0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Francis Collins, director of the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, appointed and reappointed to the role by three presidents, Obama, Trump, and Biden.
0
SPEAKER_00
He oversees 27 separate institutes and centers, including NIAID, which makes him Anthony Fauci s boss.
0
SPEAKER_00
At the NIH, Francis helped launch and led a huge number of projects that pushed the frontiers of science, health, and medicine, including one of my favorites, the BRAIN Initiative, that seeks to map the human brain and understand how the function arises from neural circuitry.
0
SPEAKER_00
Before the NIH, Francis led the Human Genome Project, one of the largest and most ambitious efforts in the history of science.
0
SPEAKER_00
Given all that, Francis is a humble, thoughtful, kind man.
0
SPEAKER_00
And because of this, to me, he s one of the best representatives of science in the world.
0
SPEAKER_00
He s a man of God, and yet also a friend of the late Christopher Hitchens, who called him, quote, one of the greatest living Americans.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, a quick few second summary of the sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
First is 10,000.
0
SPEAKER_00
Clothes I like to wear for lifting, cardio, and grappling.
0
SPEAKER_00
Second is Allform, my go-to furniture company.
0
SPEAKER_00
Third is SimpliSafe, the home security company I use.
0
SPEAKER_00
Fourth is NI, a company that helps engineers solve the world s toughest problems.
0
SPEAKER_00
And fifth is Magic Spoon, low-carb, keto-friendly cereal.
0
SPEAKER_00
So the choice is fashion, furniture, security, engineering, or delicious low-carb cereal.
0
SPEAKER_00
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now, onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_00
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I do try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_00
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
Maybe you will, too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by 10,000, maker of high-quality, well-fitting, comfortable training clothes.
0
SPEAKER_00
I wear their foundation shorts for lifting and cardio, and I wear their fight shorts for training jiu-jitsu and grappling.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s much easier, and I would say more fun, to see grappling as just a mindless workout.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s nice to get a sweat in, to roll around, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_00
But progress is made when you think, especially when you put yourself in bad positions, when you work in your weak points, and you use your mind to solve the puzzles of those weak points.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, when I was grappling recently, I was wearing 10,000 shorts and somebody recognized the logo and asked me how they are.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s kind of cool.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a very minimalist logo, but it s recognizable apparently, so I love it.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love the way they feel, the way they look.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, go to 10,000.cc and enter code LEX to receive 15% off your first purchase.
0
SPEAKER_00
That is 10,000.cc and enter code LEX.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Allform, a furniture company.
0
SPEAKER_00
They ship to your home quickly, take it back for free if you don t like it in the first 100 days.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s easy to assemble.
0
SPEAKER_00
It looks beautiful and feels amazing.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love it.
0
SPEAKER_00
I have a black leather love seat that is actually big enough for two people to sit not awkwardly on.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I share it with a bunch of guests as we kind of talk about life and all those kinds of things.
0
SPEAKER_00
The one that stands out in my memory, I think, is Michael Malice, where we hung out for a bunch of hours after our conversation.
0
SPEAKER_00
talking about life, meaning, history, and politics on that love seed.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I just love the way it looks, especially given my minimalist aesthetic.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s not flashy, but it s classy.
0
SPEAKER_00
It just looks great.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, go to allform.com slash flex.
0
SPEAKER_00
They re offering 20% off all orders if you go to allform.com slash flex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by SimpliSafe, a home security company designed to be simple and effective.
0
SPEAKER_00
They just launched their new wireless outdoor security camera.
0
SPEAKER_00
It has an ultra wide 140 degree field of view, 1080p HD resolution with an 8X zoom.
0
SPEAKER_00
I just like giving the specs, I think.
0
SPEAKER_00
It has a built-in spotlight with color night vision.
0
SPEAKER_00
SimpliSafe was named the best home security system of 2021 by U.S.
0
SPEAKER_00
News & World Report.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of flexibility, but not too much flexibility, and the deployment of that flexibility is super easy, like specifying what you want and getting it to work, getting it all set up.
0
SPEAKER_00
Take advantage of SimpliSafe s holiday sale.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get 40% off your new home security system by visiting simplisafe.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Again, that s simplisafe.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Hurry up, since this 40% off deal, this holiday deal, ends soon.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by NI, formerly known as National Instruments.
0
SPEAKER_00
NI is a company that has been helping engineers solve the world s toughest challenges for 40 years.
0
SPEAKER_00
Their motto is engineer ambitiously, arguably the best motto of all time.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have a podcast called Testing 123.
0
SPEAKER_00
They have amazing articles at ni.com slash perspectives covering engineers and innovators.
0
SPEAKER_00
I recently saw a story on Instagram
0
SPEAKER_00
where this very ad read was being played while the listener was relaxing and enjoying life.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, but back to engineering.
0
SPEAKER_00
Engineer ambitiously with NI at ni.com slash perspectives.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot of amazing articles on there, like I said.
0
SPEAKER_00
that show the importance of failing through the process of testing and learning from those mistakes and improving the system.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s ni.com slash perspectives.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go there, you ll enjoy it.
0
SPEAKER_00
This episode is also brought to you by Magic Spoon, low-carb, keto-friendly cereal.
0
SPEAKER_00
It has zero grams of sugar, 13 to 14 grams of protein, only four net grams of carbs, 140 calories in each serving.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like I said, I love reading off specs, whether that s for hardware or for cereal.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can build your own box or get a variety pack with available flavors like cocoa, fruity, frosted peanut butter, blueberry, and cinnamon.
0
SPEAKER_00
They also bring back two flavors, cookies and cream and maple waffle.
0
SPEAKER_00
They brought them back permanently.
0
SPEAKER_00
They did a limited run at first and it sold out immediately.
0
SPEAKER_00
People fell in love.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now they can have a committed relationship with those two flavors.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, Magic Spoon have a 100% happiness guarantee.
0
SPEAKER_00
So if you don t like it, they refund it.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to magicspoon.com slash Lex and use code Lex at checkout to save $5 off your order.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s magicspoon.com slash Lex and use code Lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lux Friedman Podcast, and here is my conversation with Francis Collins.
0
SPEAKER_00
Science at its best is a source of hope.
0
SPEAKER_00
So for me, it s been difficult to watch, as it has during the pandemic, become at times a source of division.
0
SPEAKER_00
What I would love to do in this conversation with you is touch some difficult topics and do so with empathy and humility so that we may begin to regain a sense of trust in science and that it may once again become a source of hope.
0
SPEAKER_00
I hope that s okay with you.
0
SPEAKER_01
I love the goal.
0
SPEAKER_00
Let s start with some hard questions.
0
SPEAKER_00
You called for, quote, thorough, expert-driven, and objective inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.
0
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask, is there a reasonable chance that COVID-19 leaked from a lab?
0
SPEAKER_01
I can t exclude that.
0
SPEAKER_01
I think it s fairly unlikely.
0
SPEAKER_01
I wish we had more ability to be able to ask questions of the Chinese government and learn more about what kind of records might have been in the lab that we ve never been able to see.
0
SPEAKER_01
But most likely, this was a natural origin of a virus, probably starting in a bat, perhaps traveling through some other intermediate, yet to be identified host, and finding its way into humans.
0
SPEAKER_00
Is answering this question within the realm of science, do you think, will we ever know?
0
SPEAKER_01
I think we might know if we find that intermediate host.
0
SPEAKER_01
And there has not yet been a thorough enough investigation to say that that s not going to happen.
0
SPEAKER_01
And remember, it takes a while to do this.
0
SPEAKER_01
With SARS, it was 14 years before we figured out it was the civet cat that was the intermediate host.
0
SPEAKER_01
With MERS, it was a little quicker to discover it was the camel.
0
SPEAKER_01
With SARS-CoV-2, there s been some looking, but especially now with everything really tense between the US and China, if there s looking going on, we re not getting told about it.
0
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it s a scientific question or a political question?
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a scientific question, but it has political implications.
0
SPEAKER_00
So the world is full of scientists that are working together, but in the political space, in the political science space, there s tensions.
0
SPEAKER_00
What is it like to do great science in a time of a pandemic when there s political tensions?
0
SPEAKER_01
It s very unfortunate.
0
SPEAKER_01
Pasteur said science knows no one country.
0
SPEAKER_01
He was right about that.
0
SPEAKER_01
My whole career, in genetics especially, has depended upon international collaboration between scientists as a way
0
SPEAKER_01
to make discoveries, get things done.
0
SPEAKER_01
Scientists by their nature like to be involved in international collaborations.
0
SPEAKER_01
The Human Genome Project, for heaven s sake, 2,400 scientists in six countries working together, not worrying who was going to get the credit, giving all the data away.
0
SPEAKER_01
I was the person who was supposed to keep all that coordinated.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was a wonderful experience.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that included China.
0
SPEAKER_01
That was sort of their first real entry into a big international, big science kind of project.
0
SPEAKER_01
And they did their part.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s very different now.
0
SPEAKER_00
Continue on the line of difficult questions.
0
SPEAKER_00
especially difficult ethical questions.
0
SPEAKER_00
In 2014, U.S.
0
SPEAKER_00
put a hold on gain-of-function research in response to a number of laboratory biosecurity incidents, including anthrax, smallpox, and influenza.
0
SPEAKER_00
In December 2017, NIH lifted this ban because, quote, gain-of-function research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health.
0
SPEAKER_00
All difficult questions have arguments on both sides.
0
SPEAKER_00
Can you argue the pros and cons of gain-of-function research with viruses?
0
SPEAKER_01
I can.
0
SPEAKER_01
And first let me say this term, gain-of-function,
0
SPEAKER_01
is causing such confusion that I need to take a minute and just sort of talk about what the common scientific use of that term is and where it is very different when we re talking about the current oversight of potentially dangerous human pathogens.
0
SPEAKER_01
As you know, in science, we re doing gain-of-function experiments all the time.
0
SPEAKER_01
We support a lot of cancer immunotherapy at NIH.
0
SPEAKER_01
Right here in our clinical center, there are trials going on where people s immune cells are taken out of their body, treated with a genetic therapy that revs up their ability to discover the cancer that that patient currently has, maybe even at stage four, and then give them back.
0
SPEAKER_01
as those little ninja warriors go after the cancer.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it sometimes works dramatically.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s a gain of function.
0
SPEAKER_01
You gave that patient a gain in their immune function that may have saved their life.
0
SPEAKER_01
So we ve got to be careful not to say, oh, gain of function is bad.
0
SPEAKER_01
Most of what we do in science that s good involves quite a bit of that.
0
SPEAKER_01
And we are all living with gains of function every day.
0
SPEAKER_01
I have a gain of function because I m wearing these eyeglasses.
0
SPEAKER_01
Otherwise, I would not be seeing you as clearly.
0
SPEAKER_01
I m happy for that gain of function.
0
SPEAKER_01
So that s where a lot of confusion has happened.
0
SPEAKER_01
The kind of gain of function which is now subject to very rigorous and very carefully defined oversight.
0
SPEAKER_01
is when you are working with an established human pathogen that is known to be potentially causing a pandemic, and you are enhancing or potentially enhancing its transmissibility or its virulence.
0
SPEAKER_01
We call that EPPP, Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogen.
0
SPEAKER_01
That requires this very stringent oversight worked out over three years by the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity that needs to be looked at by a panel that goes well beyond NIH to decide are the benefits worth the risks in that situation.
0
SPEAKER_01
Most of the time, it s not worth the risk.
0
SPEAKER_01
Only three times in the last three or four years have experiments been given permission to go forward.
0
SPEAKER_01
They were all on influenza.
0
SPEAKER_01
So I will argue that if you re worried about the next pandemic,
0
SPEAKER_01
The more you know about the coming enemy, the better chance you have to recognize when trouble is starting.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so if you can do it safely, studying influenza or coronaviruses like SARS, MERS, and SARS-CoV-2 would be a good thing to be able to know about.
0
SPEAKER_01
But you have to be able to do it safely because we all know
0
SPEAKER_01
Lab accidents can happen.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, look at SARS, where there have been lab accidents and people who have gotten sick as a result.
0
SPEAKER_01
We don t want to take that chance unless there s a compelling scientific reason.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s why we have this very stringent oversight.
0
SPEAKER_01
The experiments being done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a subaward to our grant to EcoHealth in New York did not meet that standard of requiring that kind of stringent oversight.
0
SPEAKER_01
I want to be really clear about that because there s been so much thrown around about it.
0
SPEAKER_01
Was it gain of function?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, in the standard use of that term that you would use in science in general, you might say it was.
0
SPEAKER_01
But in the use of that term that applies to this very specific example of a potential pandemic pathogen, absolutely not.
0
SPEAKER_01
So nothing went on there that should not have happened based upon the oversight.
0
SPEAKER_01
There was an instance where the grantee institution failed to notify us about the result of an experiment that they were supposed to tell us where they mixed and matched some viral genomes and got a somewhat larger viral load as a result.
0
SPEAKER_01
But it was not EPPP.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was not
0
SPEAKER_01
getting into that zone that would have required this higher level of scrutiny.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was all bat viruses.
0
SPEAKER_01
These were not human pathogens.
0
SPEAKER_00
So they didn t cross a threshold within that gray area that makes for an EPPP?
0
SPEAKER_00
They did not.
0
SPEAKER_01
And anybody who s willing to take the time to look at what EPP means and what those experiments were would have to agree with what I just said.
0
SPEAKER_00
What is the biggest reason it didn t cross that threshold?
0
SPEAKER_00
Is it because it wasn t jumping to humans?
0
SPEAKER_00
Is it because it did not have a sufficient increase in virulence or transmissibility?
0
SPEAKER_00
What s your sense?
0
SPEAKER_01
EPPP only applies to agents that are known human pathogens of pandemic potential.
0
SPEAKER_01
These were all bat viruses derived in the wild, not shown to be infectious to humans.
0
SPEAKER_01
Just looking at what happened if you took four different bat viruses and you tried moving the spike protein gene from one into one of the others to see whether it would bind better to the ACE2 receptor.
0
SPEAKER_01
That doesn t get across that threshold.
0
SPEAKER_01
And let me also say, for those who are
0
SPEAKER_01
Trying to connect the dots here, which is the most troubling part of this, and say, well, this is how SARS-CoV-2 got started, that is absolutely demonstrably false.
0
SPEAKER_01
These bat viruses that were being studied had only about 80% similarity in their genomes to SARS-CoV-2.
0
SPEAKER_01
They were like decades away in evolutionary terms.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it is really irresponsible for people to claim otherwise.
0
SPEAKER_00
Speaking of people who claim otherwise, Rand Paul.
0
SPEAKER_00
What do you make of the battle of words between Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci over this particular point?
0
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to talk about specific members of Congress, but I will say it s really unfortunate that Tony Fauci, who is the epitome of a dedicated public servant,
0
SPEAKER_01
has now somehow been targeted for political reasons as somebody that certain figures are trying to discredit, perhaps to try to distract from their own failings.
0
SPEAKER_01
This never should have happened.
0
SPEAKER_01
Here s a person who s dedicated his whole life
0
SPEAKER_01
to trying to prevent illnesses from infectious diseases, including HIV, in the 1980s and 90s.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, probably the most knowledgeable infectious disease physician in the world, and also a really good communicator, is out there telling the truth about where we are with SARS-CoV-2 to certain political figures who don t want to hear it, and who are therefore determined to discredit him.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that is disgraceful.
0
SPEAKER_00
So with politicians, they often play games with black and white.
0
SPEAKER_00
They try to sort of use the gray areas of science and then paint their own picture.
0
SPEAKER_00
But I have a question about the gray areas of science.
0
SPEAKER_00
So like you mentioned, gain of function is a term that has very specific scientific meaning, but it also has a more general term.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it s very possible to argue that the, not to argue, not the way politicians
1
SPEAKER_01
but just as human beings and scientists, that there was a gain of function achieved at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but it didn t cross a threshold.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there s a, it s a, but it could have too.
1
SPEAKER_01
So here s the thing, when you do these kinds of experiments, unexpected results may be achieved, and that s the gray area of science.
1
SPEAKER_01
You re taking risks with such experiments.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I am very uncomfortable that we can t discuss the uncertainty in the gray area of this.
1
SPEAKER_00
Oh, I m comfortable discussing the gray area.
1
SPEAKER_00
What I m uncomfortable with is people deciding to define for themselves what that threshold is based on sort of some political argument.
1
SPEAKER_00
The threshold was very explicitly laid out.
1
SPEAKER_00
Everybody agreed to that in the basis of this three years of deliberation.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that s what it is.
1
SPEAKER_00
If that threshold needs to be reconsidered, let s reconsider it.
1
SPEAKER_00
But let s not try to take an experiment that s already been done and decide that the threshold isn t what it was, because that really is doing a disservice to the whole process.
1
SPEAKER_01
I wish there was a discussion, even in response to Rand Paul.
1
SPEAKER_01
I know we re not talking about specific senators, but just that particular case, I m saying stuff here.
1
SPEAKER_01
I wish there was an opportunity to talk about, given the current threshold, this is not gain of function.
1
SPEAKER_01
but maybe we need to reconsider the threshold and have an actual, that s an opportunity for discussion about the ethics of gain of function.
1
SPEAKER_01
You said that there was three studies that passed that threshold with influenza.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a fascinating human question, scientific question about ethics, because you re playing, like you said, there s pros and cons.
1
SPEAKER_01
You re taking risks here to prevent
1
SPEAKER_01
horribly destructive viruses in the future, but you also are risking creating such viruses in the future.
1
SPEAKER_01
With nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, you are, nuclear energy promises a lot of positive effects, and yet you re taking risks here.
1
SPEAKER_01
With mutually assured destruction, nations possessing nuclear weapons, you re a lot of people- I hope we re not going there.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, we re not.
1
SPEAKER_01
A lot of people argue that that s the reason we ve, nuclear weapons is the reason we ve prevented world wars.
1
SPEAKER_01
And yet they also have the risk of starting world wars.
1
SPEAKER_01
And this is what we have to be honest about with the benefits of risks of science, that you have to make that calculation of what are the pros and what are the cons.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m totally with you, but I want to reassure you, Lex.
1
SPEAKER_00
that this is not an issue that s been ignored.
1
SPEAKER_00
That this issue about the kind of gain of function that might result in a serious human pathogen has been front and center in many deliberations for a decade or more, involved a lot of my time along the way, by the way.
1
SPEAKER_00
and has been discussed publicly on multiple occasions, including two major meetings of the National Academy of Sciences, getting input from everybody and ultimately arriving at our current framework.
1
SPEAKER_00
Now, we actually, back in January of 2020, just before COVID-19 changed everything, had planned and even charged that same National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity to reconvene and look
1
SPEAKER_00
at the current framework and say, do we have it right?
1
SPEAKER_00
Let s look at the experience over those three years and say, is the threshold too easy, too hard?
1
SPEAKER_00
Do we need to reconsider it?
1
SPEAKER_00
Let s look at the experience.
1
SPEAKER_00
COVID came along.
1
SPEAKER_00
The members of the board said, please, we re all infectious disease experts.
1
SPEAKER_00
We don t have time for this right now.
1
SPEAKER_00
But I think the time is right to do this.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m totally supportive of that.
1
SPEAKER_00
And that should be just as public a discussion as you can imagine about what are the benefits and the risks.
1
SPEAKER_00
And if somebody decided, ultimately, this came together and said, we just shouldn t be doing these experiments under any circumstances, if that was the conclusion, well, that would be the conclusion.
1
SPEAKER_00
But it hasn t been so far.
1
SPEAKER_01
If we can briefly look out into the next hundred years on this.
1
SPEAKER_01
I apologize for the existential questions, but it seems obvious to me that as gain of function type of research and development becomes easier and cheaper, it will become greater and greater risk.
1
SPEAKER_01
So if it doesn t no longer need to be contained within laboratories of high security,
1
SPEAKER_01
It feels like this is one of the greatest threats facing human civilization.
1
SPEAKER_01
Do you worry that at some point in the future, a leaked man-made virus may destroy most of human civilization?
1
SPEAKER_00
I do worry about the risks.
1
SPEAKER_00
And at the moment where we have the greatest control, the greatest oversight, is when this is federally funded research.
1
SPEAKER_00
But as you re alluding, there s no reason to imagine that s the only place that this kind of activity would go on.
1
SPEAKER_00
If there was an evil source that wished to create a virus that was highly pathogenic in their garage, the technology does get easier.
1
SPEAKER_00
And there is no international oversight about this either that you could say has the same stringency as what we have in the United States.
1
SPEAKER_00
So yes, that is a concern.
1
SPEAKER_00
It would take a seriously deranged group or person to undertake this on purpose, given the likelihood that they too would go down.
1
SPEAKER_00
We don t imagine there are going to be bioweapons that only kill your enemies and don t kill you.
1
SPEAKER_00
Sorry, we re too much alike for that to work.
1
SPEAKER_00
So I don t see it as an imminent risk.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s lots of scary novels and movies written about it.
1
SPEAKER_00
But I do think it s something we have to consider, what are all the things that ought to be watched.
1
SPEAKER_00
You may not know that if somebody is ordering a particular oligonucleotide from one of the main suppliers, and it happens to match smallpox, they re going to get caught.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there is effort underway to try to track any nefarious actions that might be going on.
1
SPEAKER_01
In the United States or internationally?
1
SPEAKER_01
Is there an international collaboration of trying to track this stuff?
1
SPEAKER_00
There is some, I wish it were stronger.
1
SPEAKER_00
This is a general issue, Lex, in terms of do we have a mechanism, particularly when it comes to ethical issues, to be able to decide what s allowable and what s not and enforce it?
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, look where we are with germline genome editing for humans, for instance.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s no enforcement mechanism.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s just bully pulpits and governments that get to decide for themselves.
1
SPEAKER_01
You talked about evil.
1
SPEAKER_01
What about incompetence?
1
SPEAKER_01
Does that worry you?
1
SPEAKER_01
I was born in the Soviet Union.
1
SPEAKER_01
My dad, a physicist, worked at Chernobyl.
1
SPEAKER_01
That comes to mind.
1
SPEAKER_01
That wasn t evil.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know what word you want to put it.
1
SPEAKER_01
Maybe incompetence is too harsh.
1
SPEAKER_01
Maybe it s the inherent incompetence of bureaucracy.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know.
1
SPEAKER_01
But for whatever reason, there was an accident.
1
SPEAKER_00
Does that worry you?
1
SPEAKER_00
Of course it does.
1
SPEAKER_00
We know that SARS, for instance, did manage to leak out of a lab in China two or three times, and at least in some instances people died, fortunately quickly contained.
1
SPEAKER_00
All one can do in that circumstance, because you need to study the virus and understand it in order to keep it from causing a broader pandemic, but you need to insist upon the kind of biosecurity, the BSL 2, 3, and 4 framework under which those experiments have to be done.
1
SPEAKER_00
And certainly at NIH, we re extremely rigorous about that.
1
SPEAKER_00
But you can t count on every human being to always do exactly what they re supposed to.
1
SPEAKER_00
So there s a risk there, which is another reason why if we re contemplating supporting research on pathogens that might be the next pandemic,
1
SPEAKER_00
You have to factor that in, not just whether people are gonna do something that we couldn t have predicted, where all of a sudden they created a virus, it s much worse without knowing they were gonna do that, but also just having an accident.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s in the mix when those estimates are done about whether the risk is worth it or not.
1
SPEAKER_01
Continuing on line of difficult questions.
1
SPEAKER_00
We re gonna get to fun stuff after a while.
1
SPEAKER_00
We will soon, I promise.
1
SPEAKER_01
You are the director of the NIH.
1
SPEAKER_01
You are Dr. Anthony Fauci s technically his boss.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yep.
1
SPEAKER_01
You have stood behind him.
1
SPEAKER_01
You have supported him.
1
SPEAKER_01
Just like you did already in this conversation.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s painful for me to see division and distrust.
1
SPEAKER_01
But many people in politics and elsewhere have called for Anthony Fauci to be fired.
1
SPEAKER_01
When there are such calls of distrust in public about a leader like Anthony Fauci, who should garner trust, do you think he should be fired?
1
SPEAKER_00
Absolutely not.
1
SPEAKER_00
To do so would be basically to give the opportunity for those who want to make up stories about anybody to destroy them.
1
SPEAKER_00
There is nothing in the ways in which Tony Fauci has been targeted that is based upon truth.
1
SPEAKER_00
How could we then accept those cries for his firing as having legitimacy?
1
SPEAKER_00
It s a circular argument.
1
SPEAKER_00
They ve decided they don t like Tony, so they make up stuff, and they twist comments that he s made about things like gain of function, where he s referring to the very specific gain of function that s covered by this policy, and they re trying to say he lied to the Congress.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s simply not true.
1
SPEAKER_00
They don t like the fact that Tony changes the medical recommendations about what to do with COVID-19 over the space of more than a year.
1
SPEAKER_00
And they call that flip-flopping and you can t trust the guy because he says one thing last year and one thing this year.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, the science has changed.
1
SPEAKER_00
Delta variant has changed everything.
1
SPEAKER_00
You don t want him to be saying the same thing he did a year ago.
1
SPEAKER_00
That would be wrong now.
1
SPEAKER_00
It was the best we could do then.
1
SPEAKER_00
People don t understand that or else they don t want to understand that.
1
SPEAKER_00
So when you basically whip up a largely political argument against a scientist and hammer at it over and over again to the point where he now has to have 24-7 security to protect him against people who really want to do violence to him, for that to be a reason to say that then he should be fired is to hand the evil forces the victory.
1
SPEAKER_00
I will not do that.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yet there s something difficult that I m going to try to express to you.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it may be your guitar playing.
1
SPEAKER_01
It may be something else.
1
SPEAKER_01
But there s a humility to you.
1
SPEAKER_01
It may be because you re a man of God.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s a humility to you that garners trust.
1
SPEAKER_01
And when you re in a leadership position representing science, especially in catastrophic events like the pandemic.
1
SPEAKER_01
It feels like as a leader, you have to go far above and beyond your usual duties.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I think there s no question that Anthony Fauci has delivered on his duties, but it feels like he needs to go above as a science communicator.
1
SPEAKER_01
And if there s a large number of people that are distrusting him, it s also his responsibility to garner their trust, to gain their trust.
1
SPEAKER_01
as a person who s the face of science, are you torn on this?
1
SPEAKER_01
The responsibility of anthropology of yourself to represent science, not just the communication of advising what should be done, but giving people hope, giving people trust in science and alleviating division.
1
SPEAKER_01
Do you think that s also a responsibility of a leader or is that unfair to ask?
1
SPEAKER_00
I think the best way you give people trust is to tell them the truth.
1
SPEAKER_00
And so they recognize that when you re sharing information, it s the best you ve got at that point.
1
SPEAKER_00
And Tony Fauci does that at every moment.
1
SPEAKER_00
I don t think him expressing more humility would change the fact that they re looking for a target of somebody to blame, to basically distract people from the failings of their own political party.
1
SPEAKER_00
Maybe I m less targeted, not because of a difference in the way in which I convey the information.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m less visible.
1
SPEAKER_00
If Tony were out of the scene and I was placed in that role, I d probably be seeing a ratcheting up of that same targeting.
1
SPEAKER_01
I would like to believe that if Tony Fauci said that when I originally made recommendations not to wear masks, that was given on our best available data.
1
SPEAKER_01
And now we know that is a mistake.
1
SPEAKER_01
So admit with humility that there s an error.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s not actually correct.
1
SPEAKER_01
But that s a statement of humility.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I would like to believe, despite the attacks,
1
SPEAKER_01
he would win a lot of people over with that.
1
SPEAKER_01
So a lot of people, as you re saying, would use that, see that, here we go, here s that Dr. Anthony Fauci making mistakes.
1
SPEAKER_01
How can we trust him on anything?
1
SPEAKER_01
I believe if he was that public display of humility to say that I made an error, that would win a lot of people over.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s kind of,
1
SPEAKER_01
my sense, to face the fire of the attacks from politics, politicians will attack no matter what.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the question is the people.
1
SPEAKER_01
To win over the people.
1
SPEAKER_01
The biggest concern I ve had is that there was this distrust of science that s been brewing.
1
SPEAKER_01
And maybe you can correct me, but I m a little bit unwilling to fully blame the politicians.
1
SPEAKER_01
Because politicians play their games no matter what.
1
SPEAKER_01
It just feels like this was an opportunity to inspire people with the power of science.
1
SPEAKER_01
The development of the vaccines, no matter what you think of those vaccines, is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of science.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the fact that that s not inspiring, listen, I host a podcast.
1
SPEAKER_01
Whenever I say positive stuff about the vaccine, I get to hear a lot of different opinions.
1
SPEAKER_01
The fact that I do is a big problem to me because it s an incredible, an incredible accomplishment of science.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so I m sorry, but I have to put responsibility on the leaders, even if it s not their mistakes.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s what the leadership is.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s what leadership is.
1
SPEAKER_01
You take responsibility for the situation.
1
SPEAKER_01
I wonder if there s something that could have been done better to give people hope that science will save us as opposed to science will divide us.
1
SPEAKER_00
I think you have more confidence in the ability to get beyond our current divisions than I do after seeing just how deep and dark they have become.
1
SPEAKER_00
Tony Fauci has said multiple times the recommendation about not wearing masks was for two reasons, a shortage of masks, which were needed in hospitals, and a lack of realization early in the course of the epidemic that this was a virus that could
1
SPEAKER_00
heavily infect asymptomatic people.
1
SPEAKER_00
Has that changed?
1
SPEAKER_00
He changed.
1
SPEAKER_00
Now, did he make an error?
1
SPEAKER_00
No, he was making a judgment based on the data available at the time, but he certainly made that clear over and over again.
1
SPEAKER_00
It has not stopped those who would like to demonize him from saying, well, he just flip-flopped.
1
SPEAKER_00
You can t trust a guy.
1
SPEAKER_00
He says one thing today and one thing tomorrow.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, masks is a tricky one, so I m actually- It is a tricky one.
1
SPEAKER_01
Early on, I m a co-author in a paper, one of many, but this was a survey paper overlooking the evidence.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s a summary of the evidence we have for the effectiveness of masks.
1
SPEAKER_01
It seems that it s difficult to do rigorous scientific study on masks.
1
SPEAKER_00
It is difficult.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of philosophical and ethical questions I want to ask you, but within this,
1
SPEAKER_01
It s back to your words and Anthony Fauci s words.
1
SPEAKER_01
When you re dealing with so much uncertainty and so much potential uncertainty about how catastrophic this virus is in the early days, and knowing that each word you say may create panic, how do you communicate science with the world?
1
SPEAKER_01
It s a philosophical, it s an ethical, it s a practical question.
1
SPEAKER_01
There was a discussion about masks a century ago, and that too led to panic.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, I mean, I m trying to put myself in the mind, in your mind, in the mind of Anthony Fauci in those early days, knowing that there s limited supply of masks.
1
SPEAKER_01
Like, what do you say?
1
SPEAKER_01
Do you fully convey the uncertainty of the situation, of the challenges of the supply chain?
1
SPEAKER_01
Or do you say that masks don t work?
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a complicated calculation.
1
SPEAKER_01
How do you make that calculation?
1
SPEAKER_00
It is a complicated calculation.
1
SPEAKER_00
As a scientist, your temptation would be to give a full brain dump of all the details of the information about what s known and what isn t known and what experiments need to be done.
1
SPEAKER_00
Most of the time, that s not going to play well in a sound bite on the evening news.
1
SPEAKER_00
So you have to kind of distill it down to a recommendation that is the best you can do at that time with the information you ve got.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you re a man of God, and we ll return to that to talk about some also unanswerable philosophical questions.
1
SPEAKER_01
But first, let s linger on the vaccine, because in the religious, in the Christian community, there was some hesitancy with the vaccine.
1
SPEAKER_00
Still is.
1
SPEAKER_01
Still is.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of
2
SPEAKER_01
data showing high efficacy and safety of vaccines, of COVID vaccines, but still they are far from perfect, as all vaccines are.
2
SPEAKER_01
Can you empathize with people who are hesitant to take the COVID vaccine or to have their children take the COVID vaccine?
2
SPEAKER_00
I can totally empathize, especially when people are barraged by conflicting information coming at them from all kinds of directions.
2
SPEAKER_00
I ve spent a lot of my time in the last year trying to figure out how to do a better job of listening, because I think we have all got the risk of assuming we know the basis for somebody s hesitancy, and that often
2
SPEAKER_00
doesn t turn out to be what you thought.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the variety of reasons is quite broad.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think a big concern is just this sense of uncertainty about whether this was done too fast and that corners were cut.
2
SPEAKER_00
And there are good answers to that.
2
SPEAKER_00
Along with that, a sense that maybe this vaccine will have long-term effects that we won t know about for years to come.
2
SPEAKER_00
And one can say, that hasn t been seen with other vaccines, and there s no particular reason to think this one s going to be different than the dozens of others that we have experience with.
2
SPEAKER_00
But you can t absolutely say, no, there s no chance of that.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it does come down to listening and then trying in a fashion that doesn t convey a message that you re smarter than the person you re talking to, because that isn t going to help, to really address what the substance is of the concerns.
2
SPEAKER_00
But my heart goes out to so many people who are fearful about this because of all the information that has been dumped on them.
2
SPEAKER_00
Some of it by politicians, a lot of it by the internet, some of it by parts of the media that seem to take pleasure in stirring up this kind of fear for their own reasons.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that is shameful.
2
SPEAKER_00
I m really sympathetic with the people who are confused and fearful.
2
SPEAKER_00
I am not sympathetic with people who are distributing information that s demonstrably false and continue to do so.
2
SPEAKER_00
They re taking lives.
2
SPEAKER_00
I didn t realize how strong that sector of disinformation would be.
2
SPEAKER_00
And it s been, in many ways, more effective than the means of spreading the truth.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is gonna take us into another place, but Lex, if there s something I m really worried about in this country, and it s not just this country, but it s the one I live in, is that we have another epidemic besides COVID-19, and it s an epidemic of the loss of the anchor of truth.
2
SPEAKER_00
The truth as a means of making decisions.
2
SPEAKER_00
Truth as a means of figuring out
2
SPEAKER_00
how to wrestle with a question like, should I get this vaccine for myself or my children, seems to have lost its primacy.
2
SPEAKER_00
And instead, it s an opinion of somebody who expressed it very strongly, or some Facebook post that I read two hours ago.
2
SPEAKER_00
And for those to become substitutes for objective truth,
2
SPEAKER_00
Not just, of course, for vaccines, but for many other issues, like was the 2020 election actually fair?
2
SPEAKER_00
This worries me deeply.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s bad enough to have polarization and divisions, but to have no way of resolving those by actually saying, OK, what s true here makes me very worried about the path we re on.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I m usually an optimist.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, to give you an optimistic angle on this, I actually think that this sense that there s no one place for truth is just a thing that will inspire leaders and science communicators to speak not from a place of authority, but from a place of humility.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think it s just challenging people to communicate in a new way, to be listeners first.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think the problem isn t that there s a lot of misinformation.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think that people
2
SPEAKER_01
The internet and the world are distrustful of people who speak as if they possess the truth with an authoritarian kind of tone, which was, I think, defining for what science was in the 20th century.
2
SPEAKER_01
I just think it has to sound different in the 21st.
2
SPEAKER_01
In the battle of ideas, I think humility and love wins.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s how science wins, not through having quote unquote truth.
2
SPEAKER_01
Because now everybody can just say, I have the truth.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think you have to speak, like I said, from humility, not authority.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so it just challenges our leaders to go back and learn to be, pardon my French, less assholes and more kind.
2
SPEAKER_01
And like you said, to listen, to listen to the experiences of people
2
SPEAKER_01
that are good people, not the ones who are trying to manipulate the system or play a game and so on, but real people who are just afraid of uncertainty, of hurting those they loved, and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I think it s just an opportunity for leaders to go back and take a class on effective communication.
2
SPEAKER_00
I m with you on shifting more from where we are to humility and love.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s got to be the right answer.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s very biblical, by the way.
2
SPEAKER_00
We ll get there.
2
SPEAKER_01
I have to bring up Joe Rogan.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t know if you know who he is.
2
SPEAKER_01
I do.
2
SPEAKER_01
He s a podcaster, comedian, fighting commentator, and my now friend.
2
SPEAKER_01
And Ivermectin believer too.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, that is the question I have to ask you about.
2
SPEAKER_01
He has gotten some flack in the mainstream media for not getting vaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_01
And when he got COVID recently, taking ivermectin as part of a cocktail of treatments.
2
SPEAKER_01
The NIH actually has a nice page on ivermectin saying, quote, there s insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
2
SPEAKER_01
Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
2
SPEAKER_01
So let me ask, why do you think there has been so much attack on Joe Rogan and anyone else that s talking about ivermectin when there s insufficient evidence for or against?
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, let s unpack that.
2
SPEAKER_00
First of all, I think the concerns about Joe are not limited to his taking ivermectin.
2
SPEAKER_00
Much more seriously, his being fairly publicly negative about vaccines at a time where people are dying.
2
SPEAKER_00
700,000 people have died from COVID-19.
2
SPEAKER_00
Estimates by Kaiser are at least 100,000 of those were unnecessary deaths of unvaccinated people.
2
SPEAKER_00
And for Joe to promote that further, even as this pandemic rages through our population, is simply irresponsible.
2
SPEAKER_00
So yeah, the ivermectin is just one other twist.
2
SPEAKER_00
Obviously, ivermectin has been controversial for months and months.
2
SPEAKER_00
The reason that it got particular attention is because of the way in which it seemed to have captured the imagination of a lot of people to the point where they were taking doses that were intended for livestock, and some of them got pretty sick as a result from overdosing on this stuff.
2
SPEAKER_00
That was not good judgment.
2
SPEAKER_00
The drug itself remains uncertain.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s a recent review that looks at all of the studies of ivermectin and basically concludes that it probably doesn t work.
2
SPEAKER_00
We are running a study right now.
2
SPEAKER_00
I looked at that data this morning.
2
SPEAKER_00
in a trial called ACTIV6, which is one of the ones that my public-private partnership is running.
2
SPEAKER_00
We re up to about 400 patients who ve been randomized to ivermectin or placebo and should know perhaps as soon as a month from now in a very carefully controlled trial.
2
SPEAKER_00
Did it help or did it not?
2
SPEAKER_00
So there will be an answer.
2
SPEAKER_00
Coming back to Joe, again, I don t think the fact that he took ivermectin, hoping it might work, is that big a knock against him.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s more the conveying of, we don t trust what science says, which is vaccines are going to save your life.
2
SPEAKER_00
We re going to trust what s on the internet that says ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine really do work, even though the scientific community says probably not.
2
SPEAKER_01
So let me push back on that a little bit.
2
SPEAKER_01
So he doesn t say, let s not listen to science.
2
SPEAKER_01
He doesn t say, don t get vaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_01
He says, it s okay to ask questions.
2
SPEAKER_01
How risky is the vaccine for certain populations?
2
SPEAKER_01
What are the benefits and risks?
2
SPEAKER_01
There s other friends of Joe and friends of mine, like Sam Harris, who says, if you look at the data,
2
SPEAKER_01
it s obvious that the benefits outweigh the risks.
2
SPEAKER_01
And what Joe says is, yes, but let s still openly talk about risks.
2
SPEAKER_01
And he often brings up anecdotal evidence of people who ve had highly negative effects from vaccines.
2
SPEAKER_01
Science is not done with anecdotal evidence.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so you could infer a lot of stuff from the way he expresses it, but he also communicates a lot of interesting questions.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that s something maybe you can comment on is, you know, there s certain groups that are healthy.
2
SPEAKER_01
They have, they re younger.
2
SPEAKER_01
They have, they exercise a lot.
2
SPEAKER_01
They get the, you know, nutrition and all those kinds of things.
2
SPEAKER_01
He shows skepticism on whether it s so obvious that they should get vaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the same as he makes this, he kind of presents the same kind of skepticism for kids.
2
SPEAKER_01
for young kids.
2
SPEAKER_01
So with empathy, and, you know, listening my Russian ineloquent description of what Joe believes, what is your kind of response to that?
2
SPEAKER_01
Why should certain categories of healthy and young people still get vaccinated, do you think?
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, first, just to say it s great for Joe to be a skeptic, to ask questions.
2
SPEAKER_00
We should all be doing that.
2
SPEAKER_00
But then the next step is to go and see what the data says and see if there are actually answers to those questions.
2
SPEAKER_00
So coming to healthy people, I ve done a bunch of podcasts besides this one, the one I think I remember most.
2
SPEAKER_00
was a podcast with a worldwide wrestling superstar.
2
SPEAKER_00
He s about six foot six and just absolutely solid muscle.
2
SPEAKER_00
And he got COVID.
2
SPEAKER_00
And he almost died.
2
SPEAKER_00
And recovering from that, he said, I ve got to let my
2
SPEAKER_00
Supporters know, because you can imagine worldwide wrestling fans are probably not big embracers of the need for vaccines.
2
SPEAKER_00
And he just turned himself into a spokesperson for the fact that this virus doesn t care how healthy you are, how much you exercise, what a great specimen you are.
2
SPEAKER_00
It wiped him out.
2
SPEAKER_00
And we see that.
2
SPEAKER_00
You know, the average person in the ICU right now with COVID-19 is under age 50.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think there s a lot of people still thinking, oh, it s just those old people in the nursing homes.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s not gonna be about me.
2
SPEAKER_00
They re wrong.
2
SPEAKER_00
And there are plenty of instances of people who were totally healthy with no underlying diseases, taking good care of themselves, not obese, exercising, who have died from this disease.
2
SPEAKER_00
700 children have died from this disease.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yes, some of them had underlying factors like obesity, but a lot of them did not.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it s fair to say younger people are less susceptible to serious illness, kids even less so than young adults, but it ain t zero.
2
SPEAKER_00
And if the vaccine is really safe and really effective,
2
SPEAKER_00
then you probably want everybody to take advantage of that.
2
SPEAKER_00
Even though some are dropping their risks more than others, everybody s dropping their risks some.
2
SPEAKER_01
Are you worried about variants?
2
SPEAKER_01
So looking out into the future, what s your vision for all the possible trajectories that this virus takes in human society?
2
SPEAKER_00
I m totally worried about the variants.
2
SPEAKER_00
Delta was such an impressive arrival on the scene in all the wrong ways.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it took over
2
SPEAKER_00
the world in the space of just a couple months because of its extremely contagious ability.
2
SPEAKER_00
Viruses would be beautiful if they weren t terrifying.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, exactly.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, this whole story of viral evolution scientifically is just amazingly elegant.
2
SPEAKER_00
Anybody who really wanted to understand how evolution works in real time, study SARS-CoV-2.
2
SPEAKER_00
Because it s not just Delta, it s Alpha, and it s Beta, and it s Gamma, and it s the fact that these sweep through the world s population by fairly minor differences in fitness.
2
SPEAKER_00
So the real question many people are wrestling is, is Delta it?
2
SPEAKER_00
Is it such a fit virus that nothing else will be able to displace it?
2
SPEAKER_00
I don t know.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, there s now Delta AY4.
2
SPEAKER_00
which is a variant of Delta that at least in the UK seems to be taking over the Delta population as though it s maybe even a little more contagious.
2
SPEAKER_00
That might be the first hint that we re seeing something new here.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s not a completely different virus.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s still Delta, but it s Delta plus.
2
SPEAKER_00
You know, the big worry, Lex, is what s out there that is so different that the vaccine protection doesn t work?
2
SPEAKER_01
And we don t know how different it needs to be for the vaccine to start working.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s the terrifying thing about each of these variants.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s like, it s always a pleasant surprise that the vaccine seems to still have efficacy.
2
SPEAKER_00
And hooray for our immune system, may I say, because the vaccine immunized you against that original Wuhan virus.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now we can see that especially after two doses, and even more so after a booster, your immune system is so clever that it s also making a diversity of antibodies to cover some other things that might happen to that virus to make it a little different.
2
SPEAKER_00
And you re still getting really good coverage.
2
SPEAKER_00
Even for beta, which was South Africa, B1351, which is the most different, it looks pretty good.
2
SPEAKER_00
But that doesn t mean it will always be as good as that if something gets really far away from the original virus.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now, the good news is we would know what to do in that situation.
2
SPEAKER_00
The mRNA vaccines allow you to redesign the vaccine like that and to quickly get it through a few thousand participants in a clinical trial to be sure it s raising antibodies and then bang, you could go.
2
SPEAKER_00
But I don t want to have to do that.
2
SPEAKER_00
There will be people s lives at risk in the meantime.
2
SPEAKER_00
And what s the best way to keep that from happening?
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, try to cut down the number of infections because you don t get variants unless the virus is replicating in a person.
2
SPEAKER_01
So how do we solve this thing?
2
SPEAKER_01
How do we get out of this pandemic?
2
SPEAKER_01
What s like if you had like a wand or something or
2
SPEAKER_01
you could really implement policies.
2
SPEAKER_01
What s the full cocktail of solutions here?
2
SPEAKER_00
It s a full cocktail.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s not just one thing.
2
SPEAKER_00
In our own country here in the U.S., it would be getting those 64 million reluctant people to actually go ahead and get vaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s 64 million people who didn t get vaccinated?
2
SPEAKER_00
Adults, yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
Not even counting the kids.
2
SPEAKER_00
Wow.
2
SPEAKER_00
64 million.
2
SPEAKER_00
Wow.
2
SPEAKER_00
Isn t that astounding?
2
SPEAKER_00
Get the kids vaccinated.
2
SPEAKER_00
Hopefully their parents will see that as a good thing, too.
2
SPEAKER_00
Get those of us who are due for boosters boosted because that s going to reduce our likelihood of having breakthrough infections and keep spreading it.
2
SPEAKER_00
Convince people that until we re really done with this, and we re not now, that social distancing and mask wearing indoors are still critical to cut down the number of new infections.
2
SPEAKER_00
But, of course, that s our country.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is a worldwide pandemic.
2
SPEAKER_00
I worry greatly about the fact that low and middle income countries have, for the most part, not even gotten started with access to vaccines.
2
SPEAKER_00
And we have to figure out a way to speed that up.
2
SPEAKER_00
Because otherwise, that s where the next variant will probably arrive.
2
SPEAKER_00
And who knows how bad it will be.
2
SPEAKER_00
And it will cross the world quickly, as we ve seen happen repeatedly in the last 22 months.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think I m really surprised, annoyed, frustrated that rapid at-home testing from the very beginning wasn t a big, big part of the solution.
2
SPEAKER_01
First of all, nobody s against it.
2
SPEAKER_01
That s one huge plus for testing.
2
SPEAKER_01
Everybody supports.
2
SPEAKER_01
Second of all, like that s what America is good at, is like mass manufacturer stuff, like stepping up, engineers stepping up and really deploying it.
2
SPEAKER_01
Plus, without the collection of data is giving people freedom, is giving them information, and then freedom to decide what to do with that information.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s such a powerful solution.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t understand.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, now, I think the Biden administration is
2
SPEAKER_01
I think emphasized the scaling of testing manufacturers.
2
SPEAKER_01
But I just feel like it s an obvious solution.
2
SPEAKER_01
Get a test that costs less than a dollar to manufacture, costs less than a dollar to buy, and just everybody gets tested every single day.
2
SPEAKER_01
Don t share that data with anyone.
2
SPEAKER_01
You just make the decisions.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I believe in the intelligence of people to make the right decision to stay at home when the test is positive.
2
SPEAKER_00
I am so completely with you on that.
2
SPEAKER_00
And NIH has been smack in the middle of trying to make that dream
3
SPEAKER_00
come true.
3
SPEAKER_00
We re running a trial right now in Georgia, Indiana, Hawaii.
3
SPEAKER_00
And where s the other one?
3
SPEAKER_00
Oh, Kentucky.
3
SPEAKER_00
Basically, blanketing a community with free lung testing.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s beautiful.
3
SPEAKER_00
And look to see what happens as far as stemming the spread of the epidemic.
3
SPEAKER_00
And measuring it by wastewater, because you can really tell whether you ve cut back the amount of infection in the community.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I m so with you.
3
SPEAKER_00
We got off to such a bad start with testing.
3
SPEAKER_00
And of course, all the testing was being done for the first several months in big box laboratories where you had to send the sample off and put it through the mail somehow and get the result back sometimes five days later after you ve already infected a dozen people.
3
SPEAKER_00
It was just a completely wrong model, but it s what we had.
3
SPEAKER_00
And everybody was like, oh, we got to stick with PCR, because if you start using those home tests that are based on antigens lateral flow, probably there s going to be false positives and false negatives.
3
SPEAKER_00
OK, sure.
3
SPEAKER_00
No test is perfect.
3
SPEAKER_00
Having a test that s not acceptable or accessible is the worst setting.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we, NIH, with some requests from Congress, got a billion dollars to create this program called Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics, RADx.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we turned into a venture capital organization and we invited every small business or academic lab that had a cool idea about how to do home testing to bring it forward.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we threw them into what we called our shark tank of business experts, engineers, technology people, people understood how to deal with supply chains and manufacturing.
3
SPEAKER_00
And right now today, there are about 2 million tests being done based on what came out of that program, including most of the home tests that you can now buy on the pharmacy shelves.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we did that.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I wish we had done it faster, but it was an amazingly speedy effort.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you re right, companies are really good.
3
SPEAKER_00
Once they ve gotten FDA emergency use authorization, and we helped a lot of them get that, they can scale up their manufacturing.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think in December, we should have about 410 million tests for that month ready to go.
3
SPEAKER_00
And if we can get one or two more platforms approved, and by the way, we are now helping FDA by being their validation lab.
3
SPEAKER_00
If we can get a couple more of these approved, we could be in the half a billion tests.
3
SPEAKER_00
a month, which is really getting where we need to be.
3
SPEAKER_00
Wow.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s a dream.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s a dream for me.
3
SPEAKER_01
It seems like an obvious solution, engineering solution.
3
SPEAKER_01
Everybody s behind it.
3
SPEAKER_01
It leads to hope versus division.
3
SPEAKER_01
I love it.
3
SPEAKER_01
Okay.
3
SPEAKER_00
A happy story.
3
SPEAKER_01
A happy story.
3
SPEAKER_00
I was waiting for one.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, all right, well, one last dive into the not happy, but you won t even have to comment on it.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, comment on the broader philosophical question.
3
SPEAKER_01
So NIH, again, I said, Joe Rogan is the first one who pointed me to this.
3
SPEAKER_01
NIH was recently accused of funding research of a paper that had images of sedated puppies with their heads inserted into small enclosures containing disease-carrying sand flies.
3
SPEAKER_01
So I could just say that this story is not true, or at least the, I think it is true that the paper that showed those images cited NIH as a funding source, but that citation is not correct.
3
SPEAKER_00
That was not correct.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
But that brings up a bigger philosophical question.
3
SPEAKER_01
What that,
3
SPEAKER_01
could have been correct.
3
SPEAKER_01
How difficult is it as a director of NIH or just NIH as an organization that s funding so many amazing deep research studies to ensure the ethical fortitude of those studies when the ethics of science is there s such a gray area between what is and what isn t ethical?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, tough issues.
3
SPEAKER_00
Certainly animal research is a tough issue.
3
SPEAKER_01
I was going to bring up, it s a good example of that tough issue, is in 2015, you announced that NIH would no longer support any biomedical research involving chimpanzees.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s right.
3
SPEAKER_01
So that s like one example of looking in the mirror, thinking deeply about what is and isn t ethical.
3
SPEAKER_01
And there was a conclusion that biomedical research on chimps is not ethical.
3
SPEAKER_00
That was the conclusion.
3
SPEAKER_00
That was based on a lot of deep thinking and a lot of input from people who have considered this issue and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences that was asked to review the issue.
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the question that I wanted them to look at was, are we actually learning anything that s really essential from chimpanzee invasive research at this point?
3
SPEAKER_00
Or is it time to say that these closest relatives of ours should not be subjected to that any further and ought to be retired to a sanctuary?
3
SPEAKER_00
And that was the conclusion, that there was really no kind of medical experimentation that needed to be done on chimps in order to proceed.
3
SPEAKER_00
So why are we still doing this?
3
SPEAKER_00
Many of these were chimpanzees that were purchased because we thought they would be.
3
SPEAKER_00
good hosts for HIV AIDS, and they sort of weren t, and they were kept around in these primate laboratories with people coming up with other things to do, but they weren t compelling scientifically.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I think that was the right decision.
3
SPEAKER_00
I took a lot of flack from some of the scientific communities that said, well, you re caving in to the animal rights people, and now that you ve said no more research on chimps, what s next?
3
SPEAKER_00
Certainly when it comes to companion animals, everybody s heart starts to be hurting when you see anything done that seems harmful to a dog or a cat.
3
SPEAKER_00
I have a cat.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t have a dog.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I understand that completely.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s why we have these oversight groups that decide before you do any of that kind of research, is it justified?
3
SPEAKER_00
And what kind of provision is going to be made to avoid pain and suffering?
3
SPEAKER_00
And those are, those have input from the public as well as the scientific community.
3
SPEAKER_00
Is that completely saying that every step that s happening there is ethical by some standard that would be hard for anybody to agree to?
3
SPEAKER_00
No, but at least it s a consensus of what people think is acceptable.
3
SPEAKER_00
Dogs are the only host for some diseases, like Leishmaniasis, which was that paper that we were not responsible for, but I know why they were doing the experiment, or like Lymphatic Filariasis, which is an experiment that we are supporting in Georgia that involves dogs getting infected with a parasite, because that s the only model we have to know whether a treatment is going to work or not.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I will defend that.
3
SPEAKER_00
I am not in the place of those who think all animal research is evil, because I think if there s something that s going to be done to save a child from a terrible disease, or an adult, and it involves animal research that s been carefully reviewed, then I think ethically, while it doesn t make me comfortable, it still seems like it s the right choice.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think to say all animal research should be taken off the table
3
SPEAKER_00
is also very unethical because that means you have basically doomed a lot of people for whom that research might have saved their lives to having no more hope.
3
SPEAKER_01
And to me personally, there s far greater concerns ethically in terms of factory farming, for example, the treatment of animals in other contexts.
3
SPEAKER_00
Oh, there s so much that goes on outside of medical research that is much more troubling.
3
SPEAKER_00
That said, I think all cats have to go.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s just my off the record opinion.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s why I m not involved with any ethical decisions.
3
SPEAKER_01
I m just joking, Internet.
3
SPEAKER_01
I love cats.
3
SPEAKER_00
You re a dog person.
3
SPEAKER_01
I m a dog person.
3
SPEAKER_01
I m sorry.
3
SPEAKER_00
Have you seen the New Yorker cartoon where there are two dogs in the bar having a martini, and one is saying they re dressed up in their business suits, and one says to the other, you know, it s not enough for the dogs to win.
3
SPEAKER_00
The cats have to lose.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s beautiful.
3
SPEAKER_01
So a few weeks ago, you ve announced that you re resigning from the NIH at the end of the year.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m stepping down.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m still going to be at NIH in a different capacity.
3
SPEAKER_01
A different capacity, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
And it s over a decade of an incredible career overseeing the NIH as its director.
3
SPEAKER_01
What are the things you re most proud of of the NIH in your time here as its director?
3
SPEAKER_01
Maybe memorable moments.
3
SPEAKER_00
There s a lot.
3
SPEAKER_00
In 12 years, science has just progressed in amazing ways over those 12 years.
3
SPEAKER_00
Think about where we are right now.
3
SPEAKER_00
Something like gene editing, being able to make changes in DNA, even for therapeutic purposes, which is now curing sickle cell disease.
3
SPEAKER_00
Unthinkable when I became director in 2009.
3
SPEAKER_00
The ability to study single cells and ask them what they re doing and get an answer.
3
SPEAKER_00
Single cell biology just has emerged in this incredibly powerful way.
3
SPEAKER_00
Having the courage to be able to say we could actually understand the human brain seemed like so far out there, and we re in the process of doing that with the BRAIN Initiative.
3
SPEAKER_00
Taking all that we ve learned about the genome and applying it to cancer to make individual cancer treatment really precision, and developing cancer immunotherapy, which seemed like sort of a backwater into some of the hottest science around.
3
SPEAKER_00
all those things sort of erupting, and much more to come, I m sure.
3
SPEAKER_00
We re on an exponential curve of medical research advances, and that s glorious to watch.
3
SPEAKER_00
And of course, COVID-19, as a beneficiary of decades of basic science, understanding what mRNA is, understanding basics about coronaviruses and spike proteins, and how to combine structural biology and immunology and genomics into this package that allows you to make a vaccine in 11 months,
3
SPEAKER_00
Just I would never have imagined that possible in 2009.
3
SPEAKER_00
So to have been able to kind of be the midwife helping all of those things get birthed, that s been just an amazing 12 years.
3
SPEAKER_00
And as NIH director, you have this convening power
3
SPEAKER_00
and this ability to look across the whole landscape of biomedical research and identify areas that are just like ready for something big to happen, but it isn t gonna happen spontaneously without some encouragement, without pulling people together from different disciplines who don t know each other and maybe don t know how to quite understand each other s scientific language and create an environment for that to happen.
3
SPEAKER_00
That has been just an amazing experience.
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I mentioned the BRAIN Initiative as one of those.
3
SPEAKER_00
The BRAIN Initiative right now, I think there s about 600 investigators working on this.
3
SPEAKER_00
Last week, the whole issue of Nature Magazine was about the output of the BRAIN Initiative basically now giving us a cell census of what those cells in the brain are doing, which has just never been imaginable.
3
SPEAKER_00
And interestingly, more than half
3
SPEAKER_00
of the investigators in the BRAIN Initiative are engineers.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re not biologists in a traditional sense.
3
SPEAKER_00
I love that.
3
SPEAKER_00
Maybe partly because my PhD is in quantum mechanics.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I think it s really a good idea to bring disciplines together and see what happens.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s an exciting thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I will not ever forget having the chance to announce that program.
3
SPEAKER_00
in the East Room in that White House with President Obama, who totally got it and totally loved science.
3
SPEAKER_00
And working with him in some of those rare moments of sort of one-on-one conversation in the Oval Office, just him and me about science, that s a gift.
3
SPEAKER_01
What s it like talking to Barack Obama about science?
3
SPEAKER_01
He seems to be a sponge.
3
SPEAKER_01
I ve heard him, I m an artificial intelligence person.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I ve heard him talk about AI.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it was like, it made me think of somebody like whispering in his ear or something because he was saying stuff that totally passed the BS test, like he really understands stuff.
3
SPEAKER_01
That means he listened to a bunch of experts on AI.
3
SPEAKER_01
He was like explaining the difference between narrow artificial intelligence and strong AI.
3
SPEAKER_01
Like he was saying all this both technical and philosophical stuff.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it just made me, I don t know, it made me hopeful about
3
SPEAKER_01
the depth of understanding that a human being in political office can attain.
3
SPEAKER_00
That gave me hope as well and having those experiences.
3
SPEAKER_00
Oftentimes in a group, I mean, another example was trying to figure out how do we take what we ve learned about the genome and really apply it at scale to figure out how to prevent illness, not just treat it, but prevent it.
3
SPEAKER_00
out of which came this program called All of Us, this million-strong American cohort of participants who make their electronic health records and their genome sequences and everything else available for researchers to look at.
3
SPEAKER_00
That came out of a couple of conversations with Obama and others in his office.
3
SPEAKER_00
he asked the best questions.
3
SPEAKER_00
That was what struck me so much.
3
SPEAKER_00
I mean, a room full of scientists, and we d be talking about the possible approaches, and he would come up with this incredibly insightful, penetrating question.
3
SPEAKER_00
Not that he knew what the answer was gonna be, but he knew what the right question was.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think the core to that is curiosity.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
I don t think he s even like, he s trying to be a good leader.
3
SPEAKER_01
He s legit curious.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
That he, almost like a kid in a candy store, gets to talk to the world experts.
3
SPEAKER_01
He somehow sneaked into this office and gets to talk to the world experts.
3
SPEAKER_01
And that s the kind of energy that I think leads to beautiful leadership in the space of science.
3
SPEAKER_00
Another thing I ve been able to do as director is to try to break down some of the boundaries that seem to be traditional between the public and the private sectors.
3
SPEAKER_00
When it comes to areas of science that really could and should be open access anyway, why don t we work together?
3
SPEAKER_00
And that was obvious early on.
3
SPEAKER_00
And after identifying a few possible collaborators who are chief scientists of pharmaceutical companies, it looked like we might be able to do something in that space.
3
SPEAKER_00
Out of that was born something called the Accelerating Medicines Partnership, AMP.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it took a couple of years of convening people who usually didn t talk to each other.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there was a lot of suspicion, academic scientists saying, oh, those scientists in pharma, they re not that smart, they re just trying to make money.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the academic scientists getting the rap from the pharmaceutical scientists, all they wanna do is publish papers, they don t really care about helping anybody.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we found out both of those stereotypes were wrong.
3
SPEAKER_00
And over the course of that couple of years, built a momentum behind three starting projects, one on Alzheimer s, one on diabetes, one on rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
3
SPEAKER_00
Very different, each one of them trying to identify what is an area that we both really need to see advance and we could do better together.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s going to have to be open access, otherwise NIH is not going to play.
3
SPEAKER_00
And guess what, industry, if you really wanna do this, you gotta have skin in the game.
3
SPEAKER_00
We ll cover half the cost, you gotta cover the other half.
3
SPEAKER_00
I love it.
3
SPEAKER_01
Enforcing open access, resulting in open science.
3
SPEAKER_00
Millions of dollars gone into this.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it has been a wild success.
3
SPEAKER_00
After many people were skeptical, a couple years later, we had another project on Parkinson s.
3
SPEAKER_00
More recently, we added one on schizophrenia.
3
SPEAKER_00
Just this week, we added one on gene therapy, on bespoke gene therapy for ultra-rare diseases, which otherwise aren t going to have enough commercial appeal.
3
SPEAKER_00
But if we did this together, especially with FDA at the table, and they have been,
3
SPEAKER_00
We could make something happen, turn this into a sort of standardized approach where everything didn t have to be a one-off.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m really excited about that.
3
SPEAKER_00
So what began as three projects is six, and it s about to be seven next year with a heart failure project.
3
SPEAKER_00
And all of us have gotten to know each other.
3
SPEAKER_00
And if it weren t for that background, when COVID came along, it would have been a lot harder to build the partnership called ACTIV, which has been my passion for the last 20 months, accelerating COVID-19 therapeutic interventions and vaccines.
3
SPEAKER_00
We just had our leadership team meeting this morning.
3
SPEAKER_00
It was amazing what s been accomplished.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s pretty much 100 people who dropped everything just to work on this, about half from industry and half from government and academia.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s how we got vaccine master protocols designed.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we all agreed about what the endpoints had to be.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you wondered, why are there 30,000 participants in each of these trials?
3
SPEAKER_00
It s because of active group mapping out what the power needed to be for this to be convincing.
3
SPEAKER_00
Same with therapeutics.
3
SPEAKER_00
We have run at least 20 therapeutic agents through trials that ACTIV supported in record time.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s how we got monoclonal antibodies that we know work.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s been, that would not have been possible if I didn t already have a sense of how to work with the private sector that came out of AMP.
3
SPEAKER_00
AMP took two years to get started.
3
SPEAKER_00
ACTIV took two weeks.
3
SPEAKER_00
We just kept the lawyers.
3
SPEAKER_01
Wow, let s get a hundred people over.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, kept the lawyers out of the room and away with it.
3
SPEAKER_01
Now you re going to get yourself in trouble.
3
SPEAKER_01
I do hope one day the story of this incredible vaccine, development of vaccine protocols and trials and all this kind of details, the messy, beautiful details of science and engineering and that led to the manufacturing, the deployment and the scientific test.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s such a nice dance between
3
SPEAKER_01
engineering in the space of manufacturing the vaccines, you know, you start before the studies are complete, you start making the vaccines, just in case that if the studies prove to be positive, then you can start deploying them just like so many parties, like you said, private and public playing together.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s just a beautiful dance that is one of the is
4
SPEAKER_00
one of, for me, the sources of hope in this very tricky time where there s a lot of things to be cynical about in terms of the games politicians play and the hardship experience of the economy and all those kinds of things.
4
SPEAKER_00
that to me this dance was of vaccine development was done just beautifully.
4
SPEAKER_00
And it gives me hope.
4
SPEAKER_01
It does me as well.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it was, in many ways, the finest hour that science has had in a long time, being called upon when every day counted, and making sure that time was not wasted, and things were done rigorously, but quickly.
4
SPEAKER_00
So you re incredibly good as a leader of the NIH.
4
SPEAKER_00
It seems like you re having a heck of a lot of fun.
4
SPEAKER_00
Why step down from this role after so much fun?
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, no other NIH director
4
SPEAKER_01
has served more than one president after being appointed by one, you re sort of done.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the idea of being carried over for a second presidency with Trump and now a third one with Biden is unheard of.
4
SPEAKER_01
I just think, Lex, that scientific organizations benefit from new vision.
4
SPEAKER_01
And 12 years is a really long time to have the same leader.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if I wasn t going to stick it out for the entire Biden four-year term,
4
SPEAKER_01
It s good not to wait too late during that to signal an intent to step down, because the president s got to find the right person, got to nominate them, got to get the Senate to confirm them, which is an unpredictable process right now.
4
SPEAKER_01
And you don t want to try to do that in the second half of somebody s term as president.
4
SPEAKER_01
This has got to happen now.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I kind of decided back at the end of May that this should be my final year.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I m okay with that.
4
SPEAKER_01
I do have some mixed emotions, because I love the NIH.
4
SPEAKER_01
I love the job.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s exhausting.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m traditionally, for the last 20 months anyway, working 100 hours a week.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s just, that s what it takes to juggle all of this.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that keeps me from having a lot of time for anything else.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I wouldn t mind because I don t think I m done yet.
4
SPEAKER_01
I wouldn t mind having some time to really think about what the next chapter should be.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I have none of that time right now.
4
SPEAKER_01
Do I have another calling?
4
SPEAKER_01
Is there something else I could contribute that s different than this?
4
SPEAKER_01
I d like to find that out.
4
SPEAKER_00
I think the right answer is you re just stepping down to focus on your music career.
4
SPEAKER_01
That might not be a good plan for anything very sustainable.
4
SPEAKER_00
But I think that is a sign of a great leader as George Washington did stepping down at the right time.
4
SPEAKER_01
Ted Williams.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
4
SPEAKER_01
He quit when I think he hit a home run on his last at-bat and his average was 400 at the time.
4
SPEAKER_00
No one to walk away.
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, it s hard, but it s beautiful to see in a leader.
4
SPEAKER_00
You also oversaw the Human Genome Project.
4
SPEAKER_00
You mentioned the BRAIN Initiative, which has, you know, it s a dream to map
4
SPEAKER_00
the human brain, and there s the dream to map the human code, which was the Human Genome Project.
4
SPEAKER_00
And you ve said that it is humbling for me and awe-inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.
4
SPEAKER_00
How does that, if you can just kind of wax poetic for a second, how does it make you feel that we were able to map this instruction book, look into our own code, and be able to reverse engineer it?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s breathtaking.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s so fundamental.
4
SPEAKER_01
And yet, for all of human history, we re ignorant of the details of what that instruction book looked like.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then we crossed a bridge into the territory of the known.
4
SPEAKER_01
And we had that in front of us, still written in a language that we had to learn how to read.
4
SPEAKER_01
And we re in the process of doing that and will be for decades to come.
4
SPEAKER_01
But we owned it.
4
SPEAKER_01
We had it.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it has such profound consequences.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s both a book about our history,
4
SPEAKER_01
It s a book of sort of the parts list of a human being, the genes that are in there and how they re regulated.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it s also a medical textbook that can teach us things that will provide answers to illnesses we don t understand and alleviate suffering and premature death.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s a pretty amazing thing to contemplate.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it has utterly transformed the way we do science, and it is in the process of transforming
4
SPEAKER_01
the way we do medicine, although much of that still lies ahead.
4
SPEAKER_01
You know, while we were working on the Genome Project, it was sort of hard to get this sense of a wow-ness, because it was just hard work.
4
SPEAKER_01
And you were getting, you know, another megabase.
4
SPEAKER_01
Okay, this is good.
4
SPEAKER_01
But when did you actually step back and say, we did it?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s the profoundness of that.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, there were two points, I guess.
4
SPEAKER_01
One was the announcement on that June 26, 2000, where the whole world heard, well, we don t quite have it, but we got a pretty good draft.
4
SPEAKER_01
And suddenly people were like, realizing, oh, this is a big deal.
4
SPEAKER_01
For me, it was more when we got the full analysis of it, published it in February 2001 in that Issue of Nature paper that Eric Lander and Bob Waterston and I were the main authors, and we toiled over and tried to get as much insight as we could in there about what the meaning of all this was.
4
SPEAKER_01
But you also had this sense that we are such beginning readers here.
4
SPEAKER_01
We are still in kindergarten trying to make sense out of this 3 billion letter book.
4
SPEAKER_01
And we re going to be at this for generations to come.
4
SPEAKER_00
You are a man of faith, Christian, and you are a man of science.
4
SPEAKER_00
What is the role of religion and of science in society and in the individual human mind and heart like yours?
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, I was not a person of faith when I was growing up.
4
SPEAKER_01
I became a believer in my 20s, influenced as a medical student by a recognition that I hadn t really thought through the issues of what s the meaning of life?
4
SPEAKER_01
Why are we all here?
4
SPEAKER_01
What happens when you die?
4
SPEAKER_01
Is there a God?
4
SPEAKER_01
Science is not so helpful in answering those questions.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I had to look around in other places and ultimately,
4
SPEAKER_01
came to my own conclusion that atheism, which is where I had been, was the least supportable of the choices, because it was the assertion of a universal negative, which scientists aren t supposed to do.
4
SPEAKER_01
And agnosticism came as an attractive option, but felt a little bit like a cop-out, so I had to keep going, trying to figure out why do believers actually believe this stuff?
4
SPEAKER_01
and came to realize it was all pretty compelling.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s no proof.
4
SPEAKER_01
I can t prove to you or anybody else that God exists, but I can say it s pretty darn plausible.
4
SPEAKER_01
And ultimately, what kind of God is it caused me to search through various religions and see, well, what do people think about that?
4
SPEAKER_01
and to my surprise, encountered the person of Jesus Christ as unique in every possible way, and answering a lot of the questions I couldn t otherwise answer.
4
SPEAKER_01
And somewhat kicking and screaming, I became a Christian, even though at the time, as a medical student already interested in genetics, people predicted my head would then explode, because these were incompatible worldviews.
4
SPEAKER_01
They really have not been for me.
4
SPEAKER_01
I am so fortunate, I think, that in a given day, wrestling with an issue, it can have both the rigorous scientific component and it can have the spiritual component.
4
SPEAKER_01
COVID-19 is a great example.
4
SPEAKER_01
These vaccines are both an amazing scientific achievement and an answer to prayer.
4
SPEAKER_01
When I m wrestling with vaccine hesitancy and trying to figure out what answers to come up with, I get so frustrated sometimes, and I m comforted by reassurances that God is aware of that.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t have to do this alone.
4
SPEAKER_01
So, I know there are people like your friend Sam Harris, who feel differently.
4
SPEAKER_01
Sam wrote a rather famous op-ed in the New York Times
4
SPEAKER_01
when I was nominated as the NIH director, saying, this is a terrible mistake.
4
SPEAKER_01
You can t have somebody who believes in God running the NIH.
4
SPEAKER_01
He s just gonna completely ruin the place.
4
SPEAKER_00
I have a testimonial.
4
SPEAKER_00
Christopher Hitchens, a devout atheist, if I could say so, was a friend of yours and referred to you as, quote, one of the greatest living Americans.
4
SPEAKER_00
and stated that you were one of the most devout believers he has ever met.
4
SPEAKER_00
He further stated that you were sequencing the genome of the cancer that would ultimately claim his life, and that your friendship, despite their differing opinions on religion, was an example of the greatest armed truce in modern times.
4
SPEAKER_00
What did you learn from Christopher Hitchens about life, or perhaps what is a fond memory you have of this man with whom you ve disagreed, but who is also your friend?
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I loved Hitch.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m sorry he s gone.
4
SPEAKER_01
Iron sharpens iron.
4
SPEAKER_01
There s nothing better for trying to figure out where you are with your own situation and your own opinions, your own worldviews, than encountering somebody who s completely in another space and who s got the gift, as Hitch did, of challenging everything and doing so over a glass of scotch or two or three.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, we got off to a rough start where in an interaction we had
4
SPEAKER_01
rather high-brow dinner.
4
SPEAKER_01
He was really deeply insulting of a question I was asking.
4
SPEAKER_01
But I was like, OK, that s fine.
4
SPEAKER_01
Let s figure out how we could have a more civil conversation.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then I really learned to greatly admire his intellect and to find the jousting with him.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it wasn t all about faith, although it often was.
4
SPEAKER_01
It was really inspiring and innervating, energizing.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then when he got cancer, I became sort of his ally, trying to help him find pathways through.
4
SPEAKER_01
the various options and maybe helped him to stay around on this planet for an extra six months or so.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I have the warmest feelings of being in his apartment downtown over a glass of wine, talking about whatever.
4
SPEAKER_01
Sometimes it was science.
4
SPEAKER_01
He was fascinated by science.
4
SPEAKER_01
Sometimes it was Thomas Jefferson.
4
SPEAKER_01
Sometimes it was faith.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I knew it would always be really interesting.
4
SPEAKER_00
So he s now gone.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
4
SPEAKER_00
Do you think about your own mortality?
4
SPEAKER_00
Are you afraid of death?
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not afraid.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not looking forward to it.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to rush it because I feel like I got some things I can still do here.
4
SPEAKER_01
But as a person of faith,
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t think I m afraid.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m 71.
4
SPEAKER_01
I know I don t have an infinite amount of time left, and I want to use the time I ve got in some sort of way that matters.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not ready to become a full-time golfer, but I don t quite know what that is.
4
SPEAKER_01
I do feel that I ve had a chance to do amazingly powerful things as far as experiences, and maybe God has something else in mind.
4
SPEAKER_01
I wrote this book 16 years ago, The Language of God, about science and faith, trying to explain how, from my perspective, these are compatible.
4
SPEAKER_01
These are in harmony.
4
SPEAKER_01
They re complementary, if you are careful about which kind of question you re asking.
4
SPEAKER_01
And to my surprise, a lot of people seemed to be interested in that.
4
SPEAKER_01
They were tired of hearing the extreme voices, like Dawkins at one end, and people like Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis on the other end, saying, if you trust science, you re going to hell.
4
SPEAKER_01
And they thought there must be a way that these things could get along.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s what I tried to put forward.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then I started a foundation, BioLogos, which then I had to step away from to become NIH director, which has just flourished.
4
SPEAKER_01
Maybe because I stepped away, I don t know.
4
SPEAKER_01
But it now has millions of people who come to that website, and they run amazing meetings.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I think a lot of people have really come to a sense that this is OK.
4
SPEAKER_01
I can love science, and I can love God.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s not a bad thing.
4
SPEAKER_01
So maybe there s something more I can do in that space.
4
SPEAKER_01
Maybe that book is ready for a second edition.
4
SPEAKER_00
I think so.
4
SPEAKER_00
But when you look back, life is finite.
4
SPEAKER_00
What do you hope your legacy is?
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t know, this whole legacy thing seems a little bit hard to embrace.
4
SPEAKER_01
It feels a little self-promoting, doesn t it?
4
SPEAKER_01
I sort of feel like, in many ways, I went to my own funeral on October 5th when I announced that I was stepping down, and I got the most amazing responses.
4
SPEAKER_01
from people, some of whom I knew really well, some of whom I didn t know at all, who were just telling me stories about something that I had contributed to that made a difference to them.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that was incredibly heartwarming.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s enough.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to build an edifice.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t have a plan for a monument or a statue, God help us.
4
SPEAKER_01
I do feel like I ve been incredibly fortunate.
4
SPEAKER_01
I ve had the chance to play a role in things that were pretty profound from the Genome Project to NIH to COVID vaccines.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I ought to be plenty satisfied that I ve had enough experiences here to feel pretty good about the way in which my life panned out.
4
SPEAKER_00
We did a bunch of difficult questions in this conversation.
4
SPEAKER_00
Let me ask the most difficult one.
4
SPEAKER_00
that perhaps is the reason you turn to God, what is the meaning of life?
4
SPEAKER_00
Have you figured it out yet?
4
SPEAKER_01
Expect me to put that into three sentences.
4
SPEAKER_00
We only have a couple of minutes, so at least hurry up.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s not a question that I think science helps me with, so you re going to push me into the faith zone, which is where I d want to go with that.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think, well, what is the meaning?
4
SPEAKER_01
Why are we here?
4
SPEAKER_01
What are we put here to do?
4
SPEAKER_01
I do believe we re here for just a blink of an eye and that our existence somehow goes on beyond that in a way that I don t entirely understand despite efforts to do so.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think we are called upon in this blink of an eye to try to make the world a better place, to try to love people, to try to do a better job of
4
SPEAKER_01
our more altruistic instincts, and less of our selfish instincts, to try to be what God calls us to be, people who are holy, not people who are driven by self-indulgence.
4
SPEAKER_01
And sometimes I m better at that than others.
4
SPEAKER_01
But I think that, for me as a Christian, is pretty clear.
4
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s to live out the Sermon on the Mount.
4
SPEAKER_01
Once I read that, I couldn t unread it.
4
SPEAKER_01
All those beatitudes, all the blesseds, that s what we re supposed to do.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the meaning of life is to strive for that standard, recognizing you re going to fail over and over again, and that God forgives you.
4
SPEAKER_00
hopefully to put a little bit of love out there into the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
That s what it s about.
4
SPEAKER_00
Francis, I m truly humbled and inspired by both your brilliance and your humility, and that you would spend your extremely valuable time with me today.
4
SPEAKER_00
It was really an honor.
4
SPEAKER_00
Thank you so much for talking today.
4
SPEAKER_01
I was glad to, and you asked a really good question.
4
SPEAKER_01
So your reputation as the best podcaster has borne itself out here this afternoon.
4
SPEAKER_00
Thank you so much.
4
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Francis Collins.
4
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
4
SPEAKER_00
And now, let me leave you with some words from Isaac Newton, reflecting on his life and work.
4
SPEAKER_00
I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
4
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.