Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Kanikova, and today my co host
Speaker 1: Nate Silver is gallivanting in Norway, I believe, and so
Speaker 1: I have an amazing guest co host, an old, dear
Speaker 1: friend of mine, brilliant writer, incredible thinker, David Epstein. David
Speaker 1: is the author of two international bestsellers of the sports
Speaker 1: Gene and Range Folks Are Incredible, highly recommend and a
Speaker 1: book that will be out next year, Inside the Box.
Speaker 1: And we'll have him back on when that comes out.
Speaker 1: And I'm really glad to have him here today to
Speaker 1: talk about a topic that he knows a lot of
Speaker 1: about to day in the show, our first segment is
Speaker 1: going to be about genetics and designer babies and the
Speaker 1: ethics of it, the implications of it, what kind of
Speaker 1: world we want to live in, and after that we'll
Speaker 1: be talking about a different kind of determinism for what
Speaker 1: ends up happening to you in your life, which is
Speaker 1: does your name matter? Welcome to the show, David, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being my co host today.
Speaker 2: Nate's lost my gain. I'm glad to be here. Thanks
Speaker 2: for inviting me.
Speaker 1: Of course, of course. All right, So first up, we're
Speaker 1: going to talk a little bit about genetics. So there
Speaker 1: is a new startup, Orchid, that's been in the news,
Speaker 1: and the Orchid pitch is that we can help you
Speaker 1: determine all sorts of genetic things about your embryos so
Speaker 1: that you can choose one that avoids the risk of
Speaker 1: certain diseases, et cetera, et cetera. They are doing different
Speaker 1: sources of testing, different types of testing. They don't really
Speaker 1: their client lists, but it has been said that a
Speaker 1: lot of them are among the elites of Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: tech entrepreneurs, people who are kind of the movers and
Speaker 1: shakers of the modern world. So first, David, what do
Speaker 1: you just think in general about the whole concept of
Speaker 1: being able to determine You know, you have tons of embryos,
Speaker 1: and yeah, we can pick the ones that we want
Speaker 1: based on certain factors. And by the way, like little caveat,
Speaker 1: people have been doing this in terms of disease for
Speaker 1: multiple years now. Right, if we can test for a
Speaker 1: disease risk, if I have a family risk, for instance,
Speaker 1: of schizophrenia something like that, we can try to mitigate that.
Speaker 1: Somehow schizophrenia was actually a really bad one to choose,
Speaker 1: because that's a polygrotic, very difficult one. But that's the
Speaker 1: general idea originally as we as we have just said,
Speaker 1: this goes further. So what are your initial thoughts on
Speaker 1: something like that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, in a very broad way, by the way, I
Speaker 2: think this get it's an issue where like everyone's talking
Speaker 2: about how AI is going to change our lives, and
Speaker 2: I've thought genetics and gene editing and genetic selection in
Speaker 2: the long term have the potential to more fundamentally change
Speaker 2: our lives than AI does. But I think the issue
Speaker 2: I don't know a lot about Orchid. I mean I
Speaker 2: looked at a very little bit about them specifically, so
Speaker 2: I don't know all the services they do. But obviously
Speaker 2: they're emphasizing the health stuff, which I think is a
Speaker 2: matter of degree difference from what people are already doing. Right, Like,
Speaker 2: people already screen for chromosomal abnormalities, you know, down syndrome
Speaker 2: being a familiar one, and then they have the choice
Speaker 2: of whether or not to do anything about that or not.
Speaker 2: Nobody's compelled so to the extent that what they're doing
Speaker 2: is it seems that they have a technology that allows
Speaker 2: them to amplify DNA really well, so they really really
Speaker 2: early after conception, they can get a few cells, you
Speaker 2: get a reliable DNA signal from it, and screen for
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of potential diseases. So that I think
Speaker 2: is just a difference in degree of things that are
Speaker 2: already going on. And as someone who you know, I
Speaker 2: got off of training to be a scientist and got
Speaker 2: into journalism because I was a competitive runner and had
Speaker 2: a training partner who died at the end of a
Speaker 2: race from a genetic condition. So the idea that we
Speaker 2: could prevent stuff from that, you know, these genetic mutations
Speaker 2: that we know of that that like rip through families
Speaker 2: like a forest fire. I think I think that's a
Speaker 2: good option for parents to have. But I think there
Speaker 2: are a lot of more difficult questions, right, Like you
Speaker 2: mentioned polygenic traits, so a lot of the monogenic stuff
Speaker 2: is more is easier. In some cases, you see a
Speaker 2: genetic variant, you know it causes some disease, you can select,
Speaker 2: you can take it out right people, you know, if
Speaker 2: someone there may be moral questions about dispensing with the embryos,
Speaker 2: but that's the case for IVF in general anyway. So
Speaker 2: I think the I think the reason that this is
Speaker 2: pretty controversial probably two reasons. One is that it will
Speaker 2: be much you know, it will be wealthy people that
Speaker 2: adopt it, right, So then you have this question of
Speaker 2: are we like bifurcating the world into people who can
Speaker 2: prevent diseases in their children and people who can't because
Speaker 2: they have money. So that's one question, and that just
Speaker 2: feels icky, right when it comes to health, like, no
Speaker 2: nobody feels you don't feel as ichy about wealthy people
Speaker 2: having nicer cars as you do about being able to
Speaker 2: be healthy. But then the kind of third rail, I
Speaker 2: think is when you start selecting for things that are
Speaker 2: more traits than diseases, right, like intelligence or athleticism or
Speaker 2: whatever it is. And in those cases, I think up
Speaker 2: to now it hasn't been that feasible because those things,
Speaker 2: unlike some diseases, most things are not caused by one gene.
Speaker 2: Most things are caused by all sorts of parts of
Speaker 2: your genes are the parts that code for specific proteins.
Speaker 2: And now we know like maybe every single gene and
Speaker 2: a bunch of other parts of your DNA that aren't
Speaker 2: even genes that interact to create like you know, even
Speaker 2: how tall you are, maybe every single gene that has
Speaker 2: some influence in that, each one in a little way.
Speaker 2: And it hasn't been very feasible since we have no
Speaker 2: idea what most genes do to actually select for that stuff.
Speaker 2: But there's now some work where you do this thing
Speaker 2: called polygenic like gene scores. We have a huge database
Speaker 2: a huge number of people, and you've sequenced their genomes
Speaker 2: and you have their health information and you can kind
Speaker 2: of score give them a score based on a large
Speaker 2: number of genes that you may not even know what
Speaker 2: those genes do. But this configuration looks like it might
Speaker 2: change someone's cognitibility a little or their height a little bit,
Speaker 2: or some other trade about them. And that's where you
Speaker 2: get into these things that are not preventing someone from
Speaker 2: dropping dead, but things that would just be nice to
Speaker 2: have or bigger advantages for your child. And so I
Speaker 2: think that that's like the third rail, right. So I
Speaker 2: think the reason that it's so controversial is that people
Speaker 2: see it as like the first domino to fall on
Speaker 2: route to that which is something that is now you know,
Speaker 2: even though I think if you selected for a lot
Speaker 2: of those polygenic traits you'd only make a tiny difference.
Speaker 2: But if you do that generation after generation after generation,
Speaker 2: like that's how breeding works.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, for sure, that that is exactly how breeding works.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think you've raised a few really
Speaker 1: interesting points. One that we still like, we really don't
Speaker 1: know how this shit works a lot of the time, right,
Speaker 1: And sometimes you think that you might be selecting for
Speaker 1: something really really good, but you are also like it
Speaker 1: comes with a trade off, right, that you just do
Speaker 1: not know about, right. Sometimes that is that's even true
Speaker 1: of diseases, right, there are some things that make you
Speaker 1: susceptible to one disease but are protective against other things,
Speaker 1: and we don't actually know all of those genetic interactions,
Speaker 1: that's right.
Speaker 2: I mean a classic example, right, is that some of
Speaker 2: the genes that cause sickle cell trade and sickle cell
Speaker 2: anemia are protective against malaria, which is why people of
Speaker 2: like recent West African descent have those that condition a lot,
Speaker 2: even if they now live in the United States, for example.
Speaker 1: Yep, Yeah, that was that was the one that I
Speaker 1: was thinking. That is a very classic one that we
Speaker 1: know but now we know, right, but we but we
Speaker 1: didn't know before, So that I think that that's part
Speaker 1: of it, right, that we a lot of this stuff
Speaker 1: is just incredibly complicated. But I do think that like
Speaker 1: once some is promising, okay, you know what, like I'll
Speaker 1: make your kid smarter and more likely to be a
Speaker 1: star athlete and more likely to be Mozart or whatever
Speaker 1: it is, that there are ethical things on a few levels. One,
Speaker 1: there's like the ethical the ethics of the promise right
Speaker 1: of taking money for something that was something like schizophrenia. Right,
Speaker 1: This was the example I used at the beginning, and
Speaker 1: I said, this is actually a very bad example, because
Speaker 1: schizophrenia is something that is determined by so many different factors.
Speaker 1: We don't know really what causes it, and it's not
Speaker 1: going to manifest for you know, eighteen years, nineteen years,
Speaker 1: twenty years. It usually happens in the late teens, early twenties.
Speaker 1: And so in the meantime, this company can be making
Speaker 1: claims that we're screening for these things, not actually be
Speaker 1: doing it successfully, and we have no way of knowing.
Speaker 1: So there's like the ethics of promising something that you're
Speaker 1: not really sure about. But then also if we can
Speaker 1: like let's assume we can do that. I do think
Speaker 1: that there are concerns both with the haves and have nots,
Speaker 1: but also with the like I'm selecting now for blue
Speaker 1: eyes and blonde hair, and I want someone who's a
Speaker 1: little bit taller. And it's so funny to me, you know,
Speaker 1: there are people who are now quoting Gatika the movie
Speaker 1: as this wonderful thing, like, oh, yeah, we're making Gatica babies.
Speaker 1: So I was like, that movie was not was not positive. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this kind of technology that was a dystopia, like that
Speaker 1: is something that we absolutely don't want.
Speaker 2: That's like Selman Kahn's book Brave New Words, which is
Speaker 2: obviously referencing Brave New World, which I didn't really think
Speaker 2: of as kind of a good connotation for children in
Speaker 2: their schooling necessarily.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's not a book that I have very
Speaker 1: positive associations with in terms of the kind of future
Speaker 1: we want to be living in.
Speaker 2: Totally, And I think, you know to your point, like
Speaker 2: I don't want to compare this company in particular to
Speaker 2: twenty three and me, but like twenty three in me,
Speaker 2: I was since I was writing a book about genetics,
Speaker 2: I signed up for a bunch of direct consumer genetic
Speaker 2: testing companies in the early days before the FDA was
Speaker 2: really paying attention to them, so you could get all
Speaker 2: kinds of information, and like I remember, there'd be say
Speaker 2: it would say, you know, am I allergic to gluten
Speaker 2: or something like that, and it would show some of
Speaker 2: my gene variations compared to the population. It would say, oh, well,
Speaker 2: people with your genotype, are you know your your ODDS
Speaker 2: ratio is like one point oh two or something. You know,
Speaker 2: you're like slightly more So one would be if you
Speaker 2: have the same risk of getting this thing as the
Speaker 2: as a typical person, so you're slightly slightly increased risk.
Speaker 2: And then a month later they'd find some other associated
Speaker 2: gene variant it'd be like, well, now you're actually a
Speaker 2: slightly decreased risk. And then there'd be like three more
Speaker 2: found and they'd be like, you're at elevator risk. He did, right,
Speaker 2: So this is this question of you don't know what
Speaker 2: a lot of stuff is doing. And so it was
Speaker 2: like depended when I checked in if I were at
Speaker 2: increased or decreased risk. And again that was some pretty
Speaker 2: unsophisticated stuff. My like motto for genetics is genetics more
Speaker 2: complicated than we thought, you know, because people used to
Speaker 2: think we'd have like one hundred thousand genes, and then
Speaker 2: it turned out we only have like twenty twenty three thousand,
Speaker 2: you know, and onions have way more DNA than we do.
Speaker 2: So it's kind of disappointing, like we're not that complications.
Speaker 1: Onions are smarter than we are.
Speaker 2: It's no, I mean, who would argue with that. That's
Speaker 2: why so many people don't like them. They're just jealous.
Speaker 1: I'm allergic to them. What does that say about my.
Speaker 2: You're allergic to onions?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm allergic to raw onions, all raw onions, onions, shallots, scallions, chibes.
Speaker 2: And you shouldn't say stuff like that in public. Your
Speaker 2: kryptonite is now like out on the internet, right, I know,
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: So this is this is genetic. This is actually something
Speaker 1: that you can look at in your genes. And my
Speaker 1: body doesn't have the enzyme that can break them down.
Speaker 1: So soon as they're cooked, I can eat them, but
Speaker 1: in any raw form I'll become incredibly incredibly sick. So
Speaker 1: this is potentially actually, you know, bringing it back to
Speaker 1: our topic at hand, this is something that Orchid or
Speaker 1: what or whatever company could potentially test for and then
Speaker 1: I might not exist because they'd be like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: onion allergy. No, we can't have this, might not.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think we can all agree that we
Speaker 2: would get rid of that embryo f and the onion allergy,
Speaker 2: for goodness sake, changes the whole conversation.
Speaker 1: If it that it does, it does?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, I mean so I don't want to
Speaker 2: compare them because I think some of the disease stuff,
Speaker 2: I think is just a more powerful version of things
Speaker 2: that people already doing. And and by the way, I mean,
Speaker 2: I guess that's true to some degree for genetic selection.
Speaker 2: Like I wrote in article years ago about height in
Speaker 2: sports for ESPN, and I was like, it turned out
Speaker 2: that in most almost every uh, like sperm donation clinic,
Speaker 2: like I couldn't donate because I'm not tall enough. Right,
Speaker 2: I was a Division one athlete and all this stuff.
Speaker 2: You know, it did well in school.
Speaker 1: Wait are you serious?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, yeah, yeah absolutely. But so it's like when
Speaker 2: push comes to show if people do do this stuff, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's crazy. And so I guess the question is, you know,
Speaker 2: if it becomes widespread though, that's yeah, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's it's interesting that you say one
Speaker 1: push comes to show because people do already like if
Speaker 1: you know, so, I don't have kids, so I and
Speaker 1: I've never gone through IVY fertility treatments, et cetera. But
Speaker 1: if I were to do that and I was looking
Speaker 1: for a sperm donor, I could go through binders, you know,
Speaker 1: of backgrounds of people and choose who I would want, right,
Speaker 1: and it would say things like you know, height and
Speaker 1: eye color and all of these things where you went
Speaker 1: to school, you know, So I'd be like, I want
Speaker 1: someone smart, I want someone from the IVY League.
Speaker 2: Did you look at the I'm sure in your college
Speaker 2: newspaper there were advertisements for egg donors like crazy, right, absolutely,
Speaker 2: and it would say like and they would advertise and
Speaker 2: like the Harvard Crimson for a reason, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Oh no, I was hit up for egg donations
Speaker 1: so many times.
Speaker 2: But they didn't know thri allerg to onions as they
Speaker 2: did not they did not.
Speaker 1: Know maybe the two about No, they don't balance out,
Speaker 1: do they. The onionology is much worse, I understand, damn.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that that is absolutely true, and you could
Speaker 1: have you could make a lot of money right by
Speaker 1: being an egg donor like that sperm donors don't make
Speaker 1: that much. Egg donors make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: I imagine why, but fair unfair pay gap, this pay.
Speaker 1: Gap be addressed, yes, underpay up gender pay up for sure.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so these types of things have been available
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form for a long time.
Speaker 1: But I do think that you know, the if this
Speaker 1: becomes the norm, then it becomes problematic in many respects.
Speaker 1: And one one other issue that we haven't talked about
Speaker 1: that people have raised is if this becomes the norm, right,
Speaker 1: and then people who don't actually have fertility issues, who
Speaker 1: don't need IVF end up doing this so that they
Speaker 1: are not kind of the same way that people opt
Speaker 1: sometimes to have c sections when they don't need them
Speaker 1: because they don't they don't want to give vaginal birth right.
Speaker 1: If people then make that choice just simply because they
Speaker 1: want that selection, that is also kind of an interesting
Speaker 1: ethical area and has repercussions for a lot of society
Speaker 1: in the sense that so ORCD and we're not picking
Speaker 1: on organ it just happens to be one that is
Speaker 1: like in the news topical for the issue exactly exactly so,
Speaker 1: but or get specifically charges twenty five hundred dollars per embryo.
Speaker 1: Now you would be you need to make multiple embryos,
Speaker 1: and it can become much more expensive if you want
Speaker 1: other testing, et cetera, et cetera. So there is kind
Speaker 1: of another There are more issues that keep piling up here,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back right after this.
Speaker 2: I don't think that it is particularly difficult to envision
Speaker 2: a scenario where IVF becomes like basically the norm, because
Speaker 2: you want to be able to do embryo selection, right.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that I think there'd ever be an instance,
Speaker 2: well at least in the foreseeable future, that where everybody
Speaker 2: would make that choice, because there are a lot of different,
Speaker 2: obviously ethical considerations. But I don't think it's that hard
Speaker 2: to see that, And I think you could end up
Speaker 2: in a kind of collective trap where because some people
Speaker 2: are doing it, you know, and if it turns into
Speaker 2: real advantage, maybe there's pressure for insurance companies to then
Speaker 2: cover it or or or you know, just for moral
Speaker 2: reasons like it shouldn't be limited access. So I actually
Speaker 2: I don't know which way we're going to go, but
Speaker 2: I don't think it's like sci fi to imagine that
Speaker 2: IVF would become like the standard mode of procreation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and people say, you know, oh, but it's still
Speaker 1: a personal choice. Well, what you said about pressure, kind
Speaker 1: of pure pressure to do it, I think is actually huge.
Speaker 1: So when I just graduated from college, moved to New York,
Speaker 1: wanted to be a writer. It's really hard to make
Speaker 1: a living as a writer. You don't make a lot
Speaker 1: of money. So I tutored. I did a lot of
Speaker 1: private tutoring for very wealthy families, and you know, people
Speaker 1: that becomes something that like, if you don't do right,
Speaker 1: you are disadvantaging your child and you're a bad parent.
Speaker 1: At that point, everyone expects that, like, oh, well, you'll
Speaker 1: get tutoring in all of these you'll get USA TEA prep,
Speaker 1: you'll get this, you'll get that. And if you're one
Speaker 1: of the people who don't get it, then you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: my parents don't care enough right that they're not giving
Speaker 1: me that extra step. Now, by the way, I never
Speaker 1: got any sort of tutoring when I was a kid.
Speaker 1: I didn't get SAT prep or anything like that. But
Speaker 1: it was I was shocked at the fact that some
Speaker 1: of the kids really did need it and others like
Speaker 1: it was just something that I was being paid basically
Speaker 1: to act as a tutor, and to kind of be
Speaker 1: a tutor one technically, I was like, this is a
Speaker 1: smart kid who could do this by themselves, but no,
Speaker 1: because this is something you're required to do. And so
Speaker 1: I think that people might feel pressure to select even
Speaker 1: if we don't know if it works right, just on
Speaker 1: the off chance that it might work, and that this
Speaker 1: sort of stuff might be testable and that you might
Speaker 1: be giving your kids minute advantages. Now, one of the
Speaker 1: themes of risky business is that minute advantages matter, right,
Speaker 1: small percentages matter. As a poker player, you know that
Speaker 1: if you get an extra one percent edge, that's huge.
Speaker 1: So even if we know that things like intelligence, you know,
Speaker 1: things like height, that they're determined by so many different
Speaker 1: variables that nothing is well with few exceptions. Nothing is
Speaker 1: all genetics like one gene. And even if you can
Speaker 1: eke out an extra percentage point, right, an extra tiny
Speaker 1: bit for your kid, that could be huge. And are
Speaker 1: you negligent if you don't make that choice? If you say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I just want to have sex to
Speaker 1: see what happens.
Speaker 2: So quaint, yes, I think, and I think you know,
Speaker 2: like parental neuroses is like a bottomless well of spending, right,
Speaker 2: so there's a lot of business opportunities there. But I
Speaker 2: do think there is now and I wouldn't have said
Speaker 2: this not that long ago, that there's real reason to
Speaker 2: believe that some of these traits could be select could
Speaker 2: be accurately select for in a small way. Again, that
Speaker 2: doesn't say anything about are you accidentally then getting something
Speaker 2: you don't want? Right, There's a lot of unknowns. But
Speaker 2: I think for the first time some of these other
Speaker 2: non disease traits, we could load the dice a little
Speaker 2: a little bit, a little bit, and then over multiple
Speaker 2: generations that could become more and more and more. But again,
Speaker 2: I think those are separate from the issue of making
Speaker 2: the screening for disease better, much earlier, and more extensives.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I think that just to put this out there,
Speaker 1: I think that the screening for disease is great, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that that is. I think that's a very
Speaker 1: good thing.
Speaker 2: I think that, you know, being I don't know that
Speaker 2: everyone would agree with that, right because maybe you're still
Speaker 2: like selecting for.
Speaker 1: Oh for sure, I think that's less controversial. I think
Speaker 1: I think that a lot of people won't agree with that, yeah,
Speaker 1: because they don't think you should be able to select
Speaker 1: for anything. But you know, I'm an Ashkanazi Jew. Ashkinazi
Speaker 1: Jews have predilections you know, for a lot of different
Speaker 1: genetic condition and you know, if we can reduce tays acts, right,
Speaker 1: if we can reduce Huntington's, if we can reduce the
Speaker 1: risk of some of these really devastating conditions, yeah, that
Speaker 1: would be amazing, right, I think, I think personally, But
Speaker 1: you know, related to this, we also do have emerging
Speaker 1: technologies Crisper, you know, that can edit right, so that
Speaker 1: it's slightly different, right, you're not choosing embryos. But we
Speaker 1: have technology that is becoming better and better where we
Speaker 1: can actually go into the genome and say, okay, snip, snip,
Speaker 1: let's let's try to let's try to fix this, and
Speaker 1: let's try to not literally, by the way, people, you
Speaker 1: don't actually go in with scissors.
Speaker 2: It's not that different though. That's a that's a pretty
Speaker 2: good analogy.
Speaker 1: But so we have technologies like that that don't require IBF.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's interesting, like it's very very complicated
Speaker 1: because there are certain things about this that I think
Speaker 1: are amazing. There are certain things that really give me pause,
Speaker 1: and then there are things I actually am kind of
Speaker 1: scared of the unknowns. And I know that, yes, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't be afraid of a technology because we don't know
Speaker 1: the side effect. But you know, there are certain things
Speaker 1: like maybe when you are trying to kind of control
Speaker 1: for the schizophrenia cluster genes, you're also getting rid of
Speaker 1: artistic talent. Just because I say that as like a
Speaker 1: cliche thing that often goes together, but like maybe we're
Speaker 1: actually getting rid of some good things and some natural
Speaker 1: variation mutations that we have no idea what they do,
Speaker 1: and they might have existed in this embryo and we
Speaker 1: just will never know.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting point on two counts. One. I mean,
Speaker 2: we know there are things like to give a sort
Speaker 2: of extreme example, years ago, this was with earlier forms
Speaker 2: of gene therapy, but there were some tests on boys
Speaker 2: with what I think it's called X linked combined immuno
Speaker 2: deficiency syndrome. People commonly know it as bubble boy syndrome
Speaker 2: because the boy has so it's linked to an X chromosome,
Speaker 2: and because boys only have one, there's not another copy
Speaker 2: to correct it. So some X link diseases are in
Speaker 2: boys and so bubble boy syndrome, meaning they basically have
Speaker 2: no immune system, so they can't go anywhere. They have
Speaker 2: to like live in a bubble. And the gene therapy
Speaker 2: this was a more rudimentary form. It wasn't crisper like
Speaker 2: gene editing, but using a gene created in the lab
Speaker 2: and it gets like shuttled into the cells with a
Speaker 2: deactivated virus. Basically it cured some of them, which is incredible, right,
Speaker 2: but then like a number of them got leukemia. So
Speaker 2: there was like this incredible cure but also this incredibly
Speaker 2: devastating effect, and so you don't know, right, some of
Speaker 2: the stuff that's going on. And to your point about
Speaker 2: that example you mentioned, like schizophrenia and artistic talent, I
Speaker 2: think there have been some studies showing that you don't
Speaker 2: want mental illness to be creative, right, because that incapacitates
Speaker 2: you in all these ways, But that that tends to
Speaker 2: be more in the family of people who are extremely creative.
Speaker 2: And it's like, if there's all these genes that have
Speaker 2: a small effect, some people will have too many of
Speaker 2: them and they'll have mental illness. And some people have
Speaker 2: a bunch of them that make you kind of an
Speaker 2: unusual thinker, but not so many that you're incapacitated. I
Speaker 2: remember some years ago after I wrote about genetics, a
Speaker 2: like a psychiatrist who served Harvard students coming to me
Speaker 2: and saying, like, they definitely are overrepresented, and all these
Speaker 2: conditions that are like borderline mental illness. You know, so
Speaker 2: like you and your peers, you know, it's not just
Speaker 2: your n allergies, like you're weird in other ways that
Speaker 2: might also be useful.
Speaker 1: This also happens obviously with like new drugs, like for instance,
Speaker 1: you were saying the bubble boy, they end up dying
Speaker 1: of leukemia. We know that there were some drugs that
Speaker 1: showed an amazing promise right and then ended up like
Speaker 1: devastating your liver and kidneys and you die or something
Speaker 1: like that, where like oops, we had no idea, or
Speaker 1: you know, causes horrific birth defects or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: Those types of horrible moments, unfortunately, are all too common
Speaker 1: in medical history. But I think the difference there is
Speaker 1: you were trying to cure a person who was incredibly sick,
Speaker 1: and here you have someone who's healthy and potentially in
Speaker 1: the future someone who is perfectly fertile, doesn't need IVF,
Speaker 1: doesn't need any of this, and is choosing to do
Speaker 1: something which might then introduce these sorts of yeah, downstream effects.
Speaker 2: That's a whole you know, like a saying among doctors.
Speaker 2: It's like, it's very hard to make an asymptomatic patient better.
Speaker 2: You know, there are cases where that's true, where you
Speaker 2: catch stuff ahead of time, but as a general rule,
Speaker 2: if someone doesn't need medical intervention, it's usually better to
Speaker 2: avoid medical intervention. So I think you're hitting on an
Speaker 2: important point. I mean, I wonder what do you think,
Speaker 2: Let's say, because we've talked about how there may be
Speaker 2: sort of off target effects that you don't want when
Speaker 2: you try some of this stuff, Let's say we had
Speaker 2: we get it all figured out. So I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't think we're ever going to get it all figured out,
Speaker 2: because this is this complex interplay between all these environmental
Speaker 2: stimulus and genetics. So there's no like to the extent
Speaker 2: that no two lives are the same. We're not going
Speaker 2: to have it all figured out. But theoretically if we did,
Speaker 2: and then it's just a matter of selecting for stuff
Speaker 2: you want the way that you would with like a
Speaker 2: dog breed what then Like then it's like just kind
Speaker 2: of how do we want society to be a question? Right?
Speaker 1: And that's that's that is quite dystopian if we also
Speaker 1: consider that it might be if we pair that with
Speaker 1: what you said at the beginning, right, the divide between
Speaker 1: the haves and have nots, where some people can afford
Speaker 1: this state of the art technology and others can't, and
Speaker 1: so we have a very specific type of person selecting
Speaker 1: for what they want. And yeah, to me, like that
Speaker 1: is dystopian, and that's kind of that's kind of frightening
Speaker 1: because we know from psychology that people will, you know,
Speaker 1: select people who are like them quite often, right, we
Speaker 1: like people who look like us, and it becomes eugenics
Speaker 1: is a bad word for a reason, but it becomes
Speaker 1: very eugenics, like where you are saying, you know, these
Speaker 1: traits are inherently superior. But even I'm actually curious from
Speaker 1: your standpoint of someone who was a Division one athlete
Speaker 1: who knows a lot about sports, Like even with you know,
Speaker 1: sports genes and things that we know are really cool mutations,
Speaker 1: they're sometimes like you will find an athlete who doesn't
Speaker 1: look like other athletes who ends up being the best
Speaker 1: or who ends up discovering kind of a new way
Speaker 1: of doing something that absolutely changes a sport or or
Speaker 1: a way of a way of competing. And are we also,
Speaker 1: like when we select for kind of this one ideal
Speaker 1: that whoever has in their mind, are we potentially homogenizing
Speaker 1: society to the point where that's going Those types of
Speaker 1: breakthroughs are actually going to become quite rare if they
Speaker 1: happen at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean variation is necessary for both natural selection
Speaker 2: to happen, but I think also artificial selection or whatever
Speaker 2: you want to call it. And I mean maybe artificial
Speaker 2: selection is not the right word, but for new stuff,
Speaker 2: like new ideas and all those things. So I think
Speaker 2: that's way way down the road because there's a ton
Speaker 2: of variation. But if we really start going down this path,
Speaker 2: then I think those are things to think about way
Speaker 2: ahead of time. And you can imagine, you know, I
Speaker 2: think it's already like troubling enough some of the ideals
Speaker 2: of perfection that you have on Instagram or whatever. And
Speaker 2: so if that's then being applied to like all the genomes,
Speaker 2: I think you have started asking questions of like maybe
Speaker 2: there are things where we could be better at certain
Speaker 2: things we know about, but how do we want life
Speaker 2: to be? You know, I think that's an important question
Speaker 2: with technology that should be asked, Like I'm I'm I
Speaker 2: like innovation. I think invention technology is like really cool.
Speaker 2: You know. I started playing with AI immediately as soon
Speaker 2: as I could. At the same time, I don't think,
Speaker 2: you know, we should always just forge a head on
Speaker 2: everything without asking like, how do we want life to be?
Speaker 2: An unfold? Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's really important, And I will just
Speaker 1: add one less thing to that, which is that we're
Speaker 1: also ignoring a potentially huge mental health crisis if this
Speaker 1: ends up happening. You know, how do we want life
Speaker 1: to be? Well, what happens if you know, you like
Speaker 1: you're a designer baby that your parents selected these certain
Speaker 1: things for and you feel like you would have liked
Speaker 1: to be something else, You feel like things were chosen
Speaker 1: for you. I mean, I think that, you know, from
Speaker 1: a psychology standpoint, there might be a lot of issues
Speaker 1: with that, and we might have kind of a crisis
Speaker 1: in the generations of children who are subjected to this. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot of things to think about. This is a
Speaker 1: really really complicated thing. You know, it's a really morally, ethically, medically,
Speaker 1: just every single level complicated topic, and I think something
Speaker 1: that people should really give a lot of thought to
Speaker 1: for the long term, because you know, as with much
Speaker 1: so much technology, just because we can doesn't mean we
Speaker 1: should know and.
Speaker 2: Like people, I think it's been pretty good. The discussion
Speaker 2: about AI has been vibrant, and the potential positives and
Speaker 2: the potential negatives, the ethical concerns, et cetera, what we
Speaker 2: want the future to look like. Again, I think genetic
Speaker 2: technology in the long term has a potentially large, much
Speaker 2: larger impact than AI does on fundamental aspects of our life.
Speaker 2: And those conversations have been kind of one note. You know,
Speaker 2: it's every once in a while something like orchid pops
Speaker 2: up and there's a discussion, But I don't think it's
Speaker 2: been diverse and constant to the extent that it has
Speaker 2: with AI, even though I think it's at least equally
Speaker 2: as important.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that this is very important note of
Speaker 1: caution and also call to action, that these conversations are
Speaker 1: important and need to be had. Let's take a quick
Speaker 1: break and then we'll talk about a pet psychtopic for
Speaker 1: me and David nominative determinism.
Speaker 2: A much more deterministic aspect of your life than genetics.
Speaker 1: David, for a number of years you and I have
Speaker 1: been exchanging text messages about names that we come up with,
Speaker 1: that we see in the news, and that make us
Speaker 1: both giggle because they are examples of nominative determinism, which
Speaker 1: is a psychology concept which means that your name doesn't
Speaker 1: just matter, but is in some ways deterministic. It determines
Speaker 1: your career path or over jeans, move over jeans. It's
Speaker 1: not the genes that matter, it's the name that matters.
Speaker 1: And you know, the most simplistic example is something like
Speaker 1: someone with the last name Baker is going to go
Speaker 1: on to become a Baker. And this would be, you know,
Speaker 1: a hilarious joke if it didn't happen so incredibly often.
Speaker 1: And some people take it a little bit further, like
Speaker 1: they'll say, oh, well, it's just the first letter that matters.
Speaker 1: So like, if your name is lindsay, you are more
Speaker 1: likely to become a lawyer. I'm like, yeah, no, I
Speaker 1: don't think so. But so there are people who take
Speaker 1: it to an extreme, but basically the idea is your
Speaker 1: name matters more than you think.
Speaker 2: Yes, and so people have funny names that associate with
Speaker 2: their jobs, and I think the idea well, before we
Speaker 2: get to the idea of if there's any like real
Speaker 2: psychology behind this, I have a quiz for you, if
Speaker 2: you're willing to take it. All right, I went back
Speaker 2: through some old of my favorites. I don't think I've
Speaker 2: told you these ones. You may not because you're an enthusiast,
Speaker 2: a collector, a connoisseer, a collector of names as I am. I.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna give you the name, and you're gonna
Speaker 2: tell me their job. Okay, Okay, okay. Burt Beverage.
Speaker 1: He works in the beverage industry.
Speaker 2: Created Tito's vodka. Oh god, yeah, big okay, Tito's.
Speaker 1: Tito's creator's last name is Beverage.
Speaker 2: Burt Beverage, I did not know. I tell you. Okay,
Speaker 2: I've got some more for you. Okay, Keith Weed. This
Speaker 2: one has a bonus.
Speaker 1: Keith Weed does Keith Weed work in the pot business.
Speaker 2: Head of the Royal Horticultural Society. Mother's maiden name Hedges.
Speaker 1: Oh no, double layer, double So I went the wrong
Speaker 1: kind of weed.
Speaker 2: But this one, you know you were in the in
Speaker 2: the I was, yeah, Joshua, but.
Speaker 1: Is he is he? Is he a fitness trainer?
Speaker 2: I love that you guessed that gastro enterologist? But finished
Speaker 2: sue you lawyer, Yes, correct, probably Lieutenant Les McBurney. We
Speaker 2: may have done this.
Speaker 1: Yes, Les McBurnie is a firefighter.
Speaker 2: That one you and I? Okay, okay, last one. This
Speaker 2: one kind of up your alley. Walter Russell Brain otherwise
Speaker 2: known as the Right Honorable Lord Brain. Is he a psychologist,
Speaker 2: the world famous neurologist. Close enough score for that one.
Speaker 2: Those are some good ones.
Speaker 1: Those are some good ones. One of my favorites that
Speaker 1: I actually, I mean, I think you said that it
Speaker 1: was a hoax and I had to look up the
Speaker 1: whole biography to make sure it wasn't. Nick Burns Cox
Speaker 1: he is a urologist, and he invented something that is
Speaker 1: called the pee in pot.
Speaker 2: That is, that's like a little too on point right.
Speaker 2: We had a doctor doctor recently, We did have.
Speaker 1: A doctor doctor, and I thought that that was very funny.
Speaker 1: But the question is, so, now that we've entertained you
Speaker 1: with some of our famous, famously funny names, the question
Speaker 1: is is there actually anything to this? And so the
Speaker 1: science on it is all over the place, Like, this
Speaker 1: is a hard thing to study because even though there
Speaker 1: are these hilarious examples, like there are billions of people
Speaker 1: in the.
Speaker 2: World, right, what's the chances there wouldn't be a doctor doctor?
Speaker 1: And what's the chance that there wouldn't be a urologist
Speaker 1: whose last name was burns Cox?
Speaker 2: That I think the chances are very high that that
Speaker 2: wouldn't happen. That's a I'm glad we live in this
Speaker 2: one of the multiverse where we got doctor burns Cox.
Speaker 1: But yeah, and we also have base rate stuff, so
Speaker 1: like if your last name is Baker, like and you're
Speaker 1: happened to be in the baking industry, like, come on,
Speaker 1: how many bakers are there? Like? So there are lots
Speaker 1: of confounding factors, and it's not like people have looked
Speaker 1: at lists of every single profession, every and name in
Speaker 1: the world and tried to do any sort of comprehensive studies.
Speaker 1: So all of the data I could find, some find
Speaker 1: evidence of it, some don't. I think it's a wash, right, Like,
Speaker 1: I don't think that there's hugely strong evidence for it.
Speaker 2: But on the other hand, it being that these people
Speaker 2: are actually more likely to go into professions.
Speaker 1: Yea, yea, exactly exactly. But on the other hand, there
Speaker 1: are some reasons to believe that this would be a thing. So,
Speaker 1: for instance, if your last name is Baker, like, chances
Speaker 1: are you are descended from a family of bakers, because
Speaker 1: you know, there is and this is true not just
Speaker 1: in English, so in the Russian language, this is true
Speaker 1: of last names. And I know in a lot of
Speaker 1: different cultures this is true. Names were given to families
Speaker 1: based on the family's professionals directs exactly. So Carpenter, you know,
Speaker 1: was a family of carpenters. And it's really interesting because
Speaker 1: we were just you know, we're talking about genetics, and
Speaker 1: so if you are in a family that wasn't a
Speaker 1: certain kind of craft, so to speak, then you might
Speaker 1: have a genetic predisposition for it, a talent for it,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. So then exactly it's reverse causality
Speaker 1: that you were named this. You still have a family
Speaker 1: name because it's something that your family has been good
Speaker 1: at for multiple generations.
Speaker 2: And what do you think about I don't know, you know,
Speaker 2: I've never really done a deep dive in this literature
Speaker 2: because I just desperately want it to be true, and.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know that's that's fair. I don't think you should.
Speaker 2: But what do you think about the idea? I mean,
Speaker 2: I seem to recall when I read a little bit
Speaker 2: about it, that there was the theory was that people
Speaker 2: are like one, just more aware of jobs that might
Speaker 2: be related to their name or people tell them like,
Speaker 2: oh you should be you know sue you oh you
Speaker 2: should be a lawyer, or they're like more positively disposed
Speaker 2: to those things because kind of people like things with
Speaker 2: their names on them, right, Like that's why like puts
Speaker 2: people's names on a body, Like I see my name,
Speaker 2: I like it. And then maybe they have like a
Speaker 2: little more positive association with some of those professions if
Speaker 2: it feels like related to their name, like they find
Speaker 2: it fun just like we do.
Speaker 1: Oh, I think there's actually evidence for all of these things,
Speaker 1: because that does happen all the time, right Like people
Speaker 1: do say, oh you should do X or Y if
Speaker 1: you have a funny name, if you have a memorable name.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So so, like as crazy as it sounds, there's
Speaker 2: some actually like not very insane theories for like why
Speaker 2: like maybe there's some realiti it's just like more salient
Speaker 2: to you.
Speaker 1: And as we've talked about with genetics, you know, what
Speaker 1: kinds of traits are you more likely to select for?
Speaker 1: You do tend to gravitate two things that are familiar, right,
Speaker 1: and that are comfortable, that remind you of you, of
Speaker 1: you know, your parents, of people you know. And these
Speaker 1: sorts of biases manifest themselves incredibly early on right. We're
Speaker 1: talking infants right that are ten months old already shows
Speaker 1: some of these preferences for faces that are same skin
Speaker 1: color as their parents. It's not something that happens at birth,
Speaker 1: but it does actually start manifesting incredibly early, just because
Speaker 1: you know it is familiar, right, it is what you know.
Speaker 1: And so if you do have a name that is Coxburns,
Speaker 1: then then maybe you know, you end up subconsciously consciously
Speaker 1: on some level thinking more about those types of things.
Speaker 1: Maybe if your last name is Judge, You're like, haha,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it be funny if my name was Judge Judge,
Speaker 1: or you know, if I'm doctor doctor or something like that.
Speaker 1: So you know, on the one hand, this is just
Speaker 1: hilarious and it seems like an artifact, and we collect
Speaker 1: these funny names. On the other hand, there are both
Speaker 1: psychological and historical reasons why this effect might actually be
Speaker 1: an effect. And obviously it's weak, right, And like with anything,
Speaker 1: things are multiply determined, and it's not like, you know,
Speaker 1: you end up doing something just because of this one thing,
Speaker 1: and you might have a last name that's incredibly salient
Speaker 1: and yet do nothing.
Speaker 2: Yeah with that.
Speaker 1: My last name in Russian, by the way, is related
Speaker 1: to horses, and I'm allergic to horses, so you know, definitely.
Speaker 2: Definitely not going to be doing anything else with you
Speaker 2: the horse line I was singing of Russian, there was
Speaker 2: a Russian, a great Russian hurdler named Maria step on Nova,
Speaker 2: which is sound sounds like step on over, you know,
Speaker 2: like a hurdle, But I don't know what it means
Speaker 2: in Russian, so that probably wouldn't be it means of
Speaker 2: Stephen of Stephen. Okay, Yeah, I wonder if the fact
Speaker 2: carries if you're sort of named for someone, too, right,
Speaker 2: because then you'd have those associations like name for some
Speaker 2: prominent person for sure.
Speaker 1: For sure. And I'm thinking now back to kind of
Speaker 1: early colonial days, right, think of the names, like, think
Speaker 1: of your early US history where people were named virtues
Speaker 1: or things that they were that you wanted them to exhibit,
Speaker 1: you know, chastity, virtue, grace, like all of these absolutely yeah,
Speaker 1: crazy names. Some of them are just absolutely temperance, these
Speaker 1: names that just sound completely insane to us now, But
Speaker 1: I think that was one of the reasons they thought
Speaker 1: that maybe if that's your name and you're constantly temperance,
Speaker 1: don't are you sure you want another drink? Temperance.
Speaker 2: I feel like that could go either way. Like my
Speaker 2: parents name me Temperance, So I'm going off the rails
Speaker 2: like forget them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And as I kind of, as I casually mentioned
Speaker 1: at the beginning, you know, base rates are also important here,
Speaker 1: right if we if we're looking at this, you need
Speaker 1: to look at it from a statistically savvy as opposed
Speaker 1: to kind of this name just stands out more, right,
Speaker 1: So I gravitate toward it, and I pick and choose
Speaker 1: the ones that I say, see nominative determinism. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: I think that that's that that's important, And that's an
Speaker 1: analysis that's really hard to do because where are you
Speaker 1: going to get those data sets?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Right, you can't really randomize people to life, you know,
Speaker 2: and see give them different names and see how things turn.
Speaker 1: Out, right, That would be funny.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So basically the bottom line is I'm just going
Speaker 2: to continue to believe that it's completely deterministic and text
Speaker 2: you every hilarious name that I see in the news, and.
Speaker 1: I will laugh every time, and I will text you
Speaker 1: back other hilarious names. So yeah, I think for now
Speaker 1: we can just keep on thinking this is funny for
Speaker 1: anyone listening and wanting tips on whether what they name
Speaker 1: their kid matters, Yes, it does, but don't please don't
Speaker 1: name your kid temperance. That will probably backfire. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: probably That's probably not not what we're going for.
Speaker 2: Name the me YouTuber instead.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly, exactly. Influencer, influencer, TikTok star. I'm actually officially
Speaker 1: changing my name to TikTok star.
Speaker 2: I feel like I feel like there's a strong chance
Speaker 2: this has already happened. Yeah, Like when I was I
Speaker 2: have a son, and when we were naming, I like
Speaker 2: downloaded a bunch of data from the Social Security Administration
Speaker 2: on naming and it was I think it was like
Speaker 2: they gave you every name that was used at least
Speaker 2: I don't know, three times or five times whatever, it
Speaker 2: was you didn't They didn't include in the data names
Speaker 2: that were only used once, and so these the names
Speaker 2: that were used the least but three or five times
Speaker 2: were like literally someone hitting their head on a keyboard,
Speaker 2: and those were used like three to five times in
Speaker 2: a given year. So there's for sure somebody has been
Speaker 2: named TikTok.
Speaker 1: Well, apparently there is a baby that was born this
Speaker 1: year who was named after chat GPT. So it's a
Speaker 1: baby girl and her name is chat Yept. It's a
Speaker 1: Colombian baby.
Speaker 2: So seriously, we are yes. Is this like angling for
Speaker 2: an endorsement or just in technological enthusiasm or like what
Speaker 2: what's find what's going on there?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure, but on August fifteenth, chat Ept Bastidas
Speaker 1: Geta was registered at the local National Registry.
Speaker 2: How they used GPT five though, I don't really like
Speaker 2: it that much. Maybe they should rename the baby cloud
Speaker 2: or something or anthropic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, well for the company, you know, you
Speaker 1: can perplexity, perplexity Gemini. Yeah yeah, but what if Gemini
Speaker 1: isn't a Gemini. I mean that's going to be incredibly.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of considerations.
Speaker 1: This is serious, this is a serious business. So listeners
Speaker 1: please consider choose wisely before choosing a name. But yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this is you know, something that I will
Speaker 1: continue looking at the literature and see if any interesting
Speaker 1: studies come out, because I do. I can't help but
Speaker 1: feel that there might be something to this, right, because
Speaker 1: there are so many reasons why, and because there are
Speaker 1: some data sets that show that, yes, there there is
Speaker 1: kind of a some sort of an effect.
Speaker 2: And it's interesting. You're something kind of ridiculous. It's probably
Speaker 2: not true in psychology in this case. Behind this ridiculous thing,
Speaker 2: there are actually some pretty sort of almost common sense
Speaker 2: like ah, someone's just more aware of this profession, or
Speaker 2: people say you should do this, you should look at that, right, Yeah, yep,
Speaker 2: which is not that hard to understand.
Speaker 1: So there you have at people, whether it's genetics or names.
Speaker 1: Today's episode is all about things that determine your future
Speaker 1: and the future of the world. Thanks so much for
Speaker 1: being such an amazing co host, David. I hope you
Speaker 1: will come back both as a guest and as a
Speaker 1: guest co host when Nate inevitably ends up in Norway
Speaker 1: and can't host the show.
Speaker 2: And I would love to.
Speaker 1: Let us know what you think of the show. Reach
Speaker 1: out to us at Risky Business at pushkin dot fm.
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you're a Pushkin Plus subscriber,
Speaker 1: we have some bonus content for you that's coming up
Speaker 1: right after the credits. And if you're not subscribing yet,
Speaker 1: I mean, what's up with that? Please consider signing up
Speaker 1: next ninety nine a month you get access to all
Speaker 1: that premium content and add free listening across Pushkin's entire
Speaker 1: network of shows. Risky Business is hosted by me Maria
Speaker 1: Kannakova and by my fabulous co host Nate Silver. The
Speaker 1: show is a co production of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia.
Speaker 1: This episode was produced by Isabelle Carter. Our associate producer
Speaker 1: is Sonia Gerwit. Sally helm is our editor, and our
Speaker 1: executive producer is Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Buguer. If
Speaker 1: you like the show, please rate and review us so
Speaker 1: other people can find us too. Thanks for tuning in.