Matt James offers some thoughts and reflections on a new TV series which promises to introduce us to new developments in science and technology and get us thinking about the future. [Photo credit: Channel 4]
Billed as a “glimpse of the future”, Brave New World with Stephen Hawking is a new Channel 4 series on Monday evenings and aims to showcase the latest in science, technology and innovation.
Health
This second programme of the series – entitled ‘Health’ – focused on the world’s killer diseases including cancer, heart disease and malaria. The global reach of this ‘brave new world’ is not lost on the series producers and is reflected in the great variety of locations around the world the presenters visit. First up is Cameroon where biologist Aarathi Prasad tracks developments in global virus forecasting in order to get a better handle on detection of killer viruses to try and avoid them developing into global pandemics. The work of the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative is featured as they seek to discover and study animal viruses before they cross over to humans.
What comes through strongly in this segment is the sheer power of viruses to spread rapidly. Prasad comments that whilst nuclear technology may have been a threat previously to wipe out the human species, it could now very well be a virus which is capable of such a threat. This kind of comment might well have seemed too much of an exaggeration only a few years ago. But memories of the voracity of SARS and swine flu quickly put this into sharp context.
Robo surgeon
Robert Winston explores at first–hand advances in bio robotic heart surgery which uses bio imaging as a form of road map to help safely repair hearts through less invasive surgery. Being able to offer patients faster, less traumatic surgery carried out at a high level of precision may at first sound as if it signals the demise of the surgeon. However this would be wrong. Currently only 150 physicians can operate the system so the surgeon is not obsolete quite yet. However, plans are being developed to create autonomous software which would allow for a team of robots to carry out procedures 24/7, completing many more operations than any one human surgeon. This team of robots would still be overseen by a small team of human professionals. Like with most robotic systems, they offer significant savings in terms of the cost of training and paying a human to do the same work.
Behold the brain
Next up was Richard Dawkins who focused on what he describes as “arguably the most complex thing in the universe” – the human brain. Visiting scientists at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT) in the USA and Oxford University, Dawkins is introduced to the new and emerging field of optogenetics, using laser technology to discover which neurons are affected in human brain disease and to then develop appropriate treatments. Whilst yielding positive results on fruit flies, it is still a long way off for use and application in humans. Nevertheless, the profound impact the technology might one day have on brain disorders was all too clear to see.
GM mosquitoes
Perhaps the most intriguing segment for me focused on new work with mosquitoes in an attempt to reduce the spread of malaria. Joy Reidenberg visits and discovers two possible solutions to the killer disease malaria. The first involves using infra red beams which mosquitoes seemingly do not like and will not cross. Even the scientists in Arizona are still not entirely sure why this is the case! Using this discovery the potential for setting up 3D fields of protection from smoke detector sized units seem like a possibility. Think: infra–red mosquito net which is unable to be eaten through.
The second solution however cuts to the deeper issue: the mosquitoes themselves as carriers of the disease. Apparently the average life span of a mosquito in the wild is three weeks. The time lag between a mosquito picking up malaria and being able to transmit it amounts to two weeks. By effectively reducing the life span of the mosquito down to two weeks the mosquito cannot live long enough to become infected and transmit the disease.
Interestingly, this was the only segment of the programme where the presenter clearly verbalised a concern about the technology in question. Reidenberg expressed her concerns over ‘playing with’ the genetic makeup of a species and the possible environmental hazards and disruption of the food chain. These concerns were swiftly ‘resolved’ by concluding that a controlled sense of selective breeding was probably permissible and would therefore make this a good technology to adopt.
This seems to point to the fact that the series seems to be focusing more on ‘showcasing’ new breakthroughs and less on a critique of these technologies; a point that I noted in my earlier piece on episode 1. Even the most basic of critiques would at least set a context for the viewer to begin to assess the relative benefits of these advances and not simply be wooed by their greatness. I am not suggesting all viewers are too naïve not to consider these points themselves but given the place the series has to demonstrate new advances in science and technology I think it is a missed opportunity not to give some time to evaluate their potential impact.
Personalised cancer care
The most awe inspiring and extraordinary segment is left to the end of the program which addressed the issue of cancer. Aarathi Prasad meets a woman whose life has been significantly transformed by a new cancer treatment. Cancer originates by gene mutation and current cancer treatment has varying degrees of success in killing the mutation at the same time as killing healthy cells as well. Enter personalised medicine and a team of scientists who have been able to take the genetic fingerprint of each and every tumour and identify the key genes which have made the tumour grow. Drugs can then be prescribed to target the precise genetic makeup of the particular cancer in question, transforming treatment from not treating cancer per se, but to treating the patient’s cancer specifically. To be fair Prasad is quick to point out that this kind of technology is not the answer for everyone and not every mutation can be matched to corresponding drugs in order to treat it. However, the fact remains that it looks likely that, in the future, cancer could be something we live with and not something that necessary kills us.
Throughout the programme one of the key messages coming through is how new advances in science and technology are helping us to live longer and healthier lives. This clearly and should be celebrated. To see the joy on the face of the patient relaying to the doctors that within just two days of taking her targeted drug therapy her tumour was shrinking, is proof enough of the transforming nature these technologies can have. This must surely be where we can champion the cause of science.
Values and curiosity
Mixed in with the various feature segments of the programme, are short ‘talking heads’ interviews where some of the key presenters give a short response to a particular question. One such interview during this episode helps to highlight a key strand running throughout this particular episode. Focusing on the value of curiosity, Lord Winston comments that humans are fundamentally inquisitive and are in effect programmed to ask questions. Throughout history the most shocking discoveries which have flown in the face of given knowledge have arisen from the basis of asking questions.
This particular episode of BNW clearly celebrates that: scientists and research teams around the world asking the important questions about some of the key threats affecting humanity today. But what perhaps is missing from this is the equally important role of values in this process. From watching the episode, it is apparent that scientists were not tinkering around with ideas and techniques for the sheer fun of it but there were using their knowledge and understanding to pose new questions, informed by a set of values.
For example, as a result of placing value in humanity and its ongoing existence, science and technology is being pursued to come up with a way of eradicating killer diseases such as malaria, cancer and brain disease. Humans living longer, healthier lives must surely be a good thing and something to be championed. Going beyond this to something other than human may not be so.
Building upon this kind of basic foundation a more nuanced conversation can be developed concerning the relative merits of various ethical approaches which can help us determine right from wrong. Approaches such as consequentialist (greatest happiness for the greatest number), deontology (what ought to be done) and virtue ethics (being and possessing the right character).
New Technologies: global impact
I mentioned at the start of this article the fact that the series appears to be taking a global approach in terms of demonstrating the advances taking place around the world. In keeping with this approach I would argue that it is important to consider the likely global impact of these technologies as well. Whilst it is awe inspiring to learn about advances in cancer treatment, heart surgery and eradication of malaria whilst sitting watching the TV in the UK it is quite another to think about these technologies being realised elsewhere. Much of these technologies will probably be realised in the not too distant future in the rich affluent West but how will these technologies ever really reach those suffering from cancer in the most impoverished regions of the world? Will infra–red mosquito nets just be a nice rich–world holiday accessory instead of something that brings real change to those who live in malaria ridden countries? Values cut deep into the set of questions surrounding new technologies.
It is apparent BNW has clearly not been devised as an in–depth, heavy analysis of new science and technology and therefore is perhaps not the place for detailed ethical analysis either. However what is coming through strongly in this series of programmes is that it is an effective way of informing the general public of new advances at the interface of science and technology and giving an indication as to what may well lie ahead.
We must not forget nor ignore the place of values in helping to shape and direct our thinking in order to determine the kind of future we want to create for ourselves and for those with whom we live. The general public’s embracing or rejection of new technologies, the decision of investors, venture capitalists, and policy makers will all be shaped by values. For it is not just about science for science’s sake but something far more significant.
––––
The third episode of Brave New World airs next week – Monday 31st October – at 8pm, Channel 4 and focuses on the topic of technology.
As the series progresses Matt is intending to write a short comment and set of reflections on each of the programmes which will be available online on BioCentre’s website and mailing list.
