Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for January 9, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: The U.S. president went for emotion last night, choosing to characterize a political fight over his border wall as a humanitarian crisis and accusing his opponents of exposing Americans to danger. As he enters his third year in office, he is digging in on a key component of the campaign that sent him to the White House. We are on that story in just a moment. And then, after a scandal broke a decade ago that saw Ottawa send body bags to a northern Manitoba reserve, where half the homes had no running water, the federal government paid to refit homes with cisterns that could be refilled to give people access at the turn of a tap. So why is it that a lot of people are afraid to drink what comes out of those taps?

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: That tank down there gets really sticky, you know. Can't drink it. It's just good for dishes and flush the toilet mostly. That's all it's good for.

AMT: In half an hour, the CBC's Connie Walker takes us to Garden Hill where failed cisterns, sporadic water delivery and problems with plumbing persist. And it was a birth announcement that shocked the world.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Two beautiful little Chinese girl named Lulu and Nana came crying into the world as healthy as any other babies, a few weeks ago.

AMT: Lulu and Nana began life as embryos whose genes were altered or edited with CRISPR technology in China. A process that is illegal in this country and a gene edit that didn't actually work as planned. The scientists who did this is now said to be in custody in China. We have the backstory on how it came to this in an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Trump's border wall 'rhetoric does not add up,' says immigration journalist

Guests: Philip Bump, Cindy Carcamo

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Over the last several years, I've met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration. I've held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief stricken fathers. So sad. So terrible. I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices and the sadness gripping their souls. How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?

AMT: US President Donald Trump last night addressing the American people about what he said was a crisis on the southern border. The president's televised address, his first from the Oval Office, was watched with keen interest by his supporters who are pressuring him to build a wall and his opponents who say he's ginning up fear and loathing for political purposes. If President Trump was looking for an emotional impact with that speech, his Democratic opponents had their own buttons to push on that front. Here is Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: The fact is President Trump has chosen to hold hostage critical services for the health, safety and well-being of the American people and withhold the paychecks of 800,000 innocent workers across the nation, many of them veterans. He promised to keep government shut down for months or years, no matter who it hurts. That's just plain wrong.

AMT: Is there a crisis and if so is it because of that southern border or because the U.S. government is in the third week of a partial shutdown? To help us unpack the political messages, I'm joined by Philip Bump. He is a national correspondent for The Washington Post and he joins us from New York City and Cindy Carcamo covers immigration and border issues for the Los Angeles Times and we've reached her in Tucson, Arizona. Hello and welcome to both of you.

PHILIP BUMP: Good morning.

CINDY CARCAMO: Hello.

AMT: Philip Bump I want to start with you what stood out for you in last night's speech.

PB: I think the most remarkable aspect of it was that Donald Trump went back to the same well he's drawn from for his entire time in national politics. The way he hammered hard on this idea that immigrants are dangerous that the wall was needed to protect people to keep people alive. He mentioned at one point that thousands more people would die essentially if the wall weren't built. And the reason that's remarkable, it's not remarkable that he made that argument, he's made it so many times before. It's just remarkable that he thinks it's still effective. I mean every American who pays attention to politics has heard him make this case. Most Americans you know in plurality Americans voted against him in 2016, but he won anyway. He made the same case right before the midterms and his party got blown out. But he keeps making the same case and I think in part it's simply because it's worked before and he's sort of hoping it will work again.

AMT: And you know there's a story that says he had an off the record meeting with television anchors yesterday and even he said he didn't think it would work, that he wasn't really, he didn't really want to do this.

PB: Right, I mean honestly it shows a remarkable, non-political savvy. I think there was very little he could say last night I think that was going to change a lot of minds in part because the wall is such a polarizing issue. You know thanks to him. He has made this a staple of his brand of politics and so it's become very polarizing. Not many people are going to change their minds because of it, but also because he simply doesn't have the data to back up the argument he is trying to make. I mean there certainly is a case that there are a lot of asylum seekers in the United States, a growing number that is problematic and that the government has to work through, but it is not the case that there is suddenly some new emergency at the border. His administration's been putting out numbers for the past couple of weeks, trying to make their case and time after time they're debunked because they simply aren't robust enough.

AMT: Cindy Carcamo, what do you think were the most questionable assertions in Mr. Trump's speech?

CC: Well I think the most questionable was that he was calling it uncontrolled, illegal immigration and you know if you were talking about a crisis here, we're really not talking about a crisis about illegal immigration. If you look at the facts, if you look at the statistics that are provided by the Department of Homeland Security, immigration is at historic lows right now. It's the U.S. government gages illegal immigration trends by looking at apprehensions and that's you know that's the number of people apprehended each year trying to cross illegally. And in 2000, this is at the peak, it was 1.6 million apprehensions at the southern border. This last fiscal year, it was about 400,000. So he seems to be conflating two different things, illegal immigration and asylum seekers and the asylum seekers are coming to the country and many of them are coming to the country legally asking for asylum at our ports of entry. And that's a whole different crisis that's happening. That's a crisis that's been made worse by the Trump administration in its immigration policies actually.

AMT: And so as you watched that speech last night Cindy, what were you thinking? What kind of notes were you making?

CC: Well I was you know there are a lot of things that stood out to me. You know the rhetoric does not add up. It does not jive with the facts and the facts are that illegal you know he just conflates illegal immigration with legal immigration, which actually if you look at the policies that are being, that have come down quietly through the Trump administration, a lot of it targets legal immigration and not illegal immigration.

AMT: And he also made a point about the number of drugs coming over the border illegally. I do believe that's all been fact checked Philip Bump?

PB: Yeah, I mean the it is you know again the speech that he gave last night was mostly devoid of some of the more outrageously inflated numbers that he had offered over the course of the past two weeks. For example he stayed away from the argument that he and his members of his administration had made repeatedly about there being this potential for terrorists coming across the border from Mexico into the United States. When earlier this week NBC News reported that actually there were about six times as many non-American citizens who are on the terror watch list who are stopped at the U.S.-Canada border as were stopped at the U.S. Mexico border. I mean it is they had pumped up this number of 4000 and ended up being 6 according to NBC News. And so they shied away from that, which is good. It's good for them obviously not to use numbers that are inflated or misleading. But at the end of the day, the numbers that they did offer, particularly these numbers as I said earlier about the risk posed to Americans, were simply not representing what's going on and you know he also made a case he's been trying to tie this to the opioid epidemic, which most people recognize as being a problem that needs to be addressed. So he argued that there was this huge influx of drugs that comes across the border from Mexico, which is true, except that most of those drugs, as his own administration has reported multiple times, come through existing ports of entry smuggled in vehicles, smuggled on people's person. And so it's not something that a wall would even address. Those are the sorts of things that still remain that were misleading within the speech.

AMT: And this is all against the backdrop of a government shutdown that is now, what is this, day 19?

PB: Right.

AMT: And he doesn't mention the shutdown per se.

PB: Right. I mean he's in a tricky position of his own making because he very famously sitting you know ten feet from where he gave his speech last night he chastised Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and said hey you know I'll own this shutdown. If the shutdowns what we've got to have for border security, for this wall, then I'll own that and now of course he has to won it because this is exactly what happened. He decided to dig in he you know originally as you may remember, there was a deal to keep the government open and that the Senate had passed the bill. The House is poised to pass as well and then all of a sudden Trump apparently heard something on the radio or saw something on Fox News, changed his mind, dug in his heels and now we are here. So I think that he recognizes that the shutdown has not been a political boon for him. It does not get him what he was looking for and so I think he realizes too, talking about it it's not going to do him any good.

AMT: And Cindy you have talked to people in border communities as this debate has raged. What have you been hearing?

CC: Yes well you know I've spoken with people in border communities who have had some kind of fencing or barrier for quite some time. And I think it's really interesting because I think the people who live along the border have way more nuanced view of border security and they will you know they won't necessarily say oh yes you know we need more fencing. You know they might say we need more boots on the ground and others will say actually we feel like we're being invaded and we're militarized. And you know there's a reason why I'm out here for instance, you know there's a reason why I'm out here, you know out in the desert in Arizona. You know I want to get away from government and yet you know there, it really is a militarized zone. You have checkpoints. You know there are people who have to go through checkpoints to get to the grocery store for instance. So it's a very nuanced view and then also you have for instance cattle farmers who have ranches that are at the U.S.-Mexico border there in Arizona and they have, they don't have a fence. They have barbed wire still. But the reason why is because they have this natural kind of barrier, which are mountains and a really inhospitable terrain for human beings. I remember speaking with a rancher who talked about all the bodies that he would find you know of people who had died trying to cross the desert and it would be very, very expensive to build a barrier there. And that's not necessarily what he wants. I mean he wants some kind of fencing, but also the boots on the ground to be able to get to the fence and make those apprehensions and currently there are no or at least around him in Arivaca, Arizona, you know his little area there and there are no roads to be able to get to the fence. So I mean it's a lot more complicated. I think people see the border as this one straight line and it's not. You have different terrain. You have people you know who if you were to put you know areas of fencing along some areas in Texas that would be eminent domain. The federal government would be seizing land and people don't want that. And so I think that's what's kind of lost in the conversation that a lot of the border fencing that's already there is there for a reason and the border fencing that's not there, it's not there for a reason and that's because you have really you know tough terrain anyway that serves as a natural fence, that serves as the natural border. And so I think that that you know first the border is pretty reinforced already and if you're talking about illegal immigration, let's say you know forget the asylum seekers and everything, but most of the people who are in the country legally right now, about half of them didn't even come through the border. They came in legally with a visa. They came through airports. So I think the border and this whole idea of a border wall is all optics and it's a very interesting optic obviously, something tangible. It's something that people can hold on to. They can see the creation of a fence and so it's very, very I think sexy for you know it's very you know it's something that someone can glom onto and can see the progress of. But that's not where the issue is and if he's trying to target illegal immigration and economic illegal immigration, I didn't hear anything about going after employers last night. Right? And that is a really big, that is a very you know there's a reason why people come here and if they're coming for jobs, you know why not target employers who are hiring people in the country illegally. Why glom onto the border?

AMT: Interestingly enough he actually singled out the fact that yeah that it drives down jobs and wages and I'm reading here from his speech, among those hardest hit are African-Americans and Hispanic Americans. Again, trying to the emotional side of this is hurting you, you Americans.

CC: Yeah so and if that is the case, which that's up for debate. You know there are studies that do show that it does disproportionately affect people who didn't go on to college for instance. If that is the case, I didn't hear anything about going after employers who hire people in the country illegally. And but you see, but then you know we have to look at the trends in new immigration and actually like I said, illegal immigration, the people who are coming now are migrating for different reasons. They're asylum seekers, they're not being pulled in by jobs necessarily, they're being pushed by violence in places in Central America. And so that's not you know it really isn't the lure of a job, it's the push of the violence that you know wreaking havoc in these areas and a border wall will not address asylum seekers because the majority of these asylum seekers are within their legal rights under international law. They're doing it legally. They're trying to ask for immigration at least legally and that's the crisis that we have all along the border is that the processing of asylum seekers has gone down. And it's not quick enough. You have people who are waiting along you know in Tijuana who have been waiting for more than a month to be able to just make their case before an asylum officer.

AMT: So that's a manpower issue.

CC: It's definitely a manpower issue. Yes.

AMT: So Philip, so let me just ask Philip. I think the leaders are supposed to meet today. Is there a way out of this? Do you see Trump like digging in? What is there any way to get this moving and because we are talking about what is it 800,000 government workers who are working, but not getting paid to work?

PB: Right and who are very soon going to miss a paycheck. It seems pretty safe to say that the only way out of this barring you know two thirds majority of the Senate being willing to override a veto from President Trump, which seems unlikely given the composition of the Senate. The only way out of this is for Donald Trump to concede and I was going to say admit defeat, but that's not fair cause Donald Trump isn't going admit defeat and Donald Trump never admits defeat. My guess is that he will come up with a way of arguing that he got something that he wanted and then sort of wash his hands and walk away and say that he won, says that the wall is coming. I think that that is almost certainly the obvious solution to this. We've seen that other outlets trying to get Vice President Pence for example to try and resolve some sort of deal with the Democrats. That gets stymied by the fact that Donald Trump will change his mind on a whim and then you know you can't make a deal with someone when your boss will suddenly override you simply because he saw something on TV, which is the way it works in the Trump White House. So Trump himself is going to have to concede. It seems fair to say that will happen over the short to medium term. You know he talks a lot about having this go on indefinitely. I think he's tired of it. I think he's looking for an out and once he finds that out, I think he'll seize it.

AMT: What will the Democrats bring to the table today?

PB: My guess is the same thing they brought before, which is this agreed upon Republican passed bill that happened in the last Congress, right before the shutdown began. I think they'll say let's go back to this saying let's get this passed. They've already passed it again in the house. All they have to do is pass it in the Senate. You know the Senate didn't change much that the votes aren't there for it. And then of course they have to get Donald Trump to sign it, but that's a level of specificity that is broader than what you really needed when you asked the question and the Democrats don't have to bring anything. Democrats I think have effectively played their hand of saying no to the wall and I don't see anything that's going to change them from that position at this point.

AMT: So what happens to all of those people who are waiting at the border, Cindy, as this goes on?

CC: Well they're waiting. Some are very, that's the issue, you know some are very desperate. And some, not all obviously, but some do decide to cross clandestinely and give themselves up you know within the two ports of entry, which Trump has you know said that it's the wrong way to do it. You know you have to go give yourself up at a port of entry and not between. Although you know there is a court case right now about that because some say that under international law, you can go through you know in between ports of entry and ask for asylum. So some people are kind of giving up on what you know on what Trump thinks is the illegal way and are trying to go in you know through the ports of entry and try to give themselves up there. And you know you have to keep in mind that these are people who are, not all of them obviously, but you know there are many who are trying to escape with their lives. I'm speaking with one woman in particular, who was a victim of domestic violence. She was escaping her batterer and her batterer was a member she said of a big drug cartel and he was actively looking for her and still looking for her in Tijuana and yet she's you know hiding out in Tijuana, waiting for her turn in line, to give herself up before immigration officials. So for some of these people, it really is a matter of life or death. As they're in squalid conditions, a lot of these people who are waiting to give themselves up for asylum, are children. They are mothers with really small children and so it's just a really, really hard situation. It is a humanitarian crisis in that sense, but it's about asylum. It's not about illegal immigration if we're talking about a crisis and that's not being addressed.

AMT: OK well we're going to leave it there. Thank you both. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming days as that government shutdown continues as well. Thank you both of you.

PB: Thank you.

CC: Thank you.

AMT: That is Philip Bump, national correspondent for The Washington Post. He's in New York City. Cindy Carcamo covers immigration and border issues for the LA Times. We reached her today in Tucson, Arizona. Stay with us, the news is next and then CBC investigative journalist Connie Walker joins me. She is just back from the Indigenous community of Garden Hill, Manitoba. They have a water treatment facility there. A lot of people aren't hooked up to it and they say they still cannot drink what comes out of their taps from the cisterns they've been given. We'll talk about that. We'll look at that crisis. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio One.

[Music: Theme]

This First Nation produces clean water. So why are so many residents afraid to drink it?

Guests: Connie Walker

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come Chinese scientist He Jiankui made global headlines when he announced the birth of twin baby girls in November. They became the first ever children born after their embryos were genetically edited. The moral outcry over his actions was loud and swift. In half an hour, we're going behind the headlines to get the backstory of the birth of the so-called CRISPR babies. But first, water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: It is a perennial problem in this country and a perennial source for many of national shame. I'm talking about the issue of clean drinking water in Indigenous communities. It is such a fundamental need that the federal Liberals highlighted it as a key part of their promise for reconciliation and the funding has been pledged, $1.8 billion, mostly to address long term boil water advisories on reserves. Half of that money has been spent and there have been results. 78 long term boil advisories have been lifted and in the decade between 2007 to 2017, the number of homes on reserves in need of indoor plumbing across the country has dropped by about 40 percent. A little over 2000 homes still don't have plumbing. Many of the improvements have come in Manitoba and they've reached the fly-in communities of Island Lake, which are 600 kilometres north of Winnipeg. But you might not know it after visiting Garden Hill. Many in that community of 4000 and its sister reserves, are still in a daily battle to ensure a steady supply of safe clean water. And that is despite a water treatment plant in the community. CBC investigative reporter Connie Walker visited Garden Hill for a look at the reality just below the surface of the encouraging national statistics. She joins me in our Toronto studio. Hi Connie.

CONNIE WALKER: Hi Anna Maria.

AMT: Garden Hill was in the headlines about ten years ago. Remind us what happened.

CW: Well it was one of the reserves in northern Manitoba that fought an outbreak of H1N1 that sickened dozens of people in 2009. And at the time, health officials blamed the outbreak on poor hygiene connected to a lack of indoor plumbing because at that time only half the homes in Garden Hill had any running water at all. So the communities asked the federal government for help and you remember they sent body bags.

AMT: I do remember and there was outrage.

CW: Yes. So two years later the government pledged $30 million to help improve and install indoor plumbing in 769 Island Lakes homes that didn't have it. So in Garden Hill, 216 homes were retrofitted and renovated with cisterns or water tanks and septic tanks. And according to the chief and council, those retrofits were supposed to be a temporary measure.

AMT: So give me a snapshot of what the water concerns are in Garden Hill now.

CW: Well we started looking into this story after receiving some data from Indigenous Services Canada that showed that thousands of Indigenous families across the country have significant challenges accessing any source of clean water. Now Garden Hill is a big community. Half of the homes are connected to the water treatment plant, but 20 percent don't have any water at all and 30 percent were part of this retrofitting program. So they now have cisterns and water tanks, but separate data that we found shows that the water in nearly one third of those cisterns in Garden Hill, didn't meet national standards for water safety.

AMT: So what does that mean for the day to day lives of the people who live in Garden Hill and are trying to use water?

CW: Well that's what we wanted to find out. So we traveled to the community of Garden Hill and we just started knocking on people's doors to ask them that and one of the first people we met was a man named Wallace Knott.

SOUNDCLIP

[Knock on door]

Hi. I'm Connie Walker with CBC.

CW: He and his family live in a four bedroom bungalow overlooking Island Lake. It's a beautiful spot.

SOUNDCLIP

CW: It's a beautiful spot.

VOICE 1: Yeah it is, right by the lake.

CW: Now their house was built with faucets and sinks and a bathtub and a toilet. But it was actually eight years before it was connected to any water source. So for eight years he got his water from going to the community's only water fountain or more often than not, from just going down to the lake, the bottom of his front yard. But as part of the retrofitting program, he did receive a water tank and a septic tank. So now his family can turn on the taps to do laundry and you know everything else and although that sounds good in theory, Wallace doesn't trust the water that comes out of his taps.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: It's just good for dishes and flush the toilet mostly. That's all it's good for. It's soggy, sticky.

CW: This water is sticky?

VOICE 1: Yes and it doesn't smell good.

CW: You don't think that it's safe to drink?

VOICE 1: No it's not safe to drink. Put your hand in here, you can feel it. Feel your hand after.

CW: Like there's a film on it.

VOICE 1: Yeah, yeah. Can you feel it? So it doesn't taste good either.

AMT: So if the water that does come out of his taps is only good for dishes. Where does he get his drinking water?

CW: Well he actually keeps two separate like huge 170 liter barrels of water for drinking and cooking in the kitchen. And then he you know dips the pitcher in whenever he needs to get a glass of water or fill up his kettle or whatever and that water comes from the delivery truck.

AMT: What would happen if he or anyone in his family did drink from that tap?

CW: Well he says that he and his wife used to do that, but then they got sick.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We were drinking it and that's when diarrhea started and then after that we found out that were were getting diarrhea and sick on stomach. That's when we stopped drinking out of the tap. Even if you boiled it, I still wouldn't drink it.

AMT: OK so even though he's finally got the water, he can't drink it. Does the cistern work?

CW: Well it works, but it only works when it's filled up. A water truck comes every so often, but they often run out of water. And when the cistern is empty, it can be several days or even longer before they get a refill. So that means they have to ration water. They bathe they say just once a week and when the water runs out, the toilet doesn't work, so the family has to resort to using a slot pill instead. Wallace also has problems getting his septic tank emptied. He says sometimes it gets so full that it starts backing up into the bathtub.

AMT: He talked about boiling water. Does Garden Hill have a boil water advisory in place?

CW: No Garden Hill has never had a long term boil water advisory and even short term advisories are rare, but still Wallace was just one of many Garden Hill residents who refuse to drink the water that comes out of their taps.

AMT: So what are the people who are in charge of keeping the water clean say about this.

CW: Well we went to the water treatment plant in Garden Hill and we met a man named Andrew Flett. He was the assistant operator there until told just a few weeks ago.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: So what I'm doing here is collecting my water sample. And what we need is right here is 10 milliliters. My full name is Donald Andrew Flett. I am a water plant operator, the back up.

CW: So when we met Andrew, he was still an apprentice, but already second in command and he took his job really seriously and he knows about water because he also used to be the water truck driver in the community.

AMT: So what does he think about the water quality in Garden Hill?

CW: Well we asked him about that. He took us to actually on a tour of the north end, where none of the houses there are hooked up to the water treatment plant and where people, including him, go to collect water at a water fountain. Now as I mentioned, there's only one water fountain in the whole community. It's basically a big steel container with a tap and a hose on the outside that just runs constantly and people come there and bring their pails to fill up water.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: This is where I get my drinking water. Most people do have retrofitted for cistern tanks.

CW: You have a cistern at home?

VOICE 2: Yes I do, but I don't I don't drink out of mine because there's like a film that settles at the bottom of every tank. So they usually hire two guys to go out to all the houses in north end to clean the cistern thanks, but all that film, that slime I guess you can call it, that settles, it's full of bacteria and you can get sick. Causes like diarrhea, eating problems and all that.

CW: Have you gotten sick from the water?

VOICE 2: Yes we did a few years ago and that's when we noticed that it was the water and not something in our home.

AMT: So Connie, even the man who's in charge of making sure drinking water is safe, doesn't drink it.

CW: Yeah exactly. I mean he trusts the water, right. It was his job to make sure that it was safe drinking water for the community. He tests it every day, but his health is not connected to the water treatment plant. And so the water that starts out clean has to go through his cistern before it comes out of his tap and that's where the problem is.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: I trust the water up until it hits my cistern because the cistern is what's pulling up all the bacteria. The illness is caused by just the water just sitting there and like whatever can't float to the top is being used. It all settles into the bottom and it just creates a sludge I guess.

CW: Do you think it's safe for anyone in Garden Hill to drink the water from their cisterns?

VOICE 2: Well as long as it's cleaned. It should be cleaned on a bi-yearly basis, like twice a year. That'd be my best guess and yeah It'd fine, but once a year and there's been cases of people finding mice in their cisterns. So if they can, I suggest they get water from the fountain because it's constantly running and nothing settles in. And it's always moving, so it's kept nice and clean.

AMT: So Andrew Flett says he trusts the water until it hits the cisterns and that he would be fine with it if there were clean cisterns. Why aren't they being clean, why isn't that happening?

CW: Well Alvin Little who's Garden Hill's operations and maintenance manager said the band doesn't get enough money to clean the cisterns regularly. He said last year in 2018, they cleaned about 100 of the community's 218 cisterns. We also spoke to a University of Manitoba researcher named Annemieke Farenhorst. She focuses on water issues on reserves. She says cisterns should be cleaned at least once a year to prevent bacteria from building up, but Wallace Knott says he doesn't remember when his cistern was last clean and Andrew Flett said that his cistern has never been cleaned because it was actually installed under his house. And so in order to get to it, he would need to cut a hole in his floor, which he obviously doesn't want to do.

AMT: So Andrew Flett and Wallace Knott both say they get their water delivered by truck. How does that water truck delivery work?

CW: So we went out on a water delivery run with a truck. So when people run out of water at home, they called the band office to get on a list for the water truck to come and deliver. But you know when we saw the list it was two pages long because demand is huge and there are only two trucks in the entire community. So sometimes people wait days, a week, two weeks, even up to a month for water.

AMT: A month to get more water?

CW: Yes and so they might be able to go to their neighbor's house and borrow some from them or they'll have to go to the community fountain, but you know you can't flush your toilets without any water in the cistern. You can't obviously drink any of the water. So it's a hardship. There used to be a third truck, but it broke down several years ago and because of funding shortfalls, it hasn't been repaired.

AMT: Wow. It's just one problem on top of another problem. Who else did you hear from?

CW: Well we really wanted to talk to a family that was living without water because when we arrived in the community, we knew that 20 percent of the homes, you know didn't have any access to water at all. And we had knocked on a couple of doors and tried to talk to people and we hadn't had any luck. So we actually went to the local TV radio station to try to speak directly to people in the community and asked them, explain to them what we were doing, but also to ask them if they'd be willing to talk to us. And we were introduced by Mark Bartman. He's the band manager and he first addressed people in the language. So a lot of people in the community there speak their language.

SOUNDCLIP

Speech

CW: Following that I went on and I made my pitch. I explained to the people why we were there.

SOUNDCLIP

CW: We're doing a story about water, about access to water on reserves.

CW: And asked for them to call in if they were interested in talking to us or to let us know what else we should be looking at. And this was being broadcast on the radio, on the local radio station, but also on TV.

SOUNDCLIP

CW: And also who still don't have access to indoor plumbing. And so we wanted to come to Garden ?Hill.

CW: And then Andrew Flett, who was the former water treatment assistant operator, who was also a bit of our tour guide while we were there, he also spoke.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: Hello good afternoon. So if anybody doesn't have running water in their house, just call the TV station. If you want to talk with these people they are trying to raise awareness, so they can help us with our situation and other situations in other reserves. The government and the people need to know what we go through in our lives on a daily basis. So don't be scared. I've been talking with them all day. They're nice people and they just want to help us. So if you don't have running water in your house or if you know someone that they don't have running water.

[Phone rings].

CW: And then the phone calls started coming in.

AMT: And what kinds of stories did you start to hear?

CW: First of all, I was surprised by how many people called in. Like there were a lot of people who responded and some of them had suggestions about who we should talk to, but for the most part, a lot of people called in to express their concerns.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: Another guy called saying that the reason why some people don't want to talk to you is.

CW: They were really hesitant to talk to us and just wary of the media in general. We weren't the first crew to come to Garden Hill to talk about water issues. There have been several stories over the years and people felt frustrated. They felt like they had been burned by the media in the past, that nothing had changed. And while we were at the radio station you know we got several calls from people who were hesitant to talk to us at all. And I remember one caller in particular who said I know what you're going to show. You're going to show the slop pails and the outhouses and it's embarrassing for us.

AMT: And were you able to talk to anyone who lives without water of any kind?

CW: Yes. That evening actually we met the Littles. They're two elders in the community and their son is actually a counselor and that's you know he arranged for us to talk to his parents and they invited us into their house. They live in a two bedroom house with their two adult sons. One is single, but one has a wife and a child and were about to have another baby on the way. And they don't have any running water. They did. They were one of the lucky ones who got a retrofit, but then their house was renovated and I'm using air quotes when I say renovated because for some reason that no one seems to understand, when their house was renovated, all of their plumbing and pipes were taken out and so was their furnace.

AMT: You got to be kidding me.

CW: Yeah. So now they have one baseboard heater that heats their entire home in the living room. They have a bathroom that has a bath tub that they use for storage, but no toilet or sink. They don't have a sink in the kitchen. For drinking water, they use these two large plastic barrels, about a metre high, as soon as you walk in the door. That's what they use for washing and cooking and they both work. They both still work, they're elders in the community, but they both still work at the school in Garden Hill and they also go in there on their days off on Saturdays.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 3: We don't bathe.

VOICE 4: And we don't have a shower.

VOICE 3: We go to the school, we take a shower there twice a week. And that's where we wash all our clothes there too. Only on Saturdays.

AMT: Connie, what does that mean for them day in day out, trying to live like that, trying to run their household?

CW: They're frustrated and they say that it takes a toll on them and their family.

SOUNDCLIP

You're mad all the time cause nothing is done when you ask for help. I'm ok, at least I'm ok. You're getting mad every time and often just keep it to yourself. There's nobody to talk to.

AMT: Mad all the time. That's a frustrating laugh there. It's so heartbreaking.

CW: Yeah I mean we talked to so many people and saw how they faced the challenges of living with no water in different ways. Obviously frustration and anger masked with laughter, just like you hear from the Littles, but also a real desire to push for better. We met a young man named Zachary Flett for example and he works at the band office. He and his family live without water and it took some convincing, but he agreed to let us come and visit him and his family at their house.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 5: I wake up at six o'clock in the morning. I make fire. I get ready for the day and I come here, I have coffee, breakfast. And my grandmother usually likes to drop me off at work, really close.

CW: So Zachary and his grandmother Maggie and their family, they don't just live without running water. They actually don't have any hydro or power in their house. They don't have a furnace. They used to. They lived in another house that had all of those things, but then they lost their house in a fire in 2017 and were forced to move into this house that you know doesn't have any insulation. There's a woodstove and Zachary chops wood for the fire every morning and they do have a fridge and a TV and lamps, but they have to run extension cords from a neighbor's house to plug all of those things in. So Zachary sees the hardship that the lack of water poses for himself and his grandmother and his family and he wants to change that.

AMT: How does he get water now?

CW: Like Andrew Flett and everyone else who lives without water, he has to go to the fountain to fill up.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 5: And it's pretty dangerous, especially during the winters, especially for elders, such as my grandmother here. There's the potential of hazard and danger of her slipping.

AMT: So with no indoor plumbing, having to trek to that fountain to get water with all those hazards around it, how do they use the toilet, how do they use the washroom?

CW: Well I asked that question and Zachary's grandmother Maggie Flett answered.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 6: I don't think you'd want to see it. Well there's an outdoor.

CW: So you have you have to go out there to the outhouse too in the winter?

VOICE 6: Yeah. Well we have a little pail. We do try our best and we do try not to complain about it. I just tell them to be happy wherever we are and and everybody is safe and we have family and just be content. Things will work out eventually. That's what I always tell them.

CW: So the Fletts obviously struggle with the lack of access to water, but their situation shows how this is actually part of what is a housing crisis in Garden Hill. Now most of the homes without water were not able to be part of the retrofit program because they really shouldn't be lived in. They don't have the capacity for hydro and the home that Zachary and Maggie had to move into, it doesn't have any insulation or power and was abandoned before they were forced to move in after that house fire. We talked to the Chief and Council and they say that the community is in need of 300 homes to manage this housing crisis, but the reality is they get the funding to build just a handful each year.

AMT: Now the federal Liberals are spending $1.8 billion dollars to improve access to clean water on reserves. Does Garden Hill fit in with that?

CW: No, they don't actually because most of that funding from the federal government is for reserves that have long term boil water advisories. But Garden Hill doesn't have a boil water advisory. The water, their treatment plant is clean, but only half the homes on the reserve are directly connected to it. But the Federal Government says they do also provide additional funding for urgent needs, but as far as Indigenous services is concerned, they don't see an urgent need in Garden Hill. There's not an urgent health crisis here due to the water. Garden Hill does get funding, yearly funding for water services, the government says that money should be enough to clean the cisterns every year and that it's up to the bands to make sure that happens. But they admit that the money that they give the band for maintenance and operations like repairing the water truck or replacing pumps for the cisterns is inadequate. They say that it's based on an old funding model and that they're in consultations right now with the Assembly of First Nations to try to come up with a new formula and that's not just for Garden Hill, that's for all reserves.

AMT: And in the meantime, what's the community asking for? What does it need?

CW: Well Alan Little who's the maintenance manager in Garden Hill, he says the community needs funding to train and pay tradespeople, such as plumbers and electricians to repair the problems as they arise. And the band has also asked the government for permission to conduct a feasibility study to build a second water treatment plant to connect most of the Garden Hill homes to pipes and that would bring water directly from the treatment plant into people's homes. The chief of garden is Dino Flett. He's a distant relative to Andrew and Zachary and he says that the federal government hasn't responded to their request yet. And we spoke to Michelle, a director in the Manitoba Office of Indigenous Services and he said that he wasn't aware of the request from Garden Hill.

AMT: So with all of that, do people in the community have any hope that things are going to change for the better anytime soon?

CW: Well I think you know as we've been hearing, there's a lot of cynicism and frustration in the community. People have been living with this unreliable access to water for so long that they're skeptical that things will change. But you know they're also incredibly proud and resilient people. You just heard Zachary's grandmother Maggie say how you know she tells her family everything is going to be OK and you know she helps her family get through their hardships by reminding them that things will work out and everything is OK, as long as they have each other. They have their family. But I'm sure that there are some people who are listening who wonder because they have so many challenges in accessing water and safe housing, why families like the Fletts stay in Garden Hill. So I asked them.

SOUNDCLIP

CW: Why do you stay here?

VOICE 6: My family. My community. We've tried moving out to the city, but it wasn't the same. We just want to come home. That's all.

CW: What about you Zach, you spent some time outside of Garden Hill too, right?

VOICE 5: Yes, quite some time. The reason we don't leave is this is home. No matter how bad things are, how people look at it and view it, this is home and we choose to stay here because we were not only born here or raised here, this is where we choose to make our home because not only the beauty, not only the history, but as a community we choose to make this our home.

AMT: But none of that means they don't want the accountable people to step up and fix this.

CW: Yeah I'm sure they'd love to stay home with you know a safe house to live in and clean drinking water coming out of their taps.

AMT: Lot of disturbing facts in that story, Connie. Thank you.

CW: Thank you for having me.

AMT: Connie Walker, investigative reporter with CBC, with me in our Toronto studio. You can watch Connie's story about Garden Hill on The National today on CBC Television. Let us know what you think of what she's just reported. You can tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. Go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. Coming up in our next half hour, we're going to get the story behind the story of the controversial birth of the so-called CRISPR babies. You might remember the last Monday in November, they announced the birth of two little girls, their embryos were genetically modified. First time that's ever happened. We've got that story when we return. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

U.S. scientist says he tried to stop Chinese researcher from making first gene-edited babies

Guests: Matthew Porteous, William Hurlbut, Sharon Begley

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Two beautiful Chinese girl named Lulu and Nana came crying into the world as healthy as any other babies a few weeks ago. The girls are home now with their mom Grace and their dad Mark. Grace started her pregnancy by regular IVF, with one difference.

AMT: And what a difference it was. That's Chinese scientist He Jiangkui making a birth announcement heard around the world last November. Because those twin baby girls are the first ever genetically modified babies, first ever humans born from genetically modified embryos, He Jiangkui told the world that he had altered the girl's genes to prevent them from getting HIV. He did it by editing genes in their embryos, a use of the CRISPR gene editing technology that has been banned in many parts of the world, including in Canada. When news of what he had done first came out at last fall's International Genome Editing summit in Hong Kong, there was surprise and swift condemnation. It turns out He Jiangkui had been consulting with scientists in the field for years however, including two of my next guests. William Hurlbut is a physician and adjunct professor and senior research scholar in neurobiology at Stanford University. Matthew Porteous is a professor of pediatrics and a stem cell researcher also at Stanford. We're also joined by Sharon Begley, a senior science writer at The Boston Globe's life sciences publication STAT. Hello to you all.

SHARON BEGLEY: Thank you.

MATTHEW PORTEOUS: Good morning.

AMT: You were all at that summit in Hong Kong. Matthew Porteous, you were on stage with Dr. He, for a question and answer session after he presented his work. What did you want to find out from him?

MP: I was interested in finding out details of what he had done, so that we could fully understand the scope of what he had done. In addition, I think we were all interested in understanding his rationale and thought process around why he did this, despite many people around the world saying that what he was claiming to have done, was something that should not have been done. So how was he thinking about why he should do this, in addition to really getting out the scientific details of what he claimed to have done.

AMT: How clear is it exactly what He Jiangkui has actually done?

MP: I think we're pretty clear that he injected two embryos. He analyzed those embryos before implanting them. The embryos grew into healthy, seemingly healthy baby girls, who are currently alive. We don't know anything about how many other embryos were injected, how many others were implanted. Were there any miscarriages? We did learn at the conference that there is another pregnancy, but we have very few details about what that other pregnancy is. So there's many, many unanswered or at least to me, unanswered details, but I think the general scope of what he's done is pretty well understood.

AMT: And Matthew Porteous, how did you react when you found out what he claims to have done?

MP: I was in shock as you are aware, as he had discussed with me a year before, that this was something that he was planning on doing. And at that time, I strongly, vehemently advised him that this is something that he should not do and he should immediately stop and turn broader discussions with senior scientists in China and around the world. So then when I heard he had actually done it, I really was shocked that he had done this in such a sort of secretive fashion in some senses, but in other fashion, in other senses, he had hinted that he might be doing this.

AMT: Sharon Begley, you spoke to some of the scientists who had dinner with He Jiangkui the night before his presentation. Why was that such a tense situation?

MP: So as as Dr. Porteous said, some scientists around the world knew that Dr. He was intending this, but again they were shocked that it happened. It's not an exaggeration to say that it was a bombshell. So the organizers of the summit were faced with a quandary, first is Dr. He even going to appear. Is he going to show up in Hong Kong? He did. He drove down from Shenzen, the high tech industrial city across the border in China the night before and there he was on Monday. And about four of the organizers had dinner with him at the hotel where they were all staying and the reason that it was tense as Dr. Porteous was alluding to, nobody knew what he done. All the scientists had were the news reports and you know good as they were, there was not a scientific paper. So Dr. He had not published. He still has not published describing his methods, describing his results. So people were left with what are we going to do with this. So they peppered him with questions about both the science and the ethics. They asked questions about whether for instance the parents of the two girls who were born, as well as the other parents who were in the study, whether they truly had given informed consent. Whether they truly knew what they were getting into, whether they knew the risks to the children et cetera. What authority did he have to do this? What sign off did he have from ethics boards and others? And it did get pretty tense and as the dinner was winding down, Dr. He looked at his cell phone and said that he was getting threatening texts and emails from people. He did not say from whom and he apparently at that point had just had enough. So two of the attendees said that he had just pulled out his money, his currency, put it on the table and walked off. And even at that point scientists were not sure whether he would show up for his Wednesday scheduled presentation.

AMT: William Hurlbut, you had several conversations with He Jiangkui far before the summit about the ethics of CRISPR gene editing. Did you know he was planning to edit genes in human embryos and implant them for pregnancy?

WILLIAM HURLBUT: I knew he was already doing fundamental studies with mice and monkeys. Even that was happening when we first met. Subsequently he told me he'd been doing editing on human embryos that were not intended for implantation. I did not know that he was, that he had implanted embryos, but I into a woman's womb, but I've more or less intuited that when I met with him in late October this past year, just a month before the June summit.

AMT: So you knew, but you didn't confirm your intuition?

WH: He told me a major paper was coming out. He told me that his foundational research, but he did not reveal to me that he'd either implanted or had life born children at that point. So I think there wasn't anybody who quite knew the full story. We all knew pieces of it and it was not secretive. He did talk to a lot of people, but he didn't talk to any one group of people to assess his work and I kept urging him stay in conversation, coordinated thought with the larger scientific and bioethics community because that's the right way to do this, if you're going to proceed. And I was trying to inform him of the basic parameters of ethical concern here. We talked in very broad terms about the meaning of human intervention. And if you back away from this story for a minute, the reason it's so important and the reason it was so tense in Hong Kong, was an amazing thing to be there. I think Matt can confirm it. It was, I felt like I was right at the epicenter of the human story for at least that chapter of it that week. It was a moment where something of great significance for the human future was being announced and the meaning of this is so great that it needs to be done very carefully and needs to be approached very thoughtfully. And that had not happened.

AMT: Did you try to stop him?

WH: I tried to caution him about the imprudence of what he seemed to be heading toward doing. I didn't, it was not a position to stop him. I was in no official capacity of even advice, not to mention authority over him. But what I did do was talk to him very deeply. I mean I had long conversations with him. One time we talked from noon until dinner. I really wanted to try to have him think deeply about what he was doing. He's actually a very likable person and I think he's a well-meaning person and I don't agree with some of the caricatures that have been put out in the media about him being kind of just interested in fame and fortune. I think like many of my colleagues, he's worked very hard for his training and he wants to do significant things with it. He wants to do good with it.

AMT: And let's just for a minute talk about the weight of this idea of using CRISPR and gene editing when it comes to an embryo. For us laypeople, spell it out for me. Why is this such a big thing?

MP: The reason it's a big thing is that fortunately the human species has an incredibly diverse genome. No single sequence of the genome is identical to anyone else's and that diversity is I think what is amazing and is something to be celebrated. But that diversity has come naturally, through selection and evolution and randomness, but it's not been engineered intentionally. Now I am of the belief that if the process is carried out correctly, that there may be rare and very specialized times in which the use of this technology to prevent someone from being born with a serious devastating disease could be justified, but there are many others who believe that even that is something that we should not be doing. And for JK to take it in his own hands and almost unilaterally make the decision of bringing human beings into the world with intentionally changed DNA in their cells to sequences that do not exist in the human population is frankly arrogant and I'm a little less sympathetic than Bill. I have had conversations with JK, but nonetheless I think that what he did was arrogant and irresponsible.

WH: This is Bill. Let me add to what Matt just said to clarify. In medicine we try to approach things in the least invasive way possible because you know the first principle in medicine is do no harm. Matt is working for example on doing gene editing for sickle cell anemia. Very, very exciting, very hopeful research. What's different about what was done by Dr. He, by JK was that he did something that will be passed on from his patients if you will, from these two little twins, be passed on to their children. So we're not talking about a procedure to treat a disorder in an individual patient, we're talking about engaging the entire future of the lineage of those individuals who are edited. In other words, this raises the prospect of human beings turning back and affecting their own evolutionary process at least along limited lineages. Now there's a lot of popular talk about designer babies and state run eugenics programs and frankly we just don't know how realistic those prospects are. I think that's going to be a lot harder to do than most of the journalistic portraits of it, but it does put us at that moment, where the human species is now for the first time in the history of life, about four billion years of unfolding life process, there's a creature that exists on the earth now that can affect its own future evolution and that's a significant moment. It's something that should be talked about deeply and carefully, not something that should be rushed into. And given the fact that there are compelling reasons for doing this, for medical reasons, for the individual patients, it's especially important that we not rush into this kind of thing.

AMT: Sharon Begley, the actual gene edit that was done or supposedly done, didn't even necessarily turn out the way that it was expected to turn out. Am I right?

SB: You are indeed right. The intent was to edit the genomes of the embryos so that they would be forever immune, once they were born and adults from HIV infection. And indeed there is a natural human genetic variation that protects people from infection with the HIV virus, the one that causes AIDS. But what Dr. He did and his use of CRISPR Cas 9 did not recreate, did not produce that natural human genetic variation. Instead CRISPR went in and basically just sort of blew up that region of the genome that created mutations, changes in the DNA that had never been seen before and whose consequences are unknown. And so in addition to the points that Bill and Matt raised about you know changing the human gene pool, directing human evolution, there's a very, very basic question here. Dr. He did not know what the consequences of the edits he made will be. Researchers have said that at minimum, he should have, again when he looked at the edits in the embryos before they were implanted, he should have recreated those exact mutations in the DNA of mice let's say, create mice with those mutations and see what the heck happened. To see if there were going to be a likely deleterious consequences, but he didn't do that, which is why he has gotten a great deal of criticism. Again, possibly endangering the girls sometime down the line. I'll just add one other point. So as Bill explained, Dr. Porteous and others are using or hoping to use developing the use of CRISPR Cas 9 to treat and prevent just horrific human diseases, including sickle cell disease, a number of others, but what Dr. He did is in the eyes of many, not curing a disease, but enhancement and by that I mean the girls did not have HIV AIDS. There are lots of ways to keep yourself from getting HIV AIDS as you enter adulthood and beyond. What he did or at least what he attempted to do, was give them eternal lifelong protection against this. He did not cure, you know prevent them from developing Huntington's disease or any of the other just horribly severe inherited genetic disorders that people have. Instead he did something that again looks like enhancement to a lot of people and enhancement is where you start to get talk about designer babies.

AMT: But I want to go back to what you said because the edit didn't actually take the way that it was expected to take, these two little girls, these infants, do we know how they'll grow up? Do we know what they'll be like, like do you know what that could do to them down the road?

SB: I don't think anybody knows that and again, at least that data that Dr. He showed in Hong Kong, the actual DNA sequences that he produced are not ones that people understand in terms of their consequences for health or anything else as these little girls grow up.

AMT: Matthew Porteous, if it turns out that what was done was safe, does that make what he did okay?

MP: Yeah I think that's a really important point because I've heard many people condemn what Dr. He does because we don't know that it was safe. And I think that's actually a dangerous argument because if it turns out that these baby girls are healthy then Dr. He can look and say well it was safe and therefore it was the right thing to do. And that's where I strongly disagree that even if these babies turn into healthy long lived human beings, I still believe this was wrong and irresponsible. And so it's not just a technical issue of not knowing whether it's safe, it's much broader than that. And I think as somebody who is an expert in the field, I think there's a reasonable chance that these babies don't have off target effects given the technology that Dr. He used. I think that we don't know the consequences of what we'll call the on target change, the change that was intended in the CCR5 gene, how that will impact the babies. But in terms of the editing itself, it may have been technically safe, but I think that that still does not mean it was the right thing to do. And I believe what he did was wrong.

AMT: And can I confirm, it would be against regulations in Western countries?

MP: Well I think it's hard to say broadly in Western countries. It would be illegal in the United States.

AMT: Canada?

MP: It's illegal in Canada. It would be illegal in many western countries, but I don't know the detailed laws of every country to say in all countries.

AMT: So Matthew Porteous, if you had concerns about what another scientist told you about their work, are there people or organizations you could go to, particularly about a scientist working in another country?

MP: Yeah it's an issue that has come out of this, is frankly there is not. There is not a international body that regulates or oversees science around the world. And that's probably a good thing, probably having such an administrative structure would slow advancement and slow the development of therapies for serious diseases and so I think this issue has highlighted for people such as myself is I learned that he was thinking of doing this. I am troubled by the fact that what I did was not sufficient in convincing him that he shouldn't do it. And so I have thought a lot about what if anything, I could have done to change that. And there's no easy answer. I'm not sure what the answer is because fundamentally science requires us to trust our colleagues. That when I share an idea that I have to trust that my colleague across the table is not going to announce it to the world and vice versa. And is this an example that crosses such a boundary that if you hear it, you should tell someone and we don't have standards by which yes you should disclose certain types of experiments, but other experiments you should respect the culture of science and respect people's confidences. And I think that's going to be a discussion that will continue for years.

AMT: Sharon Begley, what do we know about what is happening with He Jiangkui now?

SB: Not terribly much. There is at least one investigation into his experiment, his university, the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzen has said that it has closed down his lab, the clinical trial that led to the birth of the girls he calls Nana and Lulu has been stopped, although as Matt said earlier, there is a second pregnancy. So at least one investigation is ongoing. A couple of reporters spotted Dr. He on the balcony of a building in Shenzen, it's university housing. The hallway to his room had a couple of at least a couple of guards there. So by some interpretations he is under house arrest, by others he's just being protected. So it's not at all clear. And the Chinese Ministry of Science has gone both ways in saying whether he is under house arrest. So I think everybody is just waiting for the investigators to finish. They have not even said whether they will issue a public report. So everyone really is in a wait and see attitude.

AMT: And you know we're talking about CRISPR. One of the great advantages of CRISPR was that it was going to be able to democratize gene editing. It's relatively inexpensive, compared to what was being done before. What's to stop another scientist from doing this now?

SB: You know I would have to say nothing Anna Maria. Not only is it easy to use, you can order online the molecules that you need to do your CRISPR experiment. You will have to show, at least for most of the responsible companies that offer these molecules, you have to show that you are a legitimate scientist, as Dr. He is and was. He has a university affiliation. You know supposedly the companies that supply the molecules are aware of the possibility of DIY do it yourself, you know the proverbial garage lab and they are not going to sell their wares to those people, but you know what, it's a safety net that has a lot of holes in it.

AMT: And Matthew Porteous, you're doing your own work. Does that affect the work that you and others are doing? Your ability to do it. Are you going to be under a different kind of scrutiny now because of this?

MP: That's a great question. Let me just again follow up on what Sharon said as well is one of the reasons we have to understand the details of what Dr. He did is the way he describes it, it sounds like it was very efficient, it was very easy to do. But if what we learned is that there were tens of miscarriages for example, the impression about whether this is actually easy to do, would change. And I think that's some of the details we need to know. Now as it relates to how it impacts many other people's research on using gene editing of somatic cells, so not embryonic cells, not heritable or germline editing, I think three or four years ago, this would have been a huge problem. But I think to be honest, the scientific community and particularly the scientific journalists, have done a really good job of both understanding and explaining the differences. And so I'm not feeling any pushback or blowback in our own work because I think people really do understand the difference.

AMT: William Hurlbut, why is this work about more than just the editing of genes? What are the philosophical questions around embryo gene editing?

WH: CRISPR castline is a revolution in precision and cost and efficiency and as a result, it's much easier now for us to intervene in the genomes of all living creatures. That raises profound questions that go across the whole scope of human interaction with the natural world. So it's a very significant moment. It's one of those things that we as a species collectively have to calmly look at, praise, see if we can draw together the wisest voices and proceed with caution. This is very, very powerful. It's a very important moment. We can't just let it be done this way step-wise by individuals. It's got to be a collective process.

AMT: I really appreciate all of you weighing in on this. You've given us lots to think about. Thank you for your time today.

SB: Thank you.

MP: Thank you.

WH: Thank you.

AMT: William Hurlbut, physician as well as adjunct professor and senior research scholar in neurobiology at Stanford University. Matthew Porteous is a professor of pediatrics and a stem cell researcher also at Stanford. Sharon Begley is a senior science writer at STAT, a life sciences publication with the Boston Globe. We did try to contact He Jiangkui, but we did not hear back. We also requested clarification about the status of the investigation from the Chinese embassy and we have not received a response. That is our program for today. Stay with Radio One for Q. Comedy scholar Cliff Nesterov will be on the show with a preview of the year ahead in comedy. Now we began today talking about U.S. President Donald Trump's latest attempt to get a border wall. We're going to pick up on that tomorrow with a look at the effects walls have on people who they separate from one another. We're going to leave you today with the sound of the wall that's already at the U.S. border with Mexico. This is from the BBC Radio contemporary arts program The Art of Now. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

Sounds from the US-Mexico border from the BBC's The Art of Now.

[Music: Theme]

Jan. 9, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode