Radio Review: The Life Scientific – Professor George Church

In this episode of The Life Scientific, the radio programme in which Professor Jim Al-Khalili interviews scientists about their life and work, we hear from George Church, professor of health sciences and technology at Harvard University, Massachusetts, and of genetics at Harvard Medical School.

Professor Church is known for working on 'headline grabbing', 'controversial' projects. Does he have some kooky ideas? Arguably, yes. Has he made irrefutably huge contributions to the progress of science and medicine? Very much so. Does Professor Al-Khalili ask him any interesting, probing questions during this 30 minute interview? Not at all – but I still think it's worth a listen, and here's why. 

Firstly, while Professor Church is described as having 'impossible' ideas, he has a very impressive track record and has made important and impressive contributions to the progress of science and medicine, including improving how we sequence genomes and bringing the costs down on that process massively. He has also conducted genome editing research, including making a virus resistant bacterium and editing pig genes so pig organs are more compatible to be transplanted into humans. In fact, the world's first genetically engineered pig kidney that was successfully transplanted into a human recipient was developed by the company co-founded by Professor Church (see BioNews 1232). I'm glad the interview gives Professor Church some rightful commendations here, while also making you spin out furiously on the utility of some of his other projects!

The second reason this interview is worth a listen are the titbits that will throw you for a loop, spoken so casually in Professor Church's smooth voice. For example, did you know that the Human Genome Project essentially started because the US Congress wanted to know if there was a way to examine a population's reactions to atomic energy, specifically atomic bombs – because the department of energy was 'responsible for following up on what we had done to Japan'. The scientific team gathered that day, including Professor Church, said that they wouldn't be able to estimate mutations without a gold standard human genome as a reference point, and their discussion on how they'd go about it that afternoon became the Human Genome Project. 

Finally, you must hear what seemed, to me at least, like the most wildly convoluted way to deal with the problem of climate change – specifically, carbon emissions in the arctic. You see, the arctic used to have more grasslands, which allowed carbon to be absorbed over vast spaces. Now, there are a lot more trees in the environment. So, Professor Church asks, what animal is good at knocking down trees?

'Trick question', I thought, maybe a little smugly, 'that would be human beings. We're great at deforestation'. But boy was I wrong. The correct answer: elephants! Hence, Professor Church's project aiming to bring back woolly mammoths and populate arctic areas with them.

If it seems I've skipped a few steps there, you'd be right – but this is the way this broadcast throws information at you. Professor Church's team aren't exactly 'bringing back mammoths', but rather introducing extinct genes (specifically ones for living in cold climates) to modern elephant genes. Which, it's hoped will have a double benefit – not just for the climate – but also to introduce diversity into elephant genes and help them fight the deadly virus elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus. 

So the idea is: create nouveau-mammoths, introduce them into the arctic, where they will knock down trees and encourage grassland regrowth. All of which will take a lot of time, not least because an elephant's gestation period is 22 months. It's not that it's not impressive – it's just that the reasoning here seems very roundabout. No, I don't think science has to have a particular mission or justification to be good and interesting, but I think I am also allowed to poke holes where holes are begging to be poked.

For example, my next thought was 'and what do the people living in these arctic areas think about potentially sharing space with a bunch of mammoths?'. Professor Church does address this somewhat, saying that they have spoken to indigenous communities in various areas and they are on board, invested even, and that they would mostly actually be aiming for areas with no population. I would have loved Professor Al-Khalili to have explored this further.

Professor Church then drops a bombshell that I can't believe Professor Al-Khalili doesn't press him on. As part of these 'de-extinction' efforts, Professor Church's team have engineered woolly mice (see BioNews 1280) and a litter of dire wolves as part of testing certain genes using animals with short gestation periods. But it seems to be more than that, because Professor Church then begins vaguely mentioning that certain ecosystems benefit from apex predators, and where there were megaherbivores back in the day, there needed to be a 'comparable sized predator'. 

Is part of this project breeding megawolves? Were the indigenous communities that Professor Church's team spoke with informed about the possibility of big ol' predators alongside the mammoths? I need answers Professor Al-Khalili! How could you not ask any questions?

At any rate the whole plan makes me think of the old lady who swallowed a fly: we had tree covered areas where we wanted grassland, so we introduced new-elephants, but they needed predator so we introduced dire wolves… and it makes me concerned for existing flora and fauna, considering we know that the introduction of an animal species can cause immense changes to ecosystems. But, see, the immense amount of thought this one section provoked, makes the interview really quite compelling.

In the future, Professor Church wants to research total recycling, and yes, the interviewer notes we're getting a little sci-fi now but as Professor Church rightly points out 'science fiction increasingly turns into science fact'. Indeed, his wish list of things he wants to do sound silly and delightful in equal measure and I wish we'd had more time to dig into them. Indeed, my main takeaway, is that I wish interviewer Professor Al-Khalili would ask more probing questions instead of telling Professor Church how clever he is.

Bottom line? I feel like people who say stuff like 'science shouldn't play God!' would direct such comments at exactly the type of scientist Professor Church is. But I'd think he'd be cool with it.

Oh and I have a bone to pick with Professor Al-Khalil, because, while he's a charming interlocutor, he asked exactly none of the burning questions I had in response to just about everything Professor Church said. An interesting and indeed, infuriating 30 minutes.