0:00:02 > 0:00:04Today on The Big Questions - the building blocks of life.
0:00:04 > 0:00:07Should we meddle with them to create designer babies,
0:00:07 > 0:00:10cure diseases, enhance human beings,
0:00:10 > 0:00:13or interfere in the natural world?
0:00:27 > 0:00:29Good morning.
0:00:29 > 0:00:31I'm Nicky Campbell. Welcome to the Big Questions.
0:00:31 > 0:00:34Today we're back at the Harris Academy in Peckham, South London,
0:00:34 > 0:00:40to debate one very big question - is interfering with genes ethical?
0:00:40 > 0:00:42Welcome, everybody, to The Big Questions.
0:00:45 > 0:00:46Now.
0:00:48 > 0:00:52Until recently, you could only suspect you were at risk
0:00:52 > 0:00:54of developing a disease or life-changing condition
0:00:54 > 0:00:57if someone in your family had already suffered from it.
0:00:57 > 0:01:00Today, anyone can find out about the genes that make up their DNA
0:01:00 > 0:01:04by sending off a test tube of spit to one of the many companies
0:01:04 > 0:01:06who offer a testing service for a modest fee.
0:01:06 > 0:01:10Now, to some, knowledge is power.
0:01:10 > 0:01:13They may be able to make changes that might reduce their risks.
0:01:13 > 0:01:15Others say it's better not to know -
0:01:15 > 0:01:19why face a death sentence if nothing can be done about it?
0:01:19 > 0:01:23But now doctors are beginning to change the odds.
0:01:23 > 0:01:27Gene therapy may one day help sufferers of previously incurable diseases,
0:01:27 > 0:01:30and gene editing is already helping carriers of damaging conditions
0:01:30 > 0:01:32to have healthy babies.
0:01:32 > 0:01:34Of course, if you can change things for humans,
0:01:34 > 0:01:36you can also change things across the natural world -
0:01:36 > 0:01:39crops, insects, birds and animals.
0:01:39 > 0:01:41The possibilities unfolding are powerful.
0:01:41 > 0:01:44But, like that Pandora's box,
0:01:44 > 0:01:47they may also unleash unexpected problems,
0:01:47 > 0:01:49and pose moral quandaries, too.
0:01:49 > 0:01:53So we have assembled a highly distinguished front row of
0:01:53 > 0:01:57scientists, bioethicists, environmentalists, campaigners,
0:01:57 > 0:02:00religious thinkers, embryologists and lawyers
0:02:00 > 0:02:04to debate the challenges posed by this new frontier of science.
0:02:04 > 0:02:07And you can join in, too, on Twitter, or online,
0:02:07 > 0:02:10by logging onto...
0:02:10 > 0:02:13Follow the link to the online discussion.
0:02:13 > 0:02:15Lots of encouragement and contributions
0:02:15 > 0:02:19from our excellent audience here in South London.
0:02:19 > 0:02:21Welcome, everybody.
0:02:21 > 0:02:27Such a fascinating and enthralling subject, this.
0:02:27 > 0:02:31Doctor Silvia Camporesi, director of bioethics, Kings College, London.
0:02:31 > 0:02:33- Silvia, hello. - Hello, thanks for having me.
0:02:33 > 0:02:38It's a great pleasure. I mean, it's a terrifying area for some...
0:02:38 > 0:02:40- Not terrifying. - You're very excited about it?
0:02:40 > 0:02:42I'm very excited, of course.
0:02:42 > 0:02:47I don't think we should hype up the claims of scientists,
0:02:47 > 0:02:49but I think, personally, it's very exciting.
0:02:49 > 0:02:52I am a bioethicist with a background in biotechnology.
0:02:52 > 0:02:57So I think looking at the field of gene therapy from the early ages up
0:02:57 > 0:03:00to now, this is revolutionary technology.
0:03:00 > 0:03:04And gene therapy, the problem has always been the off-target effects.
0:03:04 > 0:03:08So when we were trying to change a particular sequence in the DNA,
0:03:08 > 0:03:10we were not really able to change that one
0:03:10 > 0:03:13and we would have changes in other parts of the genome.
0:03:13 > 0:03:18And with crisper genome editing, that is a game changer.
0:03:18 > 0:03:23So we have very fewer, or none of target defects.
0:03:23 > 0:03:28And it works in any cell with a nucleus, that's a karyocyte cell.
0:03:28 > 0:03:32So human cells, animal cells, plants,
0:03:32 > 0:03:34and when we talk about human application,
0:03:34 > 0:03:38it's really going to be gene therapy.
0:03:38 > 0:03:40I want to ask you about that.
0:03:40 > 0:03:43The world's our genetically modified oyster, basically, isn't it?
0:03:43 > 0:03:45Looking ahead.
0:03:45 > 0:03:50Now, at the moment, current rules only allow scientists to use embryos
0:03:50 > 0:03:53up to 14 days after fertilisation.
0:03:53 > 0:03:55Now, I know you would like to extend that,
0:03:55 > 0:03:59because you're talking about the time that we could have full-term pregnancies, one day.
0:03:59 > 0:04:01What do you call it? Ectogenesis, is that...
0:04:01 > 0:04:06Yes, ectogenesis is a term that was coined in 1924,
0:04:06 > 0:04:11almost 100 years ago, by British evolutionary biologist Haldane.
0:04:11 > 0:04:14It really means the growth of a human embryo, so a foetus,
0:04:14 > 0:04:17outside of a woman's body.
0:04:17 > 0:04:19When we talk about 14 days,
0:04:19 > 0:04:21I think there needs to be some distinction made,
0:04:21 > 0:04:24because most of the application of crisper genome editing
0:04:24 > 0:04:25are not going to be on the embryos,
0:04:25 > 0:04:28they are going to be on the somatic cells, the adult cells.
0:04:28 > 0:04:30But when we talk about the embryo...
0:04:30 > 0:04:33A somatic cell is a cell which doesn't have any inheritable...
0:04:33 > 0:04:35Yeah, somatic cells are cells from our skin.
0:04:35 > 0:04:41Anything that is not a germ cell, sperm cell, or eggs, really.
0:04:41 > 0:04:45So when we're talking about the 14 days,
0:04:45 > 0:04:50I think that the elephant in the room in the discussion is really ectogenics,
0:04:50 > 0:04:55because if we were able to culture an embryo in vitro for longer,
0:04:55 > 0:04:59we would be able to experiment with a culture in an embryo and
0:04:59 > 0:05:01foetus outside of the woman's body.
0:05:01 > 0:05:05I have always been fascinated with a future, which, unfortunately,
0:05:05 > 0:05:07I don't think is going to happen in my lifetime,
0:05:07 > 0:05:12in which we would have reproduction decoupled from biology,
0:05:12 > 0:05:15and finally achieve gender equality.
0:05:15 > 0:05:17How would that achieve gender equality?
0:05:17 > 0:05:20Because I don't think gender equality is ever going to be achieved
0:05:20 > 0:05:23if we have women tied to biology and pregnancy.
0:05:23 > 0:05:27- So pregnancy would be outwith the woman's body?- Yeah, externalised.
0:05:27 > 0:05:29Increasingly we see reproduction and pregnancy being
0:05:29 > 0:05:33externalised in different contexts with IVF and surrogacy,
0:05:33 > 0:05:36but if you look at... I mean, these are debates that are not new.
0:05:36 > 0:05:40In 1969, there was a wonderful book by Ursula McGuinness,
0:05:40 > 0:05:43some of you may remember it, The Left Hand Of Darkness,
0:05:43 > 0:05:47in a future in which there is no sexual de-morphism
0:05:47 > 0:05:51and in women, and both... Basically, there is one gender.
0:05:51 > 0:05:56And they can... Men and women, can carry to term babies.
0:05:56 > 0:06:00And I think, that's of course just my personal opinion,
0:06:00 > 0:06:04that we are never going to achieve gender equality
0:06:04 > 0:06:08until we have reproduction decoupled from biology.
0:06:08 > 0:06:13That's why I think this is one of the debates that is not really much
0:06:13 > 0:06:16to discuss when we talk about the 14 days. We always talk about,
0:06:16 > 0:06:19"Oh, we are curing infertility", this is the mantra.
0:06:19 > 0:06:20NICKY EXHALES SHARPLY
0:06:20 > 0:06:23But there are other topics that are important.
0:06:23 > 0:06:27- I wonder about... - What about that, hey?
0:06:27 > 0:06:30I knew this was going to be interesting.
0:06:30 > 0:06:33- I wonder about...- Trevor? - I wonder about equality, too.
0:06:33 > 0:06:36What do you think about what you've heard there?
0:06:36 > 0:06:37Well...
0:06:37 > 0:06:40Decoupling women from biology and social inequality
0:06:40 > 0:06:43by having full-term pregnancy outside the body?
0:06:43 > 0:06:48I think we need to be very careful before we decouple ourselves
0:06:48 > 0:06:53from what may constitute an intrinsic part of our humanity.
0:06:53 > 0:06:55- APPLAUSE - I can see how...
0:06:55 > 0:07:00I can see how ectogenesis may be able to save babies
0:07:00 > 0:07:05that currently die because they are born preterm,
0:07:05 > 0:07:11but I think that our human development is such that the...
0:07:11 > 0:07:14The nurturing, the closeness,
0:07:14 > 0:07:18the fact that that is the way in which human beings come into being,
0:07:18 > 0:07:21in their mother's womb,
0:07:21 > 0:07:27I think that trying to escape from that element of human nature
0:07:27 > 0:07:34may have adverse consequences, as well as saving premature children.
0:07:34 > 0:07:37- So...- What would those adverse consequences be?
0:07:37 > 0:07:38Well...
0:07:38 > 0:07:44I think that for one thing, the...
0:07:44 > 0:07:47One of the interesting questions about ectogenesis...
0:07:47 > 0:07:50You don't have to go through pregnancy, you don't know what it's like!
0:07:50 > 0:07:53No, I don't. And I know that women do.
0:07:53 > 0:07:59But one of the arguments that is commonly made for having abortions
0:07:59 > 0:08:03is that a woman has a right over her own body.
0:08:03 > 0:08:07And if ectogenesis were to become the norm, the circumstances,
0:08:07 > 0:08:11as I know from being a general practitioner for nearly 30 years,
0:08:11 > 0:08:13the circumstances that often lead to an abortion,
0:08:13 > 0:08:15the fellow's gone off, or whatever,
0:08:15 > 0:08:20those are still going to be relevant to, surely,
0:08:20 > 0:08:24turning off the ectogenesis machine, or killing the infant.
0:08:24 > 0:08:28- I think we treat antenatal life trivially now.- No, that's not...
0:08:28 > 0:08:30- Virginia wants to come in now. - We'll still do so then.- Virginia?
0:08:30 > 0:08:33I just feel a little uncomfortable that the debate has jumped,
0:08:33 > 0:08:38taken a quantum leap so far into the future.
0:08:38 > 0:08:40It's not my fault!
0:08:40 > 0:08:43When... I'm not apportioning blame in any sense.
0:08:43 > 0:08:46- Pull us back.- I think that perhaps it would be more constructive
0:08:46 > 0:08:49if we talked about reality, about things that are immediate.
0:08:49 > 0:08:53The ethical issues that we're confronting with the science
0:08:53 > 0:08:55that we are able to do today,
0:08:55 > 0:08:58rather than projecting so far into the future that we're talking about
0:08:58 > 0:09:01hypothetical situations which have no relevance to the present day.
0:09:01 > 0:09:06Although the notion of taking it beyond 14 days,
0:09:06 > 0:09:09the embryo at 14 days after fertilisation,
0:09:09 > 0:09:12is quite interesting, pushing that particular limit,
0:09:12 > 0:09:14because there are very strict rules on that, aren't there?
0:09:14 > 0:09:17- Yes, there are indeed.- Properly?
0:09:17 > 0:09:19Those rules were put in place a long time ago,
0:09:19 > 0:09:21when the Act was passed,
0:09:21 > 0:09:24The Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act was passed in 1990.
0:09:24 > 0:09:28And that was following an enormous amount of public debate,
0:09:28 > 0:09:29public consultation,
0:09:29 > 0:09:32the Warnock Commission's report to the government,
0:09:32 > 0:09:35on what would be acceptable...
0:09:35 > 0:09:37- Sorry.- A line needed to be drawn. - I'm so sorry, Virginia.
0:09:37 > 0:09:41I'm staying with you, but a little bit of explanation for our viewers.
0:09:41 > 0:09:44Why 14 days, was that when this little streak of blood appears?
0:09:44 > 0:09:46This is exactly what I was about to say.
0:09:46 > 0:09:50The line had to be drawn because public opinion was so concerned,
0:09:50 > 0:09:53and so suspicious of what might be possible
0:09:53 > 0:09:55about the slippery slope that we might be embarking upon,
0:09:55 > 0:10:00that everybody recognised we needed to reassure the general public.
0:10:00 > 0:10:04We need to tell everybody there isn't crazy scientists in white coats in basements
0:10:04 > 0:10:07wanting to do insane things with embryos, and tinker with them.
0:10:07 > 0:10:12What we want to do is responsible science, responsible research.
0:10:12 > 0:10:16So where is a reasonable limit that we can draw that would enable us to
0:10:16 > 0:10:19carry out research, and to advance our knowledge,
0:10:19 > 0:10:24and advance our understanding, that we can say, this is a defined time,
0:10:24 > 0:10:27there's something specific that happens at 14 days that we can say,
0:10:27 > 0:10:30this is the point at which, beyond which, it's not acceptable to do...
0:10:30 > 0:10:33- That was 27 years ago. - That was a long time ago.
0:10:33 > 0:10:36The line was drawn at the point when a primitive streak appears in the
0:10:36 > 0:10:41embryo, and that is the last point at which twinning can occur,
0:10:41 > 0:10:45so this was taken to be a tangible moment in development
0:10:45 > 0:10:47that people could identify with,
0:10:47 > 0:10:50and say this is the point at which personhood, perhaps,
0:10:50 > 0:10:53if you choose to use that term, or if that makes you feel comfortable...
0:10:53 > 0:10:55So it was really creating a moment,
0:10:55 > 0:10:59or defining a moment that people could identify with and say, OK,
0:10:59 > 0:11:02this is the point beyond which it is a human being.
0:11:02 > 0:11:07Has the time come, 27 years on, given our knowledge now,
0:11:07 > 0:11:11compared with then, has the time come to push it beyond 14 days?
0:11:11 > 0:11:15- To revisit the decision that was made then.- Absolutely.
0:11:15 > 0:11:18- Jonathan?- It's definitely time to ask for a decision again,
0:11:18 > 0:11:21that 14 days are a pretty flaky biological line.
0:11:21 > 0:11:24We don't really know what happens at 14 days,
0:11:24 > 0:11:27because we haven't been able to observe things that far.
0:11:27 > 0:11:30We have a big gap between about 14 days, and about 28 days,
0:11:30 > 0:11:34when we can begin to learn things from miscarriages,
0:11:34 > 0:11:37where we just don't really know about the foetal development.
0:11:37 > 0:11:42And the case to be made, and I think the case still has to be made,
0:11:42 > 0:11:46is that there's enough promise of us learning things that will be useful,
0:11:46 > 0:11:50reasonably soon, about particularly, I think, the causes of miscarriages.
0:11:50 > 0:11:53- And eliminating certain diseases as well?- Well, it's too early.
0:11:53 > 0:11:57I think the 14-day question is not yet about eliminating diseases.
0:11:57 > 0:12:00It's about understanding embryology.
0:12:00 > 0:12:04Hopefully, it might lead on to some of those more clinical applications later,
0:12:04 > 0:12:08but at this stage, the question is, do we think it's good enough?
0:12:08 > 0:12:11Is it important enough to know those things to go back to the public
0:12:11 > 0:12:14and parliament, and say, "Is this the time to move?"
0:12:14 > 0:12:16So I don't think the case is yet made that we should move,
0:12:16 > 0:12:18but it's definitely time to ask the question.
0:12:18 > 0:12:22David King, director of Human Genetics Alert.
0:12:22 > 0:12:27Presumably there's an alert to you on what we're hearing here.
0:12:27 > 0:12:29Is it time to revisit this
0:12:29 > 0:12:32and look again at whether we should go beyond 14 days?
0:12:32 > 0:12:35I'm not convinced by that.
0:12:35 > 0:12:40What I see, having watched the way the scientific community
0:12:40 > 0:12:43operates from...as a, kind of...
0:12:43 > 0:12:47pundit and commentator for the last 30 years, is they're very good at,
0:12:47 > 0:12:52you know, coming up with very nice sounding and reasonable sounding
0:12:52 > 0:12:56explanations about why we should always, you know,
0:12:56 > 0:12:58just move beyond this particular thing, then the next thing,
0:12:58 > 0:13:01- and the next thing,...- That's progress, scientific progress.
0:13:01 > 0:13:05Unfortunately, what some people call scientific progress,
0:13:05 > 0:13:07other people call a slippery slope.
0:13:07 > 0:13:12And those slippery slopes, unfortunately, are very real things.
0:13:12 > 0:13:14Are they bad, slippery slopes?
0:13:14 > 0:13:16They can be. They can be very bad.
0:13:16 > 0:13:23I'll give you an example which will relate very much to this question
0:13:23 > 0:13:26of genetically engineering human beings.
0:13:26 > 0:13:29There are lots of people now saying, "Oh, it's fine,
0:13:29 > 0:13:32"we can just use it for,
0:13:32 > 0:13:35"you know, for treating single gene diseases".
0:13:35 > 0:13:39We won't use it for all those things that are labelled enhancement,
0:13:39 > 0:13:43about making children, you know, stronger, more athletic, taller,
0:13:43 > 0:13:45more beautiful and all that.
0:13:45 > 0:13:51They think that we can cross the line to do single gene diseases,
0:13:51 > 0:13:53but not doing enhancements.
0:13:53 > 0:13:59That's an example, we know already, with drugs, with surgery,
0:13:59 > 0:14:02that these techniques which developed for the very best purpose...
0:14:02 > 0:14:05David, this is like splitting the atom!
0:14:05 > 0:14:08Yes, and look what came of that!
0:14:08 > 0:14:10Good things came of it as well, though, didn't they?
0:14:10 > 0:14:12And a lot of extremely bad things came.
0:14:12 > 0:14:18We've been living for the last 80 years under the threat of nuclear annihilation.
0:14:18 > 0:14:20Just because there are bad politicians...
0:14:20 > 0:14:22Scientists always want to say, "Oh, no, no, it's not us,
0:14:22 > 0:14:24"it's the bad politicians".
0:14:24 > 0:14:29Excuse me. It's scientists who always push, push, push.
0:14:29 > 0:14:33- And they've always got to...- Science is discovering means of progress.
0:14:33 > 0:14:35It's discovering new techniques.
0:14:35 > 0:14:40The fact that those techniques are misused and abused by some people,
0:14:40 > 0:14:43otherwise, you're saying, put a stop, call a halt to science.
0:14:43 > 0:14:45We can't do that. Ruth, come in here.
0:14:45 > 0:14:47I'm not saying that at all, I'm sorry.
0:14:47 > 0:14:49Hang on, let's get Ruth's response.
0:14:49 > 0:14:52The thing about the slippery slope argument rhetoric is it's rhetoric.
0:14:52 > 0:14:55We talk about the inevitable slip down the slope.
0:14:55 > 0:14:57It's reality, I see it happen everyday.
0:14:57 > 0:15:01No, it's not. It's been 27 years since the 14-day rule was set
0:15:01 > 0:15:03and we haven't gone on any further
0:15:03 > 0:15:05because we have a very strong regulatory framework
0:15:05 > 0:15:07which stops people going further.
0:15:07 > 0:15:10And because you couldn't culture the cells for more than 14 days.
0:15:10 > 0:15:14But now you can, so I would suggest that's also part of the mix.
0:15:14 > 0:15:16But because the science has changed,
0:15:16 > 0:15:20is it not also time to revisit the regulatory framework?
0:15:20 > 0:15:24If the 14-day rule is really as flaky as it sounds.
0:15:24 > 0:15:27And it was picked because we needed a line
0:15:27 > 0:15:31to make our regulatory framework work, and it is arbitrary.
0:15:31 > 0:15:33And you can make the argument about any point in...
0:15:33 > 0:15:37from conception to birth, any line is arbitrary.
0:15:37 > 0:15:41So why have we fixed on 14 days when, actually,
0:15:41 > 0:15:43we can learn things that are incredibly valuable
0:15:43 > 0:15:45if we carry on a little bit longer?
0:15:45 > 0:15:46Let me talk to you, Jonathan.
0:15:51 > 0:15:54What about the eradication of diseases?
0:15:54 > 0:15:59The use of that particular technology when it comes to
0:15:59 > 0:16:02the exciting new world, the frightening new world,
0:16:02 > 0:16:04the brave new world, whatever you call it,
0:16:04 > 0:16:06where are we going with that?
0:16:06 > 0:16:09Well, I think we shouldn't think this is just about gene editing.
0:16:09 > 0:16:11I'd like to talk about gene editing now!
0:16:11 > 0:16:14So, the question is not just about the technique.
0:16:14 > 0:16:17The question is about, is the purpose, the purpose which you can sign up to.
0:16:17 > 0:16:19- You're reading my mind. - And, secondly,
0:16:19 > 0:16:22is there anything about using this technique which is more or less
0:16:22 > 0:16:26dangerous, more or less likely to succeed than others?
0:16:26 > 0:16:27So, the discussion about
0:16:27 > 0:16:31somatic and germline therapies is a way of thinking about,
0:16:31 > 0:16:34- it might be less risky. - Germline is when it is heritable.
0:16:34 > 0:16:36So, less risky to do something that won't be inherited
0:16:36 > 0:16:37than is inherited.
0:16:37 > 0:16:40But we do lots of things that have impact on our children.
0:16:40 > 0:16:41We choose how to educate them.
0:16:41 > 0:16:45We immunise them. We try and do things to try and have impact,
0:16:45 > 0:16:46we think are good impacts.
0:16:46 > 0:16:48So we should ask ourselves, first of all,
0:16:48 > 0:16:52whether or not the most effective way of eradicating a disease
0:16:52 > 0:16:54is to do something relatively untried.
0:16:54 > 0:16:57- Or a disability?- Well...
0:16:57 > 0:16:59There's lots of discussions about the way we can define...
0:16:59 > 0:17:02- We're about to have it! - ..the way we define those, too.
0:17:02 > 0:17:05So, if you're talking about enhancement,
0:17:05 > 0:17:07they were talking about, I wear contact lenses,
0:17:07 > 0:17:09I'm enhancing my poor sight.
0:17:09 > 0:17:12I have a poor memory, I make notes of things so I can deal with it.
0:17:12 > 0:17:15We don't think those things change identity.
0:17:15 > 0:17:17They help me be the person I am.
0:17:17 > 0:17:21The challenge around the disability debate is that some of the things
0:17:21 > 0:17:23we talk about about disabilities are in that category of
0:17:23 > 0:17:26short-sightedness or poor memory.
0:17:26 > 0:17:30Others are in the category that we think is about our identity as people.
0:17:30 > 0:17:34So, we should talk about things like Downs Syndrome,
0:17:34 > 0:17:39where people have identities that they associate with being
0:17:39 > 0:17:42a particular type of life, things that they particularly like.
0:17:42 > 0:17:44And if we're saying we don't want people like that,
0:17:44 > 0:17:46then I think that is something to be concerned about.
0:17:46 > 0:17:49But if what we're doing is helping other people live fuller lives...
0:17:49 > 0:17:51- Is it an either or? - No, it's a continuum.
0:17:51 > 0:17:54There's a range of things that are there. But our first responsibility,
0:17:54 > 0:17:56and this would be my response to Silvia's point, I think,
0:17:56 > 0:18:00is to try and sort out why our society is an inhospitable place for
0:18:00 > 0:18:05people with differences, and editing genes is not a very efficient way of doing that.
0:18:05 > 0:18:07- Yeah.- I mean, I agree 100% with...
0:18:11 > 0:18:13I agree 100% with Jonathan's points,
0:18:13 > 0:18:16there are many other ways in which we influence future generations,
0:18:16 > 0:18:20ways that are much more irreversible than potentially editing the genome.
0:18:20 > 0:18:22So there is nothing special about the way in which
0:18:22 > 0:18:27editing of the genome with genetic tools puts in a different category
0:18:27 > 0:18:31than education, or environmental changes to our planet.
0:18:31 > 0:18:34But it is being able to eradicate as much as we can,
0:18:34 > 0:18:37diseases and, by inference, disability.
0:18:37 > 0:18:40Is it a desirable direction of travel?
0:18:40 > 0:18:43- I don't think that's a fair inference.- Yes.
0:18:43 > 0:18:46Eradicating disease and dealing with disability,
0:18:46 > 0:18:48they sometimes overlap, but they are not the same thing.
0:18:48 > 0:18:54So, if we were talking about the possibility of genome editing,
0:18:54 > 0:18:57being able to rid the world of HIV,
0:18:57 > 0:19:01we'd have the same sort of debate as we have about polio...
0:19:01 > 0:19:03Cystic fibrosis, for example?
0:19:03 > 0:19:05I know where you are trying to push me, about the threshold.
0:19:05 > 0:19:07I know, I know!
0:19:07 > 0:19:11But I think they are difficult questions.
0:19:11 > 0:19:15My personal opinion is that individuals should have a choice
0:19:15 > 0:19:17whether to use a particular technology
0:19:17 > 0:19:18if it's available or not.
0:19:18 > 0:19:21We are making a decision about their children,
0:19:21 > 0:19:23that is part of reproductive freedom, that's my opinion.
0:19:23 > 0:19:26I will be with you, Laura. Rabbi Laura wants to come in.
0:19:26 > 0:19:29But, Jackie, can I ask you a question?
0:19:29 > 0:19:34I mean, you're deaf, it's part of who you are, obviously.
0:19:34 > 0:19:41What are the dangers here of undervaluing difference
0:19:41 > 0:19:46and sending the message to people that they don't matter?
0:19:46 > 0:19:48I think there's a very real danger,
0:19:48 > 0:19:51particularly in terms of policy and regulation.
0:19:51 > 0:19:55Individual decisions people make about reproductive selection
0:19:55 > 0:19:57or, potentially, in the future,
0:19:57 > 0:20:01about gene editing within their own lives and their own families
0:20:01 > 0:20:05are individual decisions, and one can't really judge them.
0:20:05 > 0:20:09You can't really interpret what they mean to anybody outside that family.
0:20:09 > 0:20:13But when we do have a national policy, a set of regulations,
0:20:13 > 0:20:17a set of laws, which enable intervention into the lives
0:20:17 > 0:20:21of some people and not others in order to shape how they appear in the world,
0:20:21 > 0:20:24whether they have a disability or not,
0:20:24 > 0:20:27then I think that does run the real risk of sending out some kind of
0:20:27 > 0:20:32message to the general public that we want particular kinds of people
0:20:32 > 0:20:35in our society, and we don't want others.
0:20:35 > 0:20:38Now, that might be in fact the truth, that there are certain kinds
0:20:38 > 0:20:40of people, certain kinds of embodiments,
0:20:40 > 0:20:45disabilities, diseases, whatever, which any humane person would think,
0:20:45 > 0:20:47this is not a flourishing life,
0:20:47 > 0:20:50this is not a way that anybody would want to live.
0:20:50 > 0:20:55But my concern with a lot of this is that sometimes the technology offers
0:20:55 > 0:20:58us a very easy answer, an apparently easy intervention,
0:20:58 > 0:21:01so that we stop thinking about some of the boundaries,
0:21:01 > 0:21:03about other ways in which we can help disabled people
0:21:03 > 0:21:05have flourishing lives.
0:21:05 > 0:21:08We stop thinking about whether in fact something is a disability
0:21:08 > 0:21:10because of the way somebody's body is,
0:21:10 > 0:21:13or it's a disability because of the way society is,
0:21:13 > 0:21:17or because of people's attitudes, and so on.
0:21:22 > 0:21:25- Stephen?- Nicky. - How are you doing?- Top of the world.
0:21:25 > 0:21:29- A lot better than you were, right? - Always.- Tell us the story.
0:21:29 > 0:21:32So, I have multiple sclerosis.
0:21:32 > 0:21:35I was...
0:21:35 > 0:21:37The headline, I was diagnosed in 2013,
0:21:37 > 0:21:39my condition deteriorated phenomenally quickly -
0:21:39 > 0:21:42prior to that I used to do lots of triathlons
0:21:42 > 0:21:44and long-distance mountain marathon things.
0:21:44 > 0:21:46Within nine months I was permanently in a wheelchair,
0:21:46 > 0:21:49and within 18 months I was completely paralysed.
0:21:49 > 0:21:53Not just unable to stand and walk, but completely bedbound.
0:21:53 > 0:21:55Having to be hoisted out of bed,
0:21:55 > 0:22:00fed with a spoon, washed, cleaned, toileted within 18 months.
0:22:01 > 0:22:06Which to lots of people would seem a pretty tragic and horrendous place to be.
0:22:06 > 0:22:08And just in response to what you were just saying a moment ago,
0:22:08 > 0:22:14I not for one moment through any of that journey felt any sadness
0:22:14 > 0:22:17or upset about the place I was in.
0:22:17 > 0:22:20I was embracing the journey that I was on
0:22:20 > 0:22:22and relishing every moment of it.
0:22:22 > 0:22:24I've never been paralysed before,
0:22:24 > 0:22:28and that was a great moment to experience that,
0:22:28 > 0:22:29the challenges that brings.
0:22:29 > 0:22:32And the people that you can communicate with and connect with,
0:22:32 > 0:22:35and the love and joy that they give you and, equally,
0:22:35 > 0:22:37the love and joy that you can put out into the world,
0:22:37 > 0:22:40at whatever point in that spectrum you are, is...
0:22:42 > 0:22:45I can't think of the right adjective to use,
0:22:45 > 0:22:47but incredibly valuable.
0:22:47 > 0:22:49- Life affirming. - Completely life affirming.
0:22:49 > 0:22:52And I think it's something that...
0:22:52 > 0:22:55I'm concerned, through the conversation we are having,
0:22:55 > 0:22:59that gets...undervalued.
0:22:59 > 0:23:02I don't feel any stronger. I'm now still a wheelchair user.
0:23:02 > 0:23:05- Tell us about your treatment.- OK.
0:23:05 > 0:23:09So, at that point when I was completely paralysed,
0:23:09 > 0:23:13I was introduced by two professors in Sheffield,
0:23:13 > 0:23:15Professor Sharrack and Professor Snowden.
0:23:15 > 0:23:20Sheffield and Chicago are leading some pioneering stem cell treatment.
0:23:20 > 0:23:24And this is an autologous stem cell treatment,
0:23:24 > 0:23:27so the beauty of it is it's using my own stem cells to heal my own body.
0:23:27 > 0:23:31- Right.- So, it's not using any gene editing,
0:23:31 > 0:23:34so there's no issue with my body rejecting the stem cells.
0:23:34 > 0:23:38It's using my own stem cells to heal my own body.
0:23:38 > 0:23:41In essence, they harvest my stem cells,
0:23:41 > 0:23:44they wipe out the whole of your immune system to zero,
0:23:44 > 0:23:48so you're in isolation for a month, so you don't get a cold,
0:23:48 > 0:23:53because you've got no immune system, which could be tragic and terminal.
0:23:53 > 0:23:56They then introduce back your own stem cells,
0:23:56 > 0:23:59and those stem cells go through a process of rebuilding you
0:23:59 > 0:24:00a brand-new immune system.
0:24:00 > 0:24:02And effectively, it's like when you have a computer,
0:24:02 > 0:24:06and your computer crashes, and how do you fix it?
0:24:06 > 0:24:08You turn it off and you turn it back on again.
0:24:08 > 0:24:09And that's exactly what they did.
0:24:09 > 0:24:12It's rebooting your immune system back to a point that it worked,
0:24:12 > 0:24:16and from being completely paralysed with no sensation,
0:24:16 > 0:24:18no muscle activity at all,
0:24:18 > 0:24:23within nine days of having my stem cells back, within nine days,
0:24:23 > 0:24:26I started... I was able, consciously,
0:24:26 > 0:24:29not through a spasm or a twitch,
0:24:29 > 0:24:31I was consciously able to twitch a toe.
0:24:31 > 0:24:36- Move it through my own thought. - What was that moment like?
0:24:36 > 0:24:39Words can't describe. It was...
0:24:39 > 0:24:41At that moment, it felt that...
0:24:44 > 0:24:46Actually, at that moment, it's a point called the day zero,
0:24:46 > 0:24:49when you get to the point when you have your stem cells back,
0:24:49 > 0:24:52and that moment it felt like that was the first part of my life,
0:24:52 > 0:24:54day zero was now going to be the next chapter in my life,
0:24:54 > 0:24:57and it was...staggering.
0:24:58 > 0:25:01How would you feel now if that had been,
0:25:01 > 0:25:04and how would you have felt then going through that treatment,
0:25:04 > 0:25:07if they had been somebody else's stem cells?
0:25:07 > 0:25:10Or stem cells from somewhere else, not you?
0:25:10 > 0:25:12That's where my...
0:25:12 > 0:25:15Lack of comfort with it comes from.
0:25:15 > 0:25:17Prior to conception,
0:25:17 > 0:25:20I understand there's a much bigger hurdle to jump.
0:25:20 > 0:25:24Even post conception, and where I am now as a human
0:25:24 > 0:25:26going through my journey in life,
0:25:26 > 0:25:32I still have an issue with stem cell...
0:25:32 > 0:25:36The stem cells that I had were non-manipulated stem cells,
0:25:36 > 0:25:37they were just my pure stem cells.
0:25:37 > 0:25:40If they were manipulated stem cells, I would have an issue.
0:25:40 > 0:25:43- OK. Brilliant.- Purely because... A final thing I would say...
0:25:43 > 0:25:45APPLAUSE
0:25:45 > 0:25:47I want to ask you... Get your heads around this, please.
0:25:47 > 0:25:48Why would you have had an issue?
0:25:48 > 0:25:51Purely because of the law of unintended consequences.
0:25:51 > 0:25:53Not understanding
0:25:53 > 0:25:56the long-term implications
0:25:56 > 0:25:59of editing those stem cells, or those genes,
0:25:59 > 0:26:01or my DNA.
0:26:01 > 0:26:05The way I view it is very much that with something like insulin,
0:26:05 > 0:26:09insulin is created by gene editing,
0:26:09 > 0:26:11with bacteria, and it creates insulin,
0:26:11 > 0:26:13which you then use if you're diabetic.
0:26:13 > 0:26:17It's then a process that your body uses to get through that journey.
0:26:17 > 0:26:21- Right.- For me, that is not something that's changing your DNA.
0:26:21 > 0:26:24That insulin is just fuel.
0:26:24 > 0:26:26- It's basically food.- Right. - And the way I describe it...
0:26:26 > 0:26:29The final question I'll say Nicky, is the way I described it
0:26:29 > 0:26:31to myself at the time was that, if I eat a chicken s...
0:26:31 > 0:26:35- If I eat a chicken sandwich, that doesn't make me a chicken.- Mm.
0:26:35 > 0:26:38It's food. If I have gene editing,
0:26:38 > 0:26:41that could make me closer to being a chicken.
0:26:41 > 0:26:43Fascinating. Thank you.
0:26:43 > 0:26:45APPLAUSE
0:26:47 > 0:26:51- Ruth.- Yeah.- I'm going to chuck you the ball.- Yeah.
0:26:51 > 0:26:53Where do we draw the line here?
0:26:53 > 0:26:56Would you have objections if those stem cells had come from elsewhere?
0:26:56 > 0:26:58Would you draw a moral line?
0:26:58 > 0:27:01I think the thing about Stephen's story that really struck me was that
0:27:01 > 0:27:05if we weren't doing the scientific research,
0:27:05 > 0:27:09we wouldn't have been able to give you your own stem cells.
0:27:09 > 0:27:13I'm actually... I know Basil quite well.
0:27:13 > 0:27:16- It doesn't surprise me at all that it was him that was involved.- Yeah.
0:27:16 > 0:27:18These doctors, they all know each other.
0:27:18 > 0:27:21And John Stone, let's just put a word in for John Stone as well.
0:27:21 > 0:27:24- Yep.- So, we need to do the research. - We need to do the research.
0:27:24 > 0:27:27We need to find these things out, because, otherwise,
0:27:27 > 0:27:30Stephen would have been stuck, paralysed, unable to move,
0:27:30 > 0:27:33and perhaps may not have had the same positive view.
0:27:33 > 0:27:36- But Stephen was cured with his own stem cells...- Yeah.
0:27:36 > 0:27:39- ..and I have no moral objection... - Yeah.
0:27:39 > 0:27:40OK, wait, wait.
0:27:40 > 0:27:42Where would your moral objection come in?
0:27:42 > 0:27:46But they would come in with the use of embryonic stem cells.
0:27:46 > 0:27:48- And I think that that...- The foetus.
0:27:49 > 0:27:51- From a foetus or an embryo.- Right.
0:27:51 > 0:27:54Because I would view that as being
0:27:54 > 0:27:57destructive research on a member
0:27:57 > 0:27:58of our own species.
0:27:58 > 0:28:01And it's quite interesting that, at the beginning,
0:28:01 > 0:28:06when legalisation for stem cell therapy was being mooted,
0:28:06 > 0:28:09embryonic stem cells were touted as being
0:28:09 > 0:28:12the sort of crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.
0:28:12 > 0:28:14I don't think there is still any, is there,
0:28:14 > 0:28:19confirmed therapy that's come from the use of embryonic stem cells,
0:28:19 > 0:28:21and all of the therapies have still come from adult stem cells.
0:28:21 > 0:28:24Ruth, come back on that. Stem cells from another member
0:28:24 > 0:28:27- of our own species...- Yeah.
0:28:27 > 0:28:31I really think that this discussion of embryos as
0:28:31 > 0:28:33something...
0:28:35 > 0:28:38Embryos are special, I'll absolutely concede that,
0:28:38 > 0:28:40but when we talk about them in this way,
0:28:40 > 0:28:44we're talking about them in relation to their potential.
0:28:44 > 0:28:47Embryos that are being researched on have no potential, at the moment,
0:28:47 > 0:28:48to get beyond 14 days.
0:28:48 > 0:28:51- Yeah.- There is no... There's no person there.
0:28:51 > 0:28:53It's a collection of cells, and it...
0:28:53 > 0:28:55- There's a religious divide here. - There is...yeah.
0:28:55 > 0:28:57- Trevor comes from a faith point. - Yeah.
0:28:57 > 0:28:59I don't think that's true, the religion side.
0:28:59 > 0:29:03- Actually, religion's very...- Well, yeah, so, Rabbi Laura, yeah.
0:29:03 > 0:29:06I mean, Trevor, your views are informed by your faith.
0:29:06 > 0:29:09They are informed by my faith, and I mean, for a Christian,
0:29:09 > 0:29:13Jesus Christ is the most important person in the universe and, in fact,
0:29:13 > 0:29:15we believe he created the universe.
0:29:15 > 0:29:21And millions of people celebrate his birth every year.
0:29:21 > 0:29:24And before that birth, he was an embryo.
0:29:24 > 0:29:27And so, obviously, aside from
0:29:27 > 0:29:29my convictions as a human being,
0:29:29 > 0:29:31even if I were an atheist,
0:29:31 > 0:29:34I would have real concerns about experimentation
0:29:34 > 0:29:35on one of my own species.
0:29:35 > 0:29:38THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER
0:29:38 > 0:29:40Rabbi Laura, in a second. Wait, Rabbi Laura in a second.
0:29:40 > 0:29:42A quick response from Ruth on that.
0:29:42 > 0:29:47We do experimentation on members of our own species all the time.
0:29:47 > 0:29:49- APPLAUSE - All the time.
0:29:49 > 0:29:51Not for non-therapeutic benefit.
0:29:51 > 0:29:54- This is totally of no benefit to the embryo.- No, no.
0:29:54 > 0:29:58There is a huge amount of non-therapeutic research done
0:29:58 > 0:30:02on human beings, all over the world, all of the time.
0:30:02 > 0:30:05- Yeah.- I would draw a distinction between therapeutic...
0:30:05 > 0:30:08No, Rabbi Laura has not spoken yet. LAUGHTER
0:30:08 > 0:30:09- It's quite unusual!- Rabbi Laura,
0:30:09 > 0:30:12somebody who does not celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.
0:30:12 > 0:30:15No, and I wanted to say, it does say that Jesus gave his life so that
0:30:15 > 0:30:17others could live, so that's interesting.
0:30:17 > 0:30:19Rabbi Laura, Rabbi Laura, right.
0:30:19 > 0:30:20APPLAUSE
0:30:20 > 0:30:23- OK. Yeah.- But it was his choice, and he gave his consent.
0:30:23 > 0:30:25I don't think he had a choice to be crucified.
0:30:25 > 0:30:26Theology! Theology!
0:30:26 > 0:30:29- You've got an -ology!- Yeah, well...- OK, right.
0:30:29 > 0:30:32Let me ask you. Rabbi Laura, Rabbi Laura.
0:30:32 > 0:30:35Right, let's get back to the Scriptures, if we will.
0:30:35 > 0:30:38The people who wrote the Scriptures. They did not know about this stuff.
0:30:38 > 0:30:41It might not have been people who wrote the Scriptures, by the way.
0:30:41 > 0:30:43- But it might have been, but it might not have been.- Yes.
0:30:43 > 0:30:46- OK, we've been there before. - Yes, we have been there before!
0:30:46 > 0:30:49OK, the people who read the Scriptures didn't know about,
0:30:49 > 0:30:52not know about this stuff, they would never have conceived that we
0:30:52 > 0:30:54would be getting to where we're getting now.
0:30:54 > 0:30:55It's not in the rule book.
0:30:55 > 0:30:58So, what is in the rule book, from the point of view of Jews,
0:30:58 > 0:31:02is a very permissive attitude to this, that we are partners with God
0:31:02 > 0:31:04in developing people and making health better.
0:31:05 > 0:31:09When we talk about genetics or stem cells, I call that medicine.
0:31:09 > 0:31:12And it is a wonderful thing, and it enables us to live longer,
0:31:12 > 0:31:14and when we talk about disability,
0:31:14 > 0:31:16we also haven't mentioned the "pain" word.
0:31:16 > 0:31:20How much pain and humiliation it can be for people who don't have
0:31:20 > 0:31:23the possibility... So, when you talked about your stem cell,
0:31:23 > 0:31:24which is absolutely fantastic.
0:31:24 > 0:31:28One of my closest friends is going through the same thing at the moment
0:31:28 > 0:31:31and I speak to her every day, and she is coming back to life,
0:31:31 > 0:31:33and the only thing I can think of is,
0:31:33 > 0:31:36thank God that we have the capacity
0:31:36 > 0:31:40to work together to move the boundaries forward.
0:31:46 > 0:31:49- Where's your question?- Hmm. LAUGHTER
0:31:49 > 0:31:52No, no. You've just completely floored me.
0:31:52 > 0:31:53Thanks.
0:31:53 > 0:31:56As ever. So, it...
0:31:56 > 0:31:58- Go on.- If I was drawing on the Christian tradition,
0:31:58 > 0:32:01I would take the parable of the good steward,
0:32:01 > 0:32:04and the person who sits tight and does nothing with the resources
0:32:04 > 0:32:06is cast into outer darkness.
0:32:06 > 0:32:08So, I think our religious responsibility is to try
0:32:08 > 0:32:10- and make the most of what we can. - To save lives.- Absolutely.
0:32:10 > 0:32:13So, I think there's a difference between therapeutic benefit,
0:32:13 > 0:32:15which we can't yet establish, and therapeutic intent,
0:32:15 > 0:32:17which is what we're trying to achieve.
0:32:17 > 0:32:20Let's see what the audience think about this. We've got some...
0:32:20 > 0:32:23some really engaged expressions,
0:32:23 > 0:32:25and we've got some quizzical faces as well.
0:32:25 > 0:32:27One of which is mine. LAUGHTER
0:32:27 > 0:32:30- Yeah, what would you like to say? - I have to agree with the Rabbi,
0:32:30 > 0:32:34and I wish all religious people would look on science and medicine
0:32:34 > 0:32:36in the same way. It is for the benefit of humans.
0:32:36 > 0:32:39APPLAUSE There are some more hands up.
0:32:39 > 0:32:42- Yeah, the lady there in the black, yeah.- I'm from the Sikh faith,
0:32:42 > 0:32:45and in our faith, we believe in leaving our hair
0:32:45 > 0:32:47and our body intact,
0:32:47 > 0:32:50the way that we are born.
0:32:50 > 0:32:54I think it's a slippery slope, because what I'm seeing is,
0:32:54 > 0:32:58we haven't had treatment for cancer and many other illnesses,
0:32:58 > 0:33:01we've had medicine, and now we're talking about genetic engineering.
0:33:01 > 0:33:04I'm just thinking whether we're going to create even more problems
0:33:04 > 0:33:07for ourselves from the side effects of medicine
0:33:07 > 0:33:10and genetic engineering and all these new things
0:33:10 > 0:33:13that are coming out, rather than just staying the way
0:33:13 > 0:33:15- nature intended us to stay. - How nature, what... Ah,
0:33:15 > 0:33:17how nature intended.
0:33:17 > 0:33:20- There's an interesting phrase, Rabbi Laura.- How do we know that?
0:33:20 > 0:33:21How do we know...?
0:33:21 > 0:33:24I believe that we are continually
0:33:24 > 0:33:27made, wired, to grow and be curious
0:33:27 > 0:33:30and try and fix things and try and grow things,
0:33:30 > 0:33:33and that's how I believe nature intended us,
0:33:33 > 0:33:36to leave the Garden of Eden to move to the next age,
0:33:36 > 0:33:40to continually grow. You talked about having contact lenses.
0:33:40 > 0:33:41I don't think that's the right analogy.
0:33:41 > 0:33:43I think it's about laser treatment.
0:33:43 > 0:33:47Can you actually change the way that we are so we can see the world
0:33:47 > 0:33:50better? And I would say that is how, from my point of view,
0:33:50 > 0:33:53- God intended it.- I'm going to come in a second to somebody who wants
0:33:53 > 0:33:56to see a much better... Well, we all want to see a much better world...
0:33:56 > 0:33:59- Yes.- ..it's the transhumanist angle on things.
0:33:59 > 0:34:01Keith? We haven't heard from you yet.
0:34:01 > 0:34:05Actually, what an interesting and vexing and perplexing area this is.
0:34:05 > 0:34:09And it's interesting hearing the different perspectives of the Jewish
0:34:09 > 0:34:11faith, as expressed by Rabbi Laura,
0:34:11 > 0:34:13and the Christian faith as expressed by Doctor Stammers.
0:34:13 > 0:34:16- Where are you on this?- There's a variety of opinion even within the
0:34:16 > 0:34:19Christian faith, so I understand a lot of what Trevor has said.
0:34:19 > 0:34:22- Yeah.- I have less reservations about
0:34:22 > 0:34:25the use of stem cells than he would have.
0:34:25 > 0:34:28I am concerned about the origin of those stem cells.
0:34:28 > 0:34:30If they come from aborted foetuses,
0:34:30 > 0:34:32then I think there is an issue to be asked about.
0:34:32 > 0:34:35Tell me more about that issue, the issue you have with that?
0:34:35 > 0:34:37Well, it touches, actually, the issue of abortion.
0:34:37 > 0:34:40If the stem cell has come from something that's cultured
0:34:40 > 0:34:44in the laboratory, under culture conditions,
0:34:44 > 0:34:49then it is actually remote from the possibility of being an individual.
0:34:49 > 0:34:52If it's come from a foetus that happens to be aborted,
0:34:52 > 0:34:55you've had to give a life in order to be able to save a life.
0:34:55 > 0:34:57But I would say, within the Christian tradition,
0:34:57 > 0:35:00there's always been that emphasis on healing,
0:35:00 > 0:35:03on care for the disadvantaged,
0:35:03 > 0:35:06which is the other side of that as well,
0:35:06 > 0:35:08and this is, if you like, if used properly,
0:35:08 > 0:35:12is another form of healing.
0:35:12 > 0:35:14That's very dependent on our knowledge of the science
0:35:14 > 0:35:17and the technology. It has to be applied properly
0:35:17 > 0:35:20and sensitively, with full debate within that,
0:35:20 > 0:35:23but if used properly, it's a healing.
0:35:23 > 0:35:27But there is a fine line between a healing process
0:35:27 > 0:35:30and enhancement that starts to ask questions about,
0:35:30 > 0:35:33who are we? What do we...?
0:35:33 > 0:35:37How do we care for those who are disabled or disadvantaged?
0:35:37 > 0:35:39What is it that makes me, me?
0:35:39 > 0:35:43- And that's far more than just the DNA that I'm made of.- Mm.
0:35:43 > 0:35:44Transhumanism.
0:35:44 > 0:35:46What is it?
0:35:46 > 0:35:50Transhumanism says that what we have inherited from nature, or from our
0:35:50 > 0:35:53evolution, is far from being the end point,
0:35:53 > 0:35:55and even a desirable end point.
0:35:55 > 0:35:56What does nature want for us?
0:35:56 > 0:36:01Well, nature serves up disease and decay and death and all kinds of
0:36:01 > 0:36:02destitution and problems.
0:36:02 > 0:36:05And thank goodness humans have had the intelligence
0:36:05 > 0:36:08and the culture and, indeed, often the guidance from religious leaders,
0:36:08 > 0:36:11and other cultural leaders, to try and progress out
0:36:11 > 0:36:14- of that natural state. - How do we do that?
0:36:14 > 0:36:17Well, we can take advantage of what science and technology is putting
0:36:17 > 0:36:20at our disposal. We have to do it wisely.
0:36:20 > 0:36:23Of course there are risks, of course we've got to be careful.
0:36:23 > 0:36:26Can we genetically manipulate ourselves to be more creative,
0:36:26 > 0:36:28more intelligent, nicer?
0:36:28 > 0:36:30Less xenophobic, less racist?
0:36:30 > 0:36:33- Do you believe that can happen?- I think these things are all possible.
0:36:33 > 0:36:36- How?- I'm not saying that the genes are the only way to enhance us,
0:36:36 > 0:36:39but as we understand genes more fully -
0:36:39 > 0:36:42and we're still at a comparatively early stage
0:36:42 > 0:36:44of how all the connections fit together -
0:36:44 > 0:36:46there may well be things we can do with our genes to improve
0:36:46 > 0:36:50aspects of our nature. Some people say, "Oh, it's too complicated,
0:36:50 > 0:36:53"you'll never get a single gene that has a single impact,
0:36:53 > 0:36:55"all these things work in great combinations."
0:36:55 > 0:36:57Well, frankly, people said for a long time
0:36:57 > 0:36:59you couldn't have a genetic manipulation
0:36:59 > 0:37:01that would extend lifespan,
0:37:01 > 0:37:04because there were hundreds of genes affecting lifespan,
0:37:04 > 0:37:08then a few decades ago, people found single genetic modifications
0:37:08 > 0:37:12in fairly simple organisms, worms, that extended their life twofold.
0:37:12 > 0:37:14And then another modification more recently,
0:37:14 > 0:37:17a single genetic modification extended their life tenfold.
0:37:17 > 0:37:20- So I think we should keep an open mind as to what's possible.- Mm.
0:37:20 > 0:37:24In terms of the attitude towards what the religious holy books say,
0:37:24 > 0:37:26- I think there's a...- Oh, come on.
0:37:26 > 0:37:30The rule book, as it were, can be read in two ways, often.
0:37:30 > 0:37:32It can be read in many ways. Allow me to move on to...
0:37:32 > 0:37:35I'll come back to you, that was interesting.
0:37:35 > 0:37:39Let me move on to genetically modified crops, if I may.
0:37:41 > 0:37:45Tony Juniper, environmentalist, what's your problem with GMO?
0:37:45 > 0:37:49We have very strict regulations in this country about GMO.
0:37:49 > 0:37:51We do. My principal scepticism
0:37:51 > 0:37:54around genetically modified crops is the extent to which
0:37:54 > 0:37:57they're not actually addressing the main problems that
0:37:57 > 0:38:00face agriculture at the beginning of the 21st century.
0:38:00 > 0:38:04We have major problems of soil damage going on across the world,
0:38:04 > 0:38:06caused by intensive agriculture.
0:38:06 > 0:38:09We have the impact of climate change being caused by the build-up of
0:38:09 > 0:38:11greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
0:38:11 > 0:38:14and we have farmers who are not trained to be able to use the land
0:38:14 > 0:38:15in sustainable ways.
0:38:15 > 0:38:18All of these things are not going to be amenable to being addressed by
0:38:18 > 0:38:21- the silver bullet of...- So, is this the way to feed the world?
0:38:21 > 0:38:24- This isn't the way to feed the world.- No, it's not the way to feed
0:38:24 > 0:38:27the world. And if you look at some of the rhetoric that was there
0:38:27 > 0:38:29in the late 1990s, from some of the big GMO companies,
0:38:29 > 0:38:32about how we were going to lift up food production to feed everybody,
0:38:32 > 0:38:35you look at the crops that we actually have developed,
0:38:35 > 0:38:38they are mostly herbicide tolerant and insect resistant crops, that are
0:38:38 > 0:38:42mostly being used to supply grain for factory farming, for pigs,
0:38:42 > 0:38:46chickens and cattle, and being used for biofuels.
0:38:46 > 0:38:49And at the same time as we've invested an enormous amount
0:38:49 > 0:38:50of effort into these technologies,
0:38:50 > 0:38:53we're finding that they're beginning to wear out.
0:38:53 > 0:38:55So, 20 years ago when I worked at Friends of the Earth,
0:38:55 > 0:38:57we said, down the road, very likely,
0:38:57 > 0:39:01these transgenic crops that are being used with herbicide,
0:39:01 > 0:39:02very powerful herbicides,
0:39:02 > 0:39:04they're not going to work,
0:39:04 > 0:39:07because nature's very flexible and the weeds will evolve
0:39:07 > 0:39:10resistance to the herbicides. That's exactly what's happened.
0:39:10 > 0:39:13We have superweeds now growing in landscapes in North America.
0:39:13 > 0:39:15We're putting more and more pesticides on,
0:39:15 > 0:39:19causing more soil damage, and damage to microbes and creatures
0:39:19 > 0:39:20in the ground.
0:39:20 > 0:39:23What we need to do is to understand that agriculture is part
0:39:23 > 0:39:27of a set of natural functioning ecosystems, and we have to protect,
0:39:27 > 0:39:29preserve and enhance those,
0:39:29 > 0:39:31rather than chucking more and more technology at it,
0:39:31 > 0:39:34which experience shows us is actually making things worse
0:39:34 > 0:39:37as we go along. And, actually, on this thing about food security,
0:39:37 > 0:39:41and whether we've got enough food in the world, there was some research
0:39:41 > 0:39:43published recently, telling us that if we didn't go down
0:39:43 > 0:39:46the factory farming route so forcefully,
0:39:46 > 0:39:48we've got enough food to feed about 14 billion people.
0:39:48 > 0:39:50This is not about feeding people,
0:39:50 > 0:39:53it's about patenting genes in order for very powerful agrochemical
0:39:53 > 0:39:56companies to make much more money. That's what it's all about.
0:39:56 > 0:39:59APPLAUSE
0:40:02 > 0:40:05And your point about ecosystems is... A WOMAN INTERRUPTS
0:40:05 > 0:40:06One second, please.
0:40:06 > 0:40:10I'll come to you in a second, I was just going to stay with Tony.
0:40:10 > 0:40:12Your point about ecosystems is really interesting,
0:40:12 > 0:40:15because we are yet in the foothills of understanding...
0:40:15 > 0:40:18- Yes.- ..how those ecosystems work. - Exactly.
0:40:18 > 0:40:21We see that we're in the midst of the sixth great extinction...
0:40:21 > 0:40:23- Yes.- ..of wonderful animals.
0:40:23 > 0:40:26- Yes.- But, you know,
0:40:26 > 0:40:29do you think this is a kind of madness that we've been gripped by?
0:40:29 > 0:40:32Because you can understand people's motivations on this,
0:40:32 > 0:40:35apart from the big companies. But you've got to understand,
0:40:35 > 0:40:38people think, "Well, this could be a way, actually, to deliver
0:40:38 > 0:40:40"food to a lot of people."
0:40:40 > 0:40:43That may be the stated motivation,
0:40:43 > 0:40:46but if you look at what's going on on the ground, and the plight faced,
0:40:46 > 0:40:48especially by poor farmers in tropical countries,
0:40:48 > 0:40:51remote from markets, it's not an absence of GMO technologies
0:40:51 > 0:40:54that they are wanting for. They need somewhere to be able to
0:40:54 > 0:40:57dry their cocoa beans and coffee beans, somewhere to be able to store
0:40:57 > 0:40:59them and some way of getting them to market.
0:40:59 > 0:41:01These are the kinds of problems they face.
0:41:01 > 0:41:04They don't know enough about how to maintain soil health,
0:41:04 > 0:41:07and the fertility of the ground is going down.
0:41:07 > 0:41:09They could be getting assistance to be helping with that.
0:41:09 > 0:41:14And so it just seems to me that by looking so strongly towards the GMO
0:41:14 > 0:41:16route, towards global sustainable agriculture,
0:41:16 > 0:41:17we're looking in the wrong direction.
0:41:17 > 0:41:21- But there could be positives to it. People talk about...- Yeah, well...
0:41:21 > 0:41:24..malaria. Mosquitoes and malaria, and having mosquito...
0:41:24 > 0:41:26- Yes, but...- Malaria-free mosquitoes.
0:41:26 > 0:41:28That's not an agricultural technology. We're not going to
0:41:28 > 0:41:30eat the mosquitoes, I wouldn't have thought.
0:41:30 > 0:41:32You'd need an awful lot of them to make a decent meal.
0:41:32 > 0:41:34- Birds eat mosquitoes.- Well, exactly.
0:41:34 > 0:41:37And so if you start going down these kinds of routes
0:41:37 > 0:41:40without understanding the full set of implications,
0:41:40 > 0:41:43especially when you're doing it with things that are in nature,
0:41:43 > 0:41:46I think there's a completely different set of questions
0:41:46 > 0:41:49around lab-based technologies being developed for human betterment,
0:41:49 > 0:41:52compared to those that are being released into the environment.
0:41:52 > 0:41:55And one of the things that we... No, it's not. You don't release...
0:41:55 > 0:41:58So, lady there, you're quite animated. What are you...?
0:41:58 > 0:42:03Yeah. I mean, I completely agree with what Tony Juniper's saying,
0:42:03 > 0:42:07but where I think I might come onto disagreeing with him,
0:42:07 > 0:42:09is I don't think that there's a huge difference
0:42:09 > 0:42:13between mucking about with
0:42:13 > 0:42:17things we don't understand, when they're out in the field,
0:42:17 > 0:42:18and when they're in human beings.
0:42:18 > 0:42:21We've moved on from that just slightly...
0:42:21 > 0:42:23No, no, but it's extremely important.
0:42:23 > 0:42:27I mean, you started this programme by the woman saying...
0:42:27 > 0:42:31- Ecosystems, yeah.- ..you know, saying about, well, human, you know...
0:42:31 > 0:42:33we'll only have sexual equality,
0:42:33 > 0:42:38gender equality, when babies are born completely outside the body.
0:42:38 > 0:42:41Well, you know, I'm a lifelong feminist,
0:42:41 > 0:42:43and I think this is complete rubbish.
0:42:43 > 0:42:46And the reason that I think it's complete rubbish is because
0:42:46 > 0:42:51whenever you look at any particular thing that has happened,
0:42:51 > 0:42:54you know, that's scientific interventions -
0:42:54 > 0:42:56I'm not anti-science,
0:42:56 > 0:42:58but I am against this kind of idea
0:42:58 > 0:43:02that, somehow, the way you solve these problems
0:43:02 > 0:43:06is by introducing necessarily scientific solutions,
0:43:06 > 0:43:08instead of human solutions.
0:43:08 > 0:43:12So, why don't we have a society where men do 50% of the
0:43:12 > 0:43:15- childcare, and 50% of the domestic work?- Well, that's another debate.
0:43:15 > 0:43:18- That would be...- That's another debate.- No, but...
0:43:18 > 0:43:21- Yeah, that's another debate. - It wouldn't be destroying...
0:43:21 > 0:43:24It's one we've had before and one we'll no doubt have again.
0:43:24 > 0:43:28- I'd like to move on to...- There's a point that's very pertinent here...
0:43:28 > 0:43:31- Please.- If contraception was... - No, no, please.
0:43:32 > 0:43:35- I like that power.- The perception was that technology...
0:43:35 > 0:43:38No, I want to move onto xenotransplantation.
0:43:38 > 0:43:39It's very important that we do that,
0:43:39 > 0:43:42- and I will give you a chance to come back.- Thank you.
0:43:42 > 0:43:45With the scientific knowledge that we have
0:43:45 > 0:43:49of the possibilities of xenotransplantation -
0:43:49 > 0:43:52this is growing organs in pigs - I mean, obviously there are...
0:43:52 > 0:43:55Nobody would for a second suggest that we use self-aware animals
0:43:55 > 0:43:57like the great apes for this.
0:43:57 > 0:44:02There's a massive debate around pigs now, you know, for ethical reasons.
0:44:02 > 0:44:05But you think there are some very exciting possibilities here,
0:44:05 > 0:44:08that are actually animal friendly.
0:44:08 > 0:44:11- Yeah. Well, if you could... - You were telling me earlier on.
0:44:11 > 0:44:12- I was.- Create animals without brains.
0:44:12 > 0:44:14If you were to use xenotransplantation
0:44:14 > 0:44:17to create animals without brains,
0:44:17 > 0:44:21then you can grow organs which could be transplanted into humans.
0:44:21 > 0:44:24We would solve the organ crisis, the organ shortage.
0:44:24 > 0:44:27But I think there are other ways to solve the organ shortage.
0:44:27 > 0:44:31I mean, on this point, I'm usually pro-science, and
0:44:31 > 0:44:33that's always exciting, but I think there are other ways...
0:44:33 > 0:44:35- Can I hear from Ruth?- Yeah. Sorry.
0:44:35 > 0:44:39Do you ever get the feeling you've lost control? Ruth.
0:44:39 > 0:44:44So, the no brains, because there would be no pain, no consciousness,
0:44:44 > 0:44:47so you'd be farming organs.
0:44:47 > 0:44:50And using...animal,
0:44:50 > 0:44:52animal material to do it.
0:44:52 > 0:44:54Animals without sentience?
0:44:54 > 0:44:58Animals without sentience, without consciousness, without feeling.
0:44:58 > 0:45:00This would be interesting, Rabbi Laura,
0:45:00 > 0:45:03because you might be able to move to a situation that you could have
0:45:03 > 0:45:06animal experiments, that I think everybody wants to move away from,
0:45:06 > 0:45:09without actually using animals with sentience, or using stem cells.
0:45:09 > 0:45:12There'd be quite exciting possibilities here in terms of animal welfare.
0:45:12 > 0:45:15So, with all of these, my question is one of dignity,
0:45:15 > 0:45:17and doing what you said, reasonable.
0:45:17 > 0:45:19So, I don't know the medical answer because I'm a rabbi,
0:45:19 > 0:45:22and I really don't know what I'm talking about from the point of view
0:45:22 > 0:45:25of science. I can only try and bring some moral,
0:45:25 > 0:45:29religious prism, through which to see this.
0:45:29 > 0:45:32So, I wonder what gives more dignity?
0:45:32 > 0:45:33When you talked about GM crops,
0:45:33 > 0:45:36my question is not whether it works or not,
0:45:36 > 0:45:39but what is the social justice issue underneath it?
0:45:39 > 0:45:41The question is food poverty.
0:45:41 > 0:45:43What drives food poverty?
0:45:43 > 0:45:45What drives pain?
0:45:45 > 0:45:48And you can start like that with the overriding questions,
0:45:48 > 0:45:50and then you move forward with dignity,
0:45:50 > 0:45:53in order to enhance all life,
0:45:53 > 0:45:56gently, slowly and reasonably.
0:45:56 > 0:45:58- Yeah.- Yes. When it comes to food poverty, you know,
0:45:58 > 0:46:00in the world today,
0:46:00 > 0:46:03it's low incomes and political instability that are the problem.
0:46:03 > 0:46:05Not the absence of someone genetically modifying soya beans,
0:46:05 > 0:46:08or whatever else it happens to be.
0:46:08 > 0:46:11Are you excited by the possibility of maybe having... APPLAUSE
0:46:11 > 0:46:14As a man, as a man who cares about the environment,
0:46:14 > 0:46:16as a man who really deeply cares about animals,
0:46:16 > 0:46:19are you excited by the possibility of having, for example,
0:46:19 > 0:46:22experiments that do not abuse animals?
0:46:22 > 0:46:27Yes, the animal welfare side of this is huge on the xenotransplantation
0:46:27 > 0:46:30side. I've not studied this idea of going to animals
0:46:30 > 0:46:33that don't have a central nervous system.
0:46:33 > 0:46:35But I think as we,
0:46:35 > 0:46:40especially if we can deal with the in-built inequality of all this,
0:46:40 > 0:46:43this is a leap medicine we're talking about here at the moment.
0:46:43 > 0:46:46And if it does get to scale, then we're going to need an awful
0:46:46 > 0:46:48lot of organs to be able to cope with demand.
0:46:48 > 0:46:51And at that point, you know, do you want massive factory farms
0:46:51 > 0:46:54full of animals that are being used to grow human organs,
0:46:54 > 0:46:57or would you like to find some other way of doing that?
0:46:57 > 0:47:00- And...- There are other ways. - Well, hang on - yes, go on.
0:47:00 > 0:47:03Can I draw the discussion back to the use of stem cells?
0:47:03 > 0:47:06Because an area of stem cell work that people haven't discussed here
0:47:06 > 0:47:11today is the use of such material as an alternative to animal testing,
0:47:11 > 0:47:14so you could use stem cells and test drugs.
0:47:14 > 0:47:17You could use stem cells to test nutrition.
0:47:17 > 0:47:20Stem cells could be used instead of animal testing.
0:47:20 > 0:47:22I mean, that sounds like progress, doesn't it?
0:47:22 > 0:47:25I can't think of anyone in this room who would think that's a bad thing.
0:47:25 > 0:47:26Yeah.
0:47:26 > 0:47:28APPLAUSE
0:47:28 > 0:47:30Jonathan. I haven't heard from you for a while.
0:47:30 > 0:47:33So, I think we're mixing up time frames.
0:47:33 > 0:47:35Well, we've only got an hour, we've got to do that!
0:47:35 > 0:47:38- If we're asking what are the priorities...- We're looking ahead.
0:47:38 > 0:47:40We're looking at what the possibilities...
0:47:40 > 0:47:44Our priorities now, I completely agree, GM crops not a priority now,
0:47:44 > 0:47:46there are things we can do much more efficiently to deal with things.
0:47:46 > 0:47:50- I think I would take the same on the xenotransplant of organs.- Yeah.
0:47:50 > 0:47:53But we also need to be investing in understanding the future.
0:47:53 > 0:47:57So, a small amount of exploration of those things.
0:47:57 > 0:48:01I think the biggest worry I have about the anxieties that we express
0:48:01 > 0:48:05sometimes in this country about GM crops, and also possibly about gene
0:48:05 > 0:48:07editing, is it won't stop it happening,
0:48:07 > 0:48:10it will drive it out of proper scientific endeavour.
0:48:10 > 0:48:13So our big advantage here is that we can regulate well so that we learn
0:48:13 > 0:48:15and make sure that we find what happens.
0:48:15 > 0:48:17This is not yet about doing things at scale,
0:48:17 > 0:48:21and we have the credential question, would we ever want to do it at scale?
0:48:21 > 0:48:22Not if there are better alternatives.
0:48:22 > 0:48:25But it's quite right we put a bit of effort into finding out.
0:48:25 > 0:48:29David. We're regulating but, of course, in other parts of the world,
0:48:29 > 0:48:33they might not be regulating quite so stringently.
0:48:33 > 0:48:36Indeed, and we saw this very recently with the
0:48:36 > 0:48:38three-parent IVF business,
0:48:38 > 0:48:42that the very first thing that happened was...
0:48:42 > 0:48:45Yes, you know, long regulatory process in this country,
0:48:45 > 0:48:47I may say, actually,
0:48:47 > 0:48:51I think the regulatory process in this country is rubbish, actually.
0:48:51 > 0:48:53But leave that aside. I'll give you a...
0:48:53 > 0:48:54That's a very strange viewpoint.
0:48:54 > 0:48:57I will give you, I can give you a list of examples as long as your arm
0:48:57 > 0:48:59that the regulator in this country
0:48:59 > 0:49:02is basically an approval facilitator, not a regulator.
0:49:02 > 0:49:04- Anyway.- It's taken a long, long time to reach its conclusions.
0:49:04 > 0:49:08The key point, though, is that as soon as that technology, you know,
0:49:08 > 0:49:10got to the point where it was feasible...
0:49:10 > 0:49:15So, one scientist took it and went to Mexico and he said specifically,
0:49:15 > 0:49:17we're doing this because there's no regulations.
0:49:17 > 0:49:20And then another set of scientists in the Ukraine
0:49:20 > 0:49:21immediately went not to
0:49:21 > 0:49:24the mitochondrial diseases that it was supposed to be for,
0:49:24 > 0:49:27but for the mainstream IVF market.
0:49:27 > 0:49:28Why did they do that?
0:49:28 > 0:49:30Very simple. That's where the money is to be made.
0:49:30 > 0:49:34And that, coming back to the genetic engineering issue,
0:49:34 > 0:49:36is the real problem.
0:49:36 > 0:49:38What genetic engineering of human beings can do
0:49:38 > 0:49:42that other technologies can't is this so-called enhancement thing,
0:49:42 > 0:49:44and that is where the market will be.
0:49:44 > 0:49:48- David, the enhancement thing?- Yes, I'm in favour of enhancement.- Yes!
0:49:48 > 0:49:50I think it's been very important throughout history that we have
0:49:50 > 0:49:53enhanced ourselves, that people moved away from a situation
0:49:53 > 0:49:55in which most women were
0:49:55 > 0:49:57pregnant most of their time to raising up children.
0:49:57 > 0:49:59And they have the ability...
0:49:59 > 0:50:01I think we saw in the 21st century where that politics...
0:50:01 > 0:50:04THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER
0:50:04 > 0:50:07We need a thoughtful debate,
0:50:07 > 0:50:11not dominated by medieval philosophies.
0:50:11 > 0:50:13We need a thoughtful debate on what the possibilities are.
0:50:13 > 0:50:15And we can do much better as humans.
0:50:15 > 0:50:18We can free ourselves of some of our bigotry and prejudices...
0:50:18 > 0:50:21- And that is what it is.- We can free ourselves from our stupidity...
0:50:21 > 0:50:23That is what they thought of in the United States...
0:50:23 > 0:50:25We can stop arguing!
0:50:25 > 0:50:27I see a future.
0:50:27 > 0:50:29APPLAUSE
0:50:29 > 0:50:31Are you excited by...
0:50:31 > 0:50:33A lot of people pay a lot of good money for this.
0:50:33 > 0:50:37Jackie, I'll come to you in a second, I see you want to come in.
0:50:37 > 0:50:40A lot of people pay a lot of good money for this, cryogenics,
0:50:40 > 0:50:43- having their bodies frozen. - Yeah.- Are you excited by that?
0:50:43 > 0:50:46I think we're going to look back in just a few decades at the present
0:50:46 > 0:50:48situation and we're going to be horrified
0:50:48 > 0:50:51at our current bad practice. Which is when people die,
0:50:51 > 0:50:54but their brains basically are still in good shape, what do we do?
0:50:54 > 0:50:57We put them in the ground, they get eaten by worms,
0:50:57 > 0:50:59or we incinerate them. Whereas we could preserve them,
0:50:59 > 0:51:02and with future technology,
0:51:02 > 0:51:05we'll be able to reanimate them. And we will be horrified, as I say.
0:51:05 > 0:51:07The same way as we are horrified of many of the things of the past.
0:51:07 > 0:51:10Now, I'm hearing a lot of future shock in the audience.
0:51:10 > 0:51:13Our first instincts often on these things mislead us.
0:51:13 > 0:51:15We say "yuck". For example, the first time there was talk about
0:51:15 > 0:51:19having a heart transplant, people said "Oh, yuck, that's a horrible
0:51:19 > 0:51:22- "thing, that's Frankenstein." - You think this will happen?
0:51:22 > 0:51:24Some people can't afford the full body to be frozen,
0:51:24 > 0:51:26they're just having their heads frozen. Some people are paying
0:51:26 > 0:51:29- the money to have their whole body frozen.- Yes.- Would you go with
0:51:29 > 0:51:32- the head or the whole body?- Well, I think I would go for the whole body.
0:51:32 > 0:51:35But the key thing is to bring the price down, so that it's much more
0:51:35 > 0:51:37- widely affordable.- It's very expensive at the moment?
0:51:37 > 0:51:39- It's expensive...- Why would you want to come back, though?
0:51:39 > 0:51:42Well, I believe in life. If somebody has an accident, and they have a
0:51:42 > 0:51:44heart attack and they fall down you don't say,
0:51:44 > 0:51:47"Well, that's the end of their life, too bad".
0:51:47 > 0:51:50And if their loved one says, "Let's reanimate them",
0:51:50 > 0:51:52we don't say, "You're selfish for wanting them to live on".
0:51:52 > 0:51:55So cryonics is about giving somebody a chance to have more life.
0:51:55 > 0:51:58It's about giving their loved ones a chance to continue
0:51:58 > 0:52:01- their experience with them.- I've got to take a photograph of you three.
0:52:01 > 0:52:04Right, now, your expressions are...
0:52:04 > 0:52:06I wish I had my phone!
0:52:06 > 0:52:08I wish I had my phone. Victoria, yeah.
0:52:08 > 0:52:10Bring the price down? That is absolutely ridiculous.
0:52:10 > 0:52:13It's about making it even a feasible reality.
0:52:13 > 0:52:17Charging people for something that is a complete fantasy is outrageous.
0:52:17 > 0:52:21There needs to be some cost, because there is quite a difficult procedure
0:52:21 > 0:52:23to put people into a state of deanimation.
0:52:23 > 0:52:27- So difficult that it can't be done. - No, but... Hang on...
0:52:27 > 0:52:31You're an embryologist, you know that we can freeze small embryos.
0:52:31 > 0:52:33An embryo that's a tenth of a millimetre in diameter.
0:52:33 > 0:52:36- That's right.- We don't do that very well.
0:52:36 > 0:52:39Well, but then the next scale is up from some organs.
0:52:39 > 0:52:42We have frozen some worms, we've trained them in memory.
0:52:42 > 0:52:45You look like you have your doubts about this.
0:52:45 > 0:52:47Rabbi Laura. Rabbi Laura.
0:52:50 > 0:52:52Do you have your doubts about this?
0:52:52 > 0:52:53Yes. Absolutely.
0:52:53 > 0:52:55- Right.- I do.- Right.
0:52:55 > 0:52:58Once someone has died, and I think it is death,
0:52:58 > 0:53:01you honour them by burying them properly
0:53:01 > 0:53:03with as much dignity as possible.
0:53:03 > 0:53:06And also, in this situation,
0:53:06 > 0:53:08the element of choice is totally taken away.
0:53:08 > 0:53:11You may say it in advance, but when you're bringing someone back...
0:53:11 > 0:53:15For me, which is great, I have a massive red line here.
0:53:15 > 0:53:17- Do you?- Would you allow people the choice
0:53:17 > 0:53:22to say they would like to be brought back in various circumstances?
0:53:22 > 0:53:23But when you say the people,
0:53:23 > 0:53:27the only thing I can think about is first of all, choice over life
0:53:27 > 0:53:29- and death.- Yes.- And secondly, who has the dosh?
0:53:29 > 0:53:33Who has the money to buy into this rather perverse system?
0:53:33 > 0:53:37It's not a perverse system, and it can be afforded by a relatively
0:53:37 > 0:53:39- modest life insurance premium. - LAUGHTER
0:53:39 > 0:53:42It comes to the...
0:53:42 > 0:53:45That is not persuading me, life insurance premiums!
0:53:45 > 0:53:47In the time left, the future.
0:53:47 > 0:53:49Jackie, may I ask you about the future?
0:53:49 > 0:53:52Where is all this tech... I mean, we've just heard some,
0:53:52 > 0:53:56some people might say it's fanciful, it's science fiction.
0:53:56 > 0:53:59Others might say, "Well, we just don't know what's going to happen."
0:53:59 > 0:54:03Who would have predicted where we would be now, even 25 years ago?
0:54:03 > 0:54:06Where do you think we're heading with this?
0:54:06 > 0:54:09Because human beings being human beings, it will be misused,
0:54:09 > 0:54:10it will be abused,
0:54:10 > 0:54:14but it will also be no doubt leading to some wonderful breakthroughs.
0:54:15 > 0:54:19I think what we see if we look back in biomedical history and history of
0:54:19 > 0:54:21technological innovation in general,
0:54:21 > 0:54:24is that things that were perhaps overhyped,
0:54:24 > 0:54:27that we have talked about as transforming the future
0:54:27 > 0:54:29and transforming human beings,
0:54:29 > 0:54:31have tended not to work out like that.
0:54:31 > 0:54:34They work out reasonably well,
0:54:34 > 0:54:38they don't sometimes produce the goods that they've touted to,
0:54:38 > 0:54:40and they also often introduce problems
0:54:40 > 0:54:42that we've not actually anticipated.
0:54:42 > 0:54:45And if you look back on something like IVF, for example,
0:54:45 > 0:54:49lots and lots of discussion about what these children might be like
0:54:49 > 0:54:51when they grow up. Not much discussion about that now,
0:54:51 > 0:54:54because they turned out to be pretty much like any other
0:54:54 > 0:54:56kind of children. Some of the issues that did arise
0:54:56 > 0:54:59around IVF were unanticipated.
0:54:59 > 0:55:01So, in a sense, in order to address the problems,
0:55:01 > 0:55:03you have to go forward cautiously,
0:55:03 > 0:55:06because your guestimates about what those problems might be in the
0:55:06 > 0:55:09future, may well turn out to be wrong.
0:55:09 > 0:55:10I think one of the issues, though,
0:55:10 > 0:55:13is that we do tend to have these very polarised debates.
0:55:13 > 0:55:15I mean, they're great fun to have...
0:55:15 > 0:55:17- Tell me about it!- People shouting at each other here.
0:55:17 > 0:55:22- Yeah.- But in real life, things are never as clearly delineated as that.
0:55:22 > 0:55:25And to set up a situation where it's debates of pro and anti,
0:55:25 > 0:55:28in real life, is problematic.
0:55:28 > 0:55:31We need to be able to bring in the general public,
0:55:31 > 0:55:34and a lot of the voices that are not usually heard in these sorts of
0:55:34 > 0:55:37highly, sometimes highly technical debates,
0:55:37 > 0:55:40so that we get a really full picture of people's opinion.
0:55:40 > 0:55:42What I will say... I think we have,
0:55:42 > 0:55:45obviously we have some interesting views and we have...
0:55:45 > 0:55:48Which is quite good, because it concentrates people's minds on where
0:55:48 > 0:55:52we're going. But I think we have a lot of fantastic nuance
0:55:52 > 0:55:55here as well, if I may say so.
0:55:55 > 0:55:58Stephen, your life has been transformed.
0:55:58 > 0:56:02- It has, it has.- You want as many people's lives to be transformed as
0:56:02 > 0:56:04- possible.- I do. There's one very simple point of qualification,
0:56:04 > 0:56:06or clarification I need to make.
0:56:06 > 0:56:09This treatment I've been having is not a cure.
0:56:09 > 0:56:12There's lots of people watching this programme who have got severe,
0:56:12 > 0:56:13serious conditions.
0:56:13 > 0:56:15The treatment is not yet a cure,
0:56:15 > 0:56:17we don't know what the long-term outcome's going to be,
0:56:17 > 0:56:20so I really wanted to make that point very clearly.
0:56:20 > 0:56:23It's been wonderful for me, but, you know, that's the journey.
0:56:23 > 0:56:25What the future holds, who knows?
0:56:25 > 0:56:27Every day's an adventure.
0:56:27 > 0:56:29APPLAUSE
0:56:33 > 0:56:37Is there anything that absolutely terrifies you
0:56:38 > 0:56:40about what's... I know you're nodding, David.
0:56:40 > 0:56:43You're really pretty scared, aren't you?
0:56:43 > 0:56:44I am. Because it's... You know,
0:56:44 > 0:56:46David used the phrase "future shock".
0:56:46 > 0:56:49Actually, we've had past shock.
0:56:49 > 0:56:51For the first half of the 20th century,
0:56:51 > 0:56:54there was a massive movement called eugenics,
0:56:54 > 0:56:56which people associate mostly with the Nazis,
0:56:56 > 0:56:59but actually it was dominated by doctors and scientists
0:56:59 > 0:57:03who meant very well. They saw it as a form of humanitarianism.
0:57:03 > 0:57:05They thought that we'd get rid of all the disabled people,
0:57:05 > 0:57:09and that would be to their benefit. It was a form of humanitarianism.
0:57:09 > 0:57:11- Ruth...- That's what we... - Ruth, eugenics.
0:57:11 > 0:57:14- ..that's what we're seeing now. - I was just going to...
0:57:14 > 0:57:15Absolutely, I absolutely agree.
0:57:15 > 0:57:19But we learnt from it. And we've got really strong regulatory frameworks
0:57:19 > 0:57:22- which are going to stop it happening again. - APPLAUSE
0:57:22 > 0:57:24We've got to learn, haven't we?
0:57:24 > 0:57:27Well, I think it goes back to the point about science and politics.
0:57:27 > 0:57:30So, I actually don't think that eugenics were the scientists just
0:57:30 > 0:57:33going ahead, it was the policies that were being devised.
0:57:33 > 0:57:37Policies of sterilisation, including in Scandinavia and the US,
0:57:37 > 0:57:40it was never the scientists, it is always the politicians.
0:57:40 > 0:57:44So when we talk about the nuclear...
0:57:44 > 0:57:47This is again, if we have bad politicians, doesn't mean we should
0:57:47 > 0:57:50not go ahead. Slippery slope, could bring us wonderful things.
0:57:50 > 0:57:52Even though, as I said, I could be cautious.
0:57:52 > 0:57:56I think when we talk about organ transplant or GMO crops,
0:57:56 > 0:58:00there are non-medical, non-technical solutions to these problems.
0:58:00 > 0:58:03And we have example of countries where the option is to give organs,
0:58:03 > 0:58:05and they work. So maybe before creating...
0:58:05 > 0:58:09Do you know what, we started this wonderfully interesting debate
0:58:09 > 0:58:12- with you, Sylvia.- About coffee.
0:58:12 > 0:58:15And you have book-ended it for us.
0:58:15 > 0:58:17Which is great. Thank you all very much, indeed.
0:58:17 > 0:58:19Thank you for taking part.
0:58:19 > 0:58:21APPLAUSE
0:58:25 > 0:58:29As always, the debates will continue on Twitter and online.
0:58:29 > 0:58:30That's it for this series.
0:58:30 > 0:58:33We'll be back in January 2018.
0:58:33 > 0:58:35Thank you for watching. For now, goodbye
0:58:35 > 0:58:38from everyone here in London and have a great Sunday.
0:58:38 > 0:58:41APPLAUSE