FoundMyFitness - #077 Rewriting genomes to eradicate disease and aging | Dr. George Church

Episode Date: August 24, 2022

George Church, Ph.D. is a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and of health sciences and technology at both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Church played an instrumental role in the Human Genome Project and is widely recognized as one of the premier scientists in the fields of gene editing technology and synthetic biology.  In this episode, we discuss: (00:00) Introduction to Dr. George Church (07:13) History of the Human Genome Project (15:20) Manufacturing cell phones (with biology) (17:34) Genome Project-Write (20:03) Writing a human Y chromosome (from scratch) (20:48) What if you could eliminate viral disease? (22:51) De-extinction and reinstating lost traits and genes (27:06) The Vertebrate Genomes Project (29:47) AlphaFold and other AI tools (41:27) CRISPR vs. Base Editing (emerging tools of genetic engineering) (49:40) Why multiplex editing will change the world (52:18) Molecular flight recorder (53:31) Preventing viral spillover and enhancing livestock (57:40) PCSK9 gene therapy for cholesterol (1:00:30) Is aging an evolved program? (1:05:21) Treating aging with a combination gene treatment (1:09:04) Does animal research help us understand human aging? (1:11:40) Human organoids as a model and therapeutic (1:13:34) Could engineered transplant organs become better than the originals? (1:16:17) Embryo editing controversy (1:28:41) Gene editing for space travel (1:30:40) Can synthetic biology alleviate poverty? (1:34:07) Is in vitro fertilization and embryo selection practically similar to editing? (1:39:12) The occasional cost of brilliance (1:45:45) Eradicating disease with Gene Drive (1:48:55) Technologies to solve Lyme disease (1:51:57) Dr. Church's experience with narcolepsy as a bridge to creative insights (2:00:42) Why George encoded his book in DNA Watch this episode on YouTube Show notes are available by clicking here Join over 300,000 people and get the latest distilled information straight to your inbox weekly: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/newsletter Become a FoundMyFitness premium member to get access to exclusive episodes, emails, live Q+A's with Rhonda and more: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/premium Learn more about the premium podcast The Aliquot: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/aliquot

Today's episode is an incredible treat for those of you among us that are true, bona fide believers in the ability of technical innovations to potentially change the world and even foundations of biology and life itself. My guest today is Dr. George Church. Dr. Church is a professor at Harvard Medical School and MIT, and arguably one of the most important and accomplished geneticists of our time, with crucial contributions ranging from massive advances in genome sequencing to gene editing technology to synthetic biology and generally the increasing sophisticated application of engineering

principles to biology. His lab was one of the first that showed CRISPR Kassnine worked for precise gene editing in normal human cells and he has been behind countless other scientific innovations and disruptions. Dr. Church has described the key theme of his lab as the development of radical transformative technologies. Time and time again Dr. Church has found himself in what he terms, the exponential, participating in and observing advances so rapid that they defied the potential of our own collective imaginings. As new technologies present themselves like gene drive, which allows gene engineering that can bend the laws of Mendelian inheritance, in other words, how genes are inherited, or multiplex editing, which could culminate in impressive feats like

writing entire genomes from scratch, recoding organisms or cells to make them immune to all viruses, or producing universal donor cells for therapeutics, which could possess superhuman qualities like resistance to DNA damage, radiation, or cryopreservation. All of these things challenge our ability to intuitively grasp the difference between the world of today versus the world in possibly just a few short years. For that reason in particular, I value conversations like these tremendously. As we discuss controversial topics like embryo and germline editing, or the the ability to promote changes that could alter the genome of an entire species, a technique

called gene drive technologies. The greatest danger we have as a public is not having knowledge that can help us be better prepared to have productive conversations as these advances develop. In this incredible episode, we discussed the ability to change cells or even entire organisms at the level of the DNA so profoundly that viruses cannot infect and utilize their ribosomal translation machinery. a process called genetic recoding. We talk about how projects like the vertebrate genomes project,

a massive project to sequence all known vertebrates, may participate in saving keystone species, protecting or reintegrating genetic diversity once it's been lost, and participate in preventing or reversing the process of extinction. We discussed the genome project write, and the increasingly credible goal of being able to write large or entire genomes from scratch, starting with the novel synthesis of an entire human Y chromosome. We discussed the advance from CRISPRCAST 9 gene editing to what is known as base editing

and why base editing may be the key to unlock the full potential of gene editing, taking us from a technology that can only do a handful of edits to tens or hundreds of thousands or maybe even one day millions of edits. We talk about how gene editing could be used to eliminate zoonotic viruses that spill over from livestock. How a type of genetic engineering called gene drive may take insects and make them unable to carry human diseases like malaria or Lyme disease. We talk about how Dr. Church's work on making animal organs suitable for human transplant by engineering them to be universal donors, but also the possibility to engineer potential qualities like I mentioned earlier, such as DNA

damage resistance and other enhancements above and beyond those of ordinary human tissues. We discuss how Dr. Church is working on a combination gene therapy to reverse age-related biomarkers, focusing on soluble factors that can rejuvenate the whole body, similar to how factors in young blood revitalized old organs and animal studies. We talk about why he thinks initially developing a veterinary product for aging dogs and his xenotransplantation project may be the ideal pipeline towards creating therapeutics that can unlock human potential. His perspectives on controversies surrounding whether there can be responsible use of germline editing and complexities surrounding practical differences and how that's compared to embryo selection and so much more.

Before we dive into this incredible episode, I have one announcement. After you listen to the podcast, many of you may find yourself asking questions, important questions. For example, maybe you'd like to know which dietary micronutrient is the most likely to confer resilience against cosmic radiation, or what qualities I personally would find most exciting in a pet thylacine, you know, like personality traits. You can't see me, but I'm stroking my chin thoughtfully in consideration. However, to find the answers you seek, I would suggest submitting your question for my upcoming live question and answer session.

They happen every month, usually on the first Sunday. I also take the Q&A sessions and add on top of those a great series of members only, not available to the public, short curated episodes called Aliquots. Package them all together and what have you got? The Premium Podcast. If you become a premium Found My Fitness member, you'll get new Aliquot episodes almost weekly. For example, Aliquot number 57, which discusses new technologies like interrupted cellular reprogramming, which is a special technique being explored by many labs that may reverse tissue aging.

or Q&A episode number 22, which elaborates on what epigenetics really refers to and why it is important. Or Q&A episode number 36, which features a discussion of why some researchers are diluting old blood with factors such as saling or young plasma. In addition to the premium podcast, I send out members-only emails every other week with special updates on the world of health, recent science news or simply things that piqued my interest as I peruse the scientific literature. Seriously, you can't imagine how many tabs I have open. And you'll also get a member T-shirt and other great resources like a slide presentation that recaps all of the graphics we put into the video for these episodes. And you'll get to feel good about supporting a great show in the process.

It's incredibly hard to go wrong with the premium Found Mys Fitness membership. check that out at found my fitness.com forward slash premium. That's P-R-E-M-I-U-M premium. Or learn about the premium podcast at found my fitness.com forward slash aliquot. That's A-L-I-Q-U-O-T, A-A-O-T. Okay, I know everyone is chomping at the bit. I present to you the incredible Dr. George Church. Oh, thank you, Rhonda.

Let's see. Let's start with the gene. I think we didn't realize that we were on an exponential when we started sequencing. I got introduced to it through RNA sequencing. There wasn't DNA sequencing. And then Wally Gilbert was my mentor as a graduate student, and he invented his team in 1977, independently Fred Sanger published a paper that same year. It took a little longer for the Sanger method to get implemented.

But what happened was very quickly we got to a point where we were talking about doing a whole genome, mainly at the Department of Energy request in 1984, They asked a harder problem, which was how do you estimate mutation rates to the consequence of energy. And we felt, you know, a handful or maybe 10 of 10 scientists in what would later be called genomics, said, well, we can't do that, but what we might be able to do is get one genome, a reference genome. And then that, but that was, that consolation prize was big enough that Charles Delisi at the Department of Energy just started writing checks. I mean, it didn't wait for an act of Congress or anything, just had money for this kind of R&D because of health effects. And then it took about three years. So my lab, I was transitioning from postdoc to professor and my lab got one of the first two, two,

on project grants. And then the NIH, it took about three years before the NIH got involved, but they got involved in a big way because they felt they were more appropriate vehicle for anything health-related than the Department of Energy. And they did kind of in a team work with maybe 30% DOE and 70% NIH in the United States component, plus lots of international collaboration, really starting in 1990 with a 15-year goal. There was a lot of talk of cutting corners at the beginning. I didn't necessarily call it that, but there was a lot of people trying to do one-x coverage, meaning doing every base pair

reading it exactly once. And I didn't like most of these corner cutting things, but I was the most junior member of the project from the beginning, didn't have a lot of sway. I also felt that we should put technology development up front because that could reduce the price and then we could do a lot more than one genome for a lot less than $3 billion. But as soon as some of the senior members of the visionary team like Jim Watson, who came in later, started representing, you know, getting, drumming up support in Congress, it became evident that we would have $3 billion, and then the motivation for bringing the price down disappeared for a few years, a decade.

But it did. Then instead of some of the corner cutting was to not worry too much about repetitive sequences, which in the case of the fruit fly was about half the Chino, it doesn't matter. And at one point they were going to just do the coding regions, which is 1%. Turns that we still haven't identified the 1% coding regions that would not have been a shortcut.

So a lot of these shortcuts were really ill-conceived. But fortunately, we did get a decent 92% of the genome and declared victory. I want to make sure we've got that before we go on to writing genomes as a whole another topic. Do we need more reference genomes? And what are your expectations of finding new tools elsewhere in the evolutionary tree? Well, so, yes, we certainly need more genomes.

It's not just the reference, it's the population variation that's important. We want to, the variation is at least as important as the reference. And it helps us make sure we've got a good reference. So you can call that the reference. is growing recognition that we can represent the reference as a diversity. We are finding tools in the genomes. So one of the nuances that developed, the first kind of recommendations for maybe the 1984,

1985, 1986 was the human genome, as if there were one and as if there weren't any other genomes. And I kept advocating for genome comparisons Because when you compare two genomes, That's almost as good as an experiment, But it gives you a richer formulation for exploration. And we have part of that genome comparison has resulted in new tool discovery.

And so it's kind of a positive feedback loop. You sequence some genomes, you find some tools, use those to read and write genomes, find some more tools, and so on. I don't know where that end. but I do think that synthetic biology is probably ultimately unlimited, while the diversity on Earth, even though it's vast, is limited, more limited. Almost by definition, we can explore more than currently exists,

at least in initially in narrow corridors where we're looking at specific tool building, ecosystem, restoration, and medical consequences. I think there's a rich field of, you know, let's say you had one book, and that's the only book you had. You could read it and reread it and reread it,

and you'd keep learning more and more, but as soon as you start writing books, now you've got millions of them. So that's how I think of the synthetic biology or writing of genomes. I've read a quote, kind of reminds me of a quote that I read from you that stated, I have speculated that essentially everything that we can currently manufacture today without biology, we will be able to manufacture with biology and with potential advantages.

Biology is intrinsically atomically precise and it's scalable to cover the whole planet essentially for free. That's pretty revolutionary. I mean, yeah. Maybe, yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, that's accurate reflection of how I felt then and how I feel today. Why is it reasonable? So they are atomically precise. Biology does not yet gracefully use the entire periodic table or all the chemical bonds that you might want to make out of that periodic pairs of elements.

But it comes pretty quick. It uses a lot pretty close. It uses a lot of inorganic bonds that might surprise some people. So you can make, there are biological systems if you look widely enough. And now we're not talking about necessarily your enzymatic tools, which might have been implied in the previous. But all the things that all the chemistry and physics that biology uses, they can make fiber optic, things that are fiber optics like in sponges. You can make semiconductors, sphero magnetic materials that help it encompass. There are all kinds of dichroics and gratings that generate colors.

And the list goes on on the materials that are used either naturally or where the enzymatic apparatus that is usually can. If you give it a new set of elements, it will incorporate those. You could say misincorporate them. But the point is atomically precise, and that it can reproducibly make a molecule with thousands of atoms in it, and the next molecule over has exactly the thousand atoms in exactly the same configuration, really off by less than an atomic bond in length.

So it's really, this is not something that happens in Silicon Valley or other, you know, worldwide manufacturing of silicon-based circuits or in any other inorganic circuits. It is so far unique to biology. Another thing that's unique to biology is the ability to replicate. So you can make a copy of yourself. So to make a copy, you know, the idea that a cell phone could make a copy of a cell phone is ludicrous. so far. But there might be a use of a hybrid system where we use biological inspiration, electronics, inspiration, make hybrid devices that can replicate, use the full periodic table,

and do a few things that electronics is a little bit better at, it's better at telecommunications at certain wavelengths, very hazardous. other than just wavelengths like x-ray and gamma as well as the other end of the spectrum, the radio. Let's talk about how writing the human genome may help us better understand it. So Francis Collins described the working draft of the human genome as the first glimpse of our own instruction book. But today, many scientists believe that to truly understand the instruction book, we also have to write it.

Can you explain why that is? Right. I'm not sure I would say have to, but it is certainly very advantageous. I should mention that we don't even have the full instruction book of any human being yet. We have, we declared victory in 2001 on a kind of a rough draft of 92%. Actually, it was considered the final draft of a rough draft in 2001. That was the final draft in 2004. But it was still haploid, meaning it's just one genome,

while essentially all of us are diploid, inheritance from mother and father, except for our gametes. So the sequence we have, the one human genome that we have, is not of a gamete, it's of a strange haploid cell. So that's part of the, but that's not the big barrier to understanding. The big barrier, as you say, is in order to understand how something works and also in order to develop new technologies, you need to be able to write and edit and alter. And you understand it because you'll say, gee, I have no idea.

It's like reverse engineering electronic circuit or some software. I have no idea what this code does. Let's change it. And then he says, oh, that changes the calendar. Okay. So that code does calendar. Or in case of the biology, you'll take a piece out and now it no longer handles, you know, glucose. You say, okay, that's part of the glucose monitoring system. And you can just get through that and you can get to more and more nuanced changes for discovery's sake, but it's often entangled with not just discovering, but making useful synthetic biology. You'll have a piece. challenge that you'll have out there, and that will drive the reading and writing technology forward. It will drive our creativity in terms of how these things can positively influence

society and ecosystems. What's the goal of writing a large or a whole genome or an entire chromosome? So there are a few ideas that have come up where one, where something at a genomic scale is more desirable than a single genes. So a huge fraction of recombinant DNAs in synthetic-o's and synthetic biology historically has been changing one or two genes. And it doesn't make sense to synthesize whole genome if you just want to change one or two genes. But more and more, we're seeing advantages of changing so many genes. You might as well rewrite the thing.

And as an example of that, we have a project to change the genetic code to make any cell resistant to all viruses. And we just published a paper where we think we did that. And the way that it works is that all viruses, as far as we know, depend on the host genetic code, the translation, ribosomal machinery. And if you can change the code without hurting the host, that the host could be a cell, it could be an organism. So far we've only done it in one industrial organism, E. coli. But anyway, if you change that enough, the virus can't mutate.

There'll be too many changes that are required to get the virus to be back to its healthy state. So, and we think that this is completely general in that essentially every plant, microbe, and animal on Earth shares a very similar genetic code to one another, and in any case, have a genetic code that they share with the viruses. And if you take it offline, change it enough, like sometimes as few as two codons, let's say two codons that code for searing, lucid, argin, are a favorite ones because they have so many codons for each. They're triplets of ACG and T, so like AAA codes for lysine, the amino acid lysine.

So there's 64 of those, and if you change one, you get a new genetic code. You can change two, and now you get something that's multivirus resistant. So that's an example where you have to make so many changes. Tens of thousands change in genome-wide, and they're interspersed throughout the genome. you might as well just synthesize it, and that's what was done. Another example is de-extinction. There, the number of changes you might have to make in order to bring back some physiology, like cold resistance and all the traits that go along with cold resistance,

may be scattered around enough that you're, you can think of it either as highly multiplexed editing or as a complete rewrite. And even when you do a complete rewrite, you're not changing every single base pair, all $3 billion times two bases. You're leaving them mostly intact. You've chemically synthesized it, but it's still useful to think of it as a lot of edits. So, you know, sort of the maximum number of edits we've done by editing, meaning having an enzyme that's targeted a particular place.

is 24,000. And the maximum we've done by synthesis is almost the same amount, although we have synthetic projects which are now getting close to done at 60,000. But then we're going to take the editing up to a million pretty soon. So they go back and forth. There's a technical one of leapfrogging that goes on between editing and writing of genomes. sort of moonshot goal of changing genomes or writing large genomes in a way, writing, editing them where, you know, as you mentioned, you make, let's say you take a human cell and

in a petri dish make it resistant to viruses or, you know, make it capable of synthesizing essential micronutrients that we usually have to get from our diet. Like, even if it just sits in a petri dish forever, and that's all, that's the only place it goes. To me, there's something very just fundamentally, you know, awe-inspiring about that. Is that something, is it kind of like along the lines of your thinking with doing some of those things? Yeah, I think the community, the synthetic biology community has responded very, in the same kind of awe, inspiring the initiation of this kind of project. I hesitate to call it a moonshot because I actually think the moonshot was not as inspiring to me as the satellites,

the GPS satellites, the weather satellites, and the you know, surveillance of land. And so, and the same thing goes for other big projects. The genome project wasn't as impressive to me as the reducing the cost project, a thousand dollar genome project, sort of the technology development. And the Manhattan project was certainly not as attractive to me as, say, the projects for nuclear fusion, which could have, all of them. these things could have started much earlier on. They sound maybe a little bit harder, but they,

but they have in common is they're very much more consciously aimed at positive societal consequences. And I think it's a little easier to get everybody excited about these sort of things. And I think being able to make industrial microorganisms, plants and animals are important for ecosystems and agriculture and human stem cells.

They won't stay in that petri-plate. They will make their way into cell therapies in humans. And if we're going to fix something that's broken that you can fix with blood cells, you might as well have those blood cells,

be resistant to all viruses as well, if that is shown to be safe and effective by the FDA and in similar organizations. You kind of alluded to this earlier, but how do you think the vertebrate genomes project will affect the field of genetics and biology? So the vertebrate genome project, I think, is just indicative of our wish to sequence the whole biosphere. Vertebrates in particular are helpful because they often constitute

keystone species in the wild and I hope, I think there's a reason to believe that we will be restoring more and more of the non-urban environment to wilderness. Certainly, you can see

about a thousand successful rewilding projects. a local rewilding. So the most famous one is probably restoring the wolves to Yellowstone after 70 years. They had a typical keystone effect, that a ripple effect was anticipated and worked out, which was they changed the abundance of large herbivores, which then changed the abundance of the willows and other trees, which changed the beavers behavior, which changed the beavers,

behavior, which changed the built lakes, which resulted in aquaculture. So just introducing one vertebrate at all this ripple effect, that's one reason to do it, but there are many others. And if we are causing the extinction of many species, we are also causing the hybridization, which is the creation of new species. It's not clear that we're making extinction faster or more significant than hybrid than new species. I think our gut feeling is that we are, but it's not proven yet. But in any case, we need to do that survey to see in detail what we're doing. And in some cases, we need to freeze away as many organs as possible. But we shouldn't be confused that freezing it away or putting it in a database doesn't mean that it's going to be easy or even

possible to restore. We need to do everything. We need to document, freeze, and protect what is already there by shrinking our agricultural use, possibly by, you know, 10 or 100-fold, I think that's totally feasible to do with synthetic biology and other new tools that we have. Can you talk about the advantages of perhaps computer-aided design of genomes, the sort of aspirational software heart and soul of the genome project right? So in particular, I'm curious about advances in AI like those coming out of deep mine, such as the alpha fold, and if they have special relevance for this sort of complex work. Right. So the genome consists of 1% of it codes for proteins,

and alpha fold is focused on mostly on the proteins. But there's some software for folding RNA and holding even the genome itself, that can either be predictive or it can be measured. So there's a lot of software that's used for looking through microscopes and determining the structure and try and correlate that structure, again, by synthetic biology. You say, let's change the shape, not just the sequence, and see what function that affects.

And that trial and error can go very quickly. quickly or even exponentially. Once you get going, you see the patterns and you start testing more and more sophisticated hypotheses. But alpha fold is not the only way to do it. So there are other machine learning-based methods. In fact, machine learning coupled with multiplex libraries, which can be in the millions or billions of synthetic molecules that act as, that are subtle variations or sometimes not so subtle variations as you either. If you do machines and everything plus megolibraries, you're focusing on functionality rather than on structure. Alpha Fold predicts the 3D structure. And to illustrate this, you have, let's say you take a serine protease.

It's called a serine protease because there's a very key serine, right, at the active site. And that serine has an oxygen that's part of the mechanism. If you change that oxygen, that hydroxyl to hydrogen, it now becomes an alanine and it's completely functionalist. But the three-dimensional structure is completely preserved. It is it is atomically precise throughout the structure, but it's a dead enzyme. So what's more interesting, I think, for most practical applications is studying what functional consequences are of substituting. And that applies not just to proteins, which alpha-fold, but also RNAs and DNAs is you want to know what the landscape of functionality is. And that can be done partly by phylogen evolutionary trees where you line up.

We now have tens of thousands of examples of almost every major macromolecule in the cell, proteins, RNAs, and DNAs. And then using that, or you can, if you feel that's not enough, that evolution hasn't provided you with enough, diversity for your machine learning, you can generate your own data set. So when they were learning chess and go, they would have the computer play these games against itself to generate more data. Big data is good in the case of machine learning. And in our case, we use these mega libraries, these millions and billions, even trillions,

that act as a kind of a wetware computer. You can do all this computing, and you can read it out in terms of the sequencing that you were talking about earlier and barcodes. So you can barcode all these molecules and combinations of molecules. And so you can think of this synthetic biology libraries as a kind of an honorary computation device that would you use together with the machine learning, which is typically done on a classic von Neumann machine, meaning ordinary kind of, computer than most of us would recognize. In your opinion, how is the idea of biology as a software reading, writing, programming, and debugging sort of held up over time? Well, metaphors are imperfect. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of using these metaphors. I'm a programmer since

you know, the mid-60s as a pre-teen. And I've been programming both computers and biology. And I find the metaphor really works for me personally. Where it breaks down a little bit is when you say that your goals should be set by the goals of the metaphor. In the words, that in the early days synthetic biology, there were multiple camps. And one of them was a camp where we're going to have NAND gates and or gates and if then else's and all the Boolean logic that might characterize a certain category of compute computation electronics. And I felt and I still feel that there's a lot to be a lot of interesting biology that occurs with analog circuits. And we've kind of lost track that or some of us have lost track of that key component.

of electronics. But it is there. But anyway, the analogs, there's the evolution where typically when you make a cell phone, as far as I know, you make a very small number of prototypes that are very similar to one another and you test them out. But in biology, like I've said a couple times now, you can make billions and trillions and you can do accelerated evolution while with most bridge building and building, in building trains and jets and cell phones, you really don't have that luxury of making trillions

of them and seeing which one works best. How fast is the field of synthetic biology advancing? Are you excited about where the field's going? Do you have any concerns or fears? Yeah, I would say both excitement and concerns. And I think that applies to all technologies. I think that we, the more radical and, you know, it could be positively disruptive, but you have to think of all the potential negatives.

So it is happening exponentially, how fast it's doubles at least once a year. Sometimes it'll get a factor of 10 per year as measured by both reading and writing DNA. Most of the 10, 20, 30 million fold has occurred within the last decade or two. So it's potentially faster than Moore's law for electronics. And it has kind of this atomic limit that it's very comfortable, it's very comfortable programming, precise atomic positions. using biology. That boosts the tools we've gotten.

We're getting more and more. Now, on the negative side, we need to be, we have good government agencies that we should be very supportive of both intellectually and financially, like the FDA, the EPA, the USDA and their foreign equivalents. These are not sufficient though because they're things like equitable distribution of technology. We want everybody on the planet to have, at least have a chance to not only theoretically have access to it because the price is right, but also have the education or the dialogue that allows them to evaluate whether they, to know that it exists and to evaluate what they want

to use it or not and whether it's good for them. So it's not sufficient to just like lob over a free piece of software like, you know, GPS software and not and they don't know what the satellites are doing and so forth. Now, modern uses of GPS like Google Maps is fairly accessible, but there's almost no technology is completely equally accessible. You know, clean water, roads, cell phones are getting. accessible in remote parts of the world. The only thing that is truly accessible equally that I can think of offhand is a biotechnology, and that is smallpox.

It's completely extinct. And so you don't have to constantly be bringing out a new drug or a new vaccine that maybe not everybody can afford. Every government can't give out for free. But smallpox extinction is something. something we can give out for free generation after generation. So I'm looking for more and more of those. Bringing down the price of reading and writing DNA by 10 million fold is just a start.

We should look for that in almost everything we do with synthetic biology. Do we need the NIH to embrace the Human Genome Right project like they did the read or is that sort of already happening? I think it would be lovely. If they did, I think we need to pursue multiple routes, philanthropy, industry, government, multiple government. Again, having DOE and NIH in the game was helpful, but there's a number of others that are interested in Geno Project Wright, NSF, ARPA, DARPA, and IARPA. And these have supported it in various forms, have supported synthetic biology.

Genome Project Wright has been, it's the air of all those wonderful funding sources. And I think it's, but as long as it has a vision, that includes something that is net positive for society, that there will be a way and hopefully multiple different ways for different flavors of it. And I think one of the early flagship challenges is resistance to all viruses in multiple organisms. I think that's something that can be clearly articulated. And it has a much, I think, a much higher positives than negative.

And in most of the negatives, I think we can mitigate about by thinking of all the possible downsides and how to protect against them. So let's take a dive into some of the gene editing tools and whatnot a little bit. Over the last 10 years since Jennifer Dowdna and colleagues first developed CRISPR gene editing, there's been a lot of excitement about it. Your lab was one of the first to show that gene editing using CRISPR-Cast-Nan could be done in normal human cells. But acknowledging the undoubtedly, like, revolutionary impact of CRISPR, do you think it's

possible it's been overhyped from the standpoint of the public at large, not having a more comprehensive or appropriate understanding of where it sort of fits within the existing tool sets of synthetic biology? Yeah, I think, I hesitate to use word hype because it implies that somebody is being hyperbolic. I think it was kind of a team effort of just it's wonderful that we're bringing it any part of reading and writing genomes and synthetic biology to people's attention or science for that matter. This is one of the more exciting things in science right now.

It's getting people. But it's not just about CRISPR. First of all, you can't really edit if you can't read. So I think the big revolution here is being able to read the genomes. You read them at the beginning to find the tools. You read them again to decide what your goals of editing are. Then you read it a few times to make sure your editing is going well. And then you read it again to see that the edit that you made has the physiological consequences,

which increasingly we're using DNA reading as a way of our RNA reading to see how the physiology is going. It's the so-called epigenomics for physiology. So that reading is important. Another thing is important is there was some pretty good editing methods that are still in use that predate CRISPR, notably homologous recombination, which Smithies and Kepche got the Nobel Prize for decades before Jennifer and Emmanuel. Well, I'm a big fan of Jennifer Pannual, by the way.

We've started a few companies together, Jennifer and I. But there's homologous recombination, which is very powerful. It's precise and over large distances. Well, CRISPR tends to be imprecise and or small in scope. Another one that dates back two decades before CRISPR is SSAP. or Lambda Red is sometimes called us a way of getting precise editing. And that's what we actually use to around 2009 to make libraries of billions of edited cells in a day, a single person.

So that shows some of the power. And the other evidence of its power was that the first completely recoded genome was done mostly a combination of S-S-SAPs and recombinases, which is also very, very precise. CRISPR was basically a hatchet, and I sometimes call it genome vandalism. So I think we need to embrace all of these methods, though, and a few more that are coming now. Deaminases that can be done with and without CRISPR, and more sophisticated SSCPs and integrases, transposinases. So it's a rich, I think it's okay if the public just latches on the one aspect of it.

But it would be nice. It is nice whenever a more nuanced and visionary form where it illustrates the importance of reading and other more precise and larger scale editing and writing where you write synthesize something from scratch. And usually pop it in by some, could be popped in. by CRISPR, but more commonly it's popped in using recombinases or integrases. What about some of the existing capabilities of, you know, gene editing therapy, you know, things that have been done, you know, in transgenic models for, you know, a decade at least or more, you know, so deleting versus addition versus, you know, of a missing gene?

Right. Yeah, so you can think of CRISPR as a subset of editing. Editing is a subset of genome engineering, and genome engineering is not a subset of, but it's kind of a Venn diagram overlapping set with therapies and GMOs and so forth. So most gene therapies that have been approved, are adding genes. And this is done typically without CRISPR.

And, you know, when you have a genetic disease, you're missing a gene, so you don't really want to edit necessarily. You want to add it back in. As you grow older, a lot of your gene products, your gene expression is dropping down. One way to deal with that would boost it back up. And we've explored these sorts of things. The use of gene therapy putting in a missing gene and, in fact, editing for that matter, for rare genetic diseases is by its nature expensive. It's millions of dollars per person overall.

lifetime, partly because the R&D costs and the pallet of care and all sorts of health care for someone who has a very severe disease that might have died young years ago, but thanks to the Orp and Drug Act and others, they can now lead closer to normal life, but at millions of dollars. there is it's great and we'll keep developing these gene therapies in better ways of delivery.

Oh, I forgot to mention delivery is another thing that's sometimes missed when people just shout, CRISPR. You have to get it to the right place, the right dose, the right time, maybe to turn off and it's done his job. So keep it off target, keep off target so many.

So anyway, that this, delivery, an alternative to this expensive solution is of much more, much lower cost one, which is genetic counseling, where you basically tell people before they get married, before they, preconception, or sometimes post-conception, that they're at risk, they themselves are carriers, they will be, they are healthy, they will be healthy, but if they marry someone that

has the same carrier status, they put their children at risk. So there's two methods. I think a lot of the Western rule tends to go towards interventionist, you know, reactive medicine or we'll spend millions of dollars by not pursuing preventative medicine, but the preventative medicine in this case is, you know, low hundreds of dollars just to know yourself, to know. how to how to keep your children healthy by making preconception choices. We'll probably circle back to a little bit more of that in a minute, but since we're talking about,

you mentioned a few other types of gene editing, the deaminase, and you've talked about this multiplex editing. What does it mean to be able to go, you know, to performing 26,000 edits? Or you said, I mean, a million, potentially a million edits in human cells, you know, versus the previous record of something like 62. I mean, what applications does this most impact? Is it, you know, the large genome creation or tissue engineering or germline?

Right. So we did, our previous record of 62 or 42, depending on how you count it, was in pigs. And it was for tissue engineering. It was germline. So germline is kind of off the table for human. in part because there's no clearly articulated medical need. And the time for discovering safety and efficacy is over a lifetime, which is, you know, unaffordable and ill-advised.

So anyway, but germline certainly gets into humans via pigs. So this has been the idea of transplanting organs from animals to humans goes back, at least to the 1960s, where a chimpanzee kidney survived for nine months in a school teacher who went back to teach and, you know, it was normal for nine months. But that was the exception then, and it would be the exception now, except for the synthetic biology that we do on the germ line of pigs, which now made it into many preclinical, primate transplant trials, pig to primate, and a few pig to human trials that are going on.

Primate survival looks like around 600 days so far, and they're still, a couple of them are still alive at 500 and 600 days. We're going to keep improving these. But that's, that's in the order of 40 to 60 edits per genome in the germ line. If the multibed, the multisprimals, the multispring The multivirus resistance requires more than that. The some things that are done for diversity and ecosystem maintenance may involve even more. There are a type of tape recorder, someone that's called a flight recorder. So it's analogous to planes that record a lot of data,

but typically you don't read it. So a lot of writing, not much reading, unless the plane goes down and then you'll look at, you'll look at selective regions for debugging what went wrong. That same thing could be put into the bodies of plants, animals, and even humans because it's a very compact reporting device of the physiological states of every cell in the body. We've shown this works sort of in the scale of 60, to 24,000, and that's probably our next, our first effort at making a million edits will be in the form of these molecular flight recorders. So those are a few examples, but the number will grow as soon as soon as we get

more than a handful of people working on these visionary projects, what we'll see a blossoming of all sorts of creative uses of making. multiplex editing. I think non-multiplex editing will become the exception. So as you mentioned in your lab, you know, gene-edited pigs and you enhance them by making them resistant to some retroviruses. Do you think, you know, as a more visionary kind of question, that you could use, you know, more precise gene editing, the deaminase or CRISPR, whatever, to eliminate viral spillover events from livestock to human, So, I mean, there's a lot of viruses that originate from, from livestock when we're raising animals in captivity. Yes, this is important.

So the viruses that we got rid of were endogenous retroviruses, meaning they're built into the pig genome of every pig on the planet. And so, and they have been shown to infect human cells and to replicate and go into other human cells. So this is particularly bad scenario. Mario in immune compromise patients. And the FDA recognized this decades ago and really was, I think, pleased to see progress being made on eliminating them from the germline of the pigs. So that's that there,

but in addition to viruses that are built into the germline of animals and humans, there are viruses coming in from outside. And we just published the first example. This is with Lujan Yang's team. She was a graduate student and a postdoctoral fellow in my lab and co-founded eugenesis and Kihan for making cell therapies and organ therapies. But anyway, as a side project, we published a paper on getting rid of African swine fever virus by making CRISPR to attack the viral DNA.

This is what happens. what CRISPR originally evolved to do is to take out bacterial viruses. We think this is the first case of using CRISPR in a practical sense for eliminating mammalian viruses from the environment. It's using CRISPR against mammalian viruses. But zoonotic diseases is bigger than that. if we could bake a huge fraction of plants, animals, and humans resistant to those viruses because of their genetic code, that actually anticipates viruses we haven't even seen yet.

It should handle all natural viruses. So like Marburg, Ebola, HIV, CRISPR, these should not have been, these would not have been surprised at the scientists, but not to, you know, the scientists, but not to, you know, these cancer resistant, sorry, virus-resistant cells. So it sounds like CRISPR seems to be uniquely positioned for that, you know, type of use. Well, not necessarily. So I don't, you know, I like to, I love CRISPR.

I personally benefited from it, but it is, I like to balance it. There are other nucleases that some people claim are more specific, less off target. There are deaminases that don't involve CRISPR. So I wouldn't say, the term unique is too strong. We have a lot of tools in the toolbox. And a lot of it has to do with delivery and testing too. Testing is a big deal, which is somewhat swept under the rug when it's just like, all we have to do is design a, you know,

CRISPR and take care of everything. But there's a lot of reading and, you know, synthesis, which isn't CRISPR and then the delivery and testing. So it's a integrated hole that doesn't require CRISPR. So another technology would be base editing, which, you know, doesn't involve double-stranded breaks and DNA. And I know there's a phase 1B trial with the PCSK9 target. They're targeting it, gene target for the liver as a potential treatment for the hypercholesterolemia familiar form. I'm, you know, I just read about this recently and pretty excited.

I mean, I've, you know, I know people that are that are taking the anti-PCSK9 antibodies, which are very expensive. And you have to get them every two to four weeks. So it'll be interesting to see, you know, if the base editing could be a one-and-done treatment, do you think? That is one of the advantages of gene therapy in general, whether it's editing or adding genes. Yeah, I think that a lot of our diseases are diseases of wealth. I mean, we used to have much more active vegan diets, low in overall carbohydrates, mainly because it was low in calories altogether.

And so diabetes and some of the cardiovascular diseases didn't affect us. Also, we didn't live as long in general, so it was less of an issue. So these are, but PCSK9 is it looks like it's shaping up to, be a terrific example of something that basically all humans can be thought of as having the same disease. And therefore, it's a large market, could be low cost. Aging is another, or a variety of age-related diseases that might have a common core where we are programmed to die at a certain age. The mice diet, two years old, bo-head whales at 200, humans somewhere in between. And so that's probably negotiable.

PCSKNI is not solving aging in general. It's a very specific thing that may be common to most humans. It was de-risk because there were a few humans that were walking around that were basically double null for both copies of their PCSKNI for mom and dad. And that kind of showed us that it was going to be safe and effective, although there's still quite a bit of study, long-term studies that have to be shown to make sure. It doesn't cause early onset neurodegeneration in the particular way that we're implementing it, which is not germline, which is how the people that previously had PCS and nulls were germline via natural mutations.

Since you mentioned aging, and it sounds like, and I think you think aging is fundamentally a program, It's a really interesting idea, one that's probably, it's got many implications. So, especially when we're thinking about whether or not we can mitigate aging or potentially cure it. So could you talk about your perspectives on that, what you think it might mean for the future of human aging? Well, so we're mostly aiming for is serious diseases of aging. They may have relatively little in common in terms of what organ is affected, you know, what system they're maybe nine or ten different pathways that can be affected, so-called hallmarks of aging. So there's a great diversity, but there is a school of thought that they have a small

core set of systems biology, systems medicine, that if you get at that core, you can change the clock. You can make it shorter, as in mice or longer as of boehoy oils. And then you can rejuvenate. There is rejuvenation that occurs whenever you go through gametogenesis and fertilization for normal reproduction. You reset the age clock. And you also reset it when you do something unnatural, which is cloning, where you take the nucleus from an old animal and put it into a rejuvenating environment of an egg. And there's also a rejuvenation, process that occurs unnaturally when you use transcription factors. These are DNA binding proteins that regulate the expression of genes.

Four of them, so-called Yamanaka factors, or OSKM is the abbreviation, these will very convincingly take a very old cell and turned it into a very young cell, meaning like say a skin cell from 80-year-old, and it will take on many of the characteristics, most of the significant characteristics of an embryonic cell, and that it can produce almost all the tissues of the body, probably all of them, except for the extra embryonic, and the parts that aren't part of the body that contribute to the early embryogenesis. So those are a few. And there are many others. It's shown that the blood, what's in the blood of older and younger animals can influence one another.

The older blood makes the younger ones old, and the young blood makes the older animals younger by a variety of biomarkers and disease-related things. And so I've fallen to the school. There's at least two schools of thought here that there's a damage school where you have to go in there and kind of micromanage or surgery to fix the damage, as a surgeon might fix a damage, broken arm. Then there's the epigenetic school where it says that if you convince the cell that it's young, it will fix itself to a large extent.

There will be some exceptions. And we've seen that over and over these, you know, fertilization, cloning, and OSKM factors. our three, again, the blood-borne factors are four examples. And we need to reset all of the mechanisms, all nine hallmarks of aging, in probably all of the tissue types of the body, at least the stem cells for each of the body parts, to have a shot at.

We're aiming for youthfulness, lack of age-related diseases, so you should be youthful at an age-related diseases, So you should be youthful at an age where you normally would be unhealthy, even if you're not dying of any particular disease. So that's what we're aiming for. It will be approved by the FDA for specific indications, for specific diseases of aging. But then if it really is getting at the core of aging,

it will be immediately applicable to almost all of the diseases aging. And aging just affects everything, almost every morbidity, mortality, even like accidental death, infectious diseases like COVID has a very, and its cognitive consequences have very steep increases at around 60 years old. So I recall like one of your former publications, I forgot what year, I think it was a P&AS one where you did gene therapy and added three transcription factors to rodents, to mice. And there was some reversal of aging or biomarkers. And it was like GDF beta receptor and FGF21 and...

Alpha Clotho, yeah. Those were not transcription factors. Those were soluble factors. That's right. But we also did a separate experiment where we. We took three transcription factors, OSNK of OSKM, separate experiments, but delivered in similar ways, adeno-associated virus. And we did some other experiments with folostatin and thalamarase, so the effects that ends the chromosomes of telomeres.

Follostatin is mostly muscled. But each of these has, you know, reproducible impact on high. hallmarks of aging, of biomarkers of aging, and diseases of aging. And it affects multiple diseases with about seven different categories of diseases that we've done now in mice. And some subset of those have been tested in dogs now aiming for a veterinary product. The three that you mentioned, I think, have slight advantages. the fiberglass FGF 21 and TGF Beta, I should mention that is an art, the other two are natural, alpha-clotho and fiberfgf, FGF 21, but the TGF beta receptor is normally membrane bound,

but we made a soluble form of it. So all three of them tend to be soluble, and they effectively act like the young blood in rejuvenating these mice and dogs, and hopefully soon they'll be in human clinical trials. And that has the advantage that we don't yet have a good way of delivering to every cell in the body or every stem cell in the body. Remember, I said delivery was very important, and it's so important we have it. We need to fix it. But anyway, in the meantime, we can deliver the genes to a subset of cells in various parts of the body. And then those subset will deliver the proteins,

those three proteins you mentioned, more broadly, and so you can, in principle, affect the whole body by that combination of two kind of tiers of delivery. So that's the idea behind that. And the dogs is a particularly good conduit to humans because they're large mammals like humans. They live often in a human environment.

eat human, like sometimes eat human food. They have similar kind of emotions and bonding and eye contact and all the rest. So it's, and the owners can really sense their, their states so they can get it more subtle, positive and negative consequences earlier. So anyways, and it's a product that people care deeply about their pets. So, so I'm very excited about, you know, rejuvenate bio and Noah Davidson was a postdoc on my lab and he started the Juvenate Bio, and it seems to be shaping up to be a good product line. Yeah, it'll be exciting to follow this results. You kind of answer one of my questions, which was, you know, a lot of the rodent research,

particularly with aging, not a lot of it translates, you know, to humans. And, you know, one thing in particular, I think, that is important to consider with human aging is that, you know, humans are exposed to disease and viruses. We're not in this, like, sterile lab environment, and we have these periods of real, like, illness and muscle disuse, and it's just very different than a rodent. But there's advantages to studying, to using rodents. Right.

What do you think, like, why should we use rodents to study aging? Well, so as the prelude to the experiment that you mentioned, mentioned where we used three soluble factors in dogs, we did 45 different gene therapies singly, one at a time, in rodents' mice, to make sure to find the subset of three that we wanted to test in rodents in combinations, various combinations. And then once we had settled on the three factors out of 45, then we moved into dogs and then we'll next move into humans. So you shouldn't blindly expect the rodent model's work, but it's, it's it's it's they're advantageous because they only live two years. So so it's easy to see, um, a longevity effect. Uh, we're not always looking

for longevity. We're, we're usually looking for aging reversal of age related diseases, because that's what the FDA wants as well. But we do occasionally measure longevity in the case of the folostatin and tert treatments, those did show a pretty significant, very significant, longevity effect on the rodents. So even primate trials can be deceptive. There's a lot of differences in the way that they're treated. In fact, in certain ways, dogs have, I think, a more similar environment. maybe more to their liking, more natural for them since they've been our companion for tens of thousands of years.

So, but even dogs are not an ideal. Larger, you know, pigs are very close to humans and their organs. That's why they're being used as transplants, but they're also imperfect. So an alternative to all of the animal models is human organoids. and those are getting increasingly accurate so we can basically skip a lot of the developmental biology and go straight to a particular organ. We can't go via normal human development

because there's a ban on letting human embryos develop past 14 days in a dish, but it's considered ethical to make an isolated heart or even heart plus lungs, plus muscle, plus liver, plus neurons. But not a whole brain. And, you know, so we're, as this is rapidly developing, we're exploring collectively with a diverse set of voices,

you know, what, how to do this in a way that's humane to the animals or develop completely animal-independent strategies for both testing therapies, but also being the therapies. The organoids are increasingly moving their way into clinical trials. So, for example, we showed restoration of a demyelinating disease in rodents by putting human organoids, brain organoids that contain, that remilinate and are protected against the demilinating mechanisms. So they're supercells and that they are not just replacing the cells that are damaged because they just get damaged themselves, but they are resistant to the damage. And I think that

there's repeated over and over again in both cell therapies and organ therapies we're developing is that the goal is not just to deal with the organ shortage or it, it's, it, it's, you know, it's to have something that's enhanced. It's immunologically superior, less rejected, resistant to pathogens, resistance to cancer or senescence, cryopreservation.

All of these things have been demonstrated in animals, and now we want to get them to humans via cell or organ transplants. If I remember correctly, you enhanced the brain, brain organoid to, I think you edit it from APOE4, which if you're homozygous, you have like a 20-fold increased risk for Alzheimer's to APOE3. Right.

So making it more resilient against Alzheimer's, I guess. Right. Correct. So that's somewhat, depending on how you look at the composition of various genes, that particular case, E4 is not the predominant allele. And so you might call an enhancement PCSK9 is very rare in the population. And so if you make everybody or a large fraction of population PCSK9 negative, that could be called an enhancement relative to the average.

But it's not an enhancement relative to the minority. In the case of APOE3 or even APOE2, which is, that is rare than the E3 plus E4, and that would be an enhancement. But E3 over E4 is probably about closer to average. But this whole definition of, or this whole obsession of that enhancement seems odd because a huge fraction of our popular technologies are enhancements. You know, our smartphone makes us smarter in a certain way. It can also make us dumber.

But the point is it has the capability of helping us navigate, help getting access to the world's facts and factoids, cars, jets, so forth, enhance our ability to locomote. So I think increasingly we're going to recognize that the biotechnology we're producing are not just reactive medicine where we're putting out fires. They're preventative medicine where we're by enhancement, we're protecting ourselves. vaccines is a beautiful example of enhancement that protects us. We're far healthier than our ancestors were because of vaccines. I kind of would like to just move into a little bit to the germline editing. We've kind of talked, alluded to it a little bit here and there, but you've said in

previously that you felt like an obligation to be balanced. But you've also, of course, said it's important to focus on outcomes and not to rationalize addictions to future. And you were even involved in calling for a temporary moratorium on germline editing? No, actually, I was not, I was opposed to the obsession with moratorium because we already have a moratorium on all new drugs. We don't allow anybody to use new drugs that haven't been through the FDA testing. And, So, yes, it sounds subtle, but I was concerned that we would be developing germline where there's no need, but there's also no need for moratorium because we have very good regulatory mechanisms for preventing that sort of thing from happening at a market scale. Now, a moratorium would not do anything more at the market scale and also would not do anything more at the individual scale. Both the FDA and, in fact, most laws do not work on individuals that want to break the laws that are willing to accept the consequences or think they're above the consequences.

And that's what happened in the case of the germline, someone either misinterpreted willfully the guidelines or, didn't think it was a law. And in fact, he didn't get convicted of germline manipulation. This is J.K. Heh in China. He got convicted of, you know, not following the rules for getting the consent of the funding agencies and the patients and so forth. He actually did a pretty good job of getting the consent by some criteria. He spent an hour of videotaped counseling to make sure they understood what they were getting into. But anyway, as far as I know, he was not convicted of germline therapy, but something more nuanced.

And he's out now. He's spent the three years up, and he's out. And as far as we know, the children are healthy, which is more than you can say for the most revolutionary new treatments. So that's what I mean by balance. Let's talk about what did he actually do that was harmful to the patients or harmful to society rather than just having a knee-jerk response. We were all coiled up ready to say that he actually did try to pay attention to the ethics. But there wasn't a clear ethical consensus beyond the National Academy of Sciences report that I participated in. in a minor way.

He was trying to go down their checklist, but he was doing it sort of he's being the judge of whether he was doing the checklist right or not. I think that rubbed people the wrong way, and I think the Chinese government was very sensitive to what international opinion would be. It's not clear they would have acted quite so harshly if there had been no international backlash.

They might have nominated him for a Nobel Prize in a parallel universe. A couple of questions come to mind there. I mean, the public international reaction, I mean, the differences in the public response, you know, in 1978, the first, it was Luis Brown was the first baby born, was conceived by in vitro fertilization and considered one of the biggest medical breakthroughs of the 20th century. But presumably at the time, it was quite controversial.

And, you know, I'm just sort of interested in the public response to that sort of medical technology and use of it versus the CRISPR editor babies in 2018. If they were like proportional. Well, I think that this concern about this about doing things that are unnatural happens again and again. And natural is often, it's not defined as the way the world was before humans. It's usually, it's the way our grandparents lived. There's some kind of nostalgic reification of way our grandparents lived, even though we weren't there. You know, we just imagined that they had a perfect life without antibiotics or motors or that sort of thing. And so what's natural keeps is a moving target.

And a lot of things that were demonized, villainized in the past are taken for granted now. You know, for example, some of us might remember how cell phones were demonized as melting your brain or, you know, giving radiation to your brain. but now people are on cell phones all day. They don't even use landlines anymore. And you could even say, so anyway, the response is one of caution. The appropriate response is we're going to cautiously take this to the Food, Drug Administration. But that requires that the government allows us to take it. Food and the Drug Administration, which right now we can't do because a 2016 writer says

we can't even allow the FDA to accept these nominations for clinical trials. So this is a very, you know, head in the sand kind of approach to science. Usually that the careful and most FDA trials are very carefully vetted before they go in, preventing of that careful accumulation of data could cause lives. I don't think it's urgent in the case of germline. No one has articulated a particular thing other than HIV resistance, which is what I think was actually a pretty good choice of CCR5 and HIV resistance in J.K. Ho's case.

I think some people maybe don't appreciate how stigmatized. HIV can be in certain communities in China. So anyway, it's a complicated issue that I think we need to be respectful of both the potential future and the safe path towards it. How do you think we can equip people with the right knowledge in order to come to, you know, well-reasoned conclusions surrounding germline editing? understandings of complexity. So we've got, you know, background mutational rate and an offspring impact.

I mean, if you compare it to, you know, again, a background mutational rate or a paternal chemo, right? You know, if a man goes and, you know, he gets cancer and he gets treatment, and then after the treatment goes off and has a child, you know, we kind of accept that, you know, mutational rate. So things that are known about germline mutagens, I guess. Right. I mean, chemotherapy is a perfect example or the radiation you get living at high altitude. This falls into what I was saying about nature or natural, which is to find this, whatever we've accepted, whatever technology we've accepted up to this point are natural. and any new one. So chemotherapy is okay, even if it's more mutagenic than gene therapy. I don't think we necessarily have to educate people or establish what the right answer is.

I think it's about conversation. And some of those, you know, sometimes people say, well, you know, you need to, you know, reach out to everybody. Well, the thing is, a lot of people you read out to aren't particularly interested, they don't have the time to have a discussion about some abstract science that isn't in the supermarket. So that's one issue. One way to make that connection, though, is with more common media like books and movies, television. These are things where you can put it in the framework this entertaining and educational. My wife, for example, contributed to the Graze Anatomy genome lab episodes. So that's one form of dialogue where they can say, oh, yeah, we're worried about Jurassic Park. There's no reason to avoid.

the negative scenarios. Some of my colleagues don't like negative painting of scientists in entertainment. But I think it's good. It protects us from sort of those scenarios and slight generalizations of scenarios. And the more we think of, the more we're protected. There's, I think the way that germline, if germline gets accepted, the way that in vitro fertilization was eventually accepted, it was, It was demonized, too. The whole term test-do babies, which we think is quaint now, was supposed to be scary back then in the 70s. Test-do babies, you know, it's like, that's totally unnatural.

But now, you know, it is millions of, I think six million babies have been worn that way, including some of my close colleagues. So I think the way it may make it into a popular, acceptance, so it's considered natural, and the next thing is unnatural, is number one is if we're already getting humans that are getting transplants from germline manipulated pigs. So if germaline is not hurting the herds of pigs that are providing all these organs, and it's not hurting the patient that's getting the organ, then maybe that's one way. The other way is we'll have more and more gene therapies that are somatic, not germline, but they're done at early age,

maybe to cure early onset childhood diseases. And so we, or maybe even done in fetuses, but not in germaline. So people will say, oh, yeah, you can do it really, really early in utero. What are we really worried about? And some of these gene therapies as people start to get to be quite old, we'll say, okay, it doesn't have long-term consequences. And then somebody will come up with a use case that is very compelling where someone has a very serious medical disease, might be infertility, might be something more fatal than that. And then that will be the tipping point, if there is a tipping point. Could be that has to do with something that we all share in common. that's very hard to fix in adults.

The problem is there are very few examples of that. Maybe space travel requires some efforts in the germline, but even that, we might be able to make every cell in the body radiation resistant. Maybe we can make some kind of multiplex edited solution to low gravity. So I think maybe we can make a multiplex edit. that makes this multivirus resistant. These are things where you think it might be germline, but it might be just as feasible,

or at least feasible enough. It might be maybe be more expensive, less equally distributed. The nice thing about germline is every subsequent generation gets it for free. Some people say that's a bug or a feature depending I look at it. But if you can do it, it will get cheaper to do it somatically.

And it will be inherited in the way that we used to be an inheritance, which is what your great-grandfather hands down is the great-grandchildren, a set of technologies, tools, possessions. That multiplex editing will be something that won't be germline, but it will be just as surely inherited. Right. The equality of access is interesting, as you've brought up multiple times, because, you know, like HIV is great because, I mean, HIV is essentially cured with the right drugs and most developing people live and developed countries with, you know, healthcare can do that. But it's, that's not the case for, you know, developing nations with governments that aren't, you know, running correctly. And so it's an interesting point that, you know, is it easier to genetically cure HIV

through the germline or, you know, eliminate, poverty, essentially, when you're talking about something, I mean, potentially, I guess. Yeah, I think eliminate poverty sounds like a moonshot, but I think it qualifies as a positive grand challenge, more like the satellites than the moonshot. And it may not be so far off in that there's a, there could be a virtuous, site positive feedback loop where you reduce, the medical load from infectious disease and other diseases that slow down, not just the individual that has a disease, but the whole family, whole village around that person because they want to, they care for that person. And then that lightning of the medical load results in a little more

time and money to dedicate to things like educating children, adult women and so forth. And then that results in better medical care and it just gets better and better. And it could help. The other thing that could help is better agriculture, maybe less use of land and water for animals and more on nutritious plants. Golden Rice is an example of something where vitamin A deficiency kills a million people a year. And Golden Rice is one cost-effective way of reducing the poverty burden to town with a few blind people that were likely to be dead within a year or two of going blind. But I think I think that the diseases of poverty,

can be eliminated in that manner. We also could, in principle, HIV is one of the infectious diseases that is mostly human-specific. Even though a lot of these so-called human-specific diseases did come from an animal originally, I mean, where else did it come from? But it's so rare that if you eliminated it,

that, you know, it would be. be essentially extinct like smallpox. I mean, there could be another pox virus that replaces smallpox someday, but the point is a smallpox has been eliminated for so many decades that is unquestionably a success. And I think the same thing could be done with HIV. You know, condoms is another thing that works a little bit better in the industrialized nations. It doesn't really necessarily protect against uncooperative partners or rape, that sort of thing. So I think we need, there's a multi-pronged effort to eliminate HIV, but once we do, it could be like smallpox.

It's been recalcitrant to vaccines, which are so powerful. The latest round of vaccines are kind of in a format of gene therapy and are very inexpensive compared to most gene therapies that are typically $2 million. In the case of COVID-19, they were as little as $2 for an endoviral caps that are around a double-stranded DNA for three of the top five vaccines. You talked a little bit about genetic counseling and, you know, there's next-generation embryo selection. And I'm interested in your thoughts and the practical and or philosophical differences

between, you know, doing next generation embryo selection and germline editing. I guess put it another way, you know, does advances in sequencing and understanding of the genetics of disease and complex traits, polygenic traits, eventually lead to a point of practical editing through embryo selection? I think it will be intermediate. It won't be as powerful as one could do with... germline genome engineering, but it could achieve many of the same goals for, you know, eliminated certain diseases.

Many of those diseases that could be eliminated by a vitro fertilization embryo choice could also be eliminated or greatly reduced by preconception. choices if that were more common. It's really a matter of social norms. So there's a tiny sector of society that practices preconception decision-making, and those have almost eliminated major serious genetic diseases. Why, it isn't common in other parts of society as a complicated socio-economic, educational, cultural issue. But I think there will be a tipping point where people get to know their own genome better, get to know their choices when they're still very young and dating.

And there's a whole variety of ways it could work out so that things are done before the point of eventual fertilization. which is not the most pleasant medical procedure. I mean, the hormone treatments have negative consequences for quite a few women. Sometimes it has to be repeated multiple times, sometimes six times in case of one of my colleagues, was the result of six rounds of IVF. So, but the number of embryos that could be made by and vitrivate correlation could skyrocket without in any way interfering with the germline and so forth

by epigenetically reprogramming cells to become pluripotent stem cells and then the pluripotent stem cells can become eggs and then those eggs they may they might be randomly mutated and if you sequence enough of them you'll find one that is what you want so as if you haven't induced the mutation with CRISPR, it just happened the way it happens in the world. This is far from efficient compared to editing, but it illustrates how we have this kind of double standard, that if you do it, if you achieve the same goal, germline engineering, this way it's okay, this way it's not okay. It's the same as GMO argument, that if you get, if you mutate, you know, a tomato or soybean,

by random ultraviolet mutation, where you're making hundreds of mutations random with no control, that's somehow more attractive than if you do a precise edit and you make sure the rest of the genome is clean and you haven't touched anything else. It just doesn't, you know, it's for some people that make sense for other people it doesn't. It's like saying that, oh, if I'm going to, you know,

fix my car engine, I'm going to, you know, throw all kinds of random chemicals and shotguns and stuff into it and hope that one of those things makes the right fix the car. But anyway, I think that's what's going on in germline is very similar to what's going on in GMOs. You can radically change the plant species by one method, but not by another. You can change an embryo's fate, but negatively with chemotherapy or positively by IVF. not by germline editing. It's double think. It's a good, good topic of conversation and eventually,

I think it will sort of self out. What about understanding the unknown? You know, so there's a lot of genetic variants that are thought to be mostly deleterious or, you know, quote unquote, not beneficial. upon deeper inspection, perhaps there's an advantage and a scenario we don't quite understand. And so I've heard, I've read some articles. You kind of talked a little bit about this, not necessarily in the regard of, you know, germline editing or anything, but with respect to the importance of neurodivergence, you know, and how you have narcolepsy and how you've basically, I think you've talked about, you know, many creative ideas coming from potentially having,

having that, quote-unquote, disorder. So I'm kind of just curious on your thoughts about how to foresee or like what, you know, like that sort of territory understanding the unknown. Right. So it's very similar to other technologies, you know. it was unknown, well, the cell phones were going to fry our brains. It was unknown, you know, for MRIs, which have, you know, very big magnets. You know, locomotives crashed.

They collided head to head because of poor scheduling. So when we think, so there will be. be negative consequences. Some of them are caught in the phase one, two, and three clinical trials that FDA requires. Some of them are caught later, sometimes semi-humorously referred to as phase four clinical trials, meaning it's out in the population and catch them later, like hormone replacement therapy and biox or two examples, recent examples. Thalidomide is a slightly older example. So I think the point is not to have zero risk. There is no way to have zero risk. Doing nothing is very risky. Status quo is very risky relative to the future. So what we need to do

is just be very cautious. Start with small animal studies or human organoids. Start with small human clinical trials and then slowly grow as we gain confidence that it is safe and effective. In the specific examples of where there's a tradeoff, I mean, I think it's very interesting to talk about tradeoffs. Sometimes people will say, what about the perfect human? I said, is there a perfect human? I mean, what does that even mean? Is there a perfect means of transportation is a comeback? You know, it's like, is a bicycle perfect? Or is it a bicycle perfect? Or is it the super tanker. You know, bicycle is not so good at carrying, you know,

tons of goods. And a super tanker does not get you to school in a few minutes. So there's no perfect. There's just, there's all these tradeoffs that depend on the environment. So people will say, well, CCR5 is not a good idea for germline. And maybe it's not even a good idea for somatine. because it could make you sensitive to West Nile or to certain influenza.

But another way of thinking about it, well, you don't have to knock out CCR5 just because there are people walking around with CCR5 nulls. You could be more nuanced where you take out the parts that you engineer the protein, as we were talking about earlier

with a machine learning. You knock out the parts of the protein that bind to the virus, but not the parts of the protein that do their immunological functions. So you could end up with something that's HIV-resistant and West Nile resistant rather than or.

And, you know, I think narcolepsy and dyslexia that I've had and ADD, OCD, high-functioning, autistic, bipolar, these do have potential advantage to society. We don't have to eliminate them, but we should. maybe give the affected people a choice, if we can. It's not always false. Some of the damage is done during embryogenesis, but some of that might be fixable as an adult. Or we might be able to give them a knob that they can twist.

They can say, okay, I want to be autistic for the next three days so I can finish my thesis. I can just focus and just don't think about human relations. And then I can dial it back because I have to meet with the president of the university, you know, and I have to be charming and not by his definition, his neurotypical view of the world. And so you're accommodating. Or, you know, you name it, a lot of the reason that neuro atypicals are beneficial is not because a particular, it's not because that particular disease is not a disease or that particular disease. It's just because

we're off a center in any direction, maybe even obesity or religious choice, anything that takes us far away from the center of the bell curve makes us feel alienated, which gives us maybe more time to pursue intellectual activities rather than social media, or it makes us focus on like proving that we're just as good as the the handsome, you know, well-articulated, you know, model in the middle of developer. So anyway, whatever it is, it isn't necessarily a particular thing that we need to preserve in the population, although we should think creatively about that. So maybe one last topic before we end, and another area of the research that you've been involved in is the gene drive.

Yeah. You know, and maybe some people listening or, you know, watching, know what that is, but using it to eradicate insect-carrying human disease like malaria. Lyme disease. Yeah, Lyme disease. Yeah, so I'm just sort of curious about, you know, your work on that and your work on also trying to make sure you address concerns, like unintentionally leading to extinction of a species or something.

Right. So I think one approach to, so. So the extinction of species is one part of it. So you can do gene drives whose intention is to make a species resistant to something that's bad for a third species. So, for example, you could make mosquitoes resistant to malaria. They don't carry it onto humans. So there's a three species problem. And you're not really making anything extinct necessarily, although since malaria is a,

human-specific disease, you might make malaria extinct. But you could inadvertently, I think the scenario you're painting here, inadvertently make that mosquito extinct as well. Now, there's a limited number of mosquitoes that carry malaria, maybe half-dozen major ones out of 3,500 species of mosquito. One could argue that there are very few known species that are dependent upon mosquitoes. The males are pollinators, females, are the bloodsuckers in this case.

But even mosquito fish did not depend on mosquitoes. But anyway, we should do more study of the ecosystem interactions. We should test them extensively to see that the don't cause extinction. and they have these large enclosed ecosystems, you know, that includes small villages and farms and so forth. Extinction tends to occur more easily in small populations as long as the environment is still complex. So we could do tests like that,

but it also helps if the species that we're putting at risk is okay to go extinct. I mean, there are a lot of species are going extinct, and I probably, you know, getting rid of half a dozen mosquito species that are we pretty confident that they don't want to impact other species

might be acceptable. But first priority is to try to do it without that. And the way that it's going to make it into, again, into public positive consciousness is, you know, my former postdoc and colleague at MIT, Kevin Esfeld, has gone to Antuckin and Martha's Vineyard and asked whether they would be favor having a gene drive wipeout lime disease. They hate Lyme disease, but having gene drive wipeout line disease do nothing,

or to have a non-gene drive shock and a whole new engineered rodent population that is resistant to Lyme disease, but not a gene drive. And of those three scenarios, I think they like the third one the best. We don't want to do nothing. They don't want a gene drive just yet. Let's try a genetically engineered rodent population. So a little more expensive, a little, you know, probably less sure. But that's the kind of communication, the dialogue between almost all the people on the islands

or their representatives in the town councils. They were surprisingly interested in the science and how it could affect their Lyme disease, horrible disease. It'd be hard to do the same thing in malaria, and that's why Lyme might be a better choice for these two different GMO strategies. But I think that's the pathway by which it might get better. There are also, you know, there is a pretty good Lyme vaccine that was blocked for no particularly great reason.

It was, it happened to bad timing that happened around the same time as the fake data on vaccines causing autism. Wakefield, I think was this scientist's name who fake the data later was when that was revealed. damage was already done. People kept repeating it as if we're a fact for many years after it was shown to be false. And so they pulled the Lyme disease vaccine off. Now, back then, Lyme disease was also a less serious disease. I think if they were put to a vote today, they would have kept the vaccine. And then there are some new vaccines that are slightly better aimed either at multiple tick-borne diseases, not just Lyme, multiple strains of Lyme, multiple strains of Lyme. So hopefully those will, since now people do know the consequences of voting against the vaccine,

hopefully they'll accept it this time. It's been in use in dogs ever the whole time. It's one of these cases where dogs get better medical care than humans do because, you know, we love our dogs and apparently we don't care about ourselves. Yeah, your experiments with the dogs and seeking FDA approval for that being a treatment in animals is pretty exciting. Yeah, as is the Lyme disease vaccine for dogs. Okay, so I have a personal question for you. You know, we talked a little bit about the narcolepsy, and I know I've read that you've attributed a lot of creative ideas to perhaps being in a limbo between dreaming and awake, awakeness.

But I'm wondering, like, you know, what your day is like, you know, and like, do you have like a routine or just how do you, how do you get these, you know, creative ideas or, you know, remember them or just kind of any insights on into that? Yeah, I mean, first of all, any personal stories that the scientist says shouldn't be taken. as like recommendations, but there's just anecdotes. The recommendations come from clinical trials. It's a little hard to do with things, you know, like narcolepsy, but it's possible. Anyway, in my case, you know, I found coping. First of all, I found that I had it. You know, it's one of these diseases that you, this could be very impactful, but nevertheless,

a combination of ignorance and denial and so forth. I just didn't recognize it until I was maybe late 30s. Probably it had a serious onset when I was 13. Looking back on it, had a lot of headaches. Took a lot of medications for headaches. And then the headaches disappeared, but sleepingness started kicking in much more. So after discovering it, one thing I do is I communicate it. I don't hide it.

You know, sometimes your diseases that you don't tell people about can kill you more than people, the things that you communicate. So, you know, narcolepsy is potentially fatal in, you know, traffic accidents. I know some of my colleagues hid their... diabetes from everybody except me. They, which can be fatal, almost was fatal in one case, just because the people around them didn't know what was happening when he went into shock. So that's one thing, is disclosure.

Again, I'm not necessarily recommending them. I'm just saying what I do. The second thing is I don't eat during most of the day. I eat right before I go to bed, which is not a good thing for. Most people, you want to eat well before you go to bed. But basically, the tendency to go to sleep after a meal, which is true for many people, it's especially true for me. And so I found that that was good.

If I'm not in a conversation like this, I tend not to fall asleep in conversations, but I will fall asleep in lectures. So I tend to try to stand or pace or do some other activity that's not too, It doesn't require too much brain power. But it keeps me awake. I will, however, whole sleeve standing up or walking or even riding my bicycle. And I don't drive.

So that's another coping mechanism. You know, there's a whole bunch of jobs that I couldn't get. I'm unemployable in many jobs. So I happened to pick one that fits. That fits okay. Those are some anticoats. Oh, yeah.

In terms of, I think you want, like, for inspiration, you know, I don't have a lot of control over it. I tend to fall asleep when I'm either super bored or super excited slash have a difficult problem. So I have a difficult problem very, very commonly all fall asleep. sleep. If my computer is having trouble or crashing, I'll fall asleep. And I'll often come up with an answer to either the abstract problem or the practical problem. Within seconds of waking. I wake up like, you know, some people are kind of groggy. I'm like already at like high,

heightened state of awareness when I, when I wake up from a nap. The naps last from anywhere from a second to an hour, usually in the multi-second range. Anyway, it's a very strange experience. I'm not sure I recommend it, but you get used to it after a while. And as you're going out, your decision-making is very poor. You're like blurring reality with a dream world. So you're like, you're incorporating things that you're seeing because your eyes are still open, typically. my eyes are still open.

And then I'll be completely asleep. When I didn't know that I had done it, I would, I did have a driver's license for a few years. I would pull up to a stop, to a stoplight, and I'd put on the parking brake. Because I didn't know what I was going to go to sleep, but didn't want to go to sleep without the parking brake. So, and then at that point, I sort of realized I got a problem. I went to sleep clinics to make sure that I had a problem and then I stopped driving. I don't know how much of this is true. I once read that Salvador Dali used to put a spoon on his nose and he'd sit up and fall asleep with it.

And when he would wake, you know, with a spoon woke him or something when it was following, that he had this inspiration and creative ideas for his paintings. I don't know if it's real. I think that's, I think that is true. I think it's true for a lot of people. He just tried to capture it. He tried to, you know, harness it. There's one set of theories that dreaming is where you're doing kind of trash collection

and you're like cleaning up house or preparing yourself for unlikely scenarios. And you really shouldn't interrupt that. It's not good for you. But if your goal is to harness weird stuff, then it's a good thing. So, yeah, his art is, it really reflects the dream state, I think, better than most of the dataist and surrealist artists around that era. So maybe he had something, you know, it's hard to say.

He was good at making up stories, though, definitely. Well, Dr. Church, thank you again. such an honor to have you on the podcast and have a discussion with you, be able to ask you ask you some questions. I usually at the end of the podcast, direct people that want to kind of follow more of your work. I know you're on Twitter. Your Twitter handle is at GeoChurch, G-E-O-C-H-U-R-C-H. You also have a lab website, and if you Google Church Lab website, like the first hit. But you also wrote a book published, was in 2014. regeneresis, how synthetic biology will reinvent nature and ourselves.

And there was a very kind of interesting backstory to that. Well, there were a bunch of backstories to that one. Let's see. Which one are you thinking about? I mean, you know, whichever is the most interesting. I'll tell two. Well, the short one is Ed Regis was a co-author. and my agents and publisher wanted me to have a ghost writer,

and I did not feel comfortable with having a true gross writer where you don't acknowledge them. Ed had just interviewed me for Discover magazine, and he had written, I don't know, nine popular science books already, so I thought that would be a good partnership, and I learned a ton about writing. I hope he enjoyed his lessons in synthetic biology. That was one part.

The other thing that's probably slightly more interesting is the book was encoded into DNA, and I bet that's what you were thinking. I got to the point where we've been working on reading and writing DNA for a few years, and I realized, hey, we can read and write very easily. Why don't we write a book in DNA and then read it with the best technologies of the day? And that was partly prompted by a review that I wrote of scientific, paper where the authors had synthesized a very tiny genome and had put their names into the genome in a simple code.

And I was asked to review that paper from that letter, the Venter Clyde Hutchinson, Ham Smith, for some of the senior authors. And so I reviewed the article, and I decided I would write it in a, in DNA, the whole review in DNA. And I sent it in in a different code than they had used, a better, I thought it was a better code. And the editor, normally you would think would send it back to me and say, look, use English. But instead, the editor sent it on to them, you know, unchanged without any English at all.

And fortunately, one of the senior authors, I think was Clyde Hutchison, knew enough programming that he broke the code and understood the review. So then having written that code to write the review, I said, well, I'll use that same code to do my book because it was already available. And that code had the advantage. Theirs only dealt with uppercase letters while mine handled zeros and ones.

The zeros and ones were a much more general encoding method. And so I could not just encode the uppercase letters, but pictures. Pictures in JPEG form are zeros and ones. In principle, later movies, audio,

all kinds of things that have been encoded using the zeros and one strategy. So I wrote, did the book, made my 70 billion copies, which is more than, you know, like the top hundred books put together. Prior

to that. And to my surprise, it kind of launched an industry. There's now an international consortium for this kind of digital encoding. It's not displacing, you know, this little disc drives, but it is moving in that direction. But another thing that's happening is is we're incorporating it into recording into living organisms, which I kind of alluded to when we're getting, you know, why we would we do a million edits is where we can record physiological data. So, for example, we recorded two terabytes of information in a mouse in one billionth the mass of the mouse.

So it's one of the world's smallest recording devices. A billionth of a mouse can encode two terabytes. And the next step will be to take it up to 20 petabytes using these multiplex or repetitive elements. So those are two of the backstories. There's a few more. Some of them are documented in the book. I'll let the readers read the books. I think the book really has not aged much since 2014, even though the field is exponentially improving and so forth.

the book, I think, was futuristic enough that it wasn't wrong yet anyway. Well, I look forward to reading it. I learned a tremendous amount just from doing some background research. I had no idea. Synthetic biology, I mean, I knew so little about it. And, you know, I came into this podcast. I've focused a lot on aging and what humans are not interested in me, and what human adult is not interested in aging, right?

But after preparing and doing this background research and reading, this field of synthetic biology and just everything that you're doing is just so exciting. I mean, just understatement, just so exciting. So thank you so much for all your research and what you, you know, what you're going to continue to do. I mean, the world, you know, you're going to be history books and all that stuff. So again, a huge honor, Dr. Church, thank you so much. Thank you.

You've created one of the best set of questions I've ever seen. You took us from where most people stop to a whole other level. And I hope the next interview starts where you left off, if possible. But anyway, terrific job. And I greatly enjoyed it. Hard to believe you didn't know much synthetic biology before this. Zero. But I'm reading your book and I'm so excited.

I can't wait to continue to follow. I'm writing another one now. It's been eight years. I have a lot of day jobs, so I don't have that much time. But it won't be exactly a sequel, but it will be wildly different. But I learned a lot from writing that one. This one I'll probably write solo or I have been writing solo so far. So anyway.

Well, I hope to have another conversation with you again. Okay. Thank you. Sounds good. Take care. You too. Thanks. It's really a special opportunity to have had a chance to speak with Dr. Church

because he is one of those rare living historical figures whose work is so vastly influential that it can change our perspective on the potential of an entire field. I hope that many of you enjoy this conversation as much as I have, that you'll maybe check out his book, Regenesis, or the next one. coming out. If you found this interview especially thought-provoking or interesting, I would encourage you to consider joining my newsletter. There, I and my team work not only to announce episodes, but sometimes we'll talk on challenging details, like how this organism recoding stuff works. You can find that at found my fitness.com forward slash newsletter. That's N-E-W-S-L-E-T-E-R newsletter.

You may also enjoy our monthly Q&A where I answer member submitted questions. In my last Q&A episode number 38, I talked about a new trial using base editing, which is a more precise type of editing of CRISPR, where people will have a gene called PCSK9 edited in their livers, which will inactivate it to treat hyper-cholestrolemia or high cholesterol. I compare this to the PCSK9 inhibitors that are available to some people today who do not respond to statins. To get access to that Q&A and to submit questions for other Q&As, learn about becoming a premium member at foundmyfitness.com forward slash premium.

That's P-R-E-M-I-U-M, premium. Thanks so much for listening and please share the podcast with anyone interested in futurism. The future is here, my friends.