Science Friday - Health Equity And Trans Health, Human-Robot Relationship. June 11, 2020, Part 1

Episode Date: June 11, 2021

Biden’s New Assistant Secretary Of Health On Protecting Trans Youth The American healthcare system is facing some incredible challenges: Black and Latino communities were hit harder by COVID-19, and have lower vaccination rates than white, Asian, and Native American communities. The opioid crisis is still raging, climate change is disproportionately impacting the health of communities of color, and a wave of anti-trans healthcare bills are being pushed by Republican lawmakers through multiple states. Dr. Rachel Levine, President Biden’s appointee for assistant secretary of health for the department of Health and Human Services, is aiming to take on all of that, and more. She previously served as Pennsylvania’s secretary of health and physician general, combating both the opioid and COVID-19 crises there. Now, she wants to scale those efforts to a federal level, in addition to helping meet President Biden’s goal of getting 70% of adults with at least one vaccine dose by July 4. She also made history as the highest-ranking, openly transgender person to have served in the federal government. Levine talks to Ira about the steps needed to achieve health equity, advocating for the healthcare rights of trans youth and adults, and her ambitions for her time in office.   Why Oxen Were The Original Robots In media and pop culture narratives about robotic futures, two main themes dominate: there are depictions of violent robot uprisings, like the Terminator. And then there are those that circle around the less deadly, more commonplace, fear that machines will simply replace humans in every role we excel at. There is already precedent for robots moving into heavy lifting jobs like manufacturing, dangerous ones like exploring outer space, and the most boring of administrative tasks, like computing. But roboticist Kate Darling would like to suggest a new narrative for imagining a better future—instead of fighting or competing, why can’t we be partners? The precedent for that, too, is already here—in our relationships with animals. As Darling writes in The New Breed: What Our History With Animals Reveals About Our Future With Robots, robotic intelligence is so different from ours, and their skills so specialized, that we should envision them as complements to our own abilities. In the same way, she says, a horse helps us travel faster, pigeons once delivered mail, and dogs have become our emotional companions. Darling speaks with Ira about the historical lessons of our relationships with animals, and how they could inform our legal, ethical, and even emotional choices about robots and AI.   Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm John Dankoski in for Ira Flato. Later this hour, you'll hear Ira's conversation with Dr. Rachel Levine, Assistant Secretary of Health for the Department of Health and Human Services. But first, this week marked the end of the Keystone XL pipeline. The company said it would stop the project after the Biden administration canceled the permit. For more than a decade, the planned pipeline, which was to bring Canadian tar sands oil through several U.S. states to the Gulf of Mexico, was opposed by, environmentalists and Native American groups concerned about water safety, indigenous rights, and the message that it's sent about fossil fuels and climate change. But there's another

Tarsans pipeline that's in the news this week, and activists in Minnesota are raising some of the same concerns. That's the sound of protesters at an Enbridge energy pump station near Park Rapids, Minnesota. Many chained themselves to equipment to slow construction of the Line 3 pipeline. More than 200 people were arrested during acts of civil disobedience, and the protests are expected to continue this weekend. Minnesota Public Radio reporter Kirstie Morone has been following this story. She covers water issues and she's here to tell us more. Kirstie, welcome to Science Friday. Thanks for joining us. Thanks, John. First of all, tell us about this pipeline project. Unlike Keystone, this isn't brand new. Why does the company say that it's needed?

Yeah, that's right. Line 3 is actually part of a network of pipelines owned by this Canadian company and Bridge Energy. And they transport crude oil from Canada's Alberta province to refineries in the U.S. Embridge says the original line three needs to be replaced because it was built back in the 1960s and it's deteriorating. It's actually been operating at half capacity. So the new replacement pipeline would be larger and would be able to transport more oil. And Embridge also says it would be made with stronger steel and would be safer. Embridge has gotten all of the state and federal permits that it needs for the project. And construction actually has been underway since last December.

And the company says it's more than half done. So tell us about the opposition to this pipeline. there are several legal challenges, including one that you were covering yesterday. That's right. Environmental groups don't like this pipeline for several reasons. They say that Enbridge hasn't proven that this expanded capacity to move more oil is even needed. They say it perpetuates the nation's dependence on fossil fuels, which exacerbate climate change, and that we should be moving toward cleaner energy instead. Also, opponents worry that this pipeline puts Minnesota's natural resources at risk, especially its water, which is, you know, what we're

known for here in Minnesota. This is the land of 10,000 lakes and where the Mississippi River starts. And that's because this replacement line is being built along a different route across northern Minnesota, where there's lots of wetlands and streams and rivers. The pipeline would actually cross the Mississippi River twice. So opponents are really worried about the risk of an oil spill or a leak and what that would mean for the water and the ecosystem of this region. There's also an environmental justice aspect here, John, the Native American tribes have been at the forefront of the resistance against line three. They say it violates their treaty rights to hunt and fish and gather wild rice on their ancestral lands. So there have been several legal challenges during the seven

years that has taken the project to get this far. And one of those we heard yesterday at a state appeals court hearing, there were arguments against the state water permit that was issued for this project. The tribes and the environmental groups argued that the state pollution control agency didn't consider alternative routes that might have had less impact on streams and wetlands and that they didn't do enough analysis on the effects on aquatic life that the pipeline might have on these water bodies. But state and federal judges so far haven't agreed to halt the project while these appeals are moving through the courts. So the construction has been continuing. That's Kirstie Morone of Minnesota Public Radio. Kirstie, thanks so much for following

the story for us. I really appreciate it. You're welcome. And now for some other science news of the week, the National Science Foundation could soon be getting a major overhaul and an expanded role focusing on funding cutting-edge science. That's because this week the Senate passed a bipartisan bill that commits roughly $250 billion to technology research, AI, and semiconductor production. Here to tell us more and to share other science news of the week is Sophie Bushwick, technology editor with Scientific American.

Hi, Sophie, welcome back. Hi, thanks for having me. So, wow, this seems pretty big for science, lots more money for technology research. Tell me what prompted this act of generosity on the part of the Senate. So I think there's been a perception that we are in a race with other countries to have greater advancements in cutting edge technology like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other areas. And in order to remain competitive, the U.S. will need to put a lot of money towards funding basic research and development in these areas. And so that's what this bill is attempting to do. I know that semiconductor production was added to the bill. Is that in some ways a reaction to this global chip shortage that we've been experiencing?

I think so. The idea is that because of supply chain disruptions during the coronavirus pandemic, it's really made it clear just how much semiconductor production is taking place outside of the U.S. I think the U.S. only has about 12% of the global share of semiconductor manufacturing. And so one of the goals of this bill is to bring some of that production back here and so that domestic companies will be making semiconductors. And that will reduce shortages due to similar supply chain disruptions in the future. Now, this is a rare bipartisan action in Congress. What is the likelihood of all this coming to

pass and actually helping out science here in America? So this passed the Senate with 68 versus 32 votes. So that's a pretty significant margin, which suggests it has a good chance of making it through the house as well. But as with all bills, it will probably undergo a lot of changes on the way. So I think we could probably expect to continue seeing arguments over who should get control of this money, right? Should it be an expanded role for the National Science Foundation? Or should we be channeling some of that money towards the Department of Energy, which runs a lot of national labs? So I think that kind of nitpicking is going to definitely be happening. But I would expect to see some version.

of this bill making it into law. There's also a pretty important report by the International Military Council on Climate and Security. It's warning that climate change will threaten military operations and installations. Tell us more. So climate change is accepted as a threat for a lot of people, but there are still skeptics who think that the worry about it is overblown. And this report is saying, look, for militaries all over the world, this is going to be an

ongoing issue. climate change is going to exacerbate problems like conflicts over land and conflicts over water in particular. It's going to put installations that are near oceans at risk due to sea level rise. And it's also going to, we'll see more intense disasters such as a higher likelihood of intense hurricanes and other weather phenomena happening. And all of that is going to affect how the military operates, what soldiers are going to be tasked with doing all over the world and what type of conflicts that they can expect to see. So this report is emphasizing the importance of preparing for these things happening, but also of reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to military action.

So talking about things that the military is paying attention to, it seems as though the Pentagon is focusing on UFOs, and there's a big report coming out later on this month, but we've got some details that have leaked early. What do we know? We know that this report, I think, is going to disappoint everyone. That's what we know so far. So the report that's going to be released is the unclassified version. So it's still going to keep some information back, which will probably be enough to keep UFO enthusiasts spinning theories and wondering about what we don't know. But this report basically looks at incidents, videos, recordings of unidentified aerial phenomena or UAPs, which is the fancier term for incidents that we would probably call UFOs.

And it looks at these incidents and tries to figure out what's going on in them. Because one of the ideas, one of the things that skeptics say is, look, you can trace a lot of these to errors. You know, a blip on the radar could be a problem with your instruments. A weird glow in a photo could be due to an error with your camera. It could be due to something on the ground. It could be due to a whole lot of things. And one of the things that people say it might be due to is the U.S. itself testing advanced technology that pilots or the instruments that capture these images are not aware of.

So one of the things the report concludes is that a lot of these incidents are not advanced technology testing. That doesn't mean that they're aliens. There could still be a lot of other explanations. And in fact, some outside experts have complained about this report that it doesn't examine these incidents the way that they want them to. We've been following along the really dire situation in India right now and how it's been hit by the second wave of COVID. Experts there are trying to figure out why. What did they come up with? So some people have suggested that maybe it's these new variants that have been coming out that are causing the severity of this surge. Because when India experienced the first wave of COVID, it was relatively mild compared to how some other countries in the world dealt with it. But the experts seem to be agreeing now that the issue is less about.

scary new variants and more about just the way the different waves were handled. So during the first wave, there was a very strict lockdown, which could have kept things under control. But partially because of the severity of that lockdown, there was opposition to doing another one as the second wave started to build momentum. And there continued to be large gatherings, big crowds, even in closed spaces. And so that could have exacerbated the spread during the second wave and caused the crisis that. India is experiencing now. Some news coming out of the G7 summit this week, that could be good news for India and other low and moderate income countries. The Biden administration has said it's going to purchase 500 million doses of COVID vaccine, and the other G7 leaders are planning to match that,

so we could see more vaccines going to other countries as well. Well, Sophie, let's end with something a little bit fun and a little bit weird. We now have a Google translate for elephants, what? What What exactly does that mean? Well, elephants aren't necessarily speaking a language that you could type into Google translate, but they do communicate through the movements of their ears and their bodies, through vocalizations, some of which are so low-pitched that humans can't actually hear them, and some of which actually cause vibrations in the ground. So elephants are using all of these different methods to say things to each other,

and now researchers have compiled a really extensive ethogram of what, what these elephants communications actually mean. They've got thousands of recordings of audio, video, and other proof of what the elephants are doing with their audio and with their body language, and then what they're intending to communicate with that. Like, are they saying, hey, let's fight, or are they saying, hey, it's so great to see you again?

And does this exist for any other animals? It does. There are ethograms for animals such as lab mice or chimpanzees, but this is extremely extensive. and it includes a lot of multimedia. So it's really a digital ethogram, and it is very extensive. Sophie Bushwick is Technology Editor for Scientific American. Thanks so much for all the great stories, Sophie.

I really appreciate it. Thank you. When we come back, Iris sits down with Dr. Rachel Levine, Biden's Assistant Secretary of Health to talk about health equity and protecting trans youth. This is Science Friday. I'm John Dankoski in for Ira Flato. This next conversation comes from an interview that Ira recorded earlier this month with Dr. Rachel Levine, who was appointed by President Joe Biden to be Assistant Secretary of Health for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The American health care system is facing one of the most challenging periods in its existence, combating COVID-19, the opiate crisis, and reckoning with the historical inequities that have earned mistrust from communities of color. As we've seen over the last year, COVID-19 has laid bare the challenges that the American health care system faces. Black and Latino communities were hit harder by the virus and have seen lower vaccination rates compared to white, Asian, and Native American communities. The opioid crisis is still ongoing, and mental health has been severely impacted by the pandemic. And now a wave of anti-trans health care legislation pushed by Republican lawmakers. is sweeping through multiple state houses, making it harder to access life-saving health care for LGBTQ youth and adults who already face higher rates of suicide and mental health issues.

My next guest, Dr. Rachel Levine, is taking aim at these issues through the lens of health equity. She's Assistant Secretary of Health for the Department of Health and Human Services, previously served as Pennsylvania's Physician General, mainly assisting with that state's opioid crisis. She's also the highest ranking openly transgender person to have ever served in the federal government. Dr. Levine, welcome to Science Friday. Well, thank you very much for inviting me. I'm very pleased to be here. Nice to have you. You've said that health equity is one of your top priorities. I know we're not in a perfect world, but if we were, what does health equity look like to you? Well, health equity at its heart means that everyone has access.

to health care, no matter where they are, no matter who they love, no matter their race or their ethnicity or their gender or their age, is that health care is a right and everybody has access to the same health care. And I mentioned the widening health inequities revealed by the pandemic in my introduction. How else has the pandemic made health inequities worse? Well, you are entirely correct. You know, if you think of health inequities, health disparities as an iceberg. You know, we see the entire iceberg now before we just saw the tip. But COVID-19 has exposed the depth of health disparities and health inequities that we have in the United States. And our work is certainly cut out for us in terms of addressing that issue.

When you say your work is cut out for us, especially you, who is in that position, give me a roadmap. What do you see as that work plan going forward? Sure. Well, there are a number of different programs that we have to address health equity. One is that there is a Health and Human Services Health Disparities Council that has just been reformed by the Secretary of Health. I'm very pleased to co-chair that council. And we're going to be looking at policy changes across the agency in terms of making sure

that health equity cross-cuts everything. that we do at HHS. In addition, I'm on the COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force, where we're making sure that health equity is the linchpin of everything that we're doing in terms of COVID-19. So we have a number of different programs, policies, and task force to address this issue. Do you consider health equity to be personal to you? Well, I think that health care is a right. And I think, as I was saying, that everybody deserves access to quality health care. But you are correct that one of the communities that has been significantly impacted by these health disparities is the LGBTQ community. So out of the

Health Disparities Council work, we're going to have a group looking at LGBTQ policy changes across the agency as well. We did a segment on gender affirming health care a couple of months ago, and we heard from one of our trans listeners about the difficulties of getting. top surgery. Let me just reiterate what was said. To get approval for the surgery, insurance required a letter that they had to get from a mental health professional that basically diagnosed them with gender dysphoria. And that same letter isn't required for cisgender women who want to get cosmetic breast augmentation surgery. What can your office do to help end practices like this which treat trans patients differently than cisgender patients?

Well, one of the important policy changes that has actually already occurred at the Department of Health and Human Services was in the Office of Civil Liberties. So they already made an important change in terms of their interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that you cannot discriminate against anyone in terms of sex, that that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. And so we're going to be looking to apply that across the department in terms of the Affordable Care Act and in terms of other, you know, health care policies as well. Now, there are standards of care for the treatment of transgender individuals. Those standards of care are established by an international organization called W-Path. That's the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. There is a U.S. arm called U.S. Path. I am a member of W. Path and U.S. Path, and they are looking to revise their standards of care, which were done almost 10 years ago, to revise them and advance them. And so we'll see what the organization says about the standard of care about having psychological evaluation before having gender affirming surgery.

Yet so much anti-trans health care legislation is making its way through various state houses pushed by Republican lawmakers. What are the stakes for trans youth and adults if more of these bills pass? Well, I think these bills are extremely difficult, extremely challenging, and they target particularly vulnerable transgender youth. Transgender youth are already at risk of bullying. They're at risk of discrimination and harassment. And these bills seek to limit their ability to do certain school activities and to participate in sports. And the most egregious of these bills are actually limiting the ability of trans youth to access gender-affirming care by specialists at children's hospitals in their state. So, you know, these are very, very difficult.

and I want to work in my capacity as the Assistant Secretary for Health, both from a raising awareness point of view, from an advocacy point of view, as well as internally within the Department of Health and Human Services on policy changes to try to address these issues. Now, I know that you have your experience, a lot of experience, specializing in pediatrics. What do you personally say to these kids? about working with that? Well, so you are correct. So my field is pediatrics and specifically my

specialty is adolescent medicine. And within adolescent medicine at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center and the Penn State College of Medicine, I saw many youth and young adults that were trans for evaluation and for gender affirming medical treatment. Again, I think these youth need to be nurtured, they need to be supported. They need to be advocated for. We need to work with them and their parents and in their families in terms of helping them achieve the treatment and care that they deserve. Is there any way the federal government can fight back against these anti-trans health care legislations in these various states? Well, one way that the federal government can address that would be passage of the Equality Act. And so the president has been a strong support.

supporter of the Equality Act in Congress, and that would be a direct way that the federal government could address these very disappointing, challenging, and in some cases egregious bills. In terms of my job, again, I'm going to be advocating publicly, as I'm doing now and have done countless times, especially during Pride Month, this month, but also working on policy changes within the Department of Health and Human Services. When you served as Pennsylvania's physician general, you led an effort to allow pharmacies to dispense a life-saving overdose drug called naloxone in response to the state's opioid crisis. You've said that the drug has saved nearly a thousand lives in that state since. How do you want to scale up your work on combating

the opioid crisis on a federal level? Yeah, so as the physician general and then the Secretary of Health in Pennsylvania, we did concentrate on the opioid crisis in regards to prevention. in regards to rescue with naloxone, as you mentioned. And then with advancing treatment, particularly for those suffering from the disease of addiction to opioids, medication for opioid use disorder, and then leaning to recovery. So I want to take that experience and bring it to my work in the federal government. We have a new behavioral health coordinating council that the secretary has established. I'll be co-chairing that with the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance

use disorders. And we want to look at all aspects of the mental health challenges that we face, as well as particularly substance use disorders, opioid use disorder, and the risk for overdoses. What will be the signs, the metrics that you can use, that your office is making a measurable impact and all these things that you'd like to do? Well, we do have to look at outcomes about everything that we're doing. For opioid use disorder, we need to look at opioid overdoses, opioid deaths, the use of other substances, such as stimulants, which have recently increased, and then access to evidence-based treatment for substance use disorders as well as mental health, health equity as well. We have to have outcomes so that we can show that we are making progress.

Is there a target number, a reduction level that you can point to on any one of these issues? Well, I can tell you that the president has set a very ambitious number of 70% of adults, having at least in the United States having at least one dose of the vaccine. We are currently at 63% and the president has said July 4th, we should be 70%. So that's the immediate target that we're working on. We knew have a national action plan this month to accomplish that goal and to accomplish that metric. And what about for the opioid crisis, a reduction to what? Well, I don't have a specific metric for you. What I can say is that from September 2019, to September 2020, which is some of our latest data, we had over 90,000 overdose tests of the United

States. That's the most ever. So we need to see progress with that number, and we will be setting metrics. Actually, the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder has not been confirmed yet by the Senate, so she's not even here yet. But when she is, we'll be getting together with our behavioral health coordinating council, and we will set metrics. So how would you compare your job that you have now to the previous ones you had in Pennsylvania doing health care? Well, you know, I've always felt very gratified in my career that I was helping people. So as an academic medicine physician at Penn State, basically I would see children and teenagers and young adults and I would try to help them. I would teach students about how to help people.

I would develop programs with clinical research and administration, again, to help people. In Pennsylvania, as physician general and secretary, I tried to help people with a broader brush from a public health perspective, and now I'm doing that nationally. And so you've got a lot on your plate, and it sounds like you're very enthusiastic about this, considering the challenges, the mountain of challenges facing you. Well, I'm a positive and optimistic person, and I think that under President Biden's leadership and in his administration, that we are going to make progress on all of the, these fronts. Now, at the same time, I'm certainly realistic to the challenges ahead of us, but I feel that we are up to those challenges. This is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. In case you're just joining us, I'm talking with Dr. Rachel Levine, Assistant Secretary of Health for the Department of Health and Human Services. I know the president has said that he wants to expand the Affordable Care Act, and that's

how he's looking at getting more health care to everyone. But wouldn't it make more sense to make health care affordable to everyone with Medicare for all or a single payer option? Well, lots of challenges there, but the president strongly feels that we need to build upon the amazing progress that was made with the Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Medicaid in Pennsylvania, when Governor Wolf, the governor of Pennsylvania that I served, expanded Medicaid in 2015, we added 750,000 people who now had quality health care. So I think through the president's plans and actions through Congress that we can accomplish those goals. Does he listen to you, President Biden?

Well, I've been here less than two months. So, you know, I advise the Secretary of Health and the administration in terms of medical issues and public health issues. And I do very much look forward to meeting the president personally in my time here. Let's talk about vaccine hesitancy and refusal, a big issue at the moment for COVID-19. The U.S. just passed a milestone that over 50% of adults are fully vaccinated. I think that's amazing. But there are still many who are hesitant to take the vaccine, whether they don't believe in its effectiveness, or if they're from communities of color that have been historically mistreated by the medical system.

When will we take it up to that next level, do you think? Well, we are working this summer to take it up to the next level. You know, as you know, teens 12 through 18 are now eligible to receive one vaccine. the Pfizer vaccine, hopefully in the next month or more, we'll also be able to have the Moderna vaccine for youth as well. And then all three vaccines are available to adults. So we're working to up our game now and to advance vaccination and distribution and administration right now. But you're right. We have to work on two fronts now. We have to work on vaccine hesitancy and then vaccine equity to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to get these safe

and effective vaccinations. As you said, you've only been in your job about two months. How do you like it so far? Well, it is very exciting. I am so grateful to President Biden for nominating me. I am grateful to the Senate for confirming me with a bipartisan vote. And, you know, I am dedicated to the public health of the nation and will do everything I have. can to advance that. Well, you're a very strong spokesperson and I'm willing to go out into the public and come on our show. And as you say, that's what you think your job is, is to go around and be visible. That's exactly correct. I mean, I have many different aspects of my job, but one is advocacy to the public through great shows like yours about all of these issues, about the safety and effectiveness

of the vaccines, about the importance in terms of mental health and dealing with the opioid crisis and in terms of health equity, climate change, many, many health issues to deal with. Yeah, climate change. We never even got into that as an issue, although it is a big health issue, is it not? It is. And actually, under the President's Executive Order, we will be starting a new office within my office of the Assistant Secretary of Health and the Health and Human Services on climate change and health equity. Yep, we're going to be starting that office now. And because you believe it is such a, it's screaming for attention. That's exactly correct. This is a priority for President Biden, the secretary, Bacera, and myself.

Well, we'll keep track of that. And thank you for taking time to be with us today. My pleasure. It was great to be here. Dr. Rachel Levine, Assistant Secretary of Health for the Department of Health and Human Services. That was Ira Flato in an interview recorded earlier this month. After the break, what can our history of partnering with animals tell us about how we might partner with robots. Author and roboticist Kate Darling is next. This is Science Friday. I'm John Dankoski in for Ira Flato. As you may have heard, the robots are coming, but what could coexisting with them truly look like? In this conversation, Ira and roboticist

Kate Darling offer a vision inspired by our age-old relationship with dogs, oxen, and other animal partners. There are two stories you see a lot about robots. The first is the robot uprising, right? You're probably thinking about Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator or I-Robot. The second is robots will replace a story. You recall that movie AI. A story is much more present in the news, this fear that will soon have robots and AIs that can and will put people out of work. My next guest doesn't believe either of those stories is an And she wants us to look at a different story, one that has already happened. And I'm talking about our history with animals as co-workers as a guide to the future with robotics. Kate Darling is a

research specialist at MIT's Media Lab, author of the new breed, what our history with animals reveals about our future with robots. Welcome to Science Friday. Thanks for having me. Well, what does our history with animals reveal about our future with robots? You know, it's always struck me in all of the conversations that we have about robots, that we're subconsciously comparing them to humans. We compare artificial intelligence to human intelligence. We compare robots to people. And that's what leads to these science fictional notions of robot uprisings or robots replacing us. But it just seems like that's the wrong analogy, because artificial intelligence is not like human intelligence at all. So if we look at our history of working with a very different type of intelligence, animals,

and we look at how we've domesticated animals and partnered with them throughout history, that seems like a much better way to think about these technologies moving forward. I remember in college studying B.F. Skinner using pigeons to guide missiles. You mentioned pigeons as the original drones here. That's right. I mean, we've used animals for so many different things. And I love that you mention the ultimately canceled project where Beerskinner was using pigeons to guide missiles. So you could say it was the first autonomous missile system before we had machines that could do this for us. And we've used the autonomy of animals and the intelligence and the sensing ability of animals for millennia to help us do these things.

And there are so many fun parallels to how we're using robots today and what is ultimately the best use case for robots, which is supplementing. human ability, doing things that we're not able to do on our own. Not that I'm particularly a fan of self-guided missile systems and some of the ways that they're being used, but it's just an interesting example of how these things aren't new. We have partnered with these non-humans that can sense and think and make autonomous decisions and learn for such a long time. Why aren't we thinking about that as the analogy when we talk about robots? Yeah, because we all can recall, and there are still some societies that use oxen, for example, to pull carts and do work. Is that where you're going to using animals as companions for helping us get work done?

That's one of the ways that we can use robots. So like you said, we've used oxen and farming. We've used horses to let us travel the world in new ways. We've used pigeons to deliver mail. But the point isn't that animals and robots are exactly the same or that they have the same abilities. There are a lot of differences between animals and robots. You can't dictate an email to an animal, and a lot of animals are better at staying on their feet, for example, than most robots that tend to fall over. The point of the book is that this analogy lets us open our minds to new ways of using these technologies

that aren't a replacement for human skill, because this idea that we can, will, or should replace people is very limiting. and I don't think that we should be trying to recreate skills that we already have when we have the opportunity to create something supplemental that can help us pull the plows that is disruptive in the way that animals have been, but not this one-to-one replacement that we're constantly hearing about in the news. Okay, so open my mind up to some of those ways that we can work with robots. Traditionally in robotics, the most compelling use case has been anything that's dirty, dollar dangerous, the three Ds. And we've already been pretty successful over the past five decades at

using robots in factories or in settings where it's dangerous for people or not great for people to be doing repetitive or harmful work or going to space. These are really the really good use cases for robots that we've already seen. But beyond that, I mean, robots have so many physical and sensing abilities that we don't have, I think that we should really, really be thinking outside of the box on how we use these technologies. I mean, we've used animals for so many different things. We've used them as tools. We've also used them as our companions. And I also believe that robots might be useful in a social sense. And in fact, robots might actually be able to offer something in health and education when we use them in this social way as well. Let's continue talking.

about the history we have with animals, even pets, are a relatively new innovation, aren't they? They are. In Western society, this idea of, you know, having a dog that's a member of the family and is only there as a member of the family and not there to guard the house or perform some function is relatively new. And in the beginning, when we started having more of an emotional connection to animals, there were even some people, some psychologists who raised some concern about that and said, well, this could be, you know, too much. It might take away from people's ability to form human relationships and friendships if they get too emotionally involved with animals. And of course, that quickly turned out to not be true. They have taken away

nothing and provided much to us. So as we think about robots moving forward, I wonder whether we might be able to fold them into our diverse set of relationships rather than fearing that they're going to take away. You, in your book, do talk about animal robots and how people really get close to their robots, even to the point of thinking about burying them like animals. That's right. For example, Sony had this robot dog called the Ibo in the 90s. It was popular in Japan and in the U.S. And people got really attached to their robot dogs. And they did make them part of their families. And when Sony ended up pulling the tech support for the dogs many, many years later, Buddhist temples in Japan started having funerals for

the broken eyeballs that couldn't be repaired anymore so that people could say goodbye to their companions. So there's already some anecdotal evidence and there's also a lot of research in human robot interaction that shows that psychologically we do socially relate to robots, even though we know that they're not alive, but we can actually get something out of that relationship when we use it correctly. There's actually this robot called the paro. It's a baby seal. It's designed to be a really cute baby harp seal. It doesn't do much. It just kind of responds to touch and makes little sounds. It gives people the sense of nurturing something. And that robot is already being successfully used as an animal therapy replacement in a lot of contexts where we can't use real animals. They use

it with dementia patients and in nursing homes. Turns out it has a very similar effect to a therapy animal, both physiologically and psychologically. They've used it as an alternative to medication to calm distressed patients. They've been able to lower people's blood pressure. But a lot of people worry that this robot is there to replace human care workers. And I'm not saying that that wouldn't happen, that people might put someone alone in the room with a robot and just feel like they don't have to do their job anymore. But the point is that that's an incorrect use for the robot because it's not there to replace human care. It's there to replace animal therapy. You mentioned that in the book about some of the shortcomings that we don't normally think about robots.

in the situation that you have there, let's say the robot is in a room and a person collapses and needs some sort of medical attention or CPR, a robot's not going to be able to do that. No, we're consistently misled by the media and by our own biases about what robots are able to do to think that they're more capable than they are or that they soon will be when really robots have very specialized intelligence. They can do tasks, but they cannot do what a, what a, what a human worker does for the most part. So this idea that the robots can come and replace care workers or replace teachers or even replace factory workers has been, it's a pervasive idea, but it hasn't really worked out that way in practice. Robots have disrupted workplaces

and they've created, you know, different demands for how many people need to be on staff in some cases, but they can't completely take over anyone's job because human intelligence is much more multifaceted. We can deal with unexpected situations. We can pick up that screw that falls on the floor and the assembly line and a robot has no idea how to deal with any of that. Yeah, you mentioned an anecdote, a tweet that Elon Musk had to put out when he discovered that a fully robotic Tesla factory is not a good idea. Yeah, he tried to automate his car factory. And you would think having had robots in factories for five decades or so, and the fact that a factory is such a predictable and easily automated place, you would think that we would have been able to automate car manufacturing by now. And yet we haven't been able to.

Elon Musk tried. He failed. And it's because precisely that there's always something that can happen that requires that flexibility that, oh, is that flexibility. understanding context, that seeing that something went wrong, that requires the human flexibility. And he ended up trying, failing, and then tweeting that human intelligence was underrated. Yes. And what that means to me is that it would be much more efficient if we tried to combine the skills of humans and robots rather than just trying to automate away the pesky humans. One of my favorite pieces of history from this book, and I had no idea about this,

I'm talking about trials for animals like sheep or pigs that did damage to property or even injured children. The trials were serious business. Yeah, there's this incredible piece of history. We used to put animals on trial for the crimes they committed. And it was a full-on trial with a jury, with defense attorneys that followed the same rules as having a human in court. We did this for a surprisingly large part of the Middle Ages. And it seems so ridiculous to us today to put animals on trial, given that we know that they can't follow our human morals, nor should we expect them to or punish them for not doing so.

And yet, in a lot of the conversations around robotics and artificial intelligence, I see people arguing that something can be the algorithm's fault or a robot's fault and even proposing that we should maybe find a way to hold robots accountable for the unanticipation. harm that they cause or that we should program human morals into the machines so that they follow our ethical rules. And ever since the beginning of the earliest laws known to humankind that we've found etched on clay tablets, we have had to deal with this problem of what happens if your ox wanders into the street and gorse somebody and you didn't anticipate that. And we've always found ways to assign responsibility to the humans who were responsible for this. When we're

thinking about laws for robots and AI moving forward, we should really be looking towards some of the solutions we've had in the past rather than viewing this as a new problem. And of course, rather than trying to make the robots themselves accountable, which is something we automatically default to, again, because we're comparing their intelligence to our own. You know, when I think about that, I think of one of the most advancing technologies today, the self-driving car. Are we going to have to hold the carmaker is responsible for decisions? that are made by the robot inside controlling the car, the robot that is the car? Well, the danger is that we're going to default to not holding the manufacturer accountable,

but holding the car accountable or even holding a driver accountable, who was told that they need to be paying attention to the road 100% of the time, even though the robot is doing 99% of the work. So you have these handoff problems. So it is a very complex issue. And I think the important takeaway that I really want people to be thinking about is that when you compare the car to a horse or an animal, you have a very different sense of who should be held accountable than when you view it as some science fictional robot that can make its own decisions. We should be saying it's not the robot's fault, but rather the manufacturer, the trainer. We need to be looking for the accountability in the people who build these systems because we default so easily to giving the robots themselves agency.

This is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. Talking with Kate Darling, research specialist for the MIT Media Lab, author of The New Breed, what our history with animals reveals about our future with robots. Do you think we should be making robots that look like humans, I'm thinking of data in Star Trek? Data and Star Trek. I had such a crush on data. I was growing up.

Really one of my favorite androids. But I think my answer to that would be generally no. I do think that we have this inherent fascination with recreating ourselves and that we're always going to make humanoid robots for art and entertainment purposes. And I think that's fine. But for the most part, I don't think that the human form is particularly useful. People argue that we need humanoid robots. in order to relate to them, we know from human-robot interaction research that that's not true

at all. You can create a robot in any shape that can be compelling and emotionally and socially compelling to people. If you even think of Pixar and animators in the way that they can put emotion into a blob, you know that something doesn't have to have a human shape. And then the other thing that people say is that we need humanoid robots because we have a world that's built for humans with stairs and doorknobs and narrow passageways. But I think sometimes we forget that that's not a world built for humans, but for able-bodied humans of a certain height. And I think that if we thought a little bit more outside of the box about how we build our entire infrastructure and made it more inclusive to wheelchairs and strollers and children, then we also wouldn't

need to have these very expensive, difficult to build humanoid robots, but could have robots on wheels and robots of all different sizes and shapes, which would be more practical. What's your opinion about who will decide? robotic future? Well, that is the tricky part because despite all of the headlines saying, no jobs, blame the robots or, you know, this technology is coming and we just need to learn how to deal with it, I truly believe that this is all about our own choices as humans. And unfortunately, those choices are made against the backdrop of an economic and political system that we have in

place currently, that to me is the true danger that we are going to see uses of the technology that don't support human flourishing, that aren't in the public good, that harm certain groups of people, because the choices are being made by, you know, the current politicians and the current corporations against the backdrop of corporate capitalism that is not always in the public's interest. And so I think it's so important for us to remember that the robots don't determine the future, that we determine the future, whether we're designing robots, whether we're voting for who's in office, I think that it's really important to remember that we determine what this robotic future means. Kate Darling, thank you so much for taking time to be with us today. Thank you so much

for having me. Kate Darling, author of The New Breed, What Our History with Animals Reveals About Our Future with Robots. That's Ira Flato, and he'll be back next week. But in the meantime, you can check out an excerpt from Kate Darling's book on our website, science friday.com slash new breed. Charles Bergquist is our director. Our producers are Christy Taylor, Katie Feather, and Kathleen Davis. Our senior producer is Alexa Lim. B.J. Leaterman composed our theme music.

If you missed any parts of this program or you'd like to hear it again, subscribe to our podcasts. Or you can ask your smart speaker to play Science Friday. You can email us too. Our address is SciFri. at ScienceFriday.com. I'm John Dankoski. One last thing before you go, on vacation, that is, we know that many of you are vaccinated and about to embark on a long anticipated vacation. I've got one planned myself, and I've got to say I'm looking forward to it. But as a quick reminder,

our work here at Science Friday doesn't stop. We're going to be here all summer reporting on important science news. But we need your support to continue this work. So please make a donation before you head out on summer holiday. Go to Science Friday.com slash support to make your gift today. Thanks so much and have a safe and happy summer.