history of science

Has this pandemic presented a unique moment for science in our history? Or is it just a strange and temporary moment of science fiction? Or both?

Sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson (The Mars Trilogy, The Ministry of the Future) recently penned an essay in the New Yorker about how the virus has “changed our imaginations” and created a new “structure of feeling.”

Being a utopian sci-fi writer, Kim Stanley is in the business of looking for silver linings to major human tragic events such as the one we’re in. We wanted to have him on to see whether this event will cause a lasting change to the way people think about science.

It's our special look back over the entire decade which has Nathan and Laura firing on all fours. Not only do we discover their genomic highlights of the last ten years--ups and downs-- they also pull out their special "future glasses" and come up with a provocative list for the next ten. You don't want to miss this.

But first, we do cover December and that kerfuffle over the George Church dating app. And the genomics of income--really? Did you go for that?

Theral, Nathan, and Laura for an extended broadcast. Happy 2020!

On November 25th, 2018, the world was shocked to find out a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, had edited the germline of twin girls-and the twins had been born. Many in the scientific community remember that Sunday afternoon well as the story broke on MIT's Tech Review, "EXCLUSIVE: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies."

Today’s guest can even tell you what he had for dinner that Sunday and just what was his reaction. "Holy Shit!"

Hank Greely, a law professor at Stanford and author of "The End of Sex: the Future of Human Reproduction", has followed the “CRISPR baby” story just about as close as anyone we know. He joins us today to look back on that momentous week and reflect.

What was his and the scientific community’s immediate reaction? Now, a year later, what have we learned? How has the story evolved? And what is the future of germline editing?

"What strikes me most is the arrogance, the hubris, the foolishness, of He thinking he's going to be able to do this and be acclaimed as a hero. And maybe it wouldn't be immediately, but he would be Galileo who would ultimately be recognized as being ahead of his time. I think he was criminally reckless and so full of his own dreams and glory that he risked the lives and health of babies. And that's unforgivable to me."

Talk to anyone who’s been around diagnostics or blood sampling for long, and they’ll tell you that nanotechnology is nothing new.

Today’s guest, Brett Goldsmith, the Chief Technology Officer at Cardea, says he was involved in the nano revolution that was and then wasn’t 20 years ago. (The older veterans among us might date it back even further, to forty years ago.) So what are Brett and Cardea buzzing about early this year in a new Nature paper?

Biosensors.   They say thier new--and significantly cheaper--ones are capable of integrating the world of biology and digital that will give us instant access to the networks of biological information used by our bodies.  The sensors bypass our existing testing gadgets that use labels and lights and measure directly the biological interaction.  One can imagine "Googling" biological data about yourself.   The argument here isn't new, nor is the technology.  What is new and shown by the Nature paper is a dramatically changed economy of scale for producing the biosensors. Brett claims it is something along the lines of going from $120K down to just $20-30 each.

If you look at Moore’s Law and the dramatic reduction in the price of sequencing as what fed two revolutions, it does appear there’s a case to be made for a similar revolution to be had with biosensors and the possible applications they could enable.

What are the details of the paper? How do Cardea’s sensors work? To whom are they selling them now?

And what kind of data does Cardea have to put out to show the world that they are not Theranos No. 2?!

At the end of the year, we like to speak with a journalist who covers genetics about some of their stories.

Our audience may remember that back in our October Monthly Review with Nathan and Laura we talked at length about the topic of race and genetics. This was provoked by a few pieces in the New York Times written by Amy Harmon about a new wave of white nationalists using new genetic science to bolster their racism. In fact, talk of race and genetics rose to such a pitch at this year’s ASHG conference that they issued an unusual statement on the topic.

Here to discuss her three pieces on race and genetics (here, here, and here) and another provocative piece the following month on women in science is Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent for the New York Times, Amy Harmon.