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 2016

The Current Transcript for June 6, 2017

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I have to say I kind of laughed out loud because it was one of those moments that we all as scientists live for. But I also very quickly felt a sense of awe.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: They weren't even looking for it but when they found it Jennifer Dowd immediately understood the magnitude. It's a scientific breakthrough that could change the very code of life a genetic tool to easily added DNA. It can change lives, save lives, eradicate certain genetic diseases or it can be used in ways that might scare us all. Jennifer Doudna says it is nothing less than the unthinkable power to control evolution and though it was discovered in her lab she believes we had all better talk about the ethics of this stuff. Hear her on the conundrum of a technology called CRISPR in an hour. Also today

SOUNDCLIP

Now I feel that I can walk outside on the street feeling human. The government and the law is behind me supporting my rights.

AMT: She's reacting to news that Ontario will raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next 18 months. Multiple studies show wage hikes lead to greater employment and spending. So why are so many small business owners saying their math shows that enforced pay increases will lead to their demise. We're asking about those opposing perspectives in half an hour. And the British prime minister has pledged to toughen counterterrorism by eliminating so-called cyber safe places.

SOUNDCLIP

Since the emergence of the threat from Islamist inspired terrorism our country has made significant progress in disrupting plots and protecting the public. But it is time to say enough is enough.

AMT: Is the Internet to blame for terrorism? We're starting there. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Can regulating the Internet stop terror attacks?

Guests: Paul Bernal, Mubin Shaikh

SOUNDCLIP

We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the Internet and the big companies that provide Internet based services provide. We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. We need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.

AMT: British Prime Minister Theresa May believes a key battle ground against terrorism is online. Those were her comments Sunday after a night of deadly violence on the London Bridge and in the Borough Market area. Attackers drove a van into unsuspecting pedestrians and then went on a stabbing rampage. Seven people were killed, a Canadian among them. Theresa May's comments renewed questions about what tech industry titans can do to stop their platforms from becoming breeding grounds for terrorist activity. Tech giants such as Google and Facebook responded to the British PM's comments quickly saying they're already doing all they can to fight terrorism. Today we're asking just how much the Internet can be blamed for enabling terrorism and whether stricter control of our online spaces could prevent the next attack. To help answer that I'm joined by two people. Paul Bernal is a lecturer in information technology intellectual property and media law at UEA law school at East Anglia University. And we have reached him in Norwich England. And Mubin Shaikh is a former CSIS and RCMP operative and terrorism expert. He's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello to you both.

PAUL BERNAL: Hi.

MUBIN SHAIKH: Good day.

AMT: Paul Bernal, I want to start with you what do you make of Theresa May's comments?

PAUL BERNAL: Well frankly it fits in with what Theresa May has been saying for a very long time. And I think in most ways it's rather misguided. First of all she did it very fast and before any of the information was out about this particular attack. And it turns out as we've seen it almost every other attack that actually these are people that were already known to the authorities and the problem is much more connected with human intelligence than with the Internet. But she's always wanted to do this and she has a tendency to jump in when there's an opportunity and bring forth this agenda that she's liked so many times before.

AMT: Well you say she's always wanted to do this. What's the motivation?

PAUL BERNAL: The motivation is a mix of a number of things, I think. Politicians in the UK and around the world though I suspect we may be fairly extreme in this way, have had a suspicion about the Internet for a very long time and they feel because it's kind of it seems out of control largely because they don't understand it, that it needs to be put under control. We've had this again and again and lots of lots of different ways. Partly it's also a political move and we have to remember we have a general election in the UK in two days’ time and this has been part of her stance, is part of her manifesto that she will probably try to bring the internet under control. And she's kind of making a political point. And at the same time distracting from the other side of this which is that she's cut police numbers and she's done a great deal that actually might in other ways contribute to the problems we have with radicalization. And this is what she wants people to focus on rather than focus on the other things.

AMT: Okay, well Mubin Shaikh, what do you think of what she had to say?

MUBIN SHAIKH: Yeah. I think the point of the Internet is that it's a force multiplier when it comes to radicalization. There isn't much of the three suspects that we know now that they had a you know significant online presence or that they were necessarily consuming large amounts of material online, as the experts at the International Center for the Study of Radicalization, Peter Neumann and Shiraz Maher they just put on an article talking about how the decisive factor in people moving from extremist thought to violent action is actually social networks and not the Internet.

AMT: So when you were with CSIS and the RCMP you infiltrated online terrorist groups. How did you learn?

MUBIN SHAIKH: Well this would have been 2005, a good 10 years ago.

AMT: Light years ago in Internet technology time, go ahead.

MUBIN SHAIKH: It was password protected forms at the time, where I was able to observe people you know recruiting other people, people being recruited. Looking at the kinds of narratives that they would deploy in these chat rooms, looking to see how they would identify prospective recruits and what I saw 10 years ago is actually not that much different from what we're seeing today.

AMT: So you're saying they rely on social media as opposed to using the Internet in other.. in which way?

MUBIN SHAIKH: Well there's two ways. One is you know how you receive the information and so and where you're receiving it from. So if it's if you're in a social network where this is your peer groups right and this is where really radicalization happens it happens in peer groups. But then there's also websites or places where for example 10 years ago it was password protected websites that you could download jihadi material from. You know whether it was a bombing in Iraq or wherever. So I think the interplay between or what you're dealing with really is the content of information and the speed at which the information flows between people.

AMT: And so what do you think? What responsibility do Internet companies have to keep terrorists from using their platforms or would be terrorists?

MUBIN SHAIKH: Well I mean I can tell you that I was online with ISIS foreign fighters for three years. 2013 14 and 15 and I watched the phenomenon proliferate before my very eyes. I saw them using Twitter and Facebook to recruit, to incite, to plot attacks. And I was amazed that Twitter would not act on them and Facebook would not act on them. So, I think and I'm going to make the accusation. I think social media platforms were more interested in the bottom line than any kind of sense of social responsibility. Because the last thing that they would want is to tell their customer base: Yes we will turn over information to the authorities. And whether they were doing it or not I saw how the platforms were used by terrorists.

AMT: Paul Bernal what do you think of what Mubin Shaikh is saying?

PAUL BERNAL: It fits in very well with what I understand and the situation and I speak to people within the intelligence services in the UK and with the police in the UK. But what it emphasizes is actually the human element here, that it is human interaction that is the key. It is a fact that way that we are now, that much about human interaction now takes place online and I mean I'm communicating with you online at the moment I'm connected through the Internet in order to do this this interview. And I think it's quite right that there's a lot of responsibility in some ways. But I think it's also very important that we don't throw out the baby with the birth water, here. And I think the problem is we have to find a way to work towards dealing with this kind of problem without actually destroying the benefits that we have from the way the Internet works. And that's where I get nervous about Theresa May and others, though Theresa May is perhaps the most vocal about it, say about the way that she wants to deal with it. It`s attempting to shift the blame onto the Internet companies rather than working with the Internet companies to find a way that works in a practical way without destroying the benefits. It's kind of creating an antagonism that actually can`t works against this, because this is what they use now there is also the issue of if you effectively try to shut them off this kind of a platform where do they go. Because there are other ways to do this and there are ways to communicate that are less easily monitored and infiltrated, and intelligence is less easy to gather but they might end up using.

AMT: So Paul can I ask you what are the kinds of regulations and controls that Theresa May or a government run by her might put in place? Are there already discussions on that?

PAUL BERNAL: As is normal during the election campaign there are just a few short paragraphs in her manifesto describing her plans, but they talk about making Internet intermediaries liable for the content held on them even if they're not aware of the nature of that content. And they talk about finding them appropriately. So we're talking about a kind of a heavy financial stick being used. We will only the intermediaries to ..by intermediaries I think they're really implying almost any form of social network and platforms like YouTube and so forth, so any kind of content that they would want to find. But in another interview she even left open the possibility of shutting down platforms that aren't sufficiently compliant. When you hear the words that, you normally think of places like China or North Korea which is a little bit disturbing. And I think there's a question here. I mean to what extent do we think that we should give up what we like about the Internet in order to deal with one potential way of addressing this?

AMT: And so I want to ask Mubin to reply to that, but I also want to ask, there's talk of like trying to stop encryption on certain sites as well, is they're not?

PAUL BERNAL: There is. And that's the second side to this coin. One is dealing with the content that's on line. And then when she talks about no safe spaces she means partly, but there's no way that they can put up their material. But secondly that there's no chance of their being able to communicate without the authorities being able to have access to that communication. And that's where the biggest problem is because as any computer scientist will tell you pretty much, if you weaken encryption or create a backdoor into it into a system then it's not just the people that you want who will use that backdoor to get in. And we recently had this problem with the our national health service computers all going down, a lot of number of them going down, as a result of ransom ware which turned out to be using a tool that was created, actually to try to infiltrate machines by the authorities in this case the buy by the NSA. A weakness was created supposedly to allow good people to get in to deal with bad people. And actually it was the back people that got in and disrupted our entire health service and other institutions. We have to be really careful.

AMT: Before we go any further I want Mubin to jump in here. So what do you think of some of these restrictions that are being talked about?

MUBIN SHAIKH: Yeah I mean Germany also talked about these issuing fines for companies that weren't paying enough attention or doing enough to get rid of extremist content. I think the platforms can do a lot more. You know there are various ways to do it. I mean nothing is going to be a magic bullet there are no such things as magic bullets, but there are some things that we can do to at least mitigate the consequences of inaction. And there has been a lot of inaction. I mean I saw Twitter like I mentioned I mean there were a couple of times or a handful of times were they started to cancel certain accounts, certain Twitter accounts.

AMT: Now they say they canceled 400000 accounts.

MUBIN SHAIKH: Right. Well I mean with whatever the number is what happened was these guys a lot of these ISIS guys they would just make a new account and they would in fact mark Twitter and others and they were put right on their page you know 160th account. You know ‘Kuffar die in your rage’ or that's their attitude and their.. I mean understand the adversary. They are persistent. So we should similarly be persistent. It is very possible for Twitter to follow certain networks. I mean now with the increased use of bots, you could very easily follow these accounts and as soon as they pop up they're going to come right down. I mean how much propaganda can you do in three minutes? I mean if let's say we had a three minute response time of a bot that would identify that this is the same account as you know previous and shut them down.

AMT: What about the argument that they will go onto a darker web, The Dark Web?

MUBIN SHAIKH: We will follow them. I mean that's the thing. I think, and again my bias is very pro-National Security Services so, I think they have mechanisms in place to follow them into the dark web to work with even their I say hacktivist vigilante groups, you know that are similarly working in these spaces to do what they do. We don't you know outright overt assistance but we don't necessarily have to be on the same team to be on the same side.

AMT: Well in fact in other kinds of policing often people are taken from sides to be infiltrators and other things. So you're saying just do the same thing.

MUBIN SHAIKH: Absolutely.

AMT: But what about what about Paul's concerns that there's a slippery slope here?

MUBIN SHAIKH: There is a slippery slope of course. I mean of course you know there are some more abhorrent options of trying to shut down websites. But you know they just they pop right back up and again there has there have not been mechanisms to chase them down and keep at it. I think and this will be something for industry to look a,t for the public to look at that if government does come out with certain legislation that they be kept on a very tight leash.

AMT: So is it fair to blame the internet for terrorist attacks, for the ability of people who want to commit an act of terror to get together?

MUBIN SHAIKH: I don't know how much we can we can blame the internet. I mean I did say it is a force multiplier. You know without it certain things could not be done, could not get done. So it's definitely part of the problem but it's also a part of the solution.

AMT: Paul?

PAUL BERNAL: Yeah. I think I think that's exactly right. That it is part of the problem and I don't think anyone who has spent much time online and in social media can really deny that there's a lot of bad stuff out there. But there's also a lot of good stuff. And there's also a lot of willingness of people to actually help over this kind of thing. And I would say I mean I work a little bit with the police in the U.K. and they are very keen that what they do should be, as we put it in the UK policing by consent. That is that we understand and agree with the kind of methods and approaches that they are using. And actually it's a cooperation between the people, the tech companies, the governments and so on. But it's actually the practical way forward. And I think we have to be.. We have to start having a kind of more nuanced view of how it all works and that's where the political kind of blame the internet stances causes me most concern, because it does tend to kind of polarize everything in a way which it really shouldn't. It's by working together that we find a way to solve these problems in so far as we can solve them. Because I think that's the other thing we really have to be brave enough to say that if we do want to have some degree of freedom, and we do want to have some freedom, then there are risks attached. And if we do want to allow people to have freedom of speech and we do, then we have to understand that some people will say stuff we really don't like and then we have to deal with the consequences rather than stopping them before they even start.

AMT: Okay, so we're almost out of time but what about the balancing of privacy and security what is the appropriate balance, Paul?

PAUL BERNAL: Well, I think the first thing to say is really that is not exactly a balance that we're talking about, because actually when you have proper privacy and security it helps everybody. They work together. What we have to do though is to understand the way that what we do has consequences, and we have to understand that if we do deny somebody's privacy we do like other people privacy, and if we do give people privacy then we are unfortunately giving the bad guys privacy, as well.

AMT: Okay let me get to Mubin Shaikh’s view of that. How do you balance that? What do you think?

MUBIN SHAIKH: I mean I think I agree with what you know our friend is saying it's it must be by consent. The public must understand the threat posed by the adversary and must buy into the solutions being proposed by government, police, NGOs and otherwise civil society. This is the democracy that we live in. It will always be a constant push and pull between competing interests and these sorts of things so it's impossible to say but at least we do know that it's some kind of balancing act has to be attempted.

AMT: We have to leave it there gentlemen. Thank you both for your thoughts today.

MUBIN SHAIKH: Cheers.

PAUL BERNAL: It's a pleasure.

AMT: That is PAUL BERNAL lecturer in information technology and intellectual property and media law at UEA law school at East Anglia University. He's in Norwich England. Mubin Shaikh is a former CSIS and RCMP operative. He is an expert on terrorism. He is with me in our Toronto studio. We want to hear from you on this. Do you think it's fair to blame the internet for terrorist attacks? Do you think stricter Internet regulation could prevent violent attacks? What is the balance between privacy and security? Go online and let us know find us on Facebook or on Twitter at the current CBC. Send us an email from our site cbc.ca/thecurrent. And stay with us. The news is next. Then when a 28 year old Cree woman stood in an Edmonton courtroom to testify at her attackers hearing she was the one in shackles.

SOUNDCLIP

Victims of sexual assault require a great deal of support in order to give testimony. And this was the farthest thing from Victim Support that I've ever seen.

We brought you that story yesterday. Alberta’s justice minister has since apologized for what happened to her and launched two investigations.

We will update that story and hear why some say it does not go far enough. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current on CBC Radio 1 Sirius XM. Online on cbc.ca/thecurrent and on your radio app

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Alberta launches investigation into jailing of sexual assault victim

Guest: Lise Gottel

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

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come. Promising new gene editing technology could delete disease from our DNA. But scientists are warning against the pitfalls of playing with evolution. We've got that story in half an hour. But first we're back on the story of Angela Cardinal, sexually assaulted and then forced to spend five nights in an Edmonton jail. Will her troubling case spur change for indigenous women in the justice system?

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Yesterday we brought you the story of Angela cardinal. Now that's a pseudonym her real identity is under a publication ban. She was a 28 year old Cree woman who was so mistreated by Alberta’s justice system that the provinces justice minister issued an apology over what happened to her. Three years ago Angela Cardinal was brutally assaulted. She managed to call 911 while she struggled against her attacker. He was arrested, but when it came time to testify at his preliminary hearing Angela cardinal was treated like the criminal and forced to give testimony in shackles.

SOUNDCLIP

I am the freaking victim here and [unintelligible] come on.

I understand. So,

Uhh. I now I shouldn’t have came. I know. I just shouldn’t have came. This is like, bad [unintelligible].

AMT: That tape is from the preliminary hearing which was later used in the trial. The assault she endured was just the beginning of her nightmare. At the request of The Crown Prosecutor the judge agreed Angela Cardinal should be held in and had been in jail for what turned out to be five nights. In at least two instances, she was driven to the courthouse in the very same van with the man who assaulted her. And in the courthouse she was kept in a holding cell right next to his. The CBC's Janice Johnston broke this story and it was information she uncovered that prompted an apology from Alberta’s Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley. Yesterday the minister announced she had launched two investigations into this case.

SOUNDCLIP

The facts of this case are disturbing and tragic. And when you add in the treatment of the victim in the system they are almost incomprehensible. What is clear is that both policies and people failed in this case.

AMT: Justice Minister Ganley vowed to change policies and practices so this does not happen again. But outside the investigations there is outrage. Lise Gotell is the national chair of LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. She is in Edmonton. Hello.

LISE GOTELL: Hello, Anna Maria.

AMT: Had you heard about this before?

LISE GOTELL: Well, not until I was contacted a few weeks ago by Janice Johnston though. I mean none of us would have heard about this, except for the fact that the trial judge Eric Macklin included a postscript in his trial decision where he described how and apologized really for the dehumanization of this complainant.

AMT: And so what can you tell us about the specific provision that allowed her to be sent to jail during this preliminary?

LISE GOTELL: Yes. So that provision is Section 545-1B of the Criminal Code. And it allows for the remanding of a non-compliant witness. But that wasn't the case here. I mean the trial judge Eric Macklin described this complainant as compliant. She was never missing, she told the court where she was, she wanted to stay with her mother. This should not have been used and it's rarely used I understand and it should definitely not have been used here.

AMT: There would be other options would there if they did feel they wanted to keep an eye on her? Ostensibly for her own good.

LISE GOTELL: Yeah. I mean I men I think that the incredible trauma that this woman experienced through this incredibly brutal assault that was like something out of a horror movie. I mean, we need to you know, Don Braid this morning the Calgary Herald called this a failure of basic humanity. She needed to be treated with respect, with dignity and with care. I mean I don't know how much it costs to put someone in a renowned facility for a day, but I'm guessing that it's probably cheaper it would have been cheaper to assign a support worker to her if you know, we're concerned about her mental state and well-being let's treat her with care. She was really objectified I think and used as a kind of instrument of prosecution in this case.

AMT: Now the justice minister has announced two investigations. She has apologized to the family of Angela cardinal and of course again that's not her real name. What do you hope to come of these investigations?

LISE GOTELL: Well certainly I am very happy that the minister of justice has responded in this way. In addition the chief judge of the Alberta Provincial Court has said he's doing an examination. So what we would hope is that this never happens again. So we need some policy changes to ensure that this never happens again. So hopefully that's something that that will occur through these processes. You know we're all still waiting to read the preliminary inquiry transcript. And I know that there are a number of organizations and advocates including LEAF who are very concerned about the mistreatment of this woman, and we would like to you know read the transcripts and gain more detail before we decide on our response.

AMT: Because we know there were many people involved in this case obviously. The crown who asked for this, the judge who agreed, there was someone who was appointed to be an advocate for Ms. Cardinal for a period of time and then who stepped away. It appears no one spoke up for her. I mean does someone need to be held responsible for the way the justice system appeared to drop the ball for this woman?

LISE GOTELL: Well again I think that there needs to be some accountability for this. But we all need to understand the facts a little better. I mean I like to see the minister release the transcripts publicly so that experts and advocates can review them. But yes I mean I think that there is there was a systemic failure here. I mean the crown of course is a minister of justice who owes a duty to ensure that the criminal justice process is fair to everyone. The judge in this case was a fairly newly appointed, sorry, in the preliminary inquiry, the preliminary inquiry judge, was a fairly newly appointed judge who had a background in environmental and civil law, so perhaps his inexperience with criminal law contributed to the remanding us of this of this young woman. So, yes. There's this there's this systemic failure but we need to I think we do need to see some accountability here.

AMT: Should there be a judicial review? That goes to the Canadian Judicial Council, should that happen.

LISE GOTELL: That's right. And again as I said there are a number of advocates who are trying to determine what is the best course of action? But the first step really is to see the transcripts that we have a better appreciation of what actually happened. So, yes. A complain to the CJC is a possibility but it depends on the circumstances.

AMT: Now during the justice minister's press conference yesterday, she said one of the questions that keeps me up at night, I'm quoting here is whether it would have been the case if this woman was Caucasian and housed and not addicted, whether this would have happened to her. End quote.

LISE GOTELL: Yes. Well, I certainly, I mean I would answer her question by saying that you know this case has everything to do with the mistreatment of indigenous women in the criminal justice system. And in fact I think that we could draw some connections between this and the missing and murdered women inquiry. I mean she was first of all brutally attacked and victimized and we know that indigenous women are far more likely to experience violence and extreme forms of violence. But in addition indigenous women are often singled out for mistreatment in the criminal justice system when they are victims. So you know, we see a number of cases here in Alberta where this pattern is very evident. There's this case. There's a Cindy Gladue murder trial in which Cindy Gladue preserved genitalia were brought into the court room. There are at least two other cases that I know of, really since 2013 - 2014 in Alberta where we see extremely dehumanizing treatment of indigenous women complainants and victims so. So we have to see this as being part of a pattern and address it in that way.

AMT: I'm just wondering I mean were the organizations or advocates that could have been looking up for her then ahead of time. Is there no one who.. such a high profile brutally sexual assault. I mean she was so covered in blood she couldn't get out the door because the door knob slipped in her hand that was on no one's radar when that court case happened?

LISE GOTELL: Well, one would hope that it that it would have been. I mean there are a number of great organizations in the city who work with indigenous women and you know for example The Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women has certainly been involved in the response to this case. But you know I think that this young woman was extremely isolated. She was obviously very close to her mother because she would stay with her mother occasionally and during the trial begged the judge to allow her to stay with her mother, but her mother did not even know she had been assaulted. So I think that she was a very isolated person.

AMR: Okay, Lise Gotell thank you for your thoughts on all of this today.

LISE GOTELL: Thank you Anna Maria.

AMT: Lise Gotell who is the national chair of LEAF The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. She joined us from Edmonton. She's also the vice dean of the Faculty of Arts and a professor of women and gender studies at the University of Alberta. Now we did request an interview with Alberta’s Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley. We did not receive a response.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Ontario's new $15 minimum wage bad for business, say critics

Guests: Steven Mastoras, Sheila Block

AMT: You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio 1 I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Erin Dira Bravo joggles several part time and contract jobs in Toronto in order to make ends meet. Right now she makes minimum wage 11 dollars 40 cents an hour. By January 1st of 2019 that will have increased to $15 an hour she says that will make a world of difference.

SOUNDCLIP

I feel like with $15 by hour I can pay my rent, food, and show that basic for myself to survive. That makes me happy of course. It’s not all that I want. It’s not all what I deserve, but it is a good start. Now I feel that I can walk outside on the street feeling human. And a human that has boys and the government and law is behind me, supporting on my rights.

AMT: Ontario has become the second province in Canada after Alberta to announce it will hike the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Workers will see the increase on paychecks as part of a broader set of labor reforms introduced by the Liberal Government of Premier Kathleen Wynne. Not everyone supports this change, several business groups worry that raising the minimum wage will be bad for business. Steven Mastoras is the owner of Whistler's grill and the McNeil room in Toronto. He's also a board member at restaurants Canada. It's an organization representing the food services industry and he is in Halifax today. Hello.

STEVEN MASTORAS: Good morning.

AMT: What will a $15 minimum wage mean for your business?

STEVEN MASTORAS: An increase of 32 percent within an 18 month duration, Anna Maria.

AMT: And what does that mean? How do you absorb that?

STEVEN MASTORAS: Certainly from a numerical standpoint we're looking at an annual increase of $60000 added to our payroll.

AMT: How many employees do you have working at minimum wage? What jobs do they do?

STEVEN MASTORAS: Well roughly between 30 and 40 employees depending on the season.

AMT: And are they all minimum wage or do you have some who make more?

STEVEN MASTORAS: There's a good percentage of minimum wage earners and a number of employees who are higher than that.

AMT: So you have a year and a half to get to that, there's one hike that happens in January and then another one the following January. Do you consider that reasonable?

STEVEN MASTORAS: Actually we're going to see an increase as per the past four years in October first, and then we're going to see a subsequent increase to 14 in January and again in January of 20 19 to the tune of a total of 32 percent.

AMT: So what does that mean for your business what will you do?

STEVEN MASTORAS: Well that's a direct hit to our labor costs you 32 percent over an 18 month period. It's just not a reasonable timeframe for small businesses in the province of Ontario. Our hospitality sector is certainly going to be hit hard with that kind of an immediate increase as well as other small businesses across the province.

AMT: And so what are you hearing from others in your sector?

STEVEN MASTORAS: What I'm hearing from a lot of great operators in Ontario, and across the country is that there's a lot of concern about our ability to hire young people. You know that first time job is something that's very important to young people in the economy. You know restaurants are the number one first time employer and we're very concerned about youth unemployment. You know in Ontario youth unemployment is hovering at around 12 percent. And it's not going to get lower than that. I can tell you as employers have another look at their bottom lines and their competitiveness.

AMT: What would you have preferred the government do?

STEVEN MASTORAS: Well we appreciate and respect the, you know the direction that the government is taking. They made a promise to small business several years ago that we would see an annual increase in minimum wage that would be tied to inflation, and business owners across the province recognize and acknowledge that. But in reality their commitment to depoliticize the minimum wage issue was you know effectively was reversed with this announcement, and was a misleading direction of the government and business owners are really going to get hurt with this, and are going to have to be looking at their labor costs component very carefully.

AMT: So what does this mean for you in terms of hiring? What will you do differently?

STEVEN MASTORAS: Well, any business in Ontario including mine is going to have to have a very close look at you know our scheduling practices or hiring commitments are our decisions going forward in terms of hours of operation, you know how many people we employ and so on and a large component of that. We're very concerned about youth jobs, young people getting employed you know helping them with their tuition costs and so on.

AMT: Now you bring up the fact that you're hiring a lot of young people, the government points out it's hard to make ends meet on a minimum wage salary. People are raising families on minimum wage salaries.

STEVEN MASTORAS: Well I can tell you our industry, you know the hospitality business cares very deeply for our employees. And you know when you have to meet a payroll every couple of weeks Anna Maria it's not an easy thing to keep people on their payroll and to keep people employed. You know there are those who may be critical of the concerns that we raise as small business owners, but you know you need to ask the question as to whether or not they've had to meet a payroll.

AMT: So proponents of the increase say it will have a positive cascading effect as minimum wage earners spend more money. Do you see benefits?

STEVEN MASTORAS: Well, that's certainly something to consider but I think that those folks are in the minority in terms of understanding the impact of you know a 32 percent increase within an 18 month period. Jobs will vanish in that kind of a scenario. You know it would be different if the government stuck to its commitment about increasing a tie to CPI on an annual basis which is what they promised us. And now this change of direction is clearly I think you know for their own self-preservation, their own political expediency.

AMT: Okay, Mr. Masters thank you for your thoughts on this.

STEVEN MASTORAS: Thank you.

AMT: Steven Mastoras, owner of Whistler's grill and the McNeil room in Toronto. He's also a board member of Restaurants Canada. He joined us from Halifax. As I said Ontario's minimum wage hike to $15 brings it in line with what Alberta’s is which is also rising to 15. Those will be the highest rates in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest minimum wage in the country $10.75. My next guest says a higher minimum wage is good for workers and businesses. Sheila Block is a senior economist with the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, Ontario office. She's been tracking this issue. She is in our Toronto studio. Hello.

SHEILA BLOCK: Hi.

AMT: So how do you respond to the concerns we just heard from Mr. Minister?

SHEILA BLOCK: Well Mr. Mastoras really has a lot of responsibility on his shoulders and I feel for him, in terms of his responsibilities to meet payroll, his responsibilities to make a living for himself and his family. But when we're looking at this kind of a policy change we really need to move away from anecdote and move into the evidence. And one really important piece of evidence is that 50 percent of minimum wage workers in Ontario work for large businesses. Those are businesses whose model is based on low wage work and government policy change like this is sending them a really important signal and they're saying you're going to need to shift your business model. You're going to have to become more innovative and you're going to have to find another way to maintain profitability. And we know that that's actually going to work, because when we all decided that child labor was no longer acceptable or when we decided that we needed a 40 hour workweek, businesses adjusted. They figured out how to do it and they did maintain their profit profitability.

AMT: So the restaurant industry says it operates in a really thin margin. You're saying that that's not an emblematic of the businesses out there that have minimum wage workers?

SHEILA BLOCK: So it's absolutely emblematic of some of these industries but some of these industries are large employers, and even for those smaller employers on thin margins, Mr. Mastoras was just describing how he's going to adjust to this. He's going to adjust his scheduling. He's going to change some of the ways that he does business to maintain that profitability.

AMT: Some companies are saying they'll go out of business they simply won't be able to do this.

SHEILA BLOCK: So absolutely some marginal companies will go out of business and that's kind of the dynamics of a market economy. Some companies will go out of business. Other companies who already have a kind of highroads strategy of paying their workers more, reducing turnover, they'll actually maintain and probably expand employment. And those low wage workers will move from those companies who can't make that adjustment into companies that can.

AMT: So what has happened in other jurisdictions where minimum wage has gone up what have you seen?

SHEILA BLOCK: Well there's actually been a lot of research about it recently because there's been a lot of organizing to increase the minimum wage and there's also been a lot of policy interest, and there a couple of really important Canadian studies that we can look to. One was out of UBC by Professor David Green and what he found was that looking at all the literature he found that minimum wage increases don't actually have those big negative impacts on employment that are feared. And what it actually does is that it reduces income inequality and would reduce poverty. And similarly for our own shop Jim Stanford and Jordan Brenner did a study and they looked up till 2010, and they actually found that minimum wage isn't a big driver of employment. The minimum wage increases sometimes increased employment a little sometimes decreased employment a little. But what's really important is the overall level of economic activity and that drives employment much more than minimum wages.

AMT: What do we know about the age of the people working minimum wage jobs?

SHEILA BLOCK: So our mythology is that minimum wage workers are all teenagers who are working for to buy themselves a new smartphone. But in fact minimum wage workers and in particular workers who are making less than $15 an hour are actually, 60 percent of them, are over the age of 20. So these are people who, as you interview that you had to start the segment, these are people who are trying to support themselves trying to support their families on these minimum wages. And we really have to acknowledge that this policy change is a sea change. It's a big move and it's a move from government that is saying we are going to place front and center the needs of poor people. And we are going to reduce working poverty. And it's making a demand from employers that says you have to make a contribution to decreasing income inequality. And that's something that businesses are going to have to adjust to and I'm not surprised that there's some resistance to that.

AMT: And what are we seeing in other countries?

SHEILA BLOCK: So we're seeing a move along this in the U.S. So Seattle has moved ahead, New York State has moved, ahead California has moved ahead to increase the minimum wage and it's really important to increase those minimum wages along with other rules. Rule changes around in the labor market that actually increase the predictability of people's incomes, increase enforcement of these minimum standards, and really try and push back on the trends that we've seen of increases in precarious work, an increasing share of the workforce that's working for minimum wage and low wages. These are really trying to change the ground rules around how work is organized and really help low income people. And it's really something that I think should be applauded.

AMT: And we're talking about the states. What about other countries how did it how did Canada's rates overall compare with other countries?

SHEILA BLOCK: Well we always like to compare to the Nordic countries, right. And it's interesting in some of those countries you don't actually have a minimum wage because you have really widespread collective bargaining. And so you don't need to rely on those regulatory floors. What you actually can do is you can just say that the relationship between trade unions and employers sets those minimums and allows it and sets out those rules.

AMT: But with Alberta and Ontario doing this this does change the landscape for the rest of the country.

SHEILA BLOCK: Absolutely it does. And now we have two large provinces and we really have to acknowledge that Alberta sort of broke ground and started in it and we're hoping to see this move across the country and to really see a decrease in income inequality in this country and decreasing poverty.

AMT: Sheila Bloch Thanks for coming in.

SHEILA BLOCK: Thanks so much.

AMT: Sheila block senior economist at the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives Ontario office. She's with me in our Toronto studio. What do you think should the minimum wage in your province go up if you earn minimum wage, if you run a business that pays people minimum wage? We'd like to hear your perspectives. Visit our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. Click on the Contact link to email us. Find us on Facebook and comment or tweet us at the current CBC. And stay with us because in our next half hour we're going to hear from scientists Jennifer Doudna. It was in her lab that a new gene editing technology was discovered that could change DNA for generations to come. She's saying we need to think of the ethics of this as well. Cure her when we return. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Unicorns to designer babies: New gene editing tech could change course of evolution

Guest: Jennifer Doudna

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

[Music]

AMT: All season long on The Current, we are looking at disrupters people, things, ideas that fundamentally change our world. And right now we're talking about a new scientific tool that could disrupt the fundamental nature of every kind of life on Earth.

SOUNDCLIP

Your body contains thirty seven point two trillion cells and within each is a copy of a code consisting of more than 20000 genes and billions of strands of DNA. This code is your genome and it determines everything that makes you: You. If you could modify that code to bring back extinct species, eliminate hereditary diseases. That is precisely what molecular engineers and geneticists around the world are working on. George Church is one of many using a revolutionary gene editing technique called CRISPR Cas-9 which allows you to modify DNA sequences.

Paint this picture of what the future looks like as a result of course for your eyes.

I suppose the wildest description would be that you have some 250 year old people that look like they're 20 year old writing on the mammoth, so wild, uh?

AMT: While the idea of a youthful senior citizen riding on a woolly mammoth as you just heard there on CNN may still be far from reality. But the prospect of editing genes the building blocks of all life on Earth, has got a boost from a new technology called CRISPR Cas-9 or CRISPR for short. The advance is a disrupter with excitement building around the endless possibilities it can create, from curing genetic diseases, to creating crops better adapted to climate change or even developing more humanoid pigs whose organs can be transplanted into humans. For some this excitement is personal and potentially life saving. Kitchener Ontario's Jacqueline Skinner has the genetic mutation for Huntington's disease a devastating illness for which the CRISPR gene editing could potentially provide treatment or even a cure.

SOUNDCLIP

Things like CRISPR, like, that gives me, like that means giving me my future back. I mean having all these trials and stuff you got to, you get super hopeful and super excited and I celebrate every minor milestone with my family. And so to hear technology and things like CRISPR come forward it's just it's such a relief, because all of these people don't deserve what this disease does to you, and to be able to like look at something like this and see it like the light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know it's like there's somebody handing you like a golden ticket you giving your life back.

AMT: Well that is Jacqueline Skinner. She's the head of the Canadian group Young People Affected by Huntington's disease. She lives in Kitchener Ontario. Along with a promise CRISPR is also causing concern. The technology could allow us to change human DNA not just in an individual but in all of their future children and grandchildren. That's raised the question of whether we as a species are prepared for such an awesome responsibility. And among those saying we need to better understand all the potential implications of CRISPR is one of the scientists who worked on its discovery. Jennifer Doudna is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California Berkeley. She is the co-author of a book called A Crack in Creation: Gene editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution. Jennifer Doudna is in Berkeley California. Hello.

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Hello, good morning.

AMT: As one of the people involved in discovering CRISPR. How do you feel when you hear the excitement in the voice of someone like Jacqueline Skinner?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Wow. I mean I just feel so honored to be part of that revolution in technology and the opportunity to help people is really why we do the science we do.

AMT: Well we heard a bit of an explanation from CNN there in that clip at the top but how would you explain to a lay person what CRISPR technology is?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: You can think about DNA in our bodies being the code that the code of life that really controls who we are and what we do, and our health and disease states. And having a technology that allows changes to be made to that code, and not randomly but very precisely at desired places in the DNA, that could in principle correct mutations that cause disease. I think that's really what CRISPR is all about.

AMT: So it allows it allows you to edit little bits of the DNA?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: That's right. It literally is a programmable tool. It allows scientists to tell this tool where to go in the DNA, where to make changes and then introduce either disruptions to the DNA or in some cases actually replacing DNA sequences with sequences that are desired for example to correct a disease causing mutation.

AMT: Were you looking for a gene adopting technology when you discovered CRISPR?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Absolutely not. This is the thing about CRISPR, or of the many aspects of this that I think is very interesting and sort of illustrates the way that scientific research is often done is that you know, this is a technology that came from a very different sort of unexpected direction. It was a project that was aimed at understanding how bacteria fight viral infection. So it was a fundamental research project asking a question about how things work in nature. And in the course of that research it became clear that this tool this molecule that is used in bacteria to protect from viral infection could be deployed in a very different way in human and other cells to induce changes to the DNA.

AMT: And what did you think? What did you do when you realized what you'd found?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well, first I have to say I kind of laughed out loud because it was one of those moments that we all as scientists live for that comes along very rarely where you have an insight that you realize you know has really important implications for the scientific community. And I just thought it was very interesting that bacteria had come up with, this had evolved this mechanism for defending against viruses. But I also very quickly felt a sense of awe because it was clear that this technology would be very powerful and would enable scientists to use it in many ways for both research and clinical applications, that would you know in the end is going to really change our world.

AMT: Humans have been creating animals and crops more suited to our needs for thousands of years. How is CRISPR different?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well it's different for a few reasons I would say. It's really a very precise technology so rather than relying on random changes that humans have been introducing by you know, exposing seeds to chemicals or to radiation for example. Now we have a technology that allows precise changes to be made at only the desired DNA sequences. So that's one thing. Also it's a technology that is remarkably simple and inexpensive to use and that's one of the reasons we've seen it take off as quickly as it has over the last few years is that you know it's just there's very low barrier to entry in a way. You know you just need a sort of a minimal understanding of molecular biology to be able to use it.

AMT: So you've discovered not only this awesome thing but an awesome thing that Democratic.

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Exactly.

AMT: How has CRISPR been used already to make changes to crops and livestock?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well, you know in amazing ways I mean we're already seeing uses in crops like wheat, rice, sorghum. These are you know staples that can benefit from the introduction of genes that help them to deal with drought conditions or fight off various kinds of fungal infections that could otherwise affect crop yields. Also more recently there's been work in plants like tomatoes. So using the CRISPR technology to make changes that avoid fruits that are too heavy for the stems that hold them you know things like that. So very practical kinds of uses. So that's in agriculture. We're also seeing uses not only moving towards clinical treatments but also to do things like to humanize animals that would be good for organ donation for example pigs.

AMT: And it can also be used to make certain livestock more muscular, can it not?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: It can. You've probably seen the pictures of muscly, pigs muscly cows. That's something that hasn't been widely deployed at this stage but you know but is really a very visual example of how gene editing can be used.

AMT: How do you see the ethics of making a so-called designer livestock or crops that passed down genetic changes to the offspring?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: This is an area where we're at the very early stages of using this technology. I think that on the one hand having a precise way to make genetic changes like this is in my opinion safer in a way than making introducing random changes and then just hoping that you get the trait that you desire. On the other hand I think there has to be research to understand the stability of those kinds of genetic changes. And like with anything else that we might introduce into the food supply we need to ensure that those animals or plants are safe for consumption.

AMT: I have a clip here of Pat Monee who is the executive director of the ETC group a technology watchdog organization. He has concerns about commercial uses of CRISPR in the food industry. Let's listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

There is always the concern that because there's an opportunity here to make profit quickly, that someone will push it into the marketplace to quickly try to get control of it to make it impossible to be retrieved. There's a lot of enthusiasm for using this technology to develop resistances to different patient disease, and that's interesting areas for them to explore to see if that could be of benefit to us and that might be. But in the same way that it could move quickly to defend us against a disease that could affect the nature of food crop it could be the disease that affects your major food crops that could cause the problem. It's such a new technology is so powerful we understand it so little that to jeopardize your food supply by introducing this technology too quickly is simply dangerous.

AMT: Jennifer Doudna, what do you think of commercial uses of CRISPR technology? Do they pose potential risks?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: I think like any technology, honestly this one you know needs to be carefully vetted and appropriately regulated.

AMT: You tell a story about an entrepreneur you call Christina who met with one of your colleagues. What happened?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Yeah so this was an interesting meeting with someone who was interested in using the CRISPR technology in humans, and in fact she had the idea of having herself the first what she called CRISPR baby. You know the idea that you could actually use gene editing in human embryos to create human beings that would have desired genetic traits.

AMT: And what happened?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well it was a very, very strange conversation as you could imagine for me, because it was clear in that conversation that she was serious about this. And even though I knew that you know this would not be possible today for many reasons both regulatory but also technical. It was a bit alarming to know that she might think this way, and that that might be the way that others would think too about opportunities to perhaps make money or garner attention by doing something very radical like that.

AMT: This is why you want to not only talk about the science but the ethics you want. You want us all to be having these big your discussions, huh, to really think about this?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: I think it's hugely important and I think it's also a wonderful opportunity to get people involved in discussing a really exciting proverbial moment in a way in science. You know something where we're seeing this transformative change in what we can do with genetics. And so this is a great moment to invite people to learn about this understand it enough that they can engage in a meaningful discussion.

AMT: Some people have talked about bringing back the woolly mammoth. We heard that clip off the top. Even creating a winged dragon with CRISPR. Is that possible?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well there's possible and possible. Possible or probable, maybe is the way to put it. I think you know the thing about gene editing is that it opens the door to doing things that have never been done before. So people have talked about for example the idea of creating a unicorn, you know putting genes to make a single centered horn into a horse. Is that possible? I think in principle the answer now is yes. And you know could it happen immediately? No, for various technical reasons. But I think this is one of the reasons people are so captivated by it, is that it just really does open the door to things that we've never been able to even really contemplate before.

AMT: Well let's talk about using CRISPR on humans. What does the promise of CRISPR when it comes to disease?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well I think you know it's fantastically exciting to think about a technology that allows correction you know of DNA sequences that would otherwise cause terrible disease. And I hear from people that have genetic disease in their family virtually every day who are you know very excited about the potential for this to really have an impact on their health in the future. I think that's you know clearly is tremendously exciting.

AMT: And how close are we to actually treatments or cures through that way?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well I think it's important to appreciate a couple of things. First of all the technology is clearly very powerful as we've heard. However, it does require introduction into cells to work. And so I think one of the big challenges ahead for using this in people, is being able to deliver the gene editing molecules into cells or tissues in a in a person. And this is why I think and I think many people would agree that you know one of the most likely first targets clinical targets for Gene editing is going to be blood diseases, for example sickle cell disease. These are diseases where we understand that genetics. There is a single gene that needs to be fixed or repaired, and we can get access to blood cells by taking them out of a patient doing the editing and then putting them back into the body. And so you can imagine a path, a clinical path forward faster than for something like Huntington's where you know you would actually have to think about how to introduce gene editing molecules into the brain.

AMT: It's quite extraordinary now, as I listen to you.

JENNIFER DOUDNA: It is.

AMT: Yes. And so I just want to ask if there's different kinds of gene editing there's a germline and somatic what's the difference?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Yes, very important to know to understand that. So sematic means editing in cells that are already fully developed. They're there already a liver cell or a skin cell or a blood cell. And there's no possibility of transmitting the changes that are made to those cells to future generations. The difference between that and germ line editing is that in the germ line we're talking about making changes to sperm or eggs or early embryos. These would be genetic changes that could be transmitted to future generations. And so it's a know when we talk in the book about the power to change human evolution that's really ultimately what could happen if there was widespread editing of the human germline.

AMT: Do you think we should be doing germline or heritable Gene editing on humans right now?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: I would say no. You know I think that this is a technology that you know is still in its infancy in many ways we're learning about it. I think the opportunity to use the gene editing tool to understand better human development. I think that's exciting but I would caution against using it clinically if anytime in the near future because we need to understand it better and maybe even more importantly we need to have time to discuss it as a society, what are the implications of that kind of use.

AMT: In many parts of the world including Canada, it is currently illegal to do any human germline editing including on embryos that will not be grown into babies. But some ethicists think that's a mistake. And that includes Chris Gyngell He's a research fellow at the UEHIRO Center for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. Listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

Well look we miss out on an important resource, a resource that we can use to do a lot of good. If we stop now because of irrational fears about what might happen in the future of technology, we really miss out on a good opportunity to learn more about human development and the opportunity to develop a way to treat genetic disease. We also have the human germline all the time every time we have children the natural way we introduce random genetic mutations into a journal. So it's not a question of whether we should change the genome. We are doing this all the time already. It's the question is how do we change the germ line for good? How do we do the most good with this technology? And I think these technology could be key to reducing suffering and to increasing human flourishing.

AMT: So Jennifer Doudna, how do you respond to that idea that we have a moral imperative to go ahead with germline editing research?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well I remember the very first meeting that I convened in the Napa Valley this was already a couple of years ago to discuss the question of human germline editing with a small group of scientists. And at one point somebody leaned across the table and said you know there may come a time when we would consider it unethical not to edit the human germline. And that sort of made everybody take a breath and say well yeah that's a different way to you know think about it. In my own view, I think that clearly you know I mean I think I agree with what was just said. You know I clearly this is a really exciting technology and we have an opportunity right now to use it to really help people and also to really understand better our own biology. And I think.. but you know hand in hand with that goes a huge responsibility to use this in a fashion that you know in the end does lead to benefits to human beings, and also brings the community of people around the world along with the scientists you know, that scientists are not rushing ahead but that we're actually engaging with our neighbors, our parents, our kids, our friends and so that people understand what's happening. And we avoid sort of the feeling of being you know railroaded or just you know sort of not included in technology this important I think that would be a mistake.

AMT:I think just talking to you is one of the people who was instrumental in it in existence and it's discovery and you wanting to engage in that helps us understand more the sort of the gray areas.

JENNIFER DOUDNA: That's certainly my hope.

AMT: So what do you think of the idea that with CRISPR we could make humans better than their parents, beyond curing a genetic disease?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well it's sort of one of these amazing things to think about. I mean I'll give you an example. So you know there's a gene that has been discovered in liver cells that when it is present in a certain form, a certain DNA sequence of that gene that occurs rarely in the human population, it turns out that those people have virtually no risk of cardiovascular disease. Meaning that they you know don't have to worry about high cholesterol they don't have to worry about heart attacks as they get older. And yet there seems to be no deleterious effect on their health. So you could imagine you know what if you could actually just introduce that gene variant if you will into the human population very broadly using gene editing. Would that be a good idea? Some people might say yes, you know. And same thing with something like Alzheimer's disease. What if you could ensure that anybody that is born in the future doesn't have certain gene types that might predispose them to Alzheimer's disease? As someone whose mother is currently in the final stages of Alzheimer's. You know it's a terrible, terrible thing. I know many people that have gone through this and their families and you know I feel that you know this might really be something to consider in the future.

AMT: There's been so much hype around the promise and potential of CRISPR. What are the chances that it won't pan out on a major scale?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well I think you know with any new technology there's always going to be bumps in the road. And I think what we often see with new technologies is that you know people get very excited and there's tends to be a lot of hyperbole, and then you know reality sets in when you realize that you know there's still a lot of steps to be taken before there's a real, in this case say a clinical impact. I think the thing that's different with CRISPR though is that the technology is only you know, it's barely five years old., right? And so you know it's really been adopted incredibly quickly and globally, and we're already seeing you know, at least in the agricultural world we're already seeing products you know coming to market that are using this technology. So, it's just already moving so quickly and I think that you know for me when I think about clinical uses it really is going to come down to more of the insuring that there aren't unintended consequences of gene editing for particular diseases. You know things like that right. I think the technology itself is really robust.

AAMT: Well I want to ask about what you just said there, because there has been a new study now showing that CRISPR editing could cause hundreds of mutations that weren't the ones that a scientist was intending to make. And the authors of the study are cautioning that scientists should be aware of that. Is there a possibility that it could be too risky or too imprecise to use on a larger scale?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well, I need to look at the data in that study I just saw the headline for it. But in our own experience in my lab and with our collaborators and with other scientists that I know that are that are using this, when the CRISPR system is used in a way that limits the time that DNA is exposed to the CRISPR molecules, the editing molecules. I think that that has really gone a long way to limit the kinds of off target editing that might occur. So I think that. Sure. Can you show that there are off target events that occur with this technology? Absolutely. But I think as the technology matures over time it's becoming more clear all the time how to use it in ways that are safe. And I myself don't really see that as a bottleneck going forward. I think that's a very solvable problem.

AMT: We are talking about a technology that is awesome. How difficult is it to gain public trust in science in today's political climate?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: It's hard. I've now been running a professional research lab for almost 25 years. And you know I've seen over my time in science that there's been a, you know sort of the decay in the public trust of science and scientists. I think that scientists bear some of the responsibility for that. I think we need to be much better at communicating about what we're doing, why we're doing it, and explaining about the scientific method, how does it work, explaining that science is an imprecise operation, right? None of us are infallible. But we you know we try to do work that will uncover in the end the truth. We try to work in ways that lead us closer to the truth about nature. And we have to explain that process to people and frankly to include them in it. We have to you know help taxpayers understand what is the value of investing in scientific research. How does it benefit them? How does it benefit our economy? How does it make life better for people in the future? And I think scientists really need to get much more engaged in that conversation.

AMT: Do you stand at profit financially from CRISPR.

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well I'm a co-founder of three start-up companies that are trying to commercialize the CRISPR technology in various ways. Two of those companies are focused on human therapeutics. And one of them is building the technology for use in other areas of biology including in agriculture. I think commercialization is an important aspect of new technologies. You know I think academic researchers can only go so far in their work; we simply don't have the resources to take technologies to the next level. And likewise companies need to have scientists engaged to help them understand the basis of these technologies and use them in an effective and responsible ways.

AMT: It's only been as you point out about five years since you helped discover the CRISPR Cas-9 technology and a lot has happened since then. How do you feel having let the genie out of the bottle?

JENNIFER DOUDNA: Well mostly I feel just very excited and very honored to be part of this. I mean I think that you know for any scientist, I mean we all sort of do our work hoping that someday our work will contribute at least in a small way to helping the world to be a better place. And I think that for me you know being part of this has been an amazing experience, and I'm just excited to continue working with my colleagues and my students to understand better how to use this. And we hope that we will see at some point people that are actually treated using this technology. I think that would be a fantastic outcome.

AMT: Thank you for talking to me today.

JENNIFER DOUDNA: It's been a real pleasure.

AMT: Jennifer Doudna professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California Berkeley, the author of A Crack in Creation Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution. Let us know what you think. If you want to change your DNA if you could, what would you do, now that you know about this CRISPR technology, do you see promise or danger? Tweet us at the current CBC find us on cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on Contact. That's all we have for today. Tom Power is next. Thanks for listening to The Current

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

June 6, 2017 Full Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This