Video Review: Dr Philip Ball in Conversation with Dr Naomi Moris

Aristotle appears within the first few minutes of this two-part conversation, a clear indicator of the tone that follows. Hosted by Marginalia Review of Books' Institute for the Meanings of Science, the discussion between Dr Philip Ball (prolific author of popular science books and former editor at Nature) and Dr Naomi Moris (developmental biologist and group leader at the Francis Crick Institute, London) weaves philosophy through scientific discussion at every stage. This will not suit every viewer, but given that Aristotle's three-week observation of chicken embryos has led many to regard him as the first developmental biologist, I think paying attention to philosophy is entirely fitting.

Part One and Part Two of the conversation loosely follow the format of a Q&A. Dr Ball poses broad, ambitious questions and Dr Moris responds with precision but clear enthusiasm. The dynamic works well – creative, expansive thinking on one side is met with care and expert knowledge on the other, and the result is a conversation that has substance without losing its energy.

The first half is the more technical of the two, grounding the discussion in the science behind Dr Moris' work on human stem-cell-based embryo models (SCBEMs). The central question – how do individual parts come to constitute a whole organism? – is covered on the scientific side through cell fate, division and communication.

An interesting recurring discussion is the language used to describe these processes. Dr Moris argues that thinking of genes as a blueprint is not especially useful, and that genes are better understood as encoded rules. She goes further, suggesting that anthropomorphic or cognitive language – framing cells as agents that engage with one another and their environment – may actually be more useful than comparing them to bricks or machinery. This reframes development as active and relational rather than fixed, and acknowledges that there is much we don't understand about why and how certain cellular 'choices' are made.

The conversation then turns to the embryo models themselves. SCBEMs can replicate aspects of early human development without the use of natural embryos, which raises significant ethical questions. What value do we place on something that is embryo-like? If the presence of human DNA is what matters, then why do we not apply the same logic to the skin cells that we shed daily? As both speakers note, it seems to be something about potential, about what an entity might become, rather than what it is at any given point. The speakers approach these difficult issues with appropriate seriousness.

This connects to the thread that runs throughout: that something unformed can take on the shape of an entire organism remains as fascinating as it is incompletely understood, and it is exactly this uncertainty that sustains the moral ambiguity around when something acquires value. It is, as the opening reference to Aristotle implies, a very old question and one that is nowhere near settled.

However, the discussion is not without its weaknesses. There are moments where a clearer editorial direction would have served the conversation well. The jumps between topics are occasionally abrupt, and it is never entirely made clear what the conversation is building towards. Certain ideas, such as 'teleology' – the idea that things are explained by the ends or goals they move towards, rather than solely by their prior causes – are raised without enough context to be accessible to a general audience. Even as someone with a background in philosophy, I found myself having to pause.

The overall effect is of a pub-style chat between two very intelligent and passionate people. It is stimulating and wide-ranging, but at times rather dense to an outsider. By the end, I was left with the feeling of being given a partial view of something very large, knowing more about what I did not understand than when I began. Whether this is a flaw or simply a feature of these videos depends on what you are looking for, but it certainly rewards the kind of viewer who is happy to follow a thread without knowing where it leads.

For me, the conversation's tendency to evolve and digress reflected something honest about the subject itself – it is complex, unresolved and ever moving. Dr Moris speaks to this, emphasising that scientists need and want clearer ethical direction as their work advances into ever more uncertain territory (see BioNews 1246). It is rare to hear the moral dimension of science discussed so openly by the scientists conducting it, and this conversation is valuable for that reason alone.

Ultimately, this discussion brings together some of the oldest questions in the philosophy of science with some of the most recent advancements in developmental biology. The result is a stimulating, wide-ranging conversation, albeit one with little formal introduction or structure for those lacking the relevant background. Still, if the purpose of a podcast is to send its audience back into the world wanting to learn more about a subject, this one certainly succeeds.