVID, for instance. And yet, you know, if you talk about measles, we know pretty much the side effects and we know what measles can do. We know what measles can do to a child, cause encephalitis, you know, encephalitis, all kinds of things.
So, um, one is we have to Really think about how we teach science, how we talk about science, that science is not just about, you know, it doesn't start when you're, you know, an adult and you can make your own decisions about your health care, or as a teenager, you can make it with your parents and your parents make it for you as a child.
We have to start teaching about the process of science. The experimentation that's involved in science, what science means, what, what a hypothesis means in theory and all of that, and, and experimenting. We need to teach and we need to use AI to understand, help people understand it better. There are new ways to look at peer reviewed articles.
through sight and scholarship and other platforms that help us really see an article in relation to other articles and see its impact, which is amazing. I wish I had it when I was like in medical school.
[00:30:25] Marco Ciappelli: I know I wish I had it when I was writing my thesis.
[00:30:28] Neil Baer: Yeah, I had all these like, like little, um, books on endocrinology and pediatrics and now it's like your cell phone.
Look it up. So it's like that's really changed things. Um, but still, you know, we need to really think hard about where we're going with things. We just can't say, well, science has advanced here with CRISPR, so let's just keep going, especially with, with germline editing. So that's, that's what I worry about.
I, you know, you know, I've been accused of, you know, you know, saying, well, you know, there are other ways of doing sort of the same things that CRISPR does. That's true. And we should be talking about those things. And one of, you know, and so we, we bring up these, these, these issues that are not open to the public really.
So how do we do that as you asked? So one way would be. And this is my program at Harvard is through the arts and humanities. How do we talk about it? So in my show, designated survivor, the last season, season three on Netflix deals with CRISPR and, and, uh, you know, how it was being thought to be used, uh, to do some nefarious things.
Um, so we need to, to talk about. not just as scientists or in academic journals or papers in public. And then of course, because this, you know, inner social media is democratic. People will talk about it in ways that are not true and scare people. And how do we fight that? Really complicated now with social media.
So who, who are thought leaders? That we can, you know, someone like Fauci, we would say is a scientific thought leader, and yet he's disparaged by the right. And, you know, so how do we, how do we, how do we think about this? And at least we need to be talking about it. You know, we just can't say, well, I'm going to accept whatever they do, because they're scientists, they know what they're doing.
I wish that were the case.
[00:32:44] Marco Ciappelli: Well, I love how you define, I mean, you said science is a process. And I, I think that's, that's the key, right? I mean, we like to think black and white, good and evil. But then there is many color, many shade of grays and many thing between the good and evil. And that's what ethics is all about.
And as you started, uh, we never talked about ethics and philosophy has never been so popular since the classic Greeks, probably now with AI, you know, the advanced technology and, and the power that we have into really, You know, playing, Mother Nature or God in changing the nature of who we are.
So I think talking about it, it's, it's extremely important. And I want to give you this last couple of minutes because On a topic like this, it's easy to just, you know, I mean, time just fly having this conversation. Um, just like a couple of points about your book, who, who is it for, who you had in mind when you wrote it?
Is it for everyday people so they can start thinking about it? It's easy to digest or more of an academic kind of book and And, uh, just a call to action to why you wrote this book.
[00:34:03] Neil Baer: Well, I wrote it. I'll start with your last question because
[00:34:06] Marco Ciappelli: it's easier.
[00:34:06] Neil Baer: The first line, the first line in my book is CRISPR keeps me up at night.
Keeps me awake, you know, along with nuclear, war, AI, climate change. Things that an individual feels they don't really have control over. So how do we think about these things? And, and then from that point. Um, I invited writers who are scientists, philosophers, bioethicists, parents, um, people, uh, new voices, uh, a trans, uh, bioethicist, Florence Ashley, no one's had asked a trans bioethicist to write about these things, um, an indigenous, uh, scientist, um, Um, uh, Crystal Sosi, who is an indigenous, um, woman, uh, uh, from, uh, Arizona, who is a, uh, scientist, philosopher, and, you know, a cardiologist who has a child with albinism, a genetic, uh, uh, mutation, uh, someone with cystic fibrosis who faces the possibility of maybe getting cured, someone who's deaf, Uh, Carol Patton, who says, I don't see myself needing to be cured.
Where do we, where do we draw the line on that? Is it just up to the parents to decide? Um, then we talk about, we have, uh, a piece by someone who writes about animals and philosophically about animal rights and talks about transhumanism. You brought that up at the very beginning. We're implanting human genes, putting them into animals.
Should we be making an animal more sentient? Is that possible? What does that mean? Or should we just make chickens that are like, have smaller and smaller heads and bigger and bigger bodies so that we make chicken, you know, the meat? Like, where do we stand on how we deal with animals? It is enough to make you vegan when you, when you read his piece about how animals are, are treated.
And, you know, we say, well, we want to make. human lives better, but what are we doing to animals when we're making, uh, kidneys, uh, in pigs that can be transplanted because they have human elements? Can we start to transplant emotional things into, you know, then they'll say that's science fiction, but, you know, everything's been science fiction before.
Cars, planes, you know. So, um, so our book is about Opening up the discussion in many arenas, bioweapons, and then oversight, like, who's going to oversee this, you know? Scientists have told me we don't need it because we'll monitor ourselves. We're good at that. That's questionable, arguable. Um, and certainly with Dr.
Hu reading Ben's piece, you really start to wonder because Ben argues that or posits that Dr. Hu did what he did because he was encouraged by some American scientists to go down that road. Dr. Hu was a fellow and a postdoc. In the United States, and he gives a quote. I don't know what universities. Um, I don't know the scientists.
I don't think that's necessary for me to know, but he does quote a scientist. He was at a meeting with Dr Hood and scientists, and they said, one person said, hire me for your company, but hire me as number five, because it's going to be too controversial to bring me on. It's number one or number two. Or they said to him.
You know, the person who started IVF, he didn't go down the traditional road of peer review. He announced it in the paper and he won the Nobel Prize. So it's a complex situation of human, uh, aspiration, drive, fame seeking, Being proud, you know, and and promoting China that many elements went into what Dr.
Hood did that hadn't really been talked about before until our book. Ben Hurlbut was privy to. So that's, I think, you know, what's so interesting. It's divided. The book is divided into, um, a number of different topics like oversight and the future, um, new voices, unheard voices from the past, you know, before, um, personal stories, um, uh, new genetics, you know, I mean, new, you, uh, new eugenics, I should say, um, you know, Are we about to, like, just keep pushing and pushing to make people not have certain qualities?
Who's deciding that? Michael Sandel, who's a professor at Harvard, wrote a piece years ago, about 20 years ago in the Atlantic, where he talks about, you know, his worry about they'll ultimately be the enhanced And the normal and who who's going to be enhanced? Are these going to be people who have money?
We can't enhance people. As I said earlier, the genetics are way too complicated and too, too multifactorial. That doesn't mean that we won't be able to do a lot of things in the future, like make people pain free, um, or sleep less or be, you know, soldiers who have less fear, maybe.
[00:40:19] Marco Ciappelli: There is a good sci fi movie right there.
[00:40:22] Neil Baer: Well, it was called
Gattaca.
Many years ago, you know, I was very prescient about this.
[00:40:31] Marco Ciappelli: Well, I think there is a lot to ponder, a lot to muse, a lot to think about, which is my way of closing this episode, where I say, if you have more questions now in your head than at the beginning of this episode, I think we did a good job.
Because thinking is good. And it goes to show that even scientists, um, if they want to be objective, they realize that there is no final and perfect answers. Because we, we are certainly what makes us human, I think, is just the fact that we're not perfect. Which will raise another question about the Is this Gen Editing Ruth aimed to make it something that we're not?
But I'm not going to ask you this question because it's going to be another hour. I would love for you to come back again. Either talk about this here. Because there is so much to talk about but I'm more interested Well in a different and from a different angle from a different perspective. I'm interested in the storytelling And that so I'll have you back for everybody listening.
Uh, there will be link to the book to Dr. Neil Baer website and Way to get in touch with him I want to thank you very much. Thank you for your time. It was an Excellent conversation. My brain is going a million hour, um, miles an hour. And I thank you for that.
[00:42:00] Neil Baer: Thank you for having me.
[00:42:01] Marco Ciappelli: Thank you, everybody.
Stay tuned, subscribe, and I'll see you. And, uh, you will hear me on another story on, uh, the defining society podcast. Take care.
[00:42:12] Neil Baer: You too. Bye.