:00:15. > :00:19.suspicion has fallen on Boko Haram. Science is constantly changing and
:00:19. > :00:25.deepening our understanding of ourselves and our planet. Is it
:00:25. > :00:29.time to give scientists a more prominent role in the debate about
:00:29. > :00:33.humanity's strategic choices - economic, political and
:00:33. > :00:38.environmental? My guess today is already in the thick of that debate.
:00:38. > :00:42.Sir John's Alston is a Nobel prize- winning molecular biologist who led
:00:42. > :00:50.the Royal Society study into the global impact of population growth
:00:50. > :01:00.two decades on from the global Earth Summit. Can science help the
:01:00. > :01:20.
:01:20. > :01:28.Sir John Sulston, welcome to HARDtalk. You have spent many years
:01:28. > :01:33.inside a lab studying a tiny, tiny species of one in the most minute
:01:33. > :01:36.detail, yet you sit here and in the last few months you have been
:01:36. > :01:40.pondering the future of planet Earth. Is there a connection
:01:40. > :01:44.between those to make intellectual pursuits or have you changed your
:01:44. > :01:48.priorities? No - there is absolutely a connection. It
:01:48. > :01:53.illustrates very well that science always raises as many questions as
:01:53. > :01:58.it answers. When you work on one problem, you find yourself working
:01:58. > :02:03.on something else, with the one, I watched the sell the visions and
:02:03. > :02:08.worked them out and then we wanted to get at the genes to find out how
:02:08. > :02:16.they were controlled. -- the cell divisions. I had to work on the DNA.
:02:16. > :02:26.I had to work on all of the DNA. The work on the entire genetic
:02:26. > :02:28.
:02:28. > :02:38.make-up of the animal. Our lads had got good at doing that. This is
:02:38. > :02:38.
:02:38. > :02:42.through the 1990s. -- Labs. That in turn will lead me on to social
:02:42. > :02:45.issues because I discovered... Wide bay lead you want to social issues?
:02:45. > :02:51.So many great scientists stay in the laboratory and you left the
:02:51. > :02:58.laboratory. It is a terrible disappointment! I eventually
:02:58. > :03:03.admitted I was not doing laboratory anymore. It is about the data and
:03:03. > :03:06.the access to the data that we have not just drawn from the were more
:03:06. > :03:10.these human but all matters of a -- manner of animals and plants. This
:03:10. > :03:14.is the basic stuff of biology and everyone should have access to it
:03:14. > :03:24.regardless of their wealth. It is the building blocks of life. Before
:03:24. > :03:27.
:03:27. > :03:31.we get to the big questions, the', let's stick with the micro. Did you
:03:31. > :03:40.realise that, through these dealings with the microscopic worm,
:03:40. > :03:44.did you realise it would lead you to dealing with humans? Place to go
:03:44. > :03:50.to parties and people would say, "Have you really spent 20 years
:03:50. > :04:00.working on something you cannot see?" And died said yes. It turns
:04:00. > :04:01.
:04:01. > :04:11.out the pieces of that one's machinery is -- were's machinery
:04:11. > :04:12.
:04:12. > :04:19.are quite similar to pieces of our machinery. It has neurons and nerve
:04:19. > :04:24.cells that connect. An example of something that did transfer was the
:04:24. > :04:32.mechanism of cell death. It is an important part of our development.
:04:32. > :04:36.The reason we have digits and not webbed feet is because cells die.
:04:36. > :04:41.The control of that process is very important. It is also important in
:04:41. > :04:44.cancer, to stop tumours growing. It is important cells do not die in
:04:44. > :04:51.the nervous system. Neurone degeneration is one of the problems
:04:51. > :05:01.we have. All of these processes are controlled, in part, in jeans that
:05:01. > :05:05.
:05:05. > :05:12.you can find exact equivalents for in that one. -- genes. -- that worm.
:05:13. > :05:19.What percentage can you put on the amount of DNA that the worm has in
:05:19. > :05:24.common with the human? It is less than 50%. I do not know the exact
:05:24. > :05:30.number. It is a grey scale. You can find partial matches for some and
:05:30. > :05:40.exact matches for other. A lot of the basic mechanisms of handling
:05:40. > :05:43.
:05:43. > :05:52.house sales grow and things like that are similar. -- how cells grow.
:05:52. > :05:57.In 2002, Bill Clinton was there to announce the human genome mapping.
:05:57. > :06:04.He came up with a phrase that a piece said that we had discovered"
:06:04. > :06:11.the language with which God created life -- we had discovered, "The
:06:11. > :06:21.language with which God created life." Do you believe that now? My
:06:21. > :06:30.
:06:31. > :06:37.old mentor raised the point that if DNA is the language with which we
:06:37. > :06:42.create God. You are the son of an Anglican priest. He was a man
:06:42. > :06:45.involved in missionary work for a while. The reversal you have made
:06:45. > :06:50.it suggests you are somewhat sceptical about the role of God.
:06:50. > :06:54.Are you? The role of God is most probably a construct that humans
:06:54. > :07:04.create for their own purposes, which is exactly what Sydney were
:07:04. > :07:09.
:07:09. > :07:19.saying. -- was saying. It now seems to me the mapping of the human
:07:19. > :07:21.
:07:21. > :07:25.genome has opened up a new world in biology and medicine. Can we now
:07:25. > :07:28.determine how human beings will live, what they might die from ant
:07:28. > :07:35.can we put for the proposition that they can be repaired, perhaps
:07:36. > :07:43.before birth? -- and can we. It is -- it should not be so strongly
:07:43. > :07:50.stated. Our genes are the recipe book for starting us off. All kinds
:07:50. > :07:53.of defects in the genes can be discovered, that we can then find
:07:53. > :08:03.drugs for or it may be one day replace. Gene therapy is much
:08:03. > :08:11.
:08:11. > :08:15.harder. -- or maybe one day they can be replaced. One of the first
:08:15. > :08:20.Defects to be sorted out, cystic fibrosis, we do not have the gene
:08:20. > :08:24.therapy for. They have been advances in the treatment of cystic
:08:24. > :08:32.fibrosis but not through gene therapy. You have to consider
:08:32. > :08:36.profound ethical questions. It is a question of delivery. Cystic
:08:36. > :08:46.fibrosis, they thought you would be able to squirt genetic material
:08:46. > :08:49.into the lungs, but that does not work. The question is should will
:08:49. > :08:59.be doing it? Should we be coming close to a situation where one
:08:59. > :09:00.
:09:00. > :09:05.could see, as we develop this idea, human beings can be perfected.
:09:05. > :09:10.Impairments in the human being could be eradicated. A motorcyclist
:09:10. > :09:18.was injured in a motorcycle accident and the surgeon put it
:09:18. > :09:23.together with pieces of metal - that was before. When I talk about
:09:23. > :09:29.possible cures for cystic fibrosis, squirting genes into the lungs,
:09:29. > :09:36.that would be somatic gene therapy, if it worked. You are now thinking
:09:36. > :09:44.about - and I agree this is a much more interesting field - to go into
:09:44. > :09:46.the embryo. There are ethical reasons to not do that. I like to
:09:46. > :09:50.pin you down. You are one of the most influential scientists in the
:09:50. > :09:56.UK today. Is there a real apical question about the amount of work
:09:56. > :10:01.that should be done on the genetics of embryos? Get a good question. If
:10:01. > :10:05.you can improve the quality of life of the embryo very markedly then
:10:05. > :10:15.there might be a case for it. E Peters a matter of a more cosmetic
:10:15. > :10:15.
:10:15. > :10:19.thing, there may not be. -- if it is a matter. I will be very much
:10:19. > :10:22.against doing much with embryos at all because we are not good enough
:10:22. > :10:26.at predicting the exact result of inserting a new bit of material.
:10:26. > :10:31.That raises questions of privatisation in research and
:10:31. > :10:36.funding, because, if the judgement is made that it is ethically
:10:36. > :10:40.acceptable and desirable, it may be that that is where research monies
:10:40. > :10:44.is -- are final. If the judgement is that it is dangerous and we
:10:44. > :10:47.should be leery of it then it might not get the funding that might make
:10:47. > :10:50.it better. That is why we have medical committees that have
:10:50. > :10:57.scientists and lay people discussing the possibilities and
:10:57. > :11:01.outcomes. -- ethical committees. The question then is how the
:11:01. > :11:10.balance the dominance of the scientific community against the
:11:10. > :11:15.views of the lay people. -- how to balance. Scientists should be
:11:15. > :11:21.encouraged to research all they can but when it comes to rolling out
:11:21. > :11:27.the products of research then there should be a very broad information.
:11:27. > :11:37.Scientists are experts and when it comes to ethical questions, there
:11:37. > :11:37.
:11:37. > :11:43.should be a mini democracy about it. We have not talked about
:11:43. > :11:47.commercialisation. In your field of Microbiology, cellular work, you
:11:47. > :11:56.were always aware that there were other people in your field that
:11:56. > :12:00.were driven by the profit motive in a way that perhaps he were not. --
:12:00. > :12:04.you were not. You seem to take the view now that the profit motive
:12:04. > :12:08.should be kept out of this sort of work. I don't think I said that.
:12:09. > :12:13.You said that one point that it would be very worrying, very wrong
:12:13. > :12:19.if capitalism got control of the tune in genome. I was talking about
:12:19. > :12:25.the fundamental data. -- the human genome. The issue with Craig was
:12:25. > :12:35.weather data was going to be owned and marketed by a single
:12:35. > :12:38.
:12:38. > :12:48.corporation or was it going to be shared and accessible to everybody?
:12:48. > :12:55.
:12:55. > :13:01.Where I come from, in my lifetime, is the place where people regarded
:13:01. > :13:07.public goods very highly. I think we have to get back to regarding
:13:07. > :13:16.public goods that highly. I dare say - I didn't want to put words
:13:16. > :13:21.into on mouth - but I dare say Craig Venter was sitting here, he
:13:21. > :13:26.would say that a desire for profit is one of the best ways of stirring
:13:26. > :13:29.up the creativity that produces innovation. If you take that away,
:13:29. > :13:35.innovation might come much more slowly. I don't think that is true.
:13:35. > :13:41.If you look at history, tremendous innovation was done in the public's
:13:41. > :13:45.fear. Vaccines were not made in this way. The polio vaccines were
:13:45. > :13:49.done by government and charitable funding and by people who cared
:13:49. > :13:53.much more about curing kids with polio then they did about making
:13:53. > :14:03.profit. I will just point out that there are other ways of doing
:14:03. > :14:05.
:14:05. > :14:09.things. When Craig Venter says that the human genome pases bought out
:14:10. > :14:13.there for all to see, in reality the people that benefit most from
:14:13. > :14:17.that are the big pharmaceutical companies, who do not have to pay
:14:18. > :14:23.for the basic research, can put a twist on it, patent it and use it
:14:23. > :14:27.for huge profits. In the system at the moment it is important that
:14:27. > :14:31.those companies have access to the data. He feels badly about this
:14:31. > :14:35.because his company tried very hard to put patterns themselves on the
:14:35. > :14:45.genes. He feels badly about it because he thought that people like
:14:45. > :14:47.
:14:47. > :14:53.It never got to that point because the public side remained in
:14:53. > :14:59.competition. Let me points had one more thing. This data is shared by
:14:59. > :15:05.all countries, all policies. It is not just America and the UK. That
:15:05. > :15:10.is important, that we do not have a volume of important data are
:15:10. > :15:15.falling out of jurisdiction. I have put this argument in terms of money
:15:15. > :15:20.and proffered but there is another way of looking at this and that is
:15:20. > :15:30.basic security -- proffered. Some people at their would be inclined
:15:30. > :15:38.to appease the sorts of information you and others are putting out
:15:38. > :15:41.their -- out there. The latest research on avian flu and the way
:15:42. > :15:47.to which researchers have found it can cross over from birds to small
:15:47. > :15:50.mammals. The federal authorities in the US responsible for by a
:15:50. > :15:54.security said you should not publish some of this because it
:15:54. > :15:59.could get into the wrong hands. Surely you can be worried? They
:15:59. > :16:02.have moved on. They have had lengthy discussions. People in this
:16:02. > :16:08.country and other countries have been involved. They have decided
:16:08. > :16:13.that it is better to publish. Why? When you redux something you draw
:16:13. > :16:17.attention to it and say it is dangerous. You make sure every
:16:17. > :16:21.wrongdoer will be homing in on this stuff. The only safe way to go is
:16:21. > :16:29.to publish everything as much as you can because then you are open
:16:29. > :16:33.to dealing with it, to cures as well as to abuse. You have a benign
:16:33. > :16:38.view of human nature? No but I think wrongdoing behind-closed-
:16:38. > :16:46.doors is more dangerous than having things opener so you can look at
:16:46. > :16:52.what is going on. There is no other choice -- Open. Science should not
:16:53. > :16:57.have a tool used, good and bad. I do not like the implication that
:16:57. > :17:02.there is one or another. There is a huge grey area? However, there is
:17:02. > :17:06.the notion that you can somehow exclude the bad bits. That is
:17:06. > :17:13.simply a false hope. We have to deal with it in other ways and look
:17:13. > :17:20.for people who are abusing it, whether it is distributing a
:17:20. > :17:29.disease. Bear in mind that having it in the public domain gives
:17:29. > :17:34.people access to having vaccines in advance. What we nice to do in the
:17:34. > :17:43.lab will be done by evolution in the long run -- what we achieve.
:17:43. > :17:48.You have moved from the lab to the smaller public sphere. You have
:17:48. > :17:54.been working under the auspices of the Raj society, looking at the
:17:54. > :17:58.future impact of population growth -- Royal Society. It is picking up
:17:58. > :18:05.on the Rio Earth Summit a few years ago. I quote to use the words of
:18:05. > :18:08.the leader of that summer. -- to you. -- that a summit. He said that
:18:08. > :18:15.either we have to reduce our population or nature will do that
:18:15. > :18:18.brutally for us. Do you think that still applies? Yes. But the moments
:18:18. > :18:24.when that wides this indeterminate and it is not sudden. You do not
:18:24. > :18:27.just run a long and run off a cliff. What will happen is that if we do
:18:27. > :18:37.not move things in the right direction they will move in the
:18:37. > :18:37.
:18:37. > :18:42.wrong direction. There is an important thought. The great late
:18:42. > :18:47.18th century thinker on resources and population growth predicted
:18:47. > :18:52.that we would repeatedly asked of our abilities to feed ourselves and
:18:52. > :18:56.therefore there would be the most cataclysmic falls in a global human
:18:56. > :19:01.population. Time after time people who followed his line of thinking
:19:01. > :19:07.have been proven wrong. It sounds to me like you are up a support of
:19:07. > :19:14.is? I am not. I am not using a single equation -- a supporter of
:19:14. > :19:19.him. Let's begin with facts. Let's begin with the impact of us, people,
:19:19. > :19:28.on the earth. It is extremely visible in a way that it was not in
:19:28. > :19:35.the 18th century. It was predicted before and people side a former
:19:35. > :19:41.think but let's look into that a bit further. Right now we are
:19:41. > :19:44.causing climate change. I said that unequivocally. I know people would
:19:44. > :19:51.criticise that statement but the overwhelming weight of evidence is
:19:51. > :19:57.that we are now causing climate change through our emissions of
:19:57. > :20:02.carbon dioxide and we are going further down that line. Is that the
:20:02. > :20:06.most dangerous result, consequence, of population growth? That is an
:20:06. > :20:11.immediate and present one and it will cause, if we do not arrested
:20:11. > :20:16.in some way, caused rising sea levels and the flooding of coastal
:20:16. > :20:20.areas. It will also lead to the reduction in crop yields in areas
:20:20. > :20:28.that are becoming drought-stricken. As part of this study I visited
:20:28. > :20:32.Ghana. You can read more broadly in many studies but it in Ghana people
:20:32. > :20:39.have had to migrate from the north where the format is drying up to
:20:39. > :20:43.the south. They are having to live in a informal housing -- farmland.
:20:43. > :20:48.It is not good for them and their teacher and the feature of their
:20:48. > :20:52.children, and this is because of climate change. -- the future.
:20:52. > :20:59.do not have much time. It seems to me to be ironic that you are
:20:59. > :21:03.worried about the continuing rise in population, some say over 9
:21:03. > :21:06.billion by 2050, and yet your scientific research, all of the
:21:06. > :21:12.things we talked about a earlier about genetics and the
:21:12. > :21:15.understanding of how we are bills, suggests you are one important
:21:15. > :21:21.player in the advances we have made that mean human beings live longer
:21:21. > :21:25.lives? That is the thing. We do not want to end miserably. We want
:21:25. > :21:34.everybody to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. That is why we
:21:34. > :21:41.have to pay attention. Look... Terry? Foreign severally. We know
:21:41. > :21:46.that there are over 200 million women who would like to have access
:21:46. > :21:56.to materials to avoid their next pregnancy -- foreign territory.
:21:56. > :22:00.
:22:00. > :22:04.Conception? Yes. -- volunteering. I think it is extremely important for
:22:04. > :22:09.their health and the education of the children that they are able to
:22:09. > :22:19.limit their families and they should have this need for full.
:22:19. > :22:24.Earlier he said you had a benign it view of? -- earlier you said you
:22:24. > :22:28.had a benign view of human beings. Are you underestimating the way in
:22:28. > :22:33.which human beings have come up with technology to deal with the
:22:33. > :22:37.pressure of population? No. We are conscious of the fact we should not
:22:37. > :22:41.underestimate that ability but we are looking at a set of things. We
:22:41. > :22:49.have talked about climate change but let's move on. One problem is
:22:49. > :22:54.species species at a race of probably 1,000
:22:54. > :22:59.times a rate of before human beings. You may not care about other
:22:59. > :23:03.species of care about the environment. I do care but I am
:23:03. > :23:09.aware that we have had mass extinctions before. This is the
:23:09. > :23:13.first one caused by the actions of a single species. We are throwing
:23:13. > :23:21.away the possibilities of future medicines for the future and
:23:21. > :23:28.destroying our capabilities in other ways. We are over using
:23:28. > :23:36.fertilisers in a way that is necessary to feed people but is
:23:36. > :23:44.causing problems in our estuaries. A whole series of challenges add up.
:23:44. > :23:48.I quote from you. You say we cannot continue as we have done. Have you
:23:48. > :23:55.any clear prescription of what we must do? The important thing before
:23:55. > :23:59.we end is to say that although we have talked about population it is
:23:59. > :24:05.also consumption. Population and consumption matter. So they have to
:24:05. > :24:09.be constraints? Somewhere we have to be persuaded. Constraint is not
:24:09. > :24:19.the word. And unless everybody is convinced that constrained is
:24:19. > :24:19.
:24:19. > :24:24.required, material consumption needs to be reduced. It is about