StarTalk Radio - StarTalk Live! Let’s Make America Smart Again (Part 2)

Episode Date: April 28, 2017

Our mission to Make America Smart Again continues with the conclusion of our show from the Count Basie Theatre. Ft. Neil Tyson, Eugene Mirman, Sen. Cory Booker, science policy advisors John Holdren and Jo Handelsman, Ophira Eisenberg, Baratunde Thurston. #LMASANOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free. Find out more at https://www.startalkradio.net/startalk-all-access/ Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ on Apple Podcasts to listen to new episodes ad-free and a whole week early.

Welcome to StarTalk, your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide. StarTalk begins right now. We are live at Count Basie Theater, Red Bank, New Jersey. Start up. Let's make America smart again. All right. So, Jo, what more advances are coming down the pipe? What can we look for?

Well, I think one of the big areas that I'm excited about is microbiology because we're starting to understand that not only the human body, but all ecosystems on Earth are driven in part by their microbiomes, which means their collection of microorganisms. The microorganisms that live on you and in you. Yeah, exactly. Like mostly probably in your intestines. Right, that's where a lot of them are, but also the skin, the ears, every orifice of the body. This is nasty. No. And I'm thinking, you know, you tell anyone

under 30 that everyone over 50 at one time would walk into something called a phone booth and take the receiver and put this side to their ear and this side to their mouth where a hundred other people had done it that day. So now you have shared earwax and mouth spittle. But that illustrates... There's no but to that. That's just nasty. All right. Maybe that's why the older generation

doesn't have all these allergies and diseases. We're like steeped in germs. Well, and that's right. And it points to exactly the issue that most microbes are not germs. They're not harmful to us. There are only about 80 species of germs, and there are thousands, if not millions, of other other species of microbes and so we don't think of them as the good guys but in fact they're keeping us healthy controlling our behavior controlling our vulnerability to disease all the time but even i mean i've read a lot of the research on this i mean everything's like depression and a lot of things we've been thinking have other actives actually our our gut microbiome is affecting so much of our

well-being, how we're dealing with fighting cancer. That's a whole frontier now. It is an amazing frontier. Wait, that it has to do with depression? Yes. Tell me. She was telling me this backstage. I'm very curious. You're telling me the microbes in my body are affecting...

I've got to say this. I've got to say this because it was so cool. She was saying that there's some... You correct me if I'm wrong. I know I guess somebody's wrong. She was saying that there are microbes in you that actually like chocolate and communicate this fact to your eating desires

and you say, gee, I want some chocolate, when in fact it's your microbiome that's asking for it. That's right. We're totally driven by our bacteria. Absolutely. Not our fault. But I hate to tell you this. I mean, at least everything I'm reading is there's good gut bacteria and bad gut bacteria.

And the bad gut bacteria really breathes off of empty carbohydrates and things like that. But if you really want to breathe better gut bacteria, you need to eat more fiber, more vegetables, more plant-based diet. Five people are pro-fiber in this audience. Black-faced for carrots, bunch of jerks. So tell me about this gene editing tool, CRISPR, that I've heard. That's an acronym, right? Yep. Because this sounds like it's the future of all biology.

Well, I think it's very important because it lets us make very, very precise changes in genes or around genes. This is a tool in the laboratory. That can never go wrong. It's like Photoshop for genetic. What we could do wrong with that. What could go wrong? Can you grow hair?

Are biologists concerned about the ethics of that? Making new life or altering life to your own whims? Yeah, well, I think that was a big issue when John and I were in the White House, was trying to figure out what are the limits to what we're comfortable with. And one that was clear, and the president said this in his policy, was that we're not going to edit the germline, which means the embryos that are forming. So we're not going to create heritable changes in people

in the test tube. Heritable would mean the ability to transfer that from one generation to the next. That's right. Right. And so we're thinking more in terms of what used to be called gene therapy, where regular tissue, not your sexual tissue, but your skin or your heart or your lungs would be modified. So it would only have an effect in your lifetime. But that hasn't stopped the Chinese from doing exactly the experiments we decided not to do and affecting embryos and having gene changes that will be passed on. Do we have super soldiers? I saw that movie. Yeah, but it sounds like it might be real.

Or at least people that live off of chocolate only. That'd be cool. Yeah, I mean, it seems to me you can, if you can modify the individual, you can, you know, we joke about this, and I'm not even a fan of it, but people are imagining if you're going to live on Mars, just genetically modify you so that everything that's different about Mars is okay for your genetically modified body. And that way you don't have to live in a hab module. That's an extreme case. But clearly you could use this to cure us of our traditional diseases. Right. And so the human body has evolved over many millennia to be what it is today, with a few

mistakes, certainly, but we haven't evolved to be on Mars. So I don't think we're just going to make a few tweaks. I just put that out there because people occasionally talk about it. But is this real, and is NIH funding this research? And does Congress know about this? And are they behind it? Are you learning about it now, here? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he's kind of just like taking notes. And does Congress know about this? And are they behind it? Are you learning about it now? Yeah, yeah.

And have you watched Westworld? And can we delete the Republican gene? Edit. Edit. Edit. I know that's mind control and I'm for it

so is there an awareness of the value of that power incredibly the good value of that power incredibly so, it's not to where I would want it to be, I would like us to get back to being

a science, technology innovation leading nation and that's my frustration is the excitement that I get when I hear a scientist like this talk about what is possible. I wish we could somehow sort of expand the moral imagination of this country about what we are capable about in terms of leading the human race into a safer, to a stronger, to a more prosperous world for all of us. And that's the challenge we have right now. I get back to this idea of what I think you play a good role in, and we all have to accept responsibility in doing, is we all, we can't expect the world to change unless we're willing

to change and be a part of that change and lead that change. And so we all should be excited about science, excited about innovation. The more we get excited about it, the more that will ripple out. The more we demand our elected leaders are, the more likely they are to respond to our demands. And so what do you see are the barriers between that goal and sort of making America smart in a way that we become wise shepherds of our future? Well, look, I want to be very blunt. We are going to have some very tough fighting years ahead of us. We've got three-plus years now of a president who has made it clear on many of these issues

that he is contrary, you know, that the Chinese made up global warming. You saw what the values of his budget he put forward. And so much of what I'm doing in Washington right now, still looking for partnerships across the aisle to get things done, but I'm preparing to fight a president that I think wants to take our country backwards in terms of science, innovation. Yeah, but so I don't beat politicians over the head.

You know why? Because they're elected by an electorate, right? So you can beat them on the head and even get rid of them, but then there's the matter of the electorate that voted for them in the first place. So your gripe is not actually with the president. Your gripe is with the 60 million people who voted for him. No, no.

In fact, hold on. I don't think we get anywhere as a country when we are in the course of demonizing each other. I think what we need to do... I see this as a matter of education. If you're actually saying this policy will harm these people and they don't know it, then somebody's got to educate them. Right, and I'll give you two quick examples.

One is, this is why the science march is so important. Because when you saw... Eight people are going to the science march. I was down in Washington for the women's march, and people didn't march around saying, you know, there wasn't people with signs like, beat Republicans. In fact, I bumped into women that were Republicans there that were against a lot of policy issues. But a lot of this is just... I saw no anti-Republican signs at all.

No, not one. And there were a lot of innovative signs. The March on Washington, you had people like Strom Thurmond, literally the longest filibuster in the Senate is a racist rant by a man trying to block the civil rights legislation. But the March on Washington, listen to the speakers, John Lewis, Martin Luther King,

they weren't speaking against those folks. They were calling to the moral imagination of this country. And what my frustration is, is often we are not engaged. We luxuriate in this incredible nation. We have the foremost powerful words you can say as a human being.

In fact, only 4.5% of humanity can say, I am an American. And that comes because of the labors and the sacrifices and struggles of generations before. And this generation, we see what happens when we disconnect. We see what's happening in Washington as a result of people not voting. I saw this one pie graph, you know, 50, you know, what is 60 million people voting for Hillary Clinton, 57 for Donald Trump, a million voting for Donald Trump, and 74 million other people like, oh my God, look what just happened. And so I'll give a very real example of the EPA and what's happening right now. This isn't because of Donald Trump. This was happening under a great president that wished he could change it.

We in our nation right now where Ronald Reagan reauthorized and Mitch McConnell voted for a simple solution to clean up super fund sites. These are corporations that create the most toxic spots in all of America. There's a super fund in every state. Unfortunately, New Jersey has the most of them. Now that has...

Lucky you. That has lapsed. That funding has lapsed because this Congress now, suddenly not like Reagan, not like the old Mitch McConnell, decides not to reauthorize the cleanup for that. So there's all of these so-called orphan sites. There's no corporation anymore to go after to clean them up. But now we have something called data. When I was mayor, I learned this real quick. A lot of people come in and leave a lot of emotion. And I said, look, in God we trust, but everybody else bring me data. If you're not a deity, show me the numbers. Well, now we have longitudinal data from Princeton University about what are the long-term effects of living around a

Superfund site. And we now know that if you have a child around a superfund site, there's about a 20% more likely of an increase in autism, 20% more likely of an increase in birth defects. So talk about a threat to our children. This isn't the Russians or ISIS coming. This is problems we have right here in our country that the only thing that's allowing these to proliferate, I have two Superfund sites in Newark that are close to where I live, but the only thing stopping us from doing something is decisions being made in Congress, but

most of us don't even know that fact. Look, we have the gene editing, so we can just get that deployed there first. I guess what I'm saying is that this is the greatest country on the planet Earth. I don't care what Donald Trump says we need to make it great again. We are an amazing country with reservoirs of love

and goodness and kindness, but something is missing. And it was missing in the 1960s too. It took geniuses. I remember Martin Luther King, if you know the history of the Taylor Branch, he comes out of Birmingham jail after writing one of the greatest pieces of American literature, the letters from the Birmingham jail,

but he was failing. Two young people with an imagination, Dorothea Cotton and James Bevel came up to him and said, hey, you're failing here, let us try something different. And the thing they did different was to organize other young people, ages 8 to 18, to march against Bull Connor, to create

the spectacle of 10, 12, 14, 16 year olds marching. And what Bull Connor did, he sprayed them of 10, 12, 14, 16-year-olds marching. And what Bull Connor did, he sprayed them with water hoses. The next time, he released dogs on them. But suddenly, people sitting home in Iowa and New Jersey saw this spectacle going on. Literally, the Soviet Union was making fun of our democracy on the front pages of their newspapers.

And it so awoke that reservoir of love in this country. Within days, segregation fell in Birmingham because this country, when they decide to do something, nothing can stand in our way. And so the challenge is now. It just sounds like you got to sink really low before you do something. I think what we need to do is find creative ways. I mean, you jokingly said Snapchat about it, but I'm sorry. I've done the political... You should do it. Yes. I've done the political science research about what influences people to act. And did you know the most persuasive thing to get your friends to vote is knowing if

they're voting or not, is literally talking to your circle of friends. More than one of my campaign commercials in New Jersey, if somebody says, hey, everybody, I met Cory Booker, he's a great guy, vote for him, that's far more persuasive than anything I could put on TV or anything I can do. We have so much power. And so this is my thing. I don't think we need to light rivers on fire. That was his idea. I'm not crazy.

Whose idea was that? Who said that? I don't think we need to do it. I think it's effective. What we need to do is ignite our own spirits and I promise you that light will cast

away some darkness. I just think we all need to say, what can I do different this year around issues that I care about? Whether it's science or super funds or space exploration, pick something and be a patriot with love in pursuit of that end. And you will make more of a change than you could ever imagine. Give it up, Count Basie Theater. What I want to know now is beyond.

Do we have the policy in place to invent the future? Or again, are we only reacting to bad things that have happened in the past? So, John, let me begin with you. How much duties of your office was to have people think about tomorrow? A lot. And in fact, you have on your list space exploration. When we entered office, we knew we had a challenge in space exploration because a lot of the science had gone out of NASA.

A lot of the advanced technology had gone out of NASA. We had to rebalance NASA. We said we were putting the science back in rocket science, in fact. Did it work? And, you know, we had a bit of a struggle. That's a no? It worked. I'm sorry, it worked. We did rebalance

NASA, and a lot of good stuff got done. Just to be clear, you were in Washington for eight years. Eight years. Like, that's longer than any science advisor ever in the history of the universe. Well, of course, the history of the science advisors doesn't go back quite as far as the history of the universe advisor doesn't go back quite as far as the history of the universe.

It goes back to the second to last term of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But I was the longest-serving science advisor in that period. Okay, so you had perspective. Well, sure. And, of course, like everybody else and like you, I had been watching. I was a space geek when I was a little kid. I was making solid fuel rockets out of my mother's used lipstick tubes when I was nine. They went about 100 feet in the air.

But, yeah, I'd been watching it for a long time, and it was a pleasure to have the opportunity, working with President Obama and working with Charlie Bolden, the NASA administrator, to get some things done. You made rockets out of lipstick tubes. No. When I was nine, I did that. When they did a background check, and they found out that you blew things up as a kid?

Well, yeah, it was a bit of a problem, but they decided to let me through. You made rockets out of lipstick tubes. Little solid fuel rockets, yeah. I had chemistry set ingredients that made the solid fuel. I made time fuse, burned an inch a minute so I could get away before it went off.

Next time I've seen six-year-old boys in Sephora, I'll know what they're up to. 101 things to do with lipstick tubes. Okay, I'm sorry. I was very distracted by that. I apologize. It was my fault.

Yeah, okay. I think I'm back on track. Okay, go on. We did get a lot done in reshaping the priorities in NASA, more investments in the technologies that would be needed to go to Mars. You know, a lot of people are saying, why don't we go to Mars tomorrow? Let's put the money in.

And you know, Neil, as well as I do, that we don't yet have the technologies to send people to the surface of Mars and bring them back. Of course, there are some who are willing to take a one-way trip and some others who would be my candidates for a one-way trip. We have a one-way trip. So you're citing NASA in response to my question about the future. Is NASA the repository of our future hopes among agencies? No, it's only one. It just happens to be a particularly evocative one, and one that still, by the way, inspires young people

in the way almost nothing else in science does. At the big science fairs we've had in Washington, the two exhibits that always attract the most attention are NASA and robots. Those are the two that really do it, that get kids going about science and technology. So how do you draw the line between the research you do that helps invent a future and the research that Congress will tell you you shouldn't be doing because corporations should be doing that as part of their R&D. Where's that line? It's got to be somewhere in there. Well, there is a fairly obvious line. In fact, the corporate sector funds more than two-thirds of all the R&D in this

country, but they fund less than half of the basic research, the fundamental research that's a seed corn from which all the future applied. The long horizon research. And the reason the private sector doesn't do that is perfectly understandable. Time horizon is too long. The risk is too high. The return is too uncertain. And they're not sure that if there's a breakthrough from this basic research,

that they, the corporation that paid for it, will get the benefits. And the result is the government needs to do Congress... The government needs to do it. The government needs to do that sort of basic research. It needs to fund it, or it won't get done. When that happens, Congress stands up and says, why is taxpayer money being wasted on this research that has no application to any known thing on Earth? What are examples of some of this terrible research?

Well, yeah, I'll give you some. The nature of basic research is you can't tell where it's going to go. Great example, Charles Townes, who got the Nobel Prize for thinking up the science behind the maser and then the laser, had no idea when he did that work that 50 years later, lasers would be the way we do eye surgery, cut metal, copy documents, play movies, measure distances. None of that was obvious at the time the work was done. We even measured the distance of the moon with lasers. I think lasers are worth it. Just my opinion.

Here's another great example. There was a science project funded by the National Science Foundation many years ago. It was called the Sex Life of the Screw Worm. Yeah. The Screw Worm. The Sex Life of the Screw Worm. That's a worm? That's a real worm?

Real worm. Guess what it does? And there was a lot of fun was made of this in the Congress. I think it got Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award, in fact. The award given to the greatest waste of taxpayer money. And the fact is the screwworm was a livestock pest that did some $100 million worth of damage every year to the livestock industry in the United States.

And this basic research on the sex life of the screwworm led to a means of biological control of the screw worm, which basically eradicated it as a livestock pest. Was that... Immense savings to the U.S. economy. Was that just a marketing failure, though? Like, shouldn't it have been called, like, save our agriculture business research?

But you can't vote against that. The people doing the research didn't know that that would be the outcome. That's the nature of basic research. And then they put condoms on the screw worms. Safe sex for screw worms. Better agriculture for America. The solution was actually somewhat similar to that.

Really? The solution was releasing sterile males. Because it turns out that the screw worm only mated once. The female only mated once. And if the female mated with a sterile male, she was done. No offspring. And so the idea was you just release a ton of sterile males, and the screw worm goes out of business. I can't believe we just spent 10 minutes talking about the screw worm. I apologize. No, in Skidmore, actually. I apologize. No, that's fine. You asked for an example. But we know,

Corey, that there are people who don't, in Congress, both sides of that, both branches, that don't appreciate this. Absolutely. There's people that don't. How do we get them to appreciate it? Again, that's the political process. That's the

sausage-making or screw-worm funding process. It's not just education. again that's the political process that's the sort of sausage making or screw worm funding it's not just education it's not just examples like this why can't he stand up give that example I give three others and these are tangible examples why doesn't that convince people

is there missing part of the K-12 education where the receptors aren't there for examples that might change their mind part of the K-12 education where the receptors aren't there for examples that might change their mind? Again, this is a process in which there's tons of competing demands, and there are

people that are dead set against this kind of science research and don't get the larger picture. Is it because they dug in their heels? And that's it? With respect, Neil, I think... I don't ever want you to respect me. Just bring it out. I'll take care of you later. And with extreme disrespect,

you're coming at this as a scientist and you're leaning on these facts as if facts have ever always been enough. Any parent knows that you tell the kid a fact once, why do they keep misbehaving? I told them, if this happens, this will be the consequence. But we do it because we have emotions and we have tribalism and we want to feel a sense of belonging. So I think some of these reasons that people are being obstinate, information alone is never enough to close a case. And so it's an important first

step, but you've got to build some layers on top of that teleconference. Okay. In the day, it was called an ass-whooping. That's how you convince someone. If the data didn't otherwise work. I'm just curious about that. There are other branches of the government other than NASA. I don't know if they were in your portfolio, but DARPA

is something we've always heard about. Defense, Advanced Research Projects Administration. And there's DARPA-E. Huh? There's DARPA-E. Which is? Which I'm very interested in.

It's about, it's investments in alternative energy. So E for energy. Yes. So these are funded by the Department of Defense? Yes. Okay. Now, DARPA-E is funded by the Department of Energy. Okay, but they're both, neither of them are in OSTP's portfolio.

Oh, they are. OSTP has oversight of all the science and technology. No matter who's doing it. Oh, okay. And we work together with the departments and agencies in developing the President's budget for science and technology. So tell me about robots.

You said robots get everybody's attention at the science fairs. Yeah, absolutely. And I know DARPA's been making some robots. You said robots get everybody's attention at the science fairs. Yeah, absolutely. And I know DARPA's been making some robots. Absolutely. What? Yeah. Made it sound naughty, but anyway. Would it help to just reframe all our science as a weapon?

Yes. But look, I mean, one of the reasons why we can get a lot of very good research done through the Department of Defense, because it's often easier to get people to fund the Department of Defense than it is to get them to fund some of these other agencies. Because they're invoking the I don't want to die urge. If the screw was a weapon, there'd be no problem. There is a battle going on right now about defense spending versus domestic spending and this idea of should there be parity in the increases and the like. But I just have a question because I've got two scientists here

and it's something I've read a lot about. When you talk about larger planetary threats, isn't there a real threat of an EM pulse, for example, a naturally occurring one that could really knock out America's infrastructure? Yes, is the short answer. You happy now? I'm not happy. I'm one of these people that wants to see more infrastructure. Tell everyone about

the EMPulse. Wait, is the Matrix real? What's going on here? Right, the Matrix had an EMPulse to get rid of the robot squids that eat people. The squiddy thing. What were they called? The Sentinels. You guys didn't see the Matrix?

Oh, my God. So there are two kinds of electromagnetic pulse. One is if you explode a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere. Among many other things, it generates a pulse of electromagnetic energy that can fry the electronics in your cell phone, in your car's ignition in the controllers of the electricity grid and so on. So that's one of the many

good reasons not to explode nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Is that it will ruin your phone. It will ruin your phone. It will ruin like you would need a new phone. But the Nokia 7 or have one of these No, Samsung. But the natural version of an electromagnetic pulse is when a solar storm, a solar flare,

throws charged particles in the direction of the Earth, and they interact with the Earth's magnetic field in a way that generates a pulse of electromagnetic energy at the surface. And that, too, can fry your phone, your electricity grid, and everything else. And this has happened. On a massive scale.

It happened in Canada. It's happened in modern times. It happened in a part of Canada. But it also happened, there was an event in the late 19th century also happened, there was an event in the late 19th century that if it was so severe it knocked out telegraph

over a very large area, but there wasn't much electrical equipment in those days. And so it didn't do that much damage. But we know that if an event of that magnitude occurred today, it would be devastating. It could cripple our country. So where it was with the sun. As a event of that magnitude occurred today, it would be devastating. It could cripple our country.

As a result of that possibility, we have invested now substantial effort in trying to build a multi-pronged strategy to protect us from those kinds of events. That strategy includes sensors on the Discover satellite to give us early warning. The strategy includes the ability to disconnect parts of the electricity grid on warning very quickly. But there are other things that we should be doing and that the study recommended that we do that we're not yet doing. And that's something that I'm very glad you're interested in. No, this is my point. These are things I read. There's too much I read that I get now worried.

That's not all you should be worried about. But we should be worrying about that as a globe. Yeah, when is this happening? We don't know. You want to protect your phone. Not predictable. So there's not only that. There's all this talk about AI running amok.

And does the United States have a major investment in the future of this technology? So we've basically gone from The Matrix to Terminator now, but keep going. Both happy movies. Can we just ask in my regular life, about how scared should I really be? Like a 1 out of 10.

So AI, let me ask you this. We had Ray Kurzweil as a guest on StarTalk, and I was delighted by that conversation because I'd only known of him from what other people wrote, and I finally got the horse's mouth, and I love the guy to no end. Just he's a deep thinker, he's brilliant. And so what I ask,

there's a lot of talk about connecting human biology to the internet in some way so that your brain is now actively processing the world. And do you see this biologically as a real thing coming down the line? I think so. I don't think it's. Yes? Yes. I don't think it's imminent. I think that's a way, ways off.

But we're steps there already. There's biologics you can put inside yourself. You can monitor, distribute medicine. Your doctor could literally sit at a computer. We're getting close to that and be able to deliver you doses of medicine based upon the information they're getting over

distances about what's happening inside your body. That's precision medicine. We were talking about it before. All right. But AI now is making decisions that I didn't authorize. Right? So the big fear is that AI, and I tweeted this once, I said, we better behave because when AI achieves consciousness, we want to give it as fewer reasons as possible to exterminate us.

Okay? People are clapping for extermination by AI. No, I think they agree. They're like, don't worry, Arnold will save us. So is there an agency that's thinking about AI? Surely. John Terry. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, we had many, many meetings in the White House about AI, many of them including President Obama, who's very interested in it and concerned about it. Did he write a paper on it? It has an upside. It has an upside in terms of increasing the capacity to get a lot of important things done. It has a downside, like many technologies.

If it's misused, if it evolves in a bad direction, it could be problematic. And so the question is, how do you manage the evolution of this technology in a way that gets the benefits while minimizing the dangers? But my own view is that the dangers, as we currently understand them, are being overstated. The proposition that computers are going to become, in some general sense, smarter than humans sometime soon is not believed by many of the experts in the field. There are some who think it will happen. There are many who think it won't happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant and trying to figure out how to make sure that AI doesn't evolve in a way that takes over our lives.

But can I tell you where AI scares me right now and is real? Is that our enemies, sorry Eugene, like Russia. I'm a U.S. citizen, just to be clear. Sorry. I mean, I'll blend in if they win. I mean, I'll blend in if they win. This is, so we have a real problem in this country with cyber attacks. And one of the reasons, one of the areas in which AI technology is now being used,

look, Russia and China will never beat us tank for tank, warship for warship. We spend more money on military, bigger military, in the next six, seven countries combined. But where they can now offer a threat, and we just saw this with a massive cyber attack, is with the advancements that are being made in hacking and that kind of technology.

And AI is being used, invested in, and explored by the Chinese and the Russians as a way of having a far more intelligent way where the computer can itself begin to learn about what the defenses are of a system and better break into them. And so when you see our competitors,

and remember, it's not just Russia, it's China who's doing extraordinary jobs stealing business technologies and the like, using these very sophisticated AI, blockchain, all these new next generation sort of technologies and the like, using these very sophisticated AI, blockchain, all these new next generation sort of technologies and innovations against us and beating us to the punch. It's a massive vulnerability for our nation that we should be very aware and be aware about.

So that would come under the Department of Defense. But the Department of Defense, other than the DARPA and the DARPA-E, is not really as equipped, it seems to me, to attract the best and the brightest to solve that problem. Well, yeah, I don't think that's quite right. The Department of Defense includes the National Security Agency. National Security Agency employs more PhD mathematicians than any other organization in the world. They are thinking about AI extensively, as is DARPA, which has a lot of smart folks as well. I'm not saying there's no problem. I agree with the Senator.

This is a big risk. It's a big area of competition. Our adversaries are very busy. We're very busy too, by the way, and AI can be used to defend our cyber systems just as it can be used by our adversaries to attack them. So this is an ongoing

tension. So we can put our AI against their AI and then just let them fight and we go off and go to the park. Yeah, that's okay. That would be good, yeah. Let me just get into your lives for a moment. Each of you left academic posts to serve in the White House. And you became sort of a citizen scientist servant of needs. Each of you, what drove you to do that? Well, for me, there were two factors. One was John Holdren.

The other was Barack Obama. They were totally impressive intellects, committed to science, and I think John convinced me when we first talked about the position that working for this president would be a privilege beyond all else for scientists, and he was right. It was an honor to work for a president who cared so much about science. So, nine years ago, what were you thinking? Well, first of all, I had had the good fortune to meet President Eisenhower's second-term science advisor, George Kistiakowsky,

when I was 29 years old, And he became one of my mentors, and I learned a lot from him about his service for Eisenhower. Then I met Jerry Wiesner, who was JFK's science advisor, and he became a mentor. And I ended up knowing every science advisor to every U.S. president from Eisenhower on. And so I had a secret ambition as a result of all those interactions that I might someday be a president science advisor. And I just happened to luck out and get the best president in modern times to be the science advisor too. If there were a president who you didn't like, but asked you to be his or her science advisor, what would you say? Well, it would depend on the president. Why? If you're asked to advise them,

why should it depend on the president? It depends on you. No, you have to believe that the president will listen. You have to believe that he's not just trying to check the box. If you're not an advisor at all, if you're not even in the room, they're clearly not listening to you because you're not in the room. So then there's a chance they'll listen to you if you're in the room. You have to figure out whether you're going to be more effective advising this particular president or more effective pursuing the same issues from outside. You have to make that decision. It can't always work to yell science into a wig. But can I just say something about these two doctors that's extraordinary and people should have to make that decision. It can't always work to yell science into a wig.

But can I just say something about these two doctors that's extraordinary and people should recognize this. The whole idea of our country in the Declaration of Independence, which this genius document, but frankly had flaws. It was, you know, referred to Native Americans as savages and all the flaws of the genius of the writers at the time that they had flaws. But they kind of came to a conclusion at the end where they basically said for this country, the idea of this nation, which was not founded like other countries because we all look alike or pray alike or descend in the same way,

the idea of this country was the first nation of ideas and principles. And that's a tenuous, especially then, it was a tenuous way of forming a nation. And so what these two doctors really represent to me is what our founders said is going to have to happen. If this country is going to make it, they basically said, we have to have an unusual commitment to each other

that goes beyond just tolerating each other or kind of admiring each other. They basically said we have to commit to each other, and this is the final words of the Declaration of Independence, we must mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. And it's something we all should think about. Are we living our lives this way?

These folks, and they're very humble, but trust me, they could have probably made a lot more money, a lot more resources. You don't get rich working in government. You do not get rich. But these are folks that said, you know what? My love of this country, my sacred what, my love of this country, my sacred honor,

my commitment of my fortune will be to this nation's goodness. And it's been those folks who are those irrational people throughout history, who may not even make it into the history books, but have consistently had this commitment, those people that built the greatest infrastructure this nation has ever known,

most of them whose names aren't known, the Underground Railroad, those people who I can't name the people who, whether they stormed beaches in Normandy or sat in laboratories designing technologies and innovations that I use every day, but I take for granted. And so I just want to thank them publicly because they don't often get a moment like this before a huge audience. Hardly ever. Hardly ever, to get the kind of gratitude and celebration that we get. So thank you very much.

So let me just go down the line here before we close this out. And just one by one, if you could, what would be your recipe for making America smart again? Just, Eugene. Juice the Earth Man! I don't know what he said. Yeah, I guess voting. Voting for science.

And also I think things like the science march. I think being active and being... I'm optimistic in the end. I think that you can forward good things and over time it will work. So I think science marching. These immigrants are so hopeful. I am very hopeful.

I'm also sitting on a stage with you guys joking around. Immigrants, they get the job done. I believe in the American dream. I adore it. Ophira. You know, I think we talk a lot about, like right now everyone's stressed out by what's going on.

And they're like, how am I going to deal with the climate? Self-care. I'll go to do some meditation and yoga. I think we have to stop focusing on ourselves. I think we have to focus on other people and our community and think outside of ourselves more often and think about how we are together rather than just

laying down and going 10 minutes of headspace is going to make it all better. Okay. John. I'm going to build on what Ophira has said and suggest as I've done elsewhere that everybody who is in science,

in technology, or who cares about science and technology should tithe 10% of their time, whatever else they do, tithe 10% of their time to talking with other people, to engaging on how and why science and technology matter to our society, to our well-being, to the world, what science is, how it works,

what the sources of credibility in science are, and why we need to preserve and protect science. We need all of us to be better storytellers about this, to be activists, to be engaged in the policy process. Give it some applause. Bob Tundell. Thank you for having me here. No, I'm serious.

It's been an incredible honor to be on stage with these civil servants, whether it's the comedic arts or the arts and sciences, and I'm humbled to be a part of this. I want to echo what Eugene said. I happened to be at a meeting of the organizers of the Science March, and one of them cited a Niels Bohr quote, quantum physics pioneer, and I'm going to paraphrase it, but he essentially described science as the steady reduction of prejudice. And if you think about what science actually is, you constantly challenge what you think to be true

and replace it to what you know to be true. And if you're not constantly challenging, that's not science. So we've been challenged up here. I encourage folks out there to do it. And I think what's coming up with the science march, whether it's before, during, or after, is a testament to something much larger than the politics of the moment. It's about the larger pursuit of science, which is the reduction of all of our prejudices.

Cool. Jo? One of the things I found really striking today was when we talked about things that excite the public about science, it was either because of fear or inspiration. And I think we need to find a way to explain science and teach science in logical ways, not fear-mongering, but that either incite fear or people's imaginations and inspiration.

And it can't be just discovering new planets and discovering new cures. It has to go way beyond that to all of science. And I don't know how to do that, but I would challenge all of us to think about that. How do we inspire people about the fundamental quest for knowledge, which is the basis of science? about the fundamental quest for knowledge, which is the basis of science. I guess I just would encourage people to, as Eugene said, to be people of hope. But what I mean by that is I think this last 100 days has been some of the most hopeful period in my time as a senator.

And it's not because the situation looks great but you know i i spent eight years living in these high-rise projects in newark and the tenant president there who had her son murdered in in the lobby of the building which i lived in she was one of the most hopeful people that i met and and i and basically what she taught me was that hope doesn't exist in the abstract it's always a response to despair. It's saying that despair will not have the last word. And that hope also is not a being word. You don't just sit in a state of being that's hope. Hope is an active, it's a fighter. It is constantly working to create that belief that you haven't surrendered. And so my hope is that I've seen the greatness of my country, whether

it was the Women's March or how that health care bill, which was so awful, was beat back not by politicians, but by a public, Republican and Democrat, who just said there's no way we're going to tolerate that. And so right now, my prayer is that everybody remembers those 10 two-letter words, that this country will succeed or fail based on those ten two-letter words. And those ten two-letter words is, if it is to be, it is up to me. I have got to be an agent of hope. And that's sort of my parting.

Thank you. If I could offer some final reflections here. You guys said almost everything I would have said, so you really left me with nothing. I got nothing now. But let me share with you, personally, I try not to have hope because hope is the confession

that you have no control of the outcome. And I don't ever want to cede that to a word. I want to say to myself, there's an outcome that I have some access to, some control over. And let me reiterate again why I don't beat back politicians. There's something else deeper than that. And in our K-12 system, what do we do? I think we view students as these vessels

where you unzip their brain, their head, and pour information in for 12 years. And then you zip it back up, hand them the diploma, and send them off. And so we think that being educated is knowing stuff. When somewhere in there, one ought to be taught how to question knowledge, how to evaluate information and evidence. These are the foundations of science. We don't even have to call it science. Let's just call it curiosity. Because what is a scientist but a kid who never really grew up, right? It's a kid who in adulthood retained childlike curiosity.

And when you retain childlike curiosity, anything that happens before you is up for questioning. And you say, well, why are you doing it that way? Can it happen this way? Well, let me research that. And if you, in addition to being trained how to think about information, if somehow we can retain your curiosity from childhood through adulthood, retain that curiosity, then you become

lifelong learners, lifelong inquisitors, because we will spend many more years outside of school than in school. How many people do we know, if not among ourselves, the last day of school you take your books, throw them into the air and say, school's done. As though that's the state you want to be in where you no longer have to learn. That's a failure of the educational system. You should come out of school and say,

gee, I'm still curious. Can I go back in? Or is there some ways I can keep learning? And I think that if we breed an entire generation of people that are curious into adulthood, then you will never elect someone who just states things that are not true. That would never happen.

Okay? Because... If you build into the system curiosity, and where does the politics come? The politics layers on top of that. All right? So you don't say, there is no global warming. We know there is. All right? So now that we know there is, let's have the political conversation.

Are there carbon credits? Do you subsidize? Do you put up tariffs? That's where the politics needs to happen. Not at any level below that. So my sense of this is, if you want to make America great, you first have to make it smart. And to make it smart, we have to retain the curiosity that we all had as children. And that way we can turn a sleepy country into an innovation nation.

Amen. Red Bank, New Jersey, this has been StarTalk. And I've been your host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and my guests, the Senator, Joe, John, and Peter. Eugene, thank you all in New Jersey. As always,

keep looking up.