Transcript: Resurrection Science | Jul 31, 2018

Nam sits in the studio. She's in her early forties, with shoulder length curly brown hair. She's wearing glasses and a gray blazer over a pink blouse.

Nam sits in the studio. A caption reads "Resurrection science."

Nam says WHAT IF THERE WAS A WAY TO BRING
BACK EXTINCT SPECIES LIKE THE
WOOLLY MAMMOTH OR EVEN
DINOSAURS?
SHOULD WE AND WHO SHOULD DECIDE
THAT?
HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE SCIENCE
AND THE ETHICS OF DOING SO IS
JOURNALIST BRITT RAY, WHOSE NEW
BOOK IS
RISE OF THE NECROFAUNA:
THE SCIENCE, ETHICS, AND RISKS
OF DE-EXTINCTION.

Britt is in her thirties, with long wavy blond hair and bangs. She's wearing a black sweater and a black and orange neckerchief.
A picture of her book appears briefly on screen. The cover is blue, with drawings of a mammoth skull and a live mammoth.

Nam says WELCOME, BRITT.

Britt says THANK YOU.

NAM SAYS IT'S REALLY NICE
TO MEET YOU.

Britt says GREAT TO MEET YOU.

Nam says SO WHEN WE THINK OF UNEXTINCT
ANIMALS COMING BACK TO LIFE,
We thing of dinosaurs
Alla Jurassic Park.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK.

A clip from the film "Jurassic Park" plays on screen.

(music plays)

A perplexed man and woman stand in up in a Jeep on a field as a huge long-necked dinosaur roams around and eats leaves from tall tree branches.

[DINOSAUR ROARING]

(music plays)

[ROARING]

[DOOR OPENS]

The man and woman hop off the Jeep and walk towards the huge beast.

[GASPING]

[DINOSAUR STOMPING]

The man points and says
IT'S... IT'S A DINOSAUR.

The clip ends.

Nam says I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE MUSIC,
BUT WHEN YOU WATCH THAT PIECE,
YOU'RE LIKE, OH MY GOSH, THAT'S
SO BEAUTIFUL, WHERE PROBABLY WE
SHOULD BE MORE TERRIFIED IF WE
WERE ABLE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
SO YOU TALK ABOUT NECROFAUNA AND
THE DE-EXTINCTION IN YOUR BOOK.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE CAN
ACTUALLY BRING BACK DINOSAURS?

The caption changes to "Britt Wray. Author, 'Rise of the necrofauna.'"
Then, it changes again to "Bringing the dead back to life."

Britt says WE CANNOT BRING BACK DINOSAURS,
FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN
GONE FOR NEARLY 66 MILLION YEARS
AND THAT'S FAR TOO LONG TO BE
ABLE TO SALVAGE ANY GOOD USABLE
BITS OF DNA FROM THEIR
FOSSILIZED REMAINS BUT WHEN
THERE ARE MORE RECENTLY EXTINCT
SPECIES, SUCH AS A PASSENGER
PIGEON OR A WOOLLY MAMMOTH,
THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN
ACTUALLY EXTRACT DNA FROM THEIR
REMNANTS AND THEN MAP OUT THEIR
GENOME IN ORDER TO DO THE REAL
WORK THAT DE-EXTINCTION DEPENDS ON.

Nam says WE'RE GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT
THAT AND ALSO ABOUT WHAT THE
PUBLIC'S POSITION SHOULD BE IN
THIS CONVERSATION.
BUT YOU WRITE THAT WRITING THIS
BOOK WAS AN ETHICAL
CONSIDERATION FOR YOU.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

Britt says THAT'S TRUE.
DE-EXTINCTION IS VERY
CONTROVERSIAL.
WE DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL HAVE
THE INTENDED EFFECT THAT SOME
SCIENTISTS WANT IT TO IN TERMS
OF RESTORING HOLES IN ECOSYSTEMS
THAT HAVE BEEN REAPED WHEN
CERTAIN IMPORTANT SPECIES THAT
HAD FUNCTIONAL ROLES TO PLAY
DISAPPEARED.
PERHAPS WE WILL ACTUALLY
ENDANGER ECOSYSTEMS BY BRINGING
IN NEW SPECIES THAT CHANGE THEM
TOWARDS UNINTENDED EFFECTS.
THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF LEGAL
ISSUES, ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS,
AND SO, I, WHEN WRITING THE
BOOK, WAS INTERVIEWING A VARIETY
OF EXPERTS ON THE DIFFERENT PROS
AND CONS AND SOME PEOPLE
CONDEMNED ME FOR WRITING THIS
BOOK.
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS DANGEROUS
THAT I'M ADDING A NARRATIVE TO
THE PILE THAT COULD GET THE
PUBLIC MORE USED TO THE IDEA
THAT WE COULD CREATE PROXIES OR
CLOSE VERSIONS OF EXTINCT
SPECIES BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT
IT'S A BAD THING FOR
CONSERVATION.
SO IN THAT SENSE, IT WAS AN
ETHICAL ISSUE THAT I AM DOING
SOMETHING TO GET PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND AND THINK ABOUT THIS
CONCEPT WHEN IT'S NOT YET
UNDERSTOOD IF IT'S GOING TO HAVE
POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EFFECTS.

Nam says AND IN THE BOOK, YOU WRITE...

A quote appears on screen, under the title "Erasure." The quote reads "If taken without scrutiny, the term de-extinction as it is widely used suggests that reversing extinction might actually be achievable. That idea, however, is a sham. In no way can we ever undo the erasure of an entire way of life."
Quoted from Britt Wray, "Rise of the necrofauna." 2017.

NAM SAYS SO WHY WRITE THE BOOK?

BRITT SAYS OKAY, INTERESTING
POINT.
SO YES, DE-EXTINCTION AS A TERM
IS A BIT MISLEADING BECAUSE IT
SUGGESTS THAT WE CAN GET A
CARBON COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
EXTINCT SPECIES BACK, THAT WE
CAN GET THIS IDENTICAL FORM.
WE CAN'T DO THAT.
HOWEVER, WE CAN COBBLE BITS OF
THE EXTINCT SPECIES TOGETHER IN
A NEW ANIMAL THAT CAN RESEMBLE
THE EXTINCT SPECIES, WHICH IS
FASCINATING SCIENCE IN ITSELF
AND IT OPENS UP A TOTALLY NEW
PARADIGM OF SCIENTIFIC WORK SO
WE CAN USE CLONING OR
BACK BREEDING OR GENE EDITING TO
MAKE THESE NEW TYPES OF ANIMALS
THAT HAVE THE TRAITS OF EXTINCT
SPECIES AND THE ONES THAT PEOPLE
ARE WORKING ON ARE, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A VARIETY OF THEM BUT I
THOUGHT THAT IT WAS FASCINATING
AND ALSO TROUBLING BECAUSE OF
THE MANY ISSUES IT RAISES, WHICH
IS WHY I WROTE THE BOOK.

Nam says WELL, YOU MENTIONED THE TOOLS, I
GUESS, THAT WE CAN USE TO MAKE
THE SCIENCE POSSIBLE.

A slate appears on screen, with the title "Tools in the toolbox."

Nam reads data from the slate and says
CLONING, GENE EDITING, AND
BACK BREEDING.
CAN YOU GO THROUGH THEM AND
EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THAT MEANS?
WHAT THOSE INDIVIDUAL TERMS EAN?

BRITT SAYS SURE.
SO CLONING IS THE PROCESS THAT
GAVE US THE FAMOUS ADULT ANIMAL
CLONED DOLLY THE SHEEP YEARS
AGO, THAT MANY PEOPLE WILL BE
FAMILIAR WITH.
AND IT'S CALLED SOMATIC CELL
NUCLEAR TRANSFER.
HERE, YOU CAN GET A VERY, VERY
CLOSE VERSION OF AN IDENTICAL
COPY OF A SPECIES BUT NOT 100 percent
IDENTICAL AND IT'S BECAUSE IT
RELIES ON TAKING A CELL FROM THE
ANIMAL THAT YOU WANT TO CLONE.
THIS HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED ONCE
BEFORE WITH AN EXTINCT ANIMAL.
THIS IS THE ONLY DE-EXTINCTION
CASE TO DATE THAT HAS BEEN
FOLLOWED THROUGH SO IT WAS A
BUCARDO...
ALSO KNOWN AS THE PYRENEAN
IBEX AND HOW THEY CLONED
THIS SPECIES BACK TO LIFE,
IS BASICALLY BY TAKING A CELL
FROM THE LAST INDIVIDUAL WHICH
HAD DIED BUT BEFORE IT DIED,
CELLS WERE TAKEN FROM THE FLANK
AND THE EARS OF THE ANIMAL AND
FROZEN VERY QUICKLY ON LIQUID
NITROGEN.
THEN YOU HAVE A PERFECTLY
PRESERVED CELL WITH THE NUCLEUS
INSIDE, WHICH IS THE PACKAGE
THAT CONTAINS MOST OF ITS DNA
PERFECTLY INTACT.
YOU CAN YANK THE NUCLEUS OUT OF
THAT CELL FROM THE ANIMAL TO BE
CLONED AND TAKE AN EGG CELL FROM
A CLOSE RELATIVE, ANOTHER LIVING
TYPE OF GOAT.

A drawing of a goat with horns curved backwards pops up.

Britt says YOU REMOVE ITS NATIVE NUCLEUS
AND REPLACE IT WITH THE NUCLEUS
THAT HAS MOST OF THE DNA OF THE
ANIMAL TO BE CLONED.
YOU STIMULATE IT TO START
DIVIDING WITH AN ELECTRO SHOCK
AND IMPLANT IT IN A SURROGATE
MOTHER WHERE, IN THAT UTERUS, IT
WILL DEVELOP, IF ALL GOES WELL,
INTO THE CLONE.
IT TAKES A LOT OF TRIAL AND
ERROR USUALLY, BUT THEN YOU CAN
GET AN ANIMAL THAT IS A CLOSE
REPLICATE OF THE EXTINCT ONE.

Nam says AND SO BACK BREEDING WOULD BE THEN?

Britt says BACK BREEDING IS VERY SIMILAR TO
HOW WE BRED DOGS FROM WOLVES,
FOR EXAMPLE.
YOU CAN THINK ABOUT ARTIFICIAL
SELECTION TECHNIQUES WHERE YOU
JUST CHOOSE INDIVIDUAL ANIMALS
THAT HAVE THE TRAITS YOU WANT
AND CROSS THEM TOGETHER OVER
MANY GENERATIONS.
HOWEVER, WHEN YOU'VE GOT AN
EXTINCT ANIMAL SUCH AS THE
AUROCHS:
WHICH IS THE ANCESTOR OF ALL OF
TODAY'S LIVING CATTLE.
THAT COW IS NO LONGER HERE.

A drawing of a muscular horned cow pops up.

Britt says WENT EXTINCT IN THE 1600S.
BUT ALL OF TODAY'S LIVING
CATTLE ARE ITS DESCENDANTS
SO YOU FIGURE THAT ITS GENOME
IS STILL ON THE PLANET,
SPRINKLED ALONG THOSE
DESCENDANTS AND THEIR GENOMES SO
YOU CAN SELECT THE COWS TODAY
THAT HAVE THE RIGHT HORN SHAPE
AND COLOURATION FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THE EXTINCT
ANCESTOR AND THEN CROSS THEM
TOGETHER OVER MANY GENERATIONS
UNTIL YOU BASICALLY BREED BACK
IN TIME TO GET A COW THAT LOOKS
AND CAN MAYBE ACT LIKE THE
EXTINCT ONE.

NAM SAYS BUT IT'S NOT THE EXTINCT
ONE.

Britt says EXACTLY.
IT'S KIND OF SKIN DEEP
DE-EXTINCTION.

NAM SAYS RIGHT.

Britt says YES.

NAM SAYS LET'S GO BACK TO SOME OTHER TERMS.
I WANT TO GET INTO... WE'VE
MENTIONED DE-EXTINCTION A COUPLE
OF TIMES.

BRITT SAYS RIGHT.

Nam says WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Britt says RIGHT, OKAY.
PERFECT.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
DE-EXTINCTION IS THE PROCESS OF
CREATING A FACSIMILE OR A CLOSE
VERSION OF AN EXTINCT SPECIES
THROUGH THESE METHODS OF GENE
EDITING, CLONING, OR
BACK BREEDING.
IT IS A TERM THAT IS A LITTLE
BIT CONFUSING BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT WE CAN UNDO EXTINCTION BUT
WE CAN'T.
WE ARE, INSTEAD, CREATING A NEW
ANIMAL THAT RESEMBLES AN EXTINCT
SPECIES.

NAM SAYS AND UNEXTINCTION.

BRITT SAYS UNEXTINCTION.
OKAY, YEAH SO, THE TERMS ARE ALL
A LITTLE BIT SLOPPY AND
CONFUSING.
DE-EXTINCTION IS THIS PROCESS
THAT I TALKED ABOUT OF CREATING
THIS PROXY ANIMAL BUT AN
UNEXTINCT ANIMAL IN THE WAY THAT
I WRITE ABOUT IT AND SOME OTHERS
IN THE FIELD IS THE PROCESS AT
THE END OF IT THAT THE ANIMAL
CREATED AS UNEXTINCT.

Nam says SO THIS PAST FALL... WE'VE
MENTIONED THE THREE TERMS LIKE
CLONING, GENE EDITING, AND
BACK BREEDING... AND THIS PAST
FALL, SCIENTISTS ANNOUNCED A NEW
ABILITY IN GENE EDITING.
HOW WOULD THAT WORK TO
ENABLE... WHAT WOULD THAT ENABLE
THEM TO DO?
WITH DE-EXTINCTION?

Britt says YES, THE GENE EDITING IS A WHOLE
OTHER APPROACH TO DOING
DE-EXTINCTION AND HERE THERE ARE
TOOLS THAT SCIENTISTS CAN USE
SUCH AS CRISPR-CAS9, A VERY
CELEBRATED GENE EDITING TOOL
SINCE 2012, THAT ALLOW YOU TO
TARGET A SPECIFIC GENE IN ANY
ANIMAL'S GENOME.
IT ALSO WORKS IN PLANTS AND
MICROBES AND HUMANS AND YOU CAN
GO IN WITH MOLECULAR SCISSORS,
ESSENTIALLY, THAT ARE ENZYMES
THAT CAN DETECT A CERTAIN GENE
SEQUENCE YOU WANT TO CUT, CUT
IT, AND YOU CAN EVEN REPLACE A
GENE WITH NEW GENETIC MATERIAL
SO IT BECOMES AN IN-AND-OUT GENE
TAILORING SYSTEM.
HOWEVER, JUST RECENTLY, THERE
WAS A PUBLICATION SHOWING THAT
THESE GENE EDITING TOOLS BECAME
A LOT MORE PRECISE SO INSTEAD OF
DOING WHOLE CHUNKS OF GENETIC
CODE AT A TIME, YOU CAN ACTUALLY
SNIP OUT A SINGLE BASE OF DNA
AND DNA IS A MOLECULE THAT COMES
WITH THESE FOUR NUCLEOTIDE
BASES AND YOU SEE THEM AS
LETTERS ON, YOU KNOW, THESE
(A), (T), (C), AND (G), AND HERE
WE HAVE VERY PRECISE GENE
EDITING TOOLS NOW THAT ALLOW YOU
TO SWITCH A (T) TO AN (A) OR (C)
TO (G) OR (G) TO AN (A).
AND SO...

NAM SAYS THAT IS SO FASCINATING.
YOU'VE MENTIONED A COUPLE OF THE
ANIMALS LIKE AUROCHS AND THE BUCARDOS.
WHICH ANIMALS WOULD MAKE IDEAL
CANDIDATES FOR DE-EXTINCTION?

The caption changes to "Britt Wray, @brittwray."

Britt says THIS IS A TOPIC OF HOT DEBATE SO
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CHOOSE A
CANDIDATE RESPONSIBLY FOR
DE-EXTINCTION?
ARE WE JUST GOING TO CREATE
ANIMALS THAT MAKE US FEEL GOOD
IN SOME WAY THAT ARE VERY
BEAUTIFUL, MAJESTIC, LOOK BACK
AT US WITH A SPARK OF
INTELLIGENCE AND THAT WE CAN
GALVANIZE A LOT OF PUBLIC
INTEREST AROUND OR ARE WE GOING
TO CHOOSE THOSE SPECIES THAT
MIGHT HAVE THE BEST ECOSYSTEM
EFFECT?
THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF NATURE IS A
GLOBAL AUTHORITY ON ENDANGERED
SPECIES.
THEY MANAGE THE RED LIST WHICH
TELLS US HOW ENDANGERED CERTAIN
SPECIES ARE AND THEY HAVE SAID
DE-EXTINCTION IS COMING DOWN THE
PIPE.
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE NEED
TO GET AHEAD OF THE BALL AND
THINK ABOUT HOW TO SELECT
CANDIDATES SO THEY MADE THESE
GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE NOT
LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE BUT THEY
WILL BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY BY
POLICY MAKERS BECAUSE OF THEIR
AUTHORITY AND THEY'RE BASICALLY
CREATING LEVELS OF SCRUTINY THAT
AN ANIMAL NEEDS TO PASS THROUGH
IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED A GOOD
CANDIDATE.
SO IS THERE AVAILABLE HABITAT?
LIKELY THIS DEPENDS ON THE
ANIMAL NOT HAVING GONE EXTINCT
THAT LONG AGO SO THE HABITAT
HASN'T TOTALLY CHANGED OR BEEN
DESTROYED.
IS IT SUBJECT TO CHANGE FROM
CLIMATE CHANGE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?
IS IT UNDER THREAT FROM THAT OR
HUMAN COMMUNITIES WANTING TO
DEVELOP THE LAND?
IS THERE FOOD AVAILABLE?
OTHER BIOTIC FACTORS.
CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT HUMANS
WON'T FIND THE SPECIES TO BE OF
COMMERCIAL INTEREST AND THEY'LL
WANT TO HUNT IT OR PRODUCE A
MARKET AROUND IT IN AN
UNECOLOGICAL WAY.
BECAUSE OF THE HIGH DEGREE OF
GENETIC ENGINEERING INVOLVED TO
MAKE A LOT OF THESE ANIMALS,
THEY WILL BE PATENTABLE IN MANY
AREAS AROUND THE WORLD.

The caption changes to "Connect with us: TVO.org. Twitter: @theagenda; Facebook, YouTube, Periscope, Instagram."

NAM SAYS THAT WOULD CREATE OTHER
PROBLEMS, RIGHT?

Britt says EXACTLY, YES.
SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A VERY
COMPLEX LAYERED ANALYSIS YOU
NEED TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO
FIGURE OUT, OKAY, IS THIS A
WISE CHOICE OR MIGHT WE GET
CAUGHT ALONG THE WAY AND
ENDANGER THESE ANIMALS AGAIN,
SHOULD THEY BE BROUGHT BACK?

Nam says AND WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD MAKE
THOSE DECISIONS?

Britt says I THINK IT SHOULD BE A GLOBAL
DISCUSSION THAT INVOLVES ALL OF US.
PEOPLE WORKING IN THIS FIELD ARE
OPEN AND INTERESTED IN
TRANSPARENCY AND THEY WANT US TO
WEIGH IN.
BUT NOT A LOT OF US ACTUALLY
KNOW ABOUT THIS AND THE FACT
THAT IT'S HAPPENING AND IT IS A
RELATIVELY FRINGE ACTIVITY.
THERE ARE STILL JUST A HANDFUL
OF LABS AROUND THE WORLD WORKING
ON IT.
HOWEVER, THERE'S SOME REALLY
HEAVY HITTERS WHO ARE MAKING
THIS HAPPEN.
SO CONSERVATIONISTS AND
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGISTS,
ECOLOGISTS, ENVIRONMENTAL
HISTORIANS, LEGAL SCHOLARS,
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
WORKING ON IT TODAY.
BUT THIS IS AFFECTING OUR
ECOSYSTEMS.
I MEAN, THERE ARE PLANS IN PLACE
TO REINTRODUCE SOME OF THESE
ANIMALS INTO FAIRLY POPULATED
AREAS, SUCH AS EASTERN NORTH
AMERICA.
THE FOREST WHERE THE PASSENGER
PIGEON USED TO ROAM SO IF WE GET
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
RECREATED PASSENGER PIGEONS
BACK THERE, AT SOME POINT, IT
WILL BE IN PLACES WHERE ALL OF
US WHO ARE LIVING THERE SHOULD
HAVE A SAY.

Nam says HOW DID THE PASSENGER PIGEON
BECOME EXTINCT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Britt says IT'S AN AMAZING STORY.
THIS BIRD WAS SO populous THAT
IT FLOCKED IN THE BILLIONS.
IT'S REALLY HARD FOR US TO...

NAM SAYS IT WAS LIKE A CURTAIN
ABOVE, RIGHT?

A drawing of a pigeon pops up.

Britt says EXACTLY.
IT WAS JUST THIS DRAPING OF
PIGEONS FLYING SO THICK THAT IT
WOULD TAKE 14 HOURS FOR A SINGLE
FLOCK TO SOMETIMES PASS
OVERHEAD.
AND WHEN HUNTERS WOULD GO OUT
AND SHOOT ONE BULLET UP IN THE
SKY, ANYWHERE BETWEEN 25 AND 99
BIRDS COULD DROP DOWN.
THEY'RE THAT COPIOUS.
IT'S REALLY HARD TO IMAGINE BUT
THEY WENT FROM BILLIONS TO NONE
IN EFFECTIVELY LESS THAN 50
YEARS BECAUSE OF MARKET HUNTING.
WE FOUND THEM TO BE A VERY
CHEAP, GOOD RELIABLE SOURCE OF
PROTEIN.
WE'D GO INTO THEIR COLONIES AND
SMOKE THEM OUT AND STUFF THEM
INTO BARRELS AND PRESERVE THEM
WITH SALT AND SHIP THEM ON RAIL
LINES ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA
WHERE THEY WERE SOLD AND
APPARENTLY, WE LIKED THE FATTY
YOUNG SQUAW THE BEST.
WE THOUGHT THEY TASTED GOOD AND
SO THEY WERE JUST SO PRESENT
EVERYWHERE THAT WE COULD CATCH
THEM IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS
AND IT MEANT THAT WE COULD MAKE
THEM GO EXTINCT, UNFORTUNATELY,
VERY QUICKLY.
AND IN 1914, THE LAST INDIVIDUAL
MARTHA, NAMED AFTER GEORGE
WASHINGTON'S WIFE, THE LAST
PASSENGER PIGEON DIED AT THE
CINCINNATI ZOO.

Nam says THERE SEEMS TO BE A REAL
INTEREST TO BRINGING IT BACK.
WHY THE PASSENGER PIGEON?

Britt says SO THIS IS A PROJECT OF A
SCIENTIST NAMED BEN NOVAK,
WHO HAS BEEN VERY PASSIONATE
ABOUT THIS BIRD SINCE HE WAS 13
WHEN HE READ ABOUT IT IN A BOOK.

NAM SAYS THAT'S PRETTY COOL, 13.

Britt says YES, YES.
HE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WERE
THESE FLOCKS THAT SOUNDED
MYTHICAL AND HE WAS A HUGE
TOLKIEN FAN AT THAT TIME AND HIS
HEART WAS LIT ABLAZE AND THERE
WAS A SCIENCE FAIR AT HIS SCHOOL
AT THAT TIME AND HE MADE HIS
PROJECT ABOUT BRINGING BACK THE
PASSENGER PIGEON AND WHAT THAT
MIGHT MEAN.
NOW HE'S MY AGE AND HE'S THE
LEAD SCIENTIST ON WHAT'S CALLED
THE GREAT COMEBACK OF THE
PASSENGER PIGEON, WHICH IS A
PROJECT BY REVIVE and RESTORE.
THIS IS A NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT'S PUSHING A
LOT OF THE DE-EXTINCTION WORK
FORWARD, INCLUDING THE WOOLLY
MAMMOTH PROJECT AT HARVARD.
AND SO HE AND THE OTHER
ADVOCATES OF DE-EXTINCTION THAT
PROMOTE THE PASSENGER PIGEON SAY
THAT WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO IS
COME BACK AND FLOCK IN THE
FOREST WHERE THEY USED TO LIVE
IN THE EASTERN PARTS OF NORTH
AMERICA IN HUGE NUMBERS TO CAUSE
THE FOREST DISTURBANCE THAT THEY
USED TO.
YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THAT MANY
PIGEONS ACTED LIKE A SUPER
ORGANISM.
THEY HAD A DEVASTATING EFFECT
WHEREVER THEY WOULD LAND.
AND FORESTS TODAY IN THESE AREAS
GENERALLY HAVE A CLOSED CANOPY
SO THE BRANCHES ARE ALL
INTERWEAVING AND THAT BLOCKS A
LOT OF THE SUNLIGHT FROM COMING
DOWN, PENETRATING THROUGH, AND
HITTING THE FOREST FLOOR.
WHEN FOREST FLOORS ARE OPEN TO
SUNLIGHT, NEW SHOOTS AND ROOTS
REGENERATE THERE.
SO BY HAVING PIGEONS COME IN AND
BREAK ALL THE BRANCHES AND
SCRATCH OFF THE BARK, AND THAT
CAN OPEN UP THE CANOPY AND ALLOW
NEW LIFE TO SPROUT DOWN BELOW,
WHICH WOULD THEN BECOME DENSER
AGAIN OVER THE YEARS UNTIL THE
PIGEONS CAME BACK TO ROOST THE
FOLLOWING YEAR.
THIS IS THE KIND OF LIFECYCLE
THAT THEY, THROUGH THE NATURAL
HISTORY OF THE AREAS, BELIEVE
THE PIGEONS HAD THERE.
WE KNOW THAT FORESTS GET
REGENERATED AROUND THE WORLD
TODAY BY A VARIETY OF
DISTURBANCES:
TORNADOS, HAILSTORMS, FIRES.
AND SO, THEY ARGUE THAT HAVING A
BUNCH OF PIGEONS BACK TO
REGENERATE THE FORESTS OF
EASTERN NORTH AMERICA WOULD BE A
DESIRABLE WAY TO ALLOW THEM TO
HAVE MORE ECOSYSTEM
PRODUCTIVITY.

Nam says SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THE
DE-EXTINCTION MOTIVATION WOULD
BE TO RESTORE ECOSYSTEMS THAT
HAVE BEEN CHANGED BECAUSE THE
ANIMALS ARE NO... THE SPECIES IS
NO LONGER THERE.

BRITT SAYS EXACTLY RIGHT.

Nam says AND IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY THERE SEEMS TO BE THIS LIKE
PUSH FOR THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH?
'CAUSE FOR ME, I'M LIKE, THERE'S
SO MANY ELEPHANTS AROUND THE
WORLD THAT ARE ON THE VERGE OF
BECOMING EXTINCT, WHY FOCUS ON
SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY GONE?

A drawing of a woolly mammoth pops up.

BRITT SAYS ABSOLUTELY, YES.
SO THOSE WORKING ON THE WOOLLY
MAMMOTH SAY, WE CARE ABOUT CONSERVATION.
WE SHOULD DIVERSIFY OUR
INTERESTS.
YES, WORK ON ENDANGERED
ELEPHANTS BUT ALSO, THINK ABOUT
HOW WOOLLY MAMMOTHS MIGHT HELP
ECOSYSTEMS OR CONSIDER THAT
CREATING A WOOLLY MAMMOTH
ELEPHANT HYBRID MIGHT BE A WAY
OF IMBUING ELEPHANTS WITH WOOLLY
MAMMOTH TRAITS THAT ALLOW THEM
TO LIVE IN NEW HABITATS SUCH AS
THE FAR NORTH AND THE ARCTIC AND
SIBERIA THAT ELEPHANTS CURRENTLY
AREN'T IN SO YOU CAN GET
BIODIVERSITY FROM THE ELEPHANT
GENOME INTO NEW AREAS.
BUT LOOKING AT THE WOOLLY
MAMMOTH SIMPLY AS AN
EXPERIMENTAL WOOLLY MAMMOTH
PROJECT, THE IDEA IS THAT BY
USING GENE EDITING, TO HAVE AN
INTERVENTION IN ASIAN ELEPHANT
CELLS WHERE YOU CAN TAKE AN
ASIAN ELEPHANT EMBRYO AND
GENETICALLY TWEAK IT SO THAT ITS
GENES EFFECTIVELY GET TURNED
INTO WOOLLY MAMMOTH SPECIFIC
TRAITS BECAUSE WE HAVE MAPPED
THE GENOME OF THE EXTINCT WOOLLY
MAMMOTH.
WE'VE GOT REALLY GREAT QUALITY
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT GENETIC
VARIANCE CODED FOR THAT THICK
ICONIC SHAGGY MANE IT HAD AND
THINGS LIKE THE SMALLER EARS
COMPARED TO ELEPHANTS THAT WOULD
ALLOW LESS HEAT TO ESCAPE WHEN
IT WAS LIVING IN REALLY COLD
ENVIRONMENTS, AS WELL AS
IMPORTANTLY, THE ABILITY TO BIND
AND RELEASE OXYGEN AND ITS BLOOD
AT FREEZING TEMPERATURES.
THEN BY CHANGING THE ELEPHANT
GENOME INTO ONE THAT HAS THESE
TRAITS, YOU CAN EFFECTIVELY
IMPLANT THAT EMBRYO IN A
SURROGATE MOTHER ELEPHANT TO
RAISE IT OR THEY'RE ALSO AT
HARVARD, IN GEORGE CHURCH'S LAB,
DEVELOPING ARTIFICIAL WOMB
TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE THEY SAY,
WELL, YES, LET'S FACE IT,
ELEPHANTS AREN'T DOING VERY WELL
SO WE SHOULD LEAVE ELEPHANT
WOMBS FREE TO MAKE MORE
ELEPHANTS RATHER THAN THESE
EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS.

NAM SAYS 'CAUSE THEIR GESTATION
PERIOD FOR ELEPHANTS IS LIKE TWO
YEARS OR SOMETHING?

Britt says YES, 22 MONTHS.
SO ALMOST TWO YEARS.
QUITE LONG.
SO IF YOU HAD A BUNCH OF
ARTIFICIAL WOMBS AND YOU GREW A
BUNCH OF THESE GENE EDITED
EMBRYOS IN PARALLEL, YOU CAN
MAKE MANY WOOLLY MAMMOTH
ELEPHANT HYBRIDS FAIRLY QUICKLY.
AND THEN THE EXPLANATION ABOUT
WHAT THIS COULD DO FOR
ECOSYSTEMS IS RELATED TO CLIMATE
CHANGE SO IT'S NOT SUPER
INTUITIVE BUT WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT IT, IT'S QUITE
FASCINATING PROPOSAL SO WOOLLY
MAMMOTHS USED TO LIVE IN PLACES
LIKE YUKON, FAR NORTH, AND
SIBERIA.
IF YOU THINK OF THOSE AREAS
TODAY, THEY'RE HUGE SWATHS OF
LAND FULL OF PERMAFROST AND THAT
PERMAFROST CONTAINS MILLENIA
WORTH OF ANIMALS THAT HAVE DIED
OR FALLEN INTO THE GROUND AS
WELL AS IMPORTANTLY, THE
VEGETATION THAT THOSE ANIMALS
FED ON SO THAT'S A BUNCH OF
CARBON MATERIAL.
BUT WE'RE LEARNING THAT
PERMAFROST IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY
BAD WORD FOR THE MATERIAL ITSELF
BECAUSE IT'S NOT PERMANENTLY
FROZEN.
BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S
HEATING AND THAWING WHAT WAS
ONCE FROZEN AND AS THAT HAPPENS,
THIS CARBON CONTENT GETS
RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE
WHICH BECOMES QUITE DANGEROUS
BECAUSE THERE ARE MICROBES
EVERYWHERE THAT CHEW AWAY AT THE
STUFF AND TURN IT INTO CARBON
DIOXIDE OR METHANE, WHICH ARE
TWO OF THE GREENHOUSE GASES THAT
GOT US INTO THE WARMING
PREDICAMENT WE'RE CURRENTLY IN
SO THIS CREATES A FEEDBACK LOOP
OF JUST INCREASED WARMING AND SO
MANY SCIENTISTS ARE THINKING HOW
CAN WE INNOVATIVELY KEEP THAT
PERMAFROST SOLIDLY FROZEN TO
LOCK THE CARBON IN.
NOW BACK IN THE PLEISTOCENE,
WHEN MAMMOTHS WERE MOST POPULOUS
THERE, THERE WERE MILLIONS OF
LARGE HOOFED ANIMALS RUNNING
AROUND, PUNCHING HOLES IN THE
SNOW.
TODAY, THAT SNOW HAS A LOT LESS
BIOACTIVITY BECAUSE THERE'S A
LOT LESS OF THESE ANIMALS WITH
THAT KIND OF HEFT RUNNING
AROUND.
SO THERE'S A BIG THICK
INSULATING BLANKET OF SNOW THAT
KEEPS THINGS WARMER THAN THEY
OTHERWISE WOULD BE IF YOU HAD A
BUNCH OF MOBILE VENTILATING
SYSTEMS.
THESE BIG HEFTY ANIMALS PUNCHING
HOLES IN THE SNOW THAT ALLOW
THIS TUBE FOR CYCLING COLD AIR
FROM THE ATMOSPHERE DOWN TO THE
TOP OF THE SOIL TO KEEP THINGS
FROZEN SO THIS IS THE IDEA THAT
IF WE HAD, FOR EXAMPLE, 80,000
RECREATED WOOLLY MAMMOTHS OR TO
THINK ABOUT IT ANOTHER WAY,
ELEPHANTS THAT ARE ABLE TO NOW
LIVE IN THE COLD BECAUSE THEY
ARE IMBUED WITH THOSE TRAITS,
YOU PUT THEM UP IN SIBERIA, THEY
CAN CREATE A NEW ROLE THAT CAN
ENGINEER THAT ECOSYSTEM TO
BECOME SOMEWHAT COLDER.
THEY WOULD ALSO... 'CAUSE WE KNOW
ELEPHANTS ARE QUITE AGGRESSIVE
AND PRESUMABLY WITH THESE WOOLLY
MAMMOTHS TRAITS TOO, THEY COULD
BE AS WELL... THEY'D KNOCK OVER
DARK PLANTS THAT ABSORB THE
SUN'S HEAT.
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO FERTILIZE
THE SOIL WITH THEIR DUNG TO
CREATE LIGHT GRASSY STEPPE-LIKE
ENVIRONMENT, SUCH AS WHAT THERE
WAS OVER 10,000 YEARS AGO, AND
THAT WOULD REFLECT SOME OF THE
SUNLIGHT SO THE IDEA IS THAT
THERE WOULD BE A COMPLEX
INTERWEAVING OF ECOSYSTEM ROLES
THAT THEY COULD PLAY OUT TO MAKE
THINGS GENERALLY LIKE WHAT IT
USED TO BE.

Nam says AND HOW CLOSE ARE RESEARCHERS TO
BRINGING BACK THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH?

Britt says GEORGE CHURCH HAS PREDICTED THAT
POSSIBLY BY 2019, GIVE OR TAKE,
THEY WILL HAVE EDITED ALL OF THE
GENES THAT THEY WANT FROM THE
WOOLLY MAMMOTH INTO ASIAN
ELEPHANT EMBRYOS.
SO THAT'S JUST HAVING THE CELL
IN THE STATE YOU WANT IN ORDER
TO THEN DO IMPLANTATION.
THEN THEY COULD, IF THEIR
ARTIFICIAL WOMB TECHNOLOGY IS
WORKING, START TO GROW THESE
EMBRYOS IN THOSE ARTIFICIAL
WOMBS OR POTENTIALLY USE
SURROGATES OF SOME ANIMAL TO
GESTATE.
22 MONTHS AND THEN IF IT ALL
WORKS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO WAIT,
SAY ABOUT 16 YEARS FOR THOSE
ANIMALS TO REACH SEXUAL MATURITY
AND TO PROCREATE THEMSELVES IN
TERMS OF WATCHING THEIR
LIFECYCLE.

Nam says THAT'S A LONG LIST OF IFS THAT
HAVE TO COME TOGETHER FOR IT TO
ACTUALLY HAPPEN SO IF WE HAVE
THIS PRESSING ISSUE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE, WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER
PRESSING ISSUE OF ANIMALS
BECOMING EXTINCT EVERY YEAR SO
WHY FOCUS ON DE-EXTINCTION WHEN
WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON
PRESERVING OR CONSERVING THE
ANIMALS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW
THAT ARE ON THE VERGE OF
BECOMING EXTINCT?

Britt says PERSONALLY, THAT IS MY TAKE.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE USING THESE
BIOTECHNOLOGIES TO FOCUS ON
CURRENTLY ENDANGERED SPECIES,
WHICH MANY PEOPLE ARE
INCREASINGLY STARTING TO DO.
WHAT'S REALLY AMAZING, AND I
THINK, PRODUCTIVE ABOUT
DE-EXTINCTION AND THE
CONVERSATION AROUND IT, IS THAT
IT'S BROUGHT SYNTHETIC
BIOLOGIES, SO A FIELD FULL OF
HIGH TECH TOOLS FOR
BIOENGINEERING AND MODIFYING
LIFE FORMS TO TALK WITH
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, WHICH IS A
MUCH MORE TRADITIONALIST FIELD
THAT HASN'T BEEN USING GENETIC
ENGINEERING HISTORICALLY AND
IT'S CREATING A NEXUS AND IT'S
BROUGHT THESE EXPERTS INTO THE
SAME ROOM TO TALK ABOUT WHAT
MIGHT IT MEAN TO FOCUS ON THE
BIODIVERSITY CRISIS WE'RE
CURRENTLY IN AND LEVERAGING
THESE TYPES OF TOOLS TOWARDS
ENDANGERED SPECIES, WILDLIFE
DISEASES.
AND IN SOME CASES, EXTINCT
SPECIES AND MANY PEOPLE ARGUE
THAT THAT'S WORTHWHILE.
MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT THIS IS A
MORAL HAZARD.
THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE THINKING
ABOUT RECREATING BIODIVERSITY
OF EXTINCT ANIMALS WHEN WE HAVE
SO MUCH BIODIVERSITY CURRENTLY
THREATENED THAT WE NEED TO
MOBILIZE AROUND SAVING NOW.

NAM SAYS STEWART BRAND.
WHO IS HE?

The caption changes to "It's not that simple."

Britt says STEWART BRAND IS A VISIONARY
WRITER, ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HE'S BEEN PART OF CULTURE ON THE
WEST COAST IN THE UNITED STATES,
YOU KNOW, BAY AREA, FOR MANY,
MANY YEARS.
HE'S DONE THINGS SUCH AS COIN
THE TERM PERSONAL COMPUTER.
HE USED TO PUBLISH THE
WHOLE
EARTH CATALOG,
WHICH IS THIS
CLASSIC COUNTER CULTURAL BEACON
OF A PUBLICATION THAT PEOPLE
LIKE STEVE JOBS SAID WERE HIS
BIBLE
BEFORE GOOGLE WAS AROUND.

Nam says AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE
PUBLIC'S INVOLVEMENT IN THIS
WHOLE CONVERSATION AROUND
DE-EXTINCTION.
WE HAVE A CLIP FROM STEWART
BRAND'S TED TALK AND I'D LIKE TO
SHOW IT TO YOU NOW.

A clip plays on screen, showing a square drawn on a field seen from above. An arrow points at the square, from which two smaller arrows lead to two smaller squares.

A male voice says SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Stewart stands on a stage talking. He's in his seventies, clean-shaven and balding.

He says THESE HAVE BEEN PRIVATE
MEETINGS SO FAR.
I THINK IT'S TIME FOR THE
SUBJECT TO GO PUBLIC.
WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK ABOUT IT?
DO YOU WANT EXTINCT SPECIES BACK?
DO YOU WANT EXTINCT SPECIES BACK?

A MAN SAYS YEAH.

[APPLAUSE]

A caption reads "For more talks visit TED.com"

The clip ends.

Nam says THAT RESPONSE WAS KIND OF,
AHH..

She gestures vaguely.

Nam says WHAT DO YOU THINK UPSETS PEOPLE
ABOUT THE IDEA OF DE-EXTINCTION?

Britt says SO STEWART BRAND RUNS THIS
ORGANIZATION I MENTIONED, REVIVE
and RESTORE, WHICH HE CREATED WITH
HIS WIFE AND THEY ARE A
DE-EXTINCTION ADVOCACY GROUP
ESSENTIALLY, AND THEY'RE THE
ONES MOBILIZING THESE PROJECTS
AND YES, WHEN HE PUTS IT OUT TO
PEOPLE, DO YOU WANT EXTINCT
SPECIES BACK?
AND SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE,
UH, KIND OF.
SOME PEOPLE SAY, YEAH, IT'S SO
COOL!
AND OTHERS SAY, NO WAY.
AND I'VE DISCOVERED THROUGH
WRITING THE BOOK THAT NO ONE IS
MEH ABOUT DE-EXTINCTION.
IT REALLY POLARIZES PEOPLE.
THEY SAY, THIS IS FASCINATING,
THIS CAN CHANGE THE NARRATIVE.
THIS CAN GIVE US HOPE ABOUT
BIODIVERSITY IN THE FUTURE.
LET MY KIDS UNDERSTAND THAT
POTENTIALLY, THEY WILL BE ABLE
TO SEE POLAR BEARS THROUGHOUT
THEIR ENTIRE LIFE, FOR EXAMPLE,
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THESE HIGH
TECH TOOLS.
OTHERS THINK THIS IS REALLY A
SHAM.
THIS IS A HUGE DISTRACTION.
THIS IS A TECHNO FIX.
IT'S A BAND-AID.
IT'S NOT ALLOWING US TO DO THE
DEEP POLITICAL WORK THAT WE NEED
TO REALLY SAVE SPECIES, WHICH IS
TO STOP PILLAGING THEIR
HABITATS, WHICH IS TO NOT PLAY
FAVOURITES ABOUT WHICH SPECIES
ARE CUTE AND WORTH THE WHILE AND
REALLY WORK TO RAISE ALL
BIODIVERSITY TOGETHER.

Nam says AND WE KIND OF TOUCHED ON IT A
LITTLE BIT EARLIER IN OUR
CONVERSATION.
BECAUSE YOU ARE EDITING THE
GENES, THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY
SAY, THAT'S MY CREATION.
I WANT TO COPYRIGHT THAT.
IS THERE SOME THINKING GOING ON
ON HOW TO APPROACH THIS IF IT HAPPENS?

Britt says YES, INTERESTING.
SO BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF
GENETIC ENGINEERING IN THE
PRODUCTION TO MAKE SOME OF THESE
UNEXTINCT ANIMALS.
IN, FOR EXAMPLE, A PLACE LIKE
THE UNITED STATES, THEIR LEGAL
SYSTEM SAYS IF YOU SEE A
SPECIMEN AND IT'S CONSIDERED A
PRODUCT OF NATURE, IT CAN'T BE
PATENTED.
BUT IF THERE'S A CLEAR INVENTIVE
STEP SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, GENETIC
ENGINEERING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN,
THEN IT SHOULD BE PATENTABLE AND
LEGAL PRECEDENTS SHOW THAT THIS
HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES.
BIOENGINEERED SPECIES CAN BE
PATENTED.
WHICH MEANS THAT THE PERSON
HOLDING THAT PATENT CAN PROFIT
BY LICENSING THE PATENT TO
OTHERS WHO MAY WANT TO USE IT
FOR A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT
REASONS AND THIS OPENS UP A LOT
OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE IDEA
OF DE-EXTINCTION BEING USED TO
RESTORE ECOSYSTEM HEALTH COULD
ACTUALLY BE PERVERSELY TWISTED
TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PROFIT IN
DIFFERENT WAYS.
NEW MARKETS FOR TOURISM OR I'VE
HAD SOME PEOPLE TALK ABOUT
EXOTIC PET TRADE OR EVEN NEW
WAYS TO EAT IF YOU'RE A CERTAIN
TYPE OF GLAMOROUS FOODIE SO IT
WOULD BE RIDICULOUS TO GO TO THE
EXTENT OF BRINGING BACK
AN EXTINCT SPECIES JUST TO EAT A
SALTED MAMMOTH LEG, FOR EXAMPLE.
HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT...

NAM SAYS IT COULD HAPPEN...

Britt says IT COULD HAPPEN AND THERE ARE
INTERESTING CASES WHERE JUST
BECAUSE WE HAVE A THREATENED
POPULATION OF A SPECIES THAT'S
BASICALLY ENDANGERED, SUCH AS
THE AMERICAN BISON, WHICH WAS
JUST HANGING BY A THREAD IN THE
19TH CENTURY AND WE ARE TRYING
DESPERATELY TO RESTORE THEM AND
WE EVENTUALLY SUCCEEDED AND NOW
THERE ARE MANY.
BUT THE WHOLE TIME THAT THEY
WERE BEING CONSERVED, THERE WERE
ALSO POPULATIONS OF THEM BRED
JUST TO BE ABLE TO TURN THEM
INTO BISON BURGERS SO WE WERE
CONSERVING THE THREATENED
SPECIES WHILE EATING THEM.
AND WE SEE WITH DE-EXTINCTION,
THERE ARE ALREADY BUSINESS
MODELS IN PLACE FOR EXAMPLE,
WITH THE EXTINCT AUROCHS
BACK BREEDING PROJECT THAT
INVOLVE SLAUGHTERING THE MALES
TO SELL THEIR WILDERNESS MEAT.
SO THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS THAT
PEOPLE THINK ABOUT USING
UNEXTINCT ANIMALS.

Nam says YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A BABY BUCARDO WHO WAS BROUGHT BACK.
I GUESS UNEXTINCT?
WOULD THAT BE THE TERMINOLOGY
THAT YOU WOULD USE?
OR...

Britt says SO OKAY, YES.
IT'S CONFUSING.
SO IT WAS DE-EXTINCTED TO
PRODUCE AN UNEXTINCT BUCARDO.

Nam says BUT WE REALLY DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT
IT.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S SO
QUIET?
BECAUSE OF THE REACTION THAT
PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE?

Britt says THAT WAS QUITE A WHILE AGO.
THAT WAS IN THE EARLY 2000S.
SO IT DID SPLASH WHEN IT
HAPPENED BUT THEN IT... YOU KNOW, WENT THROUGH A NEWS
CYCLE AND KIND OF FELL OUT OF
CONSCIOUSNESS.
AND SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE
INCREASINGLY MORE AND MORE
PEOPLE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS.
BUT GENERALLY, THE REALITY IS
THAT IT'S A RELATIVELY FRINGE
ACTIVITY.
THERE ARE SOME, YOU KNOW,
RADICAL SOUNDING PROJECTS THAT
ARE UNDERWAY.
BUT AS A WHOLE SOCIETY, WE'RE
NOT TOTALLY AWARE OF WHAT'S
GOING ON IN LABS ALL AROUND THE
WORLD.

The caption changes to "Producer: Sandra Gionas, @sandragionas."

Nam says BRITT, THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
YOU'VE GIVEN US A LOT TO THINK
ABOUT AND IT'S A FANTASTIC READ.

Britt says THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

Watch: Resurrection Science