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 2018

The Current Transcript for November 15, 2018

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Hazel's 99 years old. She is still missing. Alan Rigg, he is my neighbour, if anybody knows where Alan is, please. We've got so many people missing of our neighbours. Our neighbours are gone.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: It is heartbreaking enough to hear the emotion in the voices of those who managed to escape raging flames in California. It is devastating to contemplate the silence left by those who did get away. The search for those missing from areas engulfed in flames now involves forensic teams who flinch at the fact that the number of such disasters they worked at, is giving them new expertise. We're asking what it takes in expertise and compassion for that kind of work, in a moment. Also today, Bill Gates spends a lot of time and money fighting malaria mosquitoes.

SOUNDCLIP

That's one of the most stunning things to say that this little mosquito kills almost a million people every year.

AMT: Which is why he's embraced gene drive technology that may ensure a modified gene gets passed along to stop such mosquitoes from reproducing. But as promising as that technology is for saving the lives of millions, there are questions and worries over who else might use or misuse it. It's a debate with a big divide. Today you'll meet the Canadian scientist trying to bridge those opposing sides. That's in an hour. And he was there in Ottawa. Now former U.S. ambassador Bruce Heyman is protective of us.

SOUNDCLIP

I think Canada represents everything that is the opposite of what Donald Trump is.

Bruce Heyman weighs in on trade, Trump and his cross-border loyalties in half an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

As death toll rises in California fires, forensic anthropologists face grim task of identifying remains

Guests: Anthony Falsetti, Christina Taft, Steve Futterman

SOUNDCLIP

Oh my God. There's explosions everywhere. Oh my god. You guys, it's okay. It's okay. Go go go. Just go this way baby. [Heavy breathing] The wind is blowing so hard. It's okay you guys, it's okay. Just keep going. Keep going. Oh my God. Ahh. Keep going. Oh my God. Oh my God. I am so scared.

AMT: A narrow escape for Michelle Simmons, her husband and four children. Burning embers were raining down on their car as they fled Paradise California. That northern California community has been destroyed by the so-called camp fire which continues to burn. In the south of the state, the Woolsey fire around Malibu is still being fired, while a new wildfire, the Sierra fire in San Bernardino east of Los Angeles erupted yesterday afternoon. There are at least 130 people unaccounted for. The death toll has now climbed to above 55. 7000 homes have been destroyed more than 150,000 acres are scorched. Christina Taft was living in Paradise California with her mom. She got out. She could not convince from mother to leave. She's on the line with us from Chico California. Hello.

CHRISTINA TAFT: Hi, good morning.

AMT: What do you know about your mom? Did she get out?

CHRISTINA TAFT: No, they didn't make it out. We did not get any calls [unintelligible] in my area.

AMT: You were living with your mom in paradise, were you?

CHRISTINA TAFT: Yes I was.

AMT: So you got out. When did you get out?

CHRISTINA TAFT: About 10 a.m. About one and a half hours after the neighbour knocked.

AMT: What day are we talking?

CHRISTINA TAFT: Thursday [cutting].

AMT: So, on the 8th. And your mom didn't leave with you?

CHRISTINA TAFT: No, she did not know it was a mandatory evacuation. She did not think it was going to be that bad.

AMT: So did you tell her you wanted her to leave and she just didn't want to then?

CHRISTINA TAFT: Yes, at that that time, she wanted to wait longer like [unintelligible]] and the fire just went out, and the fire would have last another 45 minutes. And the women [unintelligible].

AMT: Your mom so she couldn't wait it out. She didn't think it was as bad.

CHRISTINA TAFT: Right. And she [unintelligible] before I left. We were fighting and arguing, that I was being disrespectful to her. They did not realize that there were no sirens. I even saw [unintelligible]. But there was bumper to bumper traffic out there and that's how I knew and it was scary pitch black out there.

AMT: You didn't want to leave her there but she wouldn't come with you, in other words. Is that what you're telling me?

CHRISTINA TAFT: Right. They didn't know that was mandatory. Yes they wanted to wait longer, even until 12, another two hours. I was scared. And I could tell and I am younger, I am 45 and she was 66. She wanted the authority to tell her. People [unintelligible].

AMT: Have you confirmed what happened to your mother, then?

CHRISTINA TAFT: I went to the [unintelligible] yesterday after a couple other police from [unintelligible] were calling me.

AMT: So I’m just wondering what you're thinking. You've lost your mother. You tried to get her out. She wouldn't go. You must be going through all sorts of emotions right now.

CHRISTINA TAFT: Yes. There's guilt, loss, death and anger, too. Because they also did not tell us and they didn't tell them, and [unintelligible] the authorities have to tell them to leave, because they weren't going to listen, like they imagine me as like a kid, you know.

AMT: Christina, I’m very sorry for what you've gone through. We have to leave it there. Thank you for talking to me.

CHRISTINA TAFT: Thank you.

AMT: Christina Taft is in Chico California. She escaped the Paradise fire. Steve Futterman is a long time CBC News contributor. He is in the thick of this story. Hi Steve.

STEVE FUTTERMAN: Good morning how are you.

AMT: I'm wondering where you are right now. What are you seeing?

STEVE FOTTERMAN: I'm in a place called Oak Park California. There are a number of small towns that have really been impacted by this. We've heard about Malibu of course, I've been there quite a bit. Cities like Thousand Oaks, California Agoura Hills, California Calabasas. These are small suburban areas outside of L.A. where these fires have really come and hit hard, the Woolsey fire. I'm in front of a home right now, that is completely destroyed, yet there are dozens of homes all around it that are just fine. Virtually unscathed. It shows you the randomness of these fires. How they can destroy a home. You can be unlucky, you can be lucky. The person who lived in the home right next to me very unlucky. I've been traveling a lot in Malibu Canyon which has really had the, I think, the brunt of the fire. Lots of homes inside Malibu Canyon have been destroyed. And you talk to people who've lived there for many years. Malibu Canyon it’s inside the canyon, obviously. Very steep terrain, beautiful naturistic settings but it lends itself to fires. People have lived with this thread for years. I talked to one woman who's lived there her entire life. She was born, grew up there. She's now in her 50s. She had some close calls before. This time her luck ran out. Her home was destroyed. And people sort of live with it. They don't like it but they live with it. And almost everyone you talk to whose home has been destroyed, they say they will be back and they will rebuild.

AMT: I am wondering we heard our first guest talk about how she couldn't convince her mother to leave, because I guess people have lived through this before. Are you hearing more of these stories, that some of the people missing now thought might be able to ride it out?

STEVE FUTTERMAN: Yes. That's always the situation in wildfire. We find people who say I want to stay there. I want to fight the fire a bit myself because obviously you don't have enough resources to have a fire crew at every house. So someone will say I'll stay there. I'll fight with my own garden hose. And by the way sometimes these people are successful, but there is a calculated risk. If you are successful, if the fire becomes more aggressive, if you will, if the fire takes over, can you escape? And the people I talked to over the years, they understand that they always say they have an escape plan. But what we've seen in the last few years is this new style of fire which is more aggressive, which does move faster. Some people say it's because of climate change. Whatever the reason, firefighters are saying there is a new personality to these fires and that makes the idea of evacuating much more, much more important. People really are risking a lot more now with these new aggressive fires than they ever had in the past. And that's why you're seeing these death tolls pretty high, especially in the camp fire which will be the deadliest fire in California history.

AMT: Okay, Steve Futterman, thanks for your time today. Thank you.

STEVE FUTTERMAN: My pleasure.

AMT: Steve Futterman, long-time CBC News contributor from our California.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Noise]

AMT: Well that sounds in paradise. It's kind of an eerie calm and a haze hanging over the place. And what you're hearing is a forensic expert using a simple tool, a little shovel, to push something charred aside. And it's hard to be specific about what that is because everything is so badly burned. It is grim work, painstaking, often physically hard, but it is what it will take to find the remains of the people who are unaccounted for. My next guest has been one of those forensic experts at many large scale disasters over the years. He was there in the aftermath of the attack on New York's World Trade Center. The earthquake in Haiti and many airplane crashes. Anthony Falsetti is a professor of forensic science at George Mason University. And we've reached him in Fairfax Virginia. Hello.

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Good morning.

AMT: We're just talking about the people who thought they might be able to escape this fire and stayed put, and that our first guest couldn't convince her mother to leave. What are you thinking given the kind of work you do?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Well the work that we do is to try and recover the remains of those people so that we can return them to the families. So that's the main task. You know and with a large scale fire like that, I heard you mention that they're using small tools and that's in fact what you would want to do, because you don't want to damage the bodies any more than it happened. So if you can preserve them for further testing for identification.

AMT: And as you watch this from your vantage point how does that compare with the disasters where you've been?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: I think the scale in this instance. The world trade center I was quite large in scale bird up that hundreds of acres that affected and the potential for individuals to be found, in an area as large as this city is pretty daunting.

AMT: And so can you describe how a forensic anthropologist would approach a situation like the sight of the campfire in California?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Oh sure. So what I understand is that the forensic teams of the anthropologists will be going out with medical investigators and more than likely members of the US&R teams, the firefighters. And they're only going to be able to go under those places that have already been cleared for potential flare out in the fire. So you know there's an added concern of safety. It is methodological search, you follow the US &R teams to the areas they've already cleared. And look for likely places to find individuals where they may have gone to seek shelter. So you'll be looking in the homes structures first, vehicles second. So they have to go out there and make an assessment and decide. Once they decide that it will be a very methodological approach, much like a crime scene. It a very systematic means of examination. For the escapologist there will be plenty of photography to refer to maps. I can only imagine I would gather all of those names that was in the past few days, although they have a good idea of what they're facing and is just going to take time.

AMT: And there are enough forensic anthropologist? Do they work with volunteers to do this work?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Goodness is California has quite a few board certified forensic anthropologist. So they could pull those from other districts in the state. And you know, we are always willing to help if need be. They have quite a few all the way down from Southern California, up to Chico State University, they have two excellent forensic anthropologists and I am certain they are already involved.

AMT: Yes I was reading somewhere where they said they're getting a lot of expertise now because there are so many fires. It's the sad reality right now.

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Yes.

AMT: I been looking at pictures, and you see houses completely destroyed and you just see like a chimney stinging, but you see the trees around them standing. Is that unusual from what you've seen in the past?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Well, a fire is going to go where there is the most fuel, and homes provide an awful lot of fuel just because of the materials that they're made of. In fact they burn much more quickly often than the surrounding in a forest.

AMT: And so when they're looking for human remains, and when you're doing that, what's that moment like when you think you've found something?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: It's a gratifying moment because that's the task that you've been sent to accomplish. And you know it's also your radar goes up because you really want to preserve the remains. One of the biggest issues with victims from fire is that the bodies, the remains are very fragile. The term we use is friable. And so when you come across remains that you believe are human then, you immediately go to photographing. And finding ways to preserve that because you know that as soon as you moved that body that there may be more than you had started with. I don't know a better way to put it. But remains can come apart to transportation. So you do what you can to preserve them.

AMT: And you're kind of are always aware in the back of your mind that there is somebody somewhere waiting to find out about them, huh?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Absolutely and that's why we take such care in preserving because were never certain what will be that identifying feature, or characteristic that will identify that person so that we can retrieve them.

AMT: I read somewhere where you said people have a right to know the fate of their loved ones. You really believe that.

ANTHONY FALSETTI: I do I do it comes from the Geneva Convention in 1945. And as part of the declaration- the International Declaration of Human Rights. People have the right to know the fate of their loved ones and it's what informed me in the work that I do. That's why I continued to pursuit this.

AMT: Because it's got to be really grim work. It's got to be very challenging psychologically and physically.

ANTHONY FALSETTI: It can be both of those things. The environment that the forensic scientist and certainly the firefighters are in right now in California. It's dangerous, it's dangerous for them as well. So these are very dedicated individuals who, in their way, very likely believe the same way I do.

AMT: you have any memories that really stand out for you on how you've been, when you've been doing this work, in how you've been able to connect a family to greater knowledge about what happened to a loved one?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Well there have been several times when identifications have been made and I've had a role. Here we were able to identify a young person, a very young person, a young child who was about 10 years old who was trapped in a hotel that collapsed. And he was one of maybe 14 or 15 people who died in their hotel. And his family stayed by the sight of their hotel for weeks while we were there, moving parts with no structure with heavy equipment and we had surely found him. And so it was very moving. The workers who were there happened to be US Army Graves Registration personnel. You know they formed a nice corridor and so they brought the body off of the mountain for that family. That was the one that stands out most recently.

AMT: And given given the intensity of that fire how do they go about identifying once they find remains?

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Well the remains will be transported back to a central location, Medical Examiner's Office or they'll set up a temporary mortuary facility. And it's a process that begins with documentations, photographs, notes and the body will go through a series of stages. It will go through what we call a morphology suctions, a pathologist and an anthropologist work together to extract biographical information: it's sex, ancestry stature of that individual. A dental team will come in and if there are dental remains, make dental charts. All of this is sort of the post mortem process. Evaluations will be made. If there're bones or teeth they could be sent for a DNA testing. And then x-rays will be made of the bodies to look for any items. You know the person may have implants that aren't seen visible but are deep into the gum. So anything that's unique and that same process will occur over and over again. And a biographical profile of the dentist is created to reach those individuals. So that comparisons can be made to whether anti mortem records are being collected right now. I am sure of that law enforcement have a set of process were people bring in dental records or at least bring that information in. And this process will occur and you'll eventually end up with a biographical, two different databases, was one of the dead and one of the living. And then you begin the individual comparisons and then dental identifications will be made, or identifications of unique devices and then DNA.

AMT: So loved ones are going to have to be patient. It's a process.

ANTHONY FALSETTI: Is a process and it does take time because the likely that these remains are in readily identifiable state, it's almost impossible. So it does take time.

AMT: Anthony Falsetti, thank you for your insights today.

ANTHONY FALSETTI: You're welcome. Thank you.

AMT: Bye bye. That's Anthony fast said a professor of forensic science at George Mason University, he is in Fairfax Virginia. Stay with us. The news is next. And then: he's a former U.S. ambassador to Canada. He's also an outspoken critic of U.S. President Donald Trump. Bruce Heyman is back in this country today and he'll join me in our next half hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Trade talks would have run smoother if the U.S. had been more organised, says former ambassador

Guest: Bruce Heyman

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

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come: a controversial genetic technique has the potential to do great good such as wiping out malaria. But its critics say the so-called gene drives could lead to some terrible unintended consequences. Gene drives will be the subject of much debate this week among scientists from around the world. We'll hear all about them in half an hour. But first looking to the future with past U.S. ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman.

SOUNDCLIP

There is a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump.

AMT: It may seem like ages ago now but that was last June when Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to President Trump, had those fighting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. And at the time, my next guest had Canada's back.

SOUNDCLIP

These guys just pulled away and punched Canada in the face. I think it was a line crossed a bridge too far. And so you know I think they owe you an apology.

AMT: That is the former American ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman speaking to the CBC in Jun.e As it happened Peter Navarro did it go on to apologize for his harsh words which were sparked by a conflict over steel an aluminum tariffs. That didn't do much to though relations between the two countries. Often acrimonious talks finally led to an agreement on a new North American Trade Pact called the United States Mexico Canada agreement or USMCA. But those tariffs remain in place and President Trump is threatening new ones on the auto sector. And now there is rumbling from the incoming Democrat House majority that the USMCA will not get an easy ride. Bruce Heyman has followed the twists and turns closely. He has become a frequent critic of the Trump administration and its handling of the cross-border relationship, something he follows closely as an adviser to the Ottawa based think tank Canada 2020, as well as the Wilson Center's Canada Institute in Washington. Ambassador Heymon joins me in our Toronto studio. Welcome.

BRUCE HEYMAN: Good to be here. That tape of you back in June an eternity ago it seems, in Trump administration times. How would you describe the state of U.S. Canada relations now?

BRUCE HEYMAN: The state of U.S. Canada relationship is actually pretty good and I'm going to tell you, let's leave politics aside. We are not only great trading partners. We're not only neighbors, sharing this 5500 mile border. We're not only allies. We are not only friends, but we're family. And I will tell you from of my experience traveling from coast to coast to coast. The depth and breadth of this relationship will not be overturned by any one person, even if he is the president of the United States of America. Politically it's been challenging the last two years and so I have use that to stand up for the U.S. Canada relationship or ever I can could, because it's just too important. But this too shall pass. But there may be still some bumpy roads ahead as this president has been challenging to our relationships internationally with our allies all around the world.

AMT: Do you get the sense that there is real acrimony behind the theatrical pronouncements of President Truman, or is it just theater?

BRUCE HEYMAN: Don't know. I mean you know it's so difficult for those of us who have a set of values that he is the antithesis for America. And so you know over the last couple of years his behavior seems to be so personal and he has an incredibly off putting personal idiosyncrasies that it may very well be very personal for him between the leaders of our allies. He sure acts that way.

AMT: You followed the negotiations that led to the new NAFTA, the USMCA very closely. How would you rate the agreement that was finally reached?

BRUCE HEYMAN: So first of all I think that it is a good agreement but don't get me wrong I don't think after as it existed was a bad agreement. It needed updating and there was no doubt about it. The Obama administration recognized that TPP was the source of upgrading NAFTA for all of our participants in North America.

AMT: Trans-Pacific Partnership which Trump pulled off.

BRUCE HEYMAN: Trans-Pacific Partnership. That's correct. But much of the language- I think about two thirds of this agreement you can actually look back to the negotiated language of TPP. So what the Trump administration did was use a lot of that. And then there were other ways of updating. But there aren't huge substantial changes here. So I personally, on a broad base, am okay with it but I know that there are a number of people that had and continue to have higher expectations as to what this agreement could and should be.

AMT: Well you have a background in finance, you used to be with Goldman Sachs.

BRUCE HEYMAN: Correct.

AMT: How good do you think this is as a disaster for American business and American workers?

BRUCE HEYMAN: So I think it's a good deal again because I think NAFTA was fine. I think the president used this as a tool to get elected in 2016. This was you know his punching bag, NAFTA, claiming that so many American jobs and companies were shipped out over our border, mainly to Mexico. But he then turned on Canada last year, but he used this as a tool to whip up his base. And unfortunately he also claimed that he was going to bring back jobs, raise wages, do all these amazing things with the new agreement. And that's where the Democrats I think are having some trouble of 'well wait a minute. I don't think you're able to pull off of the things that you're now claiming this huge victory on'. And so that's where some of the challenges I think are going to come.

AMT: Well we just heard yesterday from Bill Pascrell, Democrat, who is poised to chair the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, that this may not go far enough in terms of some of the enforcement of this new legislation. So that it will survive a new house intact?

BRUCE HEYMAN: So let's go back, the last few days I've been on the phone with leadership in the Democratic Party both in the House and Senate side to have discussions to get a better understanding of what the issues are. So let me tick through some of these issues that are on the Democratic side, at least is this initial pass. The first is labor. There is a 16 dollar wage provision that was put in in terms of manufacturing, 30 percent content, now close to 40 percent. The issue is 16 dollars. First they asked the question is 16 dollars the right number. But if it is the right number, there are no provisions for it to go up with inflation. So one year, two years, five years, 10 years and the current NAFTA is 25 years old. So what is the provision to grow that wage via inflation. So that's number one. Number two is enforcement which you just brought up. So there are good provisions in here that look like there's some progress being made in labor and environmental standards. The challenge that some of the Democrats say is where are the details in terms of enforcement to make sure that we uphold those labor and environmental standards. The third are these tariffs that continue to exist on steel and on aluminum. And I think that there are a number of people while on the Democratic side sensitive that there's too much steel around the world than the Chinese are dumping it, taxing Canadian steel makes no sense especially for national security. And then the fourth issue is going to be the political landscape. This this is going to get dealt with late, in 2019. And now we're getting into a new presidential year and the question will be the president claimed he did all these great things to bring jobs back in America with this new agreement. I don't think the Democrats are going to let him just say that and get away with it, unless - (a) - it's true which I don't think it's necessarily true. And they're going to probably put their own imprint on it.

AMT: And he wanted to fast track it. But is that fast track now slowed?

BRUCE HEYMAN: Yes I think he made a critical error and the whole U.S. trade representative team made a major mistake. You know in sports everybody says you got to watch the clock. Watch the clock. Well you've got to do the same in terms of watching the calendar, in politics. The first year of the presidency gave him all the leeway. He had the Republican control of the House and the Senate and the White House. But you also head stability in terms of governments in Canada and Mexico with no elections. And so you had a window and while I was sitting ambassador I knew the Canadians had gone up to the president elect's office and said let's negotiate. Let's update this agreement. We're willing to do it. The Mexicans did the same. So he had a window in 2017 to update the agreement without all the acrimony that he created in terms of the relationship and the language used toward the prime minister and the foreign minister and the Canadian people etc. We could have gotten all this done. We could've had agreement that look substantially like this, could have passed the House and the Senate and gotten done in 2017, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation today. So I think they mismanaged this. Now we find ourselves rushing to get this signed, next you know, by the 30th, because we need the sitting president of Mexico to sign it, instead of the new one. And then now we have lost, or the president has lost, the House of Representatives. It's going to be much more complicated for him now.

AMT: Do you think that was a calculated move by the Trump administration because he likes to negotiate down to the wire, to play the game that he plays in the quote unquote "out of the deal". Why didn't they do that?

BRUCE HEYMAN: I just think they were organized. They just didn't seem to be prepared and everybody I've talked to who are involved in these negotiations you know told me behind the scenes the Americans aren't prepared. They're not prepared with all the chapters. They're not prepared with the what they want. They're not laying on the table all the details of what they want to get accomplished. And they kept changing the rules in the middle of the game and throwing things out that were not really controversial, like sunset closets and getting rid of chapter 19 which was dispute resolution. And all of these things delayed, I think, the outcome and kept pushing us into these more dangerous political terms.

AMT: And of course, so the USMCA has not actually signed. The Trudeau government has been under pressure at home to have the aluminum and steel tariffs lifted before it is signed. How realistic is that?

BRUCE HEYMAN: I am hopeful. First of all the steel and aluminum tariffs make no sense on Canada. They make no sense at two levels. Let's first start with - or three level seven. First start with it's under national security provisions in which these steel and aluminum are imposed. There is no national security threat with Canada under any circumstances. Second, the U.S. has a trade surplus in steel with Canada. So if you're telling me we've got this huge problem with steel then that doesn't make any sense. And thirdly, we have a defense agreement in the United States which, as an umbrella, brings Canada, in not only a [unintelligible], but also takes into account the steel and aluminum as components for military equipment. So you know this is just a false narrative. But he has weaponised tariffs and he's using tariffs as a threat in trade wars around the world. And I think the Democrats need to hold him accountable for that.

AMT: And I want to talk about what else is going on with those tariffs around the world. But let's stick with Canada for a minute. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland spoke to CBC this week. I want you to hear a bit of what she had to say about those tariffs.

SOUNDCLIP

When it comes to the tariffs, I want to be really clear. I think they are really a dumb thing to have in place. They are illegal. They're unjustified. They're absurd. And they are hurting both countries. And we think the best thing to do, for Canada and the United States, would be just to lift those mutual tarriffs. And I do feel that voices in the United States are being raised. People are saying let's hope it here after having in effect, and our retaliation is having an effect.

AMT: Is she right? Are Americans rattled about the effects the tarriffs are having and the retaliation against them?

BRUCE HEYMAN: Well we have 325 million people, 'the Americans', that is a big term. I will tell you that the retaliatory tariffs are having an impact. I think that the president lost some seats as a result of some of these retaliatory tariffs that are going in, and that there are a lot of farmers that are now particularly concerned about the impact that they're having as a result of not only the trade retaliation coming from Canada, but other nations around the world. And I think the Foreign Minister articulated this quite well just now in the tape that you just played. I think that this is ridiculous and there are pain being felt on both sides of the border. But tariffs have a way of creating pain not immediately. It's kind of this very long lasting pain that gets worse over time. And so the companies’ stockpiles a lot of goods in anticipation of these turfs because they were signaled. And so they're starting to work down all these inventories. I think the tariffs impact will have its most effect in 2019 and 20 if it's still there.

AMT: Well let's talk about China. Chinese products were slapped with 10 to 25 percent tariffs. China retaliated. And one of the ways they did was they were buying a lot of us soybeans. I think it's dropped now by like 94 percent? When did the struggles of American soy farmers start to affect Mr. Trump politically?

BRUCE HEYMAN: I think that's happening faster because those tariffs you know aren't really tariffs. They're just stopping purchasing and reallocating their purchases to places like Brazil and other places. I think that the sad thing is I don't think they'd come back right away, even if we rectify our problems because once you create a new supplier for goods or services, it's hard to then switch back. I think this is this is a slippery slope and I think that when you start using tariffs, as I said, I think he's weaponised these. The implications of these can be far ranging on the global economy and we're playing with fire right now. And I am concerned about the escalation of this on a global basis especially with our allies. If we have issues with China, which I know we do, and a lot of intellectual property and state based economy and how they're manipulating things, but we've now poked all of our allies in the nose. And what is the president going to do? Turn around and say 'help me against China'? I think you know I don't think he executed this quite well.

AMT: Retired diplomats are fine keep a bit of distance from politics. You've been very vocal. Why is that?

BRUCE HEYMAN: And also look to my former president, retired presidents usually are pretty quiet too, and he's become pretty vocal. I think we're in unusual times now. I think we have a president that, for a whole host of reasons,. Is our president but his behaviors are such that need to be called in to check. One of the things that happened after he became president in winning the House in the Senate, is that Republicans as a party were afraid of going against him. Members of Congress who went against him lost their races. He even goes out of his way to point out 'if you're not with me, [unintelligible] crush you'. And he is the kind of guy that asks for loyalty pledges from people around him. I think we’re in a dangerous moment and it's a time where there's darkness that needs light. It's a time where truth needs to rise above lies and incriminations. And I think it's time for people who have the ability to do so and have the will to do so to speak up. And I'm not going to hide these feelings because I think what he has done, in particular with the U.S. Canada relationship, is so wrong and so hurtful that I'm going to continue listening for that relationship. But I'll stand up for the values that he's created such a divisive environment. Hate crimes in the United States are skyrocketing, up 31 percent, as reported by the FBI since you know who started running for office. Anti-Semitism crimes are going through the roof. We have such anxiety and hate. He's stirring up divisive politics with his populist approach. And he's attacking our allies around the world. You just can see the conversations he had with the prime minister of the U.K. this week, and how he's treated the president of France, and how is truly the prime minister of Canada. You know and I'm not going to sit on the sidelines. It's too important.

AMT: What are your fellow diplomats who are still on the job saying about about him?

BRUCE HEYMAN: So a number of diplomats have stepped away and have been very public about it. Ambassador Feeley who was in Panama very publicly left the Foreign Service. Ambassador Jacobson who is in Mexico recently wrote on a scorching rebuke op ed in The New York Times about what was going on with U.S. Mexico relationship. There are a number of diplomats around the world that are basically saying 'enough's enough. I can't take this'. On the other hand, there are others, and I hope they stay, others that are a voice you know that are a bouncing voice here. We need good people to stay in their jobs around the world in our government to hold this thing together as he is trying to blow it out.

AMT: Well I want to ask you about the wider diplomatic view of things because it isn't solely trade issues where Mr. Trump has upended diplomatic order. I spoke to Ronan Farrow in May about his book War and Peace the End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence. Listen to what he had to say about the Trump administration and the State Department.

SOUNDCLIP

The work of America's diplomats is indispensable for American citizens and for our close neighbors in Canada and for our allies all around the world. This is work that matters for the world and for global safety. And of course this is a moment of unprecedented attack on the State Department where countless career diplomats have been purged from their jobs where the prestige and power of the diplomatic profession has been badly eroded and undercut and where, at the top level of the State Department, there is utter chaos.

AMT: What's your sense of the condition of American diplomacy under the Trump administration?

BRUCE HEYMAN: First of all I must say that having the opportunity to serve here in Canada, the embassy we have seven consulates throughout the country. Some of the most talented professional, extraordinary individuals have given off themselves traveling around the world, the American diplomats - but also Canadians - working yen in each of our diplomatic posts across the country, furthering our joint relationship are indispensable for the U.S. Canada relationship and I had a great privilege of walking with them. I think that there are several things. One is even if good people stay in a place but if the top psychologically continues to berate you belittle you or cut your arm your legs out being not giving you leeway to actually do your job, it makes it very frustrating and I think in some cases people are silenced from being able to say what they need or want to say diplomatically. And in other cases were finding places where jobs are just not getting filled or people are being held to a political standard which in the State Department has never been the case. We've trying to be non-political except for the political appointed ambassadors. But even there by law the hatch checked and so forth you’re not supposed to be supporting specific parties and candidates. We're supposed to be non-partisans supporting our country. But there are signs that there is partisanship growing within the State Department which is unfortunate.

AMT: And Trump's and his supporters were arguing there was always partisanship in the State Department.

BRUCE HEYMAN: You know you always have the secretary of state being appointed by President. And you always have about between 25 and 35 percent of the ambassadors appointed by the president. That being said- and they carry out the values of the president and represent the president and the government. But I don’t think it’s always been as political as maybe what they're saying. I think they're being overtly harsh here. And it's unfortunate because this is the place where you know real work gets done, person to person, understanding the challenges and opportunities between countries. And I hate to see that. I also hate to see young people who would raise their hand and say they want to go on a foreign service. You know the President Obama and his wife Michelle went around the country and said 'What are you going to do for your country? Raise your hand. Be part of our government'. I think what Donald Trump has done is make this a significantly less appealing career.

AMT: We are almost of time. I just want to go back to the midterm elections, if I may. Briefly, there is a lot of debate among Democrats about how they should position themselves heading into the next election. I'm wondering how the established leadership in the house right now, when we talk about going forward under Nancy Pelosi is going to deal with some of the Democratic upstarts we've already seen, sitting in their office with Alexandria Ocazio-Cortez. What do you see happening with your own party?

BRUCE HEYMAN: So first of all, let me just say with all the difficulty over the last two years since election time, two years ago, that I am the most optimistic today than I've been in last two years. We heard a 115-16 million people come out and vote. That is the highest percentage turnout since 1940, a 104 years. We have a Congress that has over a hundred women coming in, diverse, people of color, different religions, something that looks like America and represents the country. And I am very optimistic that this group of new young leadership- By the way the average age of Congress went down 10 years last week. 10 years. And so this is changing. It's changing rapidly. I'm very optimistic about where the path is okay.

AMT: We have to leave it there. Bruce Heyman thanks for coming in. Good to talk to you.

BRUCE HEYMAN: Pleasure.

AMT: Bruce Heyman served as U.S. ambassador to Canada from March 2014 to January 20th of 2017. He currently acts as an adviser to the Iowa based think tank Canada 2020, as well as the Wilson Center's Canada Institute in Washington D.C. He joined me in our Toronto studio. Stay with us. In our next half hour we're talking about Gene drivers. Listen up. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

There needs to be a global policy to govern gene editing, says molecular biologist

Guests: Andrea Crisanti, Natalie Kofler, Jim Thomas

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

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Buzz]

AMT: Oh. Don't you hate that? That's a mosquito, a lowly mosquito. Although, if it's a mosquito it may be carrying malaria, depending on where it's living. Nearly half a million people die of the mosquito borne disease around the globe every year. And starting this weekend at a U.N. conference on biodiversity, a debate over one way to take on malaria will come to a head. It is a debate over a technique known as gene drive. In the particular case of malaria Gene drives mean altering mosquito's DNA so that when the insect breeds, it spreads specific genetic change that could ultimately wipe out an entire malaria carrying species. A coalition of NGOs is calling for a moratorium on this kind of technology, saying there's too much risk of unintended consequences. Scientists say halting their research however will delay something that could potentially save lives. We're going to hear from both sides in this debate, but to help guide us through the subject I'm joined by Natalie Koffler. She's a Canadian molecular biologist at Yale University. She's the lead author of a new paper in the journal Science calling for more international governance, as gene drives are developed. Natalie Kofler is with me in our Toronto studio before she heads off to that conference, that U.N. conference in Egypt. Hi and welcome.

NATALIE KOFLER: Hi thanks for having me.

AMT: So first of all explain a little more what r Gene drives are.

NATALIE KOFLER: Yes. I mean to take it back a bit, really what we're looking at is a genetically engineering or wild species. And what's really made this possible is the advent of CRISPR technology, which is a gene editing technique that allows for very precise, inexpensive and easy changes to be made to the DNA of any living thing. A gene drive uses that CRISPR technology to push the desired genetic change through a wild population. And it does that because if you were to release a mosquito with a gene drive, it has changed you might want, which might be for example infertility if you want to collapse a population. It also has all the genetic tools to be able to make that change and all that offspring of that mosquito. And so by doing that it allows you to release just a few organisms into the wild and be able to dramatically change an entire population of a species.

AMT: And that's where the changes are, because we've seen genetically modified insects and other things be more, but that this actually follows down through. This as hereditary change.

NATALIE KOFLER: Yeah. So unlike normally if you were to release a genetically engineered insect into the wild, it would mate with wild insects - wild mosquitoes in this case - and only 50 percent offspring would get that genetic change and eventually through natural selection that's likely that that change would get wiped out of a population. And so there wouldn't really be a transformation of the population. A gene drive, even if the genetic change is detrimental to that species, like infertility, it's still push through the population. And so that's what allows for the possibility to actually drive a species to extinction if it were to spread globally.

AMT: So this is what we're talking about the malaria mosquito right now. But what are the potential uses of this technology beyond that?

NATALIE KOFLER: So obviously public health is a big space but another place that this is getting locked out is environmental conservation. You could use a gene drive to eliminate an invasive species for example from a non-native territory. So for example New Zealand is looking and exploring these sort of technologies, because they have a huge base of predator issue that's putting their native bird species at risk. There's also the possibility to use genetic engineering, made with or without a gene drive, to provide resiliency to threatened species. So there's discussion of using this technology in choral for example to make them more resistant to coral bleaching.

AMT: And how contentious the discussion be around this then at these U.N. meetings?

NATALIE KOFLER: From what I've seen so far it's becoming a very polarized debate. It sort of is looking to become a sort of us versus them situation. Personally I stay in the middle because I can see both sides of this. I think that the potential benefits could be enormous and there might be situations that if we don't use this technology that is just as big of a decision as to use it. Are we willing to let our quarrels die and leave our planet? Are we willing to let 500 or almost 500,000 people die every year, most of whom are children by the way from Malaria? So I think that looking at it black and white is dangerous in a way. I think what's really important is we need to have this opportunity, because it's important to stress that an organism has not been released into the wild that has a gene drive. This is early development in labs. And this is the time we need to come together in the middle and have conversations about how to use this technology best.

AMT: Okay and you have some ideas about how to move forward and we'll get to that. But stay with me. I want you to stay with me through this. I am going to introduce a scientist who is a principal investigator with the target Malaria Consortium, one of the pioneers of Gene drive technology. Andria Crisanti is a professor of molecular parapsychology at Imperial College London and he is joining us from London. Hello.

ANDREA CRISANTI: Hello. Good morning to you.

AMT: So first of all what are you doing to the mosquitoes?

ANDREA CRISANTI: Well we are, as being highlighted before, we are introducing a genetic modification that impairs the ability of mosquito to reproduce. The particular solution that we have identified it's that we pack a Gene that is involved in female sexual development. So as the gene drives spread, no more female produce up to the point that population collapse.

AMT: Okay. And that is your goal. You're doing something in Burkina Faso right now. Where are you in all of this?

ANDREA CRISANTI: No actually we're not doing in Burkina Faso. All the gene drive experiment being carried out in London and that we are planning a semi field follow in Italy, on larger set up that completely mimic tropical environment. What we are doing in Burkina Faso is what we call capacity building experiment.

AMT: What does that mean?

ANDREA CRISANTI: This means that we are testing our logistic capability with local scientists there. So in principal actually all the local scientists there that are carrying out these small release of genetically modified mosquito, which are sterile. And this is very important because in few days they will completely disappear. So in principle this is just a testing facility to understand what need to be done in order to monitor afterwards.

AMT: Okay I am just going to interrupt just so that I understand because you are doing something in Burkina Faso with the local scientists. So are you releasing mosquitoes, these are not Gene derived mosquitoes.

ANDREA CRISANTI: No, they are not gene derived mosquitos. They are sterile mosquitoes, so in principle, after 15 they will all die and not genetic modification would be left in them.

AMT: But these are mosquitoes who have been bred in the lab, am I right?

ANDREA CRISANTI: Yes.

AMT: So you are releasing them to see how they would be released, how you can follow what that release will look like in the wild?

ANDREA CRISANTI: Exactly. That is exactly what we are doing there. This is just a capacity building exercise.

AMT: What are you trying to find out when you do that?

ANDREA CRISANTI: Well for example we will find out whether we have the right the technology to recapture mosquito, to monitor their frequency. We will carry our experiment to understand their longevity, how long they are alive in the environment, if they’re able for example to mate with the wild females. So these are all parameters that are absolutely essential to predict then how a gene drive will work.

AMT: Okay, so before you would ever release the gene drive mosquito you have to figure that out, and that's what you're doing now?

ANDREA CRISANTI: Yes. Exactly.

AMT: Okay. Would it be possible for Gene drive mosquitoes to jump species?

ANDREA CRISANTI: I doubt because the gene drive exploits one of the more safeguards that mechanism of speciation which is a species incompatibility. So I really doubt that this will ever happen.

AMT: You make the point that you are working with local scientists in Burkina Faso. Are you consulting with local people who could be affected by this?

ANDREA CRISANTI: Oh absolutely we are. Let me make it clear it from the very start that this is not at the chanology that we want to impose. This is technology that we want to propose, is after the scientists that have the problem to adopt. And this is where I follow from the very beginning. So they have engaged with local community. They've explained the technology. They've got support from the local community. They've engaged with their regulatory authority. And they in principle follow on the regulatory process from the beginning. We have never never been involved this, except to collaborate with them, to provide capability and to provide the scientific support.

AMT: Okay fair enough. Do you believe in that process there is genuine informed consent for the people, the non-scientist, of Burkina Faso?

AMT: Well I think there is an informed consent for what the technology does. There is an informed consent on what are the possible outcome of the chronology, of the limitation. Now if you ask me if the people of Burkina Faso understand the molecular details of the technology, probably not probably not even the people [unintelligible] they understand it.

AMT: Okay fair enough. Natalie Kofler I'm going to bring you back in here because you’re looking at ethical issues around this technology. And a lot of people don't know about it. How important is informed consent and who gets to have it?

NATALIE KOFLER: I mean I think it’s incredibly important and that's something that we're working along with my colleagues, as I understand here, who really gets decision making authority in using this technology because it does have the ability of such profound impacts. I really commend the work of target malaria. They are going beyond what has happened in the past by technologies to really engage the public and engage the communities that could be impacted. But you sort of alluded to this in your questions. There is concern that if the technologists are the only source of information, providing that's leading to consent that that can create some sorts of conflicts of interest. So something thats really important to me and my colleagues is trying to create new forums that will allow for a more balanced independent space, till the deliberate over these technologies.

AMT: And of course you want people to understand the real science and how much control or say should local communities have, when it comes to whether projects like this which do get very scientifically detailed go forward.

NATALIE KOFLER: I mean yes, the technicalities of how it works are scientifically detailed, but I think these broader questions about releasing are genetically engineered insect into the wild, the potential for ecological impacts, the potential for even human health impacts that we might not be aware of. I think that that's something that we can engage quite deeply with local communities. That being said, I think that because these are such transformative technologies that could have global impacts, it's also important that not only is there a local community engagement but there is also more global expertise that's included in those conversations.

AMT: Andrea Crisanti, critics say that by manipulating the fate of an entire species, you go beyond what humans should ethically be allowed to do. How do you respond to that criticism?

ANDREA CRISANTI: Well then we should not use cars. We probably have a completely different approach to agriculture. And when we are in competition with species I mean several species and go extinct every year, because our activities. So this is unfortunately to think that the human is above, beyond species competition in this planet is really wishful thinking and is misleading.

AMT: What do you think of the idea of a moratorium then?

ANDREA CRISANTI: I think it is irresponsible and is a contradiction of terms. Because if you ask for a moratorium because you don't have much information then in principle then you preclude yourself to obtain this information further on the line. And you take the responsibility to block a technology which has the potential to eliminating malaria. I understand the people is more concerned about mosquito than a more concerned about 500,000 children that die every year. I think we should refocus their argument.

AMT: Okay well thank you for giving us your stance on all of this. That is Andrea Crisanti. He is the principal investigator for the Target Malaria Consortium. Natalie Kofler, a molecular biologist at Yale University is with me still in Toronto. I want to pick up on that a little bit about the ethical issues involved in this, Natalie.

NATALIE KOFLER: I think that's a lot of our motivating force as well. These are really big decisions and this is as sort of the environmental efforts that I signed up for is this idea that we are on this interconnected planet, and that we do need to try and move through it with humility in regards to other species. And so to make the decision, to release a technology that could eliminate entire species from the planet. I can understand why people would find that ethically unacceptable. At least it's a highly weighted question that deserves a lot of thought. On the other hand I think that there are there are options and I think that's why conversation is so important. I also think that's why research needs to continue. So we can understand what those might be. So there's also preliminary research that's starting to show that it might not require eliminating the mosquito species potentially to extinction. There would be possibilities that you could use a gene drive to genetically engineer their mosquito so that it can't carry malaria, allowing the species to continue and thrive within its food network but also eliminating disease burden. And so I think that's why we need to be talking about this why we need to you every year so we can maybe try and find a middle ground that is ethically acceptable for most and responsible.

AMT: What kind of laws are rules currently govern the release of gene drives?

NATALIE KOFLER: Yeah. So that's where things are going a bit complicated because the technology has progressed quite rapidly in the last few years. And so there is somewhat of a void in the global government’s space. That's what's being discussed at the UN convention, that's why there is these meetings to try and figure out if there is policy to make up around that. Right now, they are still somewhat far from- well, they're going closer to a field trials and that would be the first place that regulatory bodies would need to step in to really understand how that can be done safely. Because I would say if they were to escape a field trial you could have some pretty big issues. And so there are ideas that sort of existing regulations on field trial with some modification might be able to be adequate. But what we are also seeing, and I think this is Speaking of what we're seeing with Target malaria’s initiatives, is that in the absence of global governance the technologists themselves are kind of picking up the slack. So that is why I think we see so much public engagement on the technology side, as opposed to having sort of a more independent body run those sorts of things.

AMT: You're calling for some kind of a new system of governance for this, so that the technologists aren't the ones necessarily responsible, in terms of accountability as well. [Cross talking] So what would it look like?

NATALIE KOFLER: So when we thought about this proposal there were sort of three things that we needed to take into account. One, is that this technology is highly context dependent. So of course you're attacking malaria and that's one species with one specific genetic modification and one eco system. That a situation's going to be very different than when we talk about perhaps [unintelligible] and drive in coral. And so we needed something that can address that really context dependent sort of situation. And at the same time also address the complexity of using this technology in the environment. And thirdly to address the potential for global implications. So these organisms are likely across international borders. Burkina Faso cannot make these decisions in isolation. That's just not safe and it's not fair really. And so what we're proposing is a hybrid model that would use a locally based deliberation process for every single project intending to use a gene driver, any genetically engineered organism for release into the environment. That would help to sort of address the context dependent nature of this. But we don't see that as being a local thing in isolation. It is what we are calling integrated deliberation. So you have local decision making authority, in combination with global experts in different fields like ecology, genetics, regulatory policy, etc etc. And that's a way that we think that you can have as many sort of diverse lenses at the table that we can sort of address how complex this issue is and try to minimise blind spots.

AMT: It is to point too, something like malaria again. Western scientists, like we, sitting in Canada, somebody might think it's okay. It's not okay but if you're sitting in a place where your child may die or your children may die.

NATALIE KOFLER: Or have died.

AMT: Then who gets to make the decision.

NATALIE KOFLER: Right and so that's the third thing I was trying to account for this issue, this local vs. global tension that we see. So like you said a mother in Burkina Faso may feel very differently about using its technology than an ecologist based in Montreal. And so to address that, well, that's why we think it needs to be locally grounded, but have a broader global coordinating body that would support that deliberation as well as help inform it with more global perspective.

AMT: This is complicated and has layers but so does the science. So you are saying that you need to actually deal with it on the levels that it actually exists.

NATALIE KOFLER: Yes. it cannot be science alone. There no way I think- there is absolutely no way we can do this responsibly if this is science alone.

AMT: Well we have got somebody else waiting in the wings. He wants an outright moratorium on this technology. His name is Jim Thomas. He's the co-executive director of the NGO the ETC Group, an international technology watchdog and he is in Sharm el Sheikh already, in Egypt where the U.N. conference is about to start. Hi.

JIM THOMAS: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: So why a moratorium now?

JIM THOMAS: Well because this technology is moving extremely fast and although you're hearing this morning about one specific project that's very well-funded, over 100 million dollars, much of it on public relations. In fact the technology is mostly moving forward in other areas such as industrial agriculture. One hundred million dollars of funding is coming from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It's really, the technology of gene drive is much wider in its potential applications, much wider than just the single example. And we're very concerned. It is a powerful technology that can reshape ecosystems, that could cause very significant risks. And what we're finding on the ground, in Burkina Faso and elsewhere, is that people are not being properly asked about this, that there isn't the sort of consent that you're hearing from Target Malaria that they claim there is.

AMT: You've had people Like Jane Goodall, David Suzuki sign on to this cause. How broad is the opposition to gene drive technology?

JIM THOMAS: It's growing as many in civil society, from the food movement, from social movements learn about it. So just recently we had about 250 different organizations around food, as well as high profile food experts such as the special rapporteur, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the last three of them, all call for a moratorium. About 20 years ago, does the same body, the Convention on Biological Diversity put in place a moratorium on terminator seeds, the idea of making seed sterile which would have really affected farmers’ rights. Now we have an exterminator technology moving forward. And it goes much wider to spread the sterility. And so it's absolutely appropriate that the international community takes a moment to pause, which is what a moratorium is just to pause, and work out how to deal with this very complex and risky issue.

AMT: You've compared Gene try gene drive technology to the atom bomb.

JIM THOMAS: Yes in the sense that this is probably one of the most highly leveraged technologies that we've come across. The suggestion is you can put a single gene drive organism, whether it's a mosquito or a mouse or a fruit fly, out into the environment and it will mate and spread with others until it takes over the entire population and then changes an entire ecosystem. So the idea that you can release a single organs and by that change an entire ecosystem, maybe across an entire continent, is an extreme exercise of power and potentially very risky. That's the reason why the U.S. defense establishment is so interested in it. It is a powerful bio-weapon, as opposed to why agribusiness is so interested in it. Because countries companies that would like to change whole agricultural ecosystems see this as a tool to do that.

AMT: Natalie Kofler. You're listening to Jim Thomas saying. How do you respond and what are you thinking?

NATALIE KOFLER: I think that of course I do understand the concerns because it is a very powerful technology so it does need to have an informed debate and conversation. I think it is somewhat misleading to think that the defense - from what I'm aware of - It's the defense the DARPA which is the U.S. defense, a subset of it. It's called the Safe Gene's Grant which basically is funding ways to ensure that if these technologies are used there could be off switches, there could be ways to reverse it. I'm not aware of a lot of their funding going towards agricultural. I think on a lot of the funders that I know are people got funded by that, the researchers are more in the public space than conservation or in their sort of basic science of how the technology works itself. So I actually think that really the most mature project right now are the malaria bearing mosquitoes. And I think that it's important to keep our eyes out for other areas of application but I think that's where our attention needs to be right now.

AMT: You don't agree with the idea of a moratorium.

NATALIE KOFLER: I don't in that I think that a moratorium somehow also just makes it seem like the technology is inherently bad. And I think technology is good or bad. It's how it's used. And I believe that it is possible to have a deep connection and love for Earth and want to protect it and still be pro-technology. And so I think what we need to do is figure out a way that we can still have conversation and research to understand how this technology will be used. To stop it outright I think it is impractical. It also could be equally unsafe.

AMT: And with the big names behind the call for the moratorium, David Suzuki among them, how do you react to that/

NATALIE KOFLER: I mean I have to say when I first entered this space David Suzuki and Jane Goodall are both you know environmentalist that I really revere. And I found it somewhat frustrating that to just fall and stop that technology and not be able to explore it and continue to talk about it and figure out if there is ways that this could actually really help our planet in some ways, and that was somewhat, in full honesty, of a bit disappointing to me.

AMT: Jim Thomas the technology is there. Isn't it better to keep on working with it?

JIM THOMAS: Well actually it's not quite there. It's there at the point of it that's proof of principle. And this is the moment where we'd have to decide whether we're going to move to release it to the environment, which is what is being proposed, not just in Burkina Faso, but in places like Hawaii, California. There are companies, there are companies such as Symbol and Agro gene as well as well-known agribusiness companies, as well as groups like the California Cherry board in the U.S. Citrus Research Board, who are moving forward the agricultural applications. And of course yes they understand that the U.S. defense will say that this is a defensive move on their part but that's always been said about bio-weapons. The point is we make a decision about which technologies we bring into being put money behind. And we had some of these same arguments over pesticides and chemicals it was said that you shouldn't reduce the use of pesticides because that might also be a way to deal with malaria. Now we're suffering from the impact of that technology. Let's have a bit of foresight. Let's think ahead and let's go slowly. There's no reason to be driven by hype and a large amount of money from the Gates Foundation and the military.

AMT: What do you say about the hype, Natalie Kofler?

NATALIE KOFLER: Well I think first of all I wanted to say- well first I don't think it's hype. I mean the technology as is functioning in labs as expected. So I mean is there.

JIM THOMAS: Well the worry is that somebody is going to release it before there's proper governance. So this is a decision for the international community rather than somebody to say they just want to try it out. Whether that's in Burkina Faso, or in [unintelligible].

AMT: I think that's why she's saying that she wants to bring a governance discussion to Sharm eL Sheikh this week.

JIM THOMAS: Yes and that's exactly what's happening. But governance discussion in the context of a pause. If somebody you know groups like Target Malaria say they're going to release this--.

AMT: Well let me ask you about that because we're almost out of time, just very briefly, do you need to pause to have that discussion or do you just need to have the discussion?

NATALIE KOFLER: I think we just need to have that discussion right now. And I think there needs to be a lot of voices at the table and so that's why this needs to maintain a conversation and then also we can have that conversation.

AMT: Well I think it's going to be interesting for those of us who are removed from this to hear what happens in that conversation in Sharm el Sheikh just about to begin. Thanks both of you for talking about this today we have to leave it there.

JIM THOMAS: Thank you very much.

NATALIE KOFLER: Thanks.

AMT: Jim Thomas, co-executive director of the NGO the ETC group, an international technology watchdog. And Natalie Kofler, Canadian molecular biologist who is an associate research scientist at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. That's our program for today. Stay with Radio 1 for Q. Tomorrow Michelle Shephard is our Friday host. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thank you for listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Thursday November 15, 2018 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This