. >> dowd: welcome to the program, people he i'm matthew dowd sit income for charlie-- chaferlie rose, we begin with i look at tomorrow night's state of the union address am i'm joined by tavis smiley, al hunt and frank luntz. >> it's legacy time now. i think will definitely-- if he's smart he will rise above it but the debate will be about why didn't he get more done. here again, did he not try hard enough. or was he obstruct. >> dowd: we continue with charlie's interview with dr. david agus, his new book is "the lucky years: how to thrive in the brave new world of health." >> to me catcher say verb, not a noun, you are can serg, you don't get cancer, you have cancer. so the body, it's a process it's going through. if i sequence your blood, or a hundred people in new york city today, i would find that sefn of them had all the chang of leukemia in their blood yet they don't have leukemia, because the environment didn't allow it to grow. so you need dna changes and a

per missive environment. all of our therapy has been here. the next generation, i think, will target here. >> dowd: we conclude way remembrance of david bowie. >> the idea of having to say that i'm a musician, in anyway, is an embarrassment to me because i don't really believe that. i've always felt that i i do is i use music for my way of expressionment i don't believe i'm very accomplished at it. and i give a little sigh of relief every time that i come up with something which sounds whole and complete and sort of functions as a piece of music. >> dowd: the state of the union, dr. david agus, and a remembrance of david bowie when we continue. >> rose: funding for carlie rose is provided by the following:

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> dowd: good evening, i'm matthew dowd, sitting in for charlie rose who is on assignment today. president obama will deliver his final state of the union on tuesday. the president is expected to touch on three themes, the economy, national security and civic participation. his chief of staff dennis mcduna said that the speech would provide a contrast with what he called the doom and gloom of the leading contenders in the republican presidential race. meanwhile, the gop race in iowa remains close as donald trump and ted cruz are running neck in neck. marco rubio is in third. trump has also built a 16 point lead in new hampshire. the iowa caucuses will take place in three weeks.

joining me now from washington, is bloomberg view's al hunt, here in new york, frank luntz, a political communications consultant, and founder of luntz global partners, also tavis smiley. he is the host of "tavis smiley" on pbs. his latest book is the cough nant with black america ten years later. welcome. al, let me start with you. stay of the union tomorrow night. i would like to sort of do a round. what do you think the state of the union is for most americans who will be tuning in for that speech tomorrow? >> well, it's a lot better than it was seven years ago, or three or four years ago n reality. but i'm not sure that perception is that much different, matthew. i think people feel this has been a very uneven recovery. it's been actually quite a pronounced recovery. we're at five percent unemployment. that's half of what it was only about six and a half years ago. but i'm not quite clear sure that feeling is as per swais-- pervasive as some might

think it should be. >> dowd: frank, what do you think the majority of americans think the state of the union is. >> when you ask them the question are america's best years ahead or behind, for the first time a majority now say that our best years are behind us. is america headed in the right directioorff on the wrong track. they say wrong track by of 5%. on all the statistics, al's right, the numbers are positive for more americans am but the perception is so dark and so depressing that if you go out and speak to americans all across the country, what they tell you is they have been betrayed by washington. broken promises by corporate america, and they just feel that no one is on their side. >> dowd: so do you think, before i get tavis a view, do you think the response, that the republicans are saying the doom and gloom is more in touch with where america is or the president's probable presentation of some optimism is closer? >> they're both wrong. because, and which is why the public is so frustrated with them. frankly, the republicans have to offer a more positive or hopeful approach it is perfectly acceptable to talk about how

things just haven't been the way that americans expected them to be. but if you don't give them a path to a better future, then the public has every right to reject them. >> dowd: tavis, your new book, the cough nant with meak america, the sense that nothing has changed or in some cases may be worse, where do you think the majority of the country stands. >> it depends on who you ask i wouldn't disagree with much of what al or frank have said. but depends who you ask. if you ask the one percent, they're doing better. if you ask folks down on wall street, they are doing better. if you ask the hispanic community, some progress, not enough. st you ask black folk based on the data in this text, it's sad to say, it pains me to say this every time have i to come to this, matthew, but black america has lost ground in every leading economic category over the last ten years. this book first came out in 2006. 2016, tennier anniversary of this text. i wanted to see where are we on what these top ten issues were

to african-americans were ten years ago. when you have lost ground in every major economic category over ten years, including the book sowt before obama, 2006, so it wasn't about him then. it is not so much about him now. it is about the state of this community. and for black people, when you are losing that fast, it's not a big picture. >> dowd: follow up on that, not to go off on it, but the president, historical election in 2008, first of can american president in the country. if you look to that, if african-americans are turning into that audience, or anybody, what you say is true, they feel like wow, i elected this person, it will have historical change, and nothing's change. is that problematic for him. >> i think that-- i was in a qufertion about this the other president, the bottom fell out for black america thsm prestill marginalized, economicically

exploilted, socially manipulates. how do you juks ta pose those two realities years from now. i'm glad i'm not trying to figure it out. i think the historians are going to root for obama ultimately because it's a good american story. you got to say america did the right thing. they elected the brother. you know, it is-- so the story, the narrative kind of takes its own shape. but when they get to this part about how you juks ta pose those two realities, his success and the bottoming out for black america, that will be a harder story to tell. >> here is what is amazing statisticically, the most optimistic people in the america are african-americans. >> that's right. >> because they are excited. they're so excited about this president. they still defend him. no matter what happened economicically. >> dowd: do you think that attitude changes dramically as soon as a republican is elected. do you think they become less optimistic as soon as a republican is elected. >> so much of america was proud back in 2008 when a obama got elected. not just black america, but all of america. even if you didn't vote for him, millions of americans were glad to see this country could make that step.

what is fascinating to me, that the community is suffering economicically. and it is wide spread suffering. and yet they still believe that tomorrow is going to be better than today. >> one of the things that actually struck me, looking at election returns in 14, in louisiana last year, is that african-americans now vote. they vote in just as heavy numbers as whites which was not the case pre-obama. so i don't disagree with anything that tavis said about their general situation. but i sthi maybe this reflects the optimism that fraj just eluded to. but it really was remarkable that there was a great-- there was a very good african-american turnout in louisiana n georgia, 14, north carolina. i think that may become a permanent condition. >> dowd: so turning to the state of the union, you've seen a lot of these state of the unions.

not to put an age on you. but you've seen quite a few. >> mckinley was great. (laughter). >> dowd: delivered in paper form, or whatever form he did, not on television. this is an interesting context for this president's state of the union. that i think from a couple of perspectives. so we've had, over the last 40 years, only a few presidents elected in two consecutive terms, right. so we had president bush who arrived at his last state of the union, very bad numbers, very bad perception of the country when he walked in. bill clinton reversed. bill clinton was doing well in his final state of the union. a different way to address the country. and ronald reagan, doing well in his final state of the union as he walked into the state of the union. do these state of-- now we're also in the context of he's giving in the state of the union a very heated political race where his former secretary of state is the dominant candidate on the democratic side. how much of any do-- do these state of the unions or this state of the union will matter in the course of the president's legacy and the politics we're about to face. >> well, not much for the latter, i think, matt.

but i think interestkly, all three of those previous two-term presidents that you just cited face the same situation. two of them had their vice president running then. i think the final year state of the union, whether it was reagan or bush or clinton and tomorrow i expect obama is about their legacy. that's why in part he's got to be upbeat. he's got to be can-do. he's got to say here is the incredible things america has accomplished for all of our problems. there will be a laundry list of sorts, some legislative requests and he actually might get a few. but by and large, the 8th year is about their legacy and that context, i think it will be very similar in theme and tone. to bush, reagan and clinton. >> tavis, what i listen to the criticism of this president from the republican side, i get two completely opposing criticisms, right. the first criticism is he hasn't

been a leader. he hasn't done anything. america has lost. we haven't accomplished anything that is one thing so they criticize him. there and the opposite criticism is this president is a crazy idea log, he's done all of these crazy things. we weren't able to stop him. he's done all these crazy. where is the president in that? >> i think the truth is typically somewhere in the middle. and again, depends on what your laundry list is that you are judging him by. there is no doubt about the fact, here again is where the historians are going to judge him not so harshly. he keeps the economy from going into a great depression, clearly a great recession which wiped out all the black wealth. but we're in a recession at least not in a depression. we're going to debate this climate change thing for years to am could. we'll debate the iran new clear agreement but by and large the president got some things done. more quite frankly than i thought he would get done in the second term. but i think the obstructionism is a very real issue. so for anyone on the right to declare him, you know, declare

that he didn't get anything done, if you believe he didn't get anything done, he didn't get anything done because you blocked everything that he tried to do and he got anything done ands up there tomorrow, twote irds of the country thinks' on the wrong track. but if you look at the president's accomplishment, unemployment at 5%. millions of jobs have been added over the course of his presidency. the american auto industry was saved, the highest sales that were announced in the last week in the history of the country. he got osama bin ladenment but it doesn't seem to be reflected at all in the perception of the american public. >> i want to step slightly out of tomorrow's speech because you have to look at where he could have been. if you go back to 2008, 2009, he could have ushered in a period of post partisanship and he chose not to. he could have brought in republicans and not allowed nancy pelosi to basically say it's our way or the highway.

he had that brief opportunity to do it. and he chose not to. and by the way, i don't blame him, i actually blame former specter pelosi for that. so i saw an opportunity, one brief moment when he could have changed the entire political system and he chose not to. and so that was the missed opportunity. and second, yes, the congress has been absolutely opposed to him because in the end, his signature legislation health care, only 38% supported it on the day that it was passed. you had a clear majority who was against it. so here he is trying to promote legislation that the american people said please, mr. president, don't. he was right to focus on the issue. but his approach was wrong and the length slate ture was wrong. and still a majority of americans oppose it. >> i disagree with matt dowd once once in my life and now once with. i don't buy the first part of your argument. in part, because i think the story is a little bit different to my mind, president obama

certainly in the first term was a bit too defer recommendation to republicans am i could give you a laundry list longer than the one you laid out of things where he let them run the table on these issues. the only reason why the health care thing even exists and are you right about this about pelosi, is because the president of the white house was about to throw the towel in. pelosi goes no, no, no. we worked too hard to get this passed. we're going to make it happen one way or another. in too many ways he has been too defer recommendation with republicans. >> but when this president country works best is when the president worked with congress. as ging rich and bill clinton proved. and they had tremendous public support which is a what allowed bill clinton to win re-election in 1996 and the republicans to keep the house and senate. because they were doing the public's business. >> the key expon ent is. >> matthew, have i to weigh in. >> i want to bring in. >> i really want to weigh in the clinton ging rich thing, frank lints knows is largely a matt. clinton rolled neut ging rich every chance he got, that is why they got things done because ging rich cappity lated.

i'm sorry, frank, basically a president is not supposed to to turn his back on a strong leader. you may not like nancy pelosi but she say very strong speaker. stronger than any speaker probably in our lifetime, at least since sam rayburn, that swha legislative leaders do. >> if he makes a mistake to point fingers or his rhetoric rises. >> i think he rises above it. this is legacy time now. i think will definitely, if he is smart he will rise above it but the debate is going to be about why didn't he get more don't here again, did he not try hard enough. or was he obstructed and to frank's point, the reason why you can't work with somebody who doesn't want to work with you. on the first day on your inauguration when the leader and the a semly minority leader said our job is to defeat him, i mean come on, how do you get something done if they they don't want to work to you. mething that is probably notof as soaring as we expect the president's speech to be, to the republican primary race for president. where are we on this race, you

think? >> matthew, i never thought i would say this two or three months ago, but i find it almost impossible to see a scenario where an establishment republican can get the nomination. and i have a broad definition of establishment republican. i think it's down in iowa to a two-way race. it's cruz and trump. and i think the battle for the nomination may well, you know, may well reflect the same. >> frank, do you see it that way? >> i wish i didn't have to see it at all. the level, the anger that is felt by about 60% of the electorate on the republican side is pal panl. and you hear it even before my focus groups begin. and in fact, i think you should look at it not as left right or establishment outsider. but tonal. are you angry or are you ook we es ent. and 07-- acquiesce ent, and 067% of the gop ask angry. so they are voting for trump and cruz and crist christie. or you can have the acquiescence which is basically marco rubio to some point but a jeb bush, or

a ben carson. that there is a more gentle approach. and we have now reached the point where if you don't yell in politics, people don't hear you. >> with all of that, if you were to put, if you had to take your familys' money and put it on the table and say i'm going to bet it on this person winning the nomination, who is that? >> well, clearly we shouldn't be endorsing gambling since young people do watch this show. i believe that ted cruz wins in iowa. i believe that donald trump wins in new hampshire. and south carolina. and if you force me to bet right now, i've never said this on television, but if you force me to bet right now, i would say trump has the advantage. a narrow advantage over ted cruz but you still got to watch rubio, and you still have to watch chris yisie. >> not of what al calls the establishment candidates or acquiescent candidates would you put. >> no, because they are so outnumbered and so outshouted it is depressing. >> i can't talk after frank's last comment.

i'm about to go into full cardiac arrest. might have a fred san sord-- sanford moment, please say it ain't. so i think ultimately it doesn't matter. i say something that i haven't said on tv. i don't think it matters either way. because in the end whether cruz or trump, i don't think you can get there from here. that is to say in the most multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic maryb, that dog just won't hunt. what trump is selling ain't nobody going to buy it, what cruz is selling is not going to be bought writ large and in the end it's not gonna sale to the majority of the meak. bill cloin ton said collection elections are about the future, not the past. i don't see how that message sells about a brighter future for america. so in the end i don't think it matters. >> there is one problem which is the opponent will be hillary clinton. regardless if bernie sanders wins i what and new hampshire, i think he will win both. she will be the opponent. >> when he does that, which i think is probably true, does it extend their process much longer

so it hurtser in the process. >> correct. we're pollsters, only 29% of america think she has the honesty and integrity to be president. we've never had anyone even close to those numbers. how do you elect someone or how are you so sure that person wins when less than one out of three voters and only half of your own party thinks that she has the honesty and integrity to win. >> because if trump or cruz is the nominee will you scare the haitis out of everybody else and they will show up in huge numbers to make sure he doesn't win. >> that is what i bring you in. i think there is something jessie helms dher ree of winning, it doesn't matter what my numbers are as long as i make the other person's numbers worse than my numbers, i win. you think hillary clinton's numbers are begging that done all trump or ted cruz win the nomination? >> they are, matthew, without question. now there say danger in that. i remember this is before most of were you born but back in 19676 california republicans or democrats pray for ronald reagan. they wanted to run against him rather than the mayor of san francisco. they got their wish and they have been suffering ever since.

so yeah, let me just make one observation about the republicans. i think the danger for the republican party particularly if it is a trump or a cruz and they lose the election, is duz it to the allly change the party? duz this party become the part of the anti-immigration party. the antitrade party. and i think that is a real danger for republicans. if that is the case, there is going to be a new party or a split of some sort. hillary clinton i agree with frank, is a very weak candidate. i'm less impressed by the only 29% give her high marks on honesty. i was around when richard nixon was elected twice. but i do think that she has problems with all kinds of different constituency. in our latest poll, only 35% of young people have a favorable view towards hillary clinton. obama got 60% of those votes. that's a problem. and i think her greatest hope right now is that she will run against a very weak republican candidate.

>> thanks. i was going to ask you that. so the description of this like likelihood means we are going to nominate, the two parties are going to nominate candidates that are both disliked and distrusted at huge levels, and who are on their own unelectable, on hillary clinton on her own, and donald trump or ted cruz on his own. that is a choice the american public is going to be faced with, which isn't a happy choice. >> nope. >> not a happy choice. so ultimately what we have to decide when we go to the poll stion what kind of nation do we want to be. what kind of people do we want to be. that's for the country at large and for republicans, they are going to have to figure out who they want to be when they grow up and what they are going to stand for when they grow up. and again, i think republicans can win still, down elections, frank. but i just don't see the country at this point turning in that direction. i don't see someone who is attacking people on race, and attacking people on religion. and you can't expand your party if you're going to be the

anti-immigrant party. i just don't see, i don't see the numbers. i don't see how you win. >> you raised the best point of all. republicans have majority in the senate. they have the biggest majority in the house they've had since 1928 which i think was al's first campaign. they have got more governors now than at any time in modern times. they've got more state legislatures and legislators than any time. republicans have been winning everything except for the white house. >> a year and a week from now is the inauguration of the next president. who takes the oath. >> i will be living in new zealand at that point so i won't care. this really is the ultimate, i know we're on public tferlings and some sort of network, it's the screw you election. i don't know who takes the oath but in listening to tavis and al, i know that half of americans will feel that the president is unacceptable to them. and i am so afraid of where this country will be one year from today. because i think however divided it is, it is going to be much

worse. they will use advertising, they will use social media, they will use every thing possible. both sides, to drive home this message that the other side is evil. and we can't fix that. we are so poisoned the mindset of the public right now that even the best doctors could not save us. >> al w that optimistic note, i am going to go to you. i don't want frank to kill himself or take medicine that he shouldn't be taking. a year and a week from now, who takes the oath of office? >> if i had to bet now i would say hillary clinton but we've been so wrong for the past year there is no reason to think there won't be some intervening events that may totally shaing the dynamics. i do think that democratic race will go on for a long time. it is not going to be over early. i think you are right that bernie may win both, certainly one of those first two, even if he doesn't the race will go on. i think the one confident prediction i'll make, unlike frank luntsz, i'll go out on a

limb and say there will be things that none of us imagined today are going to occur over the next six months. >> dowd: tavis. >> i agree with al and that last statement, and with frank on his assessment, it will be divided either way. i was sitting as we move closer to the king holiday every year, king once said that could you ardist asked is if safe, expediency asked is it politic. vanity ask is it popular but conscience ask is it right. and sometimes we must take the position of either safe, politic, comfortable or convenient but we do it because our conscience tells us that it's right. i'm going to hope and believe that the conscience of america is going to be priked in this election sieblg and they are not going to pick a leader who is going to take this country backwards. america has always been about a flowering and flourishing and expanding hope and opportunity for others. and if that is the message that the democratic candidate delivers, democratic candidate wins. >> it up to us to make that happen. we have to communicate a more

positive future. >> i agree. >> dowd: thanks, frank, thanks, tavis and thanks al for joining us. we look forward to the next hundred years of your average. (laughter) and don't forget the cough nant with black america by tavis smiley. thank you, all. >> rose: dr. daviding a sus here a professor of medicine and engineering atu sd's tech school of medicine. his work focuses on new invasions and technologies that change the way we maintain optimal health. he specializes in treating patients with advanced cancer. his new book reveals how medical science can extind and improve human life as never before. it is called the lucky years. i'm pleased to have david agus back at this table. as many of you know, he is a colleague of mine at cbs this morning where he is a freak contributor. and i have followed with-- a frequent contributor and i have the followed the issues and ideas that he devoted his life to, not only in terms of helping

us understand them but in terms of the real life effort to extend the life of people that are his patients so i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: lucky years, why do we call it the lucky years. >> i think we are living in them now. it is an amazing time. andy grove was one of my men tore, he called it an inflection point when the curve of progress went like this. it is happening. i sit with you once or twice a week in the morning talking about a breakthrough, several years ago i would have never been there because there was nothing happening like this, it truly is a transformation, technology, health care, big data all came together at once an we're living it to benefit. >> rose: let me read a quote from you which i found interesting. what you said, we are at the point where there is a discovery every week that is transform tiff. our bodies are talking all the time. but now with technology for the first time, we can listen in so the question is what are we

hearing? >> it's amazing. so i can prik your finger, get a drop of blood and put it through a superconducting magnet, get a picture of all the proteins in the blood. these proteins are what con verse in the body. we can actually see that conversation. so instead of dna which if you are in front of two chinese restaurants and look at the ingredient list, they are exactly the same. you taste the food, one is great, one isn't. dna is your ingredient list. protein is what is going on a moment in time. so it really is amazing now that we can start to personalize things at a very different level. and instead of saying what could happen, we could say what is happening. >> rose: take me when we come back to a lot of other issues. take me to cancer because that is where you spend most of your life. >> yes. >> you know, this is the first time literally in my career of ta years that i can walk into a patient's room and said there is hope with advanced cancer. and it really stems from three different areas. the first is something that i know are you passionate about with this immunotherapy. cancers are born with a don't eat me signal on the surface. and we now through a number of

remarkable scientific discoveries have the ability to block those don't eat me signals. and a la president carter and other people, we can make people live longer and better. soin steadily of these things, president carter was diagnosed mel a noama met static or spread to the brain. that is a death sentence several years ago. now hopefully it say life sentence. >> rose: how does that work. >> so by unlocking or block thrag don't eat me signal, your immune cells come in and eat the cancer and actually keep it under control. and when you respond which is a significant percentage of patients, it can last for several years. an immune system keeps surveillance an keeps that cancer down. so event aislely the cancer will change and get around it but it buys us quality time to make new discoveries. >> rose: and so where is the future in terms of, these extraordinary thing about the people that i have talked to, immunotherapy is part of it. but it is that, as they develop ways to have your own body be used as part of the attack on

the cancer cells in your body, and in terms of eliminating their defenses as you just described, it is also the capacity, and we've talked about this too, the capacity not just to be speks identified with respect to one particular cancer, but more than one. >> yes. it's all changing. in the 1800s we call cancer by body part. and now we're calling it by the on and off switch. >> rose: brain cancer. >> brain, prostate, lung, you name it now st the on and off switches. walter isaacson spoke about steve jobs he called it something beautiful, scwumping lilly pad to lilly pad. every time we identified a target on steve's cancer t was safe on a lilly pad. when it progressed he was swimming again in the pond. it was a beautiful way of describing these technologies. and the hope is we can discover more and more of these lilly pads, if you will, there are several dozen of these drugs that target on switches and more and more literally coming as we say. that being said, we're certainly not winning the war on cancer. i don't mean to be totally

optimistic here but there is hope. >> rose: what do we need to do to win the war on cancer. >> we need to think differently. right now we're targeting the cell and cancer cell. we don't target the system and change it. when you drop a match after it rains, nothing happens. when you drop a plach in los angeles, it goes up in flames. so amazing study was done earlier where they looked at the eyelid t is the only place in e changes of cancer in the of cells of the eyelid, there was no cancer because it wasn't a receptive environment. so one of the features of cancer will be changing the environment. if you take a woman with breast cancer and after treatment you give her a drug that builds bone for osteoporosis, you reduce recurrence of the cancer by 40%. breast cancer me tas advertise-- sizes to bone, you change the soil, the seed doesn't grow, st a radically different way of approaching cancer that i think will happen more and more often, which is changing that system. >> rose: tell me about the eyelid thing again because i heard about that before. >> it's awesome.

is that the eyelid is the one place you don't put sunscreen, theu v radiation causes damage. and if i sequence people, if i sequence your eyelids today i would find all of the dna changes of cancer there yet you don't have cancer. because-- . >> rose: why is that. >> because you need to have dna changes but you also need an environment that allows the cancer to grow. to me cancer is a verb, not a noun. are you cancerring. you don't get cancer, you have can semplet and so the body is a process that it is going through. if i sequence your blood and a hundred people in new york city today i would find that seven of them had all the changes of leukemia in their blood, yet they don't have leukemia. because the environment didn't allow it to grow. so you need dna changes and a per missive environment. all of our therapy has been here. the next generation i think will target here. why do drugs like aspirin and statins prevent cancer? probably because they change that system. >> are there other drugs out there in the pipeline that might change the system even more? >> i hope. amazing discovery happened early this year with elephants. you say why elephants.

elephants are 40 times bigger than you or i. you yet they get almost no cancer. when you look at an elephant, the mothers give birth to children to age 60, fathers live until 70, until the day they die they actually protect the pack of elephants. so they developed a way not to get cancer. a gene called p-53, you and i have one copy of. and what corrects dna, they have 120 copies of. evolutionarily after age 30, they don't need us any more. we had our children. we just take housing and resources, et cetera. so they-- elephant evolved away not to get cancer so they can continue to have children and protect the herd. we haven't done that. so we're not going to wait a million dollars. >> rose: can we do that. >> we're not going to wait a million years but we'll try to take this outliar effect and try to learn from it so we can there is a moleculean whenu and

called-- that can go in and change one of the 3 billion letters of dna. it is an enormous po wemplet earlier this year they took mosquitoes and made them mall aria resistant so they can become a dominant population and get rid of mall aria by changing the mosquito. you can change, if you and have i a defect in a gene that gives us breast cancer or any other gene, we could potentially change it so our children don't get it we can reengineer a t cell to attack a cancer or another disease within our body. so we now have the ability in a reliable way. >> rose: is that what-- reengineer t cells. >> did he it in a different way. the group as penn do it in a different way as they took a receptor and put it on to a t cell to attack it. this is a way to basically scale what they are doing in a very powerful way. and it is exciting. >> rose: and what will hold it back? what will restrain it? >> well, there is a lot of talk now of national academy of sciences and others because in china they change the embryo with this technology. that we should rig late it and we should restrict its uses.

so i think that will be one area. >> who decides how to regulate it. >> that is the key question. there is no body in the world. the united states or the world whose job it is to regulate these things. as technology happens, bang bang bang, we need to think about that, about the ethics, the legal, et cetera. i wrote a piece in the new york times several years ago when angelina joelie said i have the breast cancer green, that a company was out there charging $6 thor for-- $6,000 for a test it was basically predatory practice, monday op lis stick, you had to pay 2k-68,000 to look at your own dna. and it was a wild concept at the time that many women couldn't do because they couldn't afford to pay to look at their own dna. several months later clarence thomas and the supreme court said you can no longer patent a gene in our country. they pat themselves on the back but 12 years before them what about those women who couldn't be tested and the lives lost. technology is happening so quickly the legal system, the ethics taking a long time to catch up in these lucky years.

>> rose: if you look at all of the possibilities, are we-- how far off are we where you can take any organ of the body, and regrow parts of it through stem cell. >> i think we're at the beginning of a stem cell explosion. >> rose: just to-- you and i, we just talked about immunotherapy, about gene editing. all those things are just taking off too. >> yes. >> rose: go ahead. >> immunotherapy is here, it is taking off but it's real and happening today. crisper, gene editing is still in its evolution. certainly 3d printing, organs, stem cells, it's happened. there is a girl with a bladder that has been in place for several years that was 3d int printed for her own stem cells. we're getting better. the stem technology will take off, more complex organs haven't been done yet but probably will. but-- . >> rose: how far has it been done so far. >> it's been done in simple things like a bladder and skin. so those are very simple organs

compared to a kidney or a heart, et cetera. it will happen in heart val ofs relatively soon. and hopefully. >> relatively soon manying. >> the next year or so. >> stem cell can re. >> stem cell can become anything. >> you can-- it can become your heart val of, a my tral vafl. >> you can print it in the shape of a my tral val of. but i think the real technology-- . >> rose: in a year or two. >> yes. i think the real breakthrough will be this. is that in the 1950s there woman named wanda luntszberg did an experiment where she took an old and young rat and tied their skin together and the blood supplies joined. and three weeks later she looked, the brain had knew neurons in the old rat, the white hair turned brown again. new muscles. the heartbeat bert, she claims she reversed aging. the only paper she ever published. earlier this year in harvard, stanford andu csf they repeated it and it worked. >> rose: how long ago did she do it. >> 1953. >> rose: what is her name.

>> wanda ruth lundsberg, affiliated with columbia university. >> rose: in the 50s columbia. >> yeah. >> rose: and last year at harvard. >> harvard, stanford andu csf, they did it and it worked. >> rose: and what worked was they took the rats. >> they took the rats or mice and they gave plasma which are the proteins in the blood from a young mouse to an old one. what they showed is stem cells go to sleep at a certain age. and this proteins wake up the stem cells, so they can make new neurons in the brain. they can make the heartbeat better. they can make the muscle stronger. and so what is exciting is we're never going to live to 130 or 140. >> rose: why not. >> because technology-- because i think there is general engineering failure in the body. i don't think we are at that point. >> rose: wait, wait, wait. if there is general engineering failure, that means that organs are failing. you just said that we can create cells that create tissue that create organs. >>. >> yes. >> rose: therefore you are defeating the thing that kills

us, which is disease that causes our heart and our lungs. >> i think in the short realm what we do is make quality years until 90s or 100. will we go longer, are you probably right, the sky is the limit there but probably not within our lifetimes. but i think within our lifetime we are going to be able to make the 8th, 9th, 10th decade quality with a technology like this. >> rose: what is it they have to overcome. in other words, is it some kind of adverse reaction to all of this? >> they need to identify the individual proteins. we're never going to get blood from young people or plasma from young people. we will identify the two, three, four proteins that do this and give them a shot like a diabetic gets insulin fix you break your leg in you are why 70s, will you get a shot and heal quicker. >> rose: wow. >> and so that is going to be on the horizon. it will unleash the potential to cure within you that is exciting. >> rose: i don't think-- i don't think we can spend too much money on any of this. >> well, this is the problem i have with our research in the united states.

ideas like this are great, but it's a tiny fraction of our budget is spent on it. >> rose: that's my point. >> we have talked before, inflammation, heart disease, cancer, et cetera, who is discovering new ways of measuring inflammation, almost none. we're not setting a priority of what we need. we're setting a priority of the questions that scientists have, and i love science for science sake but at some point we need to hierarchy of what the world needs. >> rose: i want to talk about the things that could go wrong before we go. let's talk about gene editing foarng. there is a concern that if you start screwing with the genetic code and start taking genes out and editing genes, you don't know what is going to be the impact in the next generation. >> you are not going to go for 50 years. >> rose: that is scary. >> are you not going to know for 50 years. >> rose: maybe doing some damage that you will not know for 50 years. >> there is an amazing story. >> rose: until you see. >> i agree. there san ob/gyn. mightal con dreea disorder is it has an issue and women can't give birth. so this ob/gyn was taking the

knew clee us out of these women and putting it into a donor egg. so the child had three parents. the mightal con dreal dna. the chromosomes from the mother and from the sperm from the father. he had been doing that for 2 years. 120, 40 children were born. nobody knows what happened to them. nobody regulated, nobody followed him and all of a sudden when somebody published you can do this, the world woke up and said oh my gosh, this guy has been doing it. and so we need to follow these outcomes, unfortunately, the outcomes will take decades to see if we were right or wrong. many times that's scary when are you playing with the life of a child. but at the same time, we know certain defects f you had a hunting korea gene and you want to have a child, obviously you want that corrected. if you have a brca alteration you want to have a child, obviously you want that corrected. you don't want a child to have to go through what you did. >> rose: why is it that it's better to freeze your sperm, for

example, then it is simply to just create new sperm when you are whatever age you are? what is the age that it starts becoming dangerous? >> what we know is that as the father gets older, the sperm or if a father tries to have a child, he can, much longer than a woman can. but that the risk of autism goes up dramically. >> rose: what do we know about that. >> we have no idea. we have no idea why. this is one of those disorders where, it is a spectrum disorder it is probably many different things and we don't know how to quantity tait it we know some of the genes associated with it and obviously epigenetics probably plays a role and many other things. we just don't understand. >> rose: that swufn the problems that many genes control things. >> st a complex system. >> rose: yeah, very complex. >> there are very few-- . >> rose: and the progress we have made primarily has been where they can focus and on one gene, there we can see the results and that tells us if we can pinpoint all the genes as complex as that is, if we can

achieve that, then the world sours. >> we got lucky in cancer. sometimes one gene drives a cancer growth, we turn it off, we can get a benefit. but there are very few other disorders like that. >> rose: artificial intelligence. >> yes. >> rose: what is the risk there? >> . >> rose: as some thing? -- think. >> you know, we think with a moral system, we think with a code of ethics and we think with a responsibility for the short and the long-term. artificial intelligence is optimized on the parameter on which somebody programs it. and so the optimization characteristics don't have the humannetteos. there is a great story of-- ten rembrandts on the wall am fine are real, swain forgery. the world's greatest experts go in and go real, real, real, fake real. why is that fake and that realk and they have no idea. they have seen 10,000 of them. they get it. their brain understands the art of it and can pull that out. artificial intelligence makes

very sim police particular, in a sense, decisions based on the characteristics and hierarchy you tell it to. and that is what worries me. conscience is a tremendous thing. i don't think we can ever replicate an artificial intelligence. >> rose: do you know how many scientists have said what is the one thing you most want to know and they say conscience, consciousness. >> it is a tremendous thing. and humans have a unique characteristic that we will never be able to replicate. obviously, however it evolved we're proud of it and we benefit from it. but we're a unique creature. >> rose: what they worry about too, in hollywood language, they worry about the fact that some how an artificial brain will be so smart t will be smart and can dominate. >> right, but we don't know the hierarchy that will make its decisions. >> rose: exactly. >> you make decisions based on your value system. >> right. >> there is no right and wrong answers for most things. >> if you can program it, you can program it anyway you want to. >> exactly. >> an you can also break in. in our field, we're dominated by the fact that blue cross got

broken into and they saw the health records. what will happen in the next year is somebody is going to break in and are you going to go to the operating room with an infection and they say, to the emergency room and they say charie you need antibiotics so they give you antibiotics, look at your chart, an hour later are you dead because they will break into your records, someone will change it and take away your allergy. so what is going to happen-- . >> rose: somebody will intentionalliness and do you harm by breaking your health record and so therefore when they access your health record t will be an untrue record. >> yes. that will be the next generation of these break-ins. and so computing is exciting for our field. but at the same time there is danger there. and it's scary. and so we're not addressing it like we should. and classically we address it when something bad happens. when there say break-in. but there is going to be in our field, something that happens in the next year or so that makes us all take a step back. and i am worried about it. >> rose: the book is called the lucky years. it is about the promise of science. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. david bowie died

on sunday just two days after his 69th birthday. he had been secretly battling cancer for 18 months. bowie was a singer, songwriter, multiinstrumentallist, record producer, painter and acker. throughout his five decade long career he went mi many names, gligry star bust, major tom. he was in an endless state of reinvention, always keeping his fans guessing. bowie's producer and close friend of nearly 50 years said david always did it his way. and his way was the least obvious way. he was a true genius who proved it over and over again, through ground-breaking albums. "the new york times" called bowie an infinitely changeable, fiercely forward looking songwriter who taught generations of musicians about the power of drama and personas. 's peered on charlie's program twice. once in 19 the 6. >> i think the great thing about generally includes music or anything is that the direction

of art is always dictated by the artist. and in music it happens the same way. however much critics write, the other musicians decide who they are going to be influenced by and the history and story of the music will come through the artists. >> when you are work in a creative area you are working in a comfortable area, you know nothing much will be produced. it is only when you start to move just slightly out of your depth you feel you are a little bit lost, that is when you are going to get something exciting going it will either be an abysmal failure or spectacularly what you really want to do. >> and again, two years later. >> i hope and believe that it's-- that what i do is more of a creative thing in that way. that i think it's fine to draw from oprah or from-- opera or the visual arts, from the underground, from mainstream. and just produce a new blend which is probably a more complete way of scriek the way that we live. and creating.

creating a sense of the cultural spin by amalgamating all these different threads, that is why-- . >> that is it, isn't it. that's what it's all about. >> rose: one of the things people have always saidz about you is you keep an eye on what is going on with what is new. >> i can't take my eyes off them. you know, it's-- i really, i have got an incredible appetite for what we do. and how we do it and how we express it. and ever since i was a kid, i always want to know what's out there. i always want to know what is happening. >> rose: do you think of yourself first as a musician? >> i mean museically. >> no, actually, i find that the idea of having to say say that i'm a musician in anyway is an embarrassment to me. because i don't really believe that.

i have always felt that what i do is that i use music for my way of expression. i don't believe i'm very accomplished at it. d i give a little sigh of relief every time that i come up with something which sounds whole and complete and sort of functions as a piece of music. i'm sort of-- and fortd nationally it does seem to be there all the time. i never seem to go dry when it comes to writing music. but i don't feel like a musician at all. >> rose: because you don't feel that you have that talent. >> because probably i don't really take myself seriously enough as a musician at all. i'm far too interested, probably, too interested for me own good but i'm far more interested in the blending of different things. and i just can't-- i don't have-- i have the attention span of a grasshopper which means that it is very difficult for me to become a craftsman. i suppose that i'm quite promiscuous and jack of all trades, artisticically. >> monday og knee and me are like this, you know, life's

changing, it has move add long. we've reach i had a plateau of ma jowrt-- maturity. >> have i changed. >> rose: what is it you think you do best? >> you know what, i think i would love to have been-- i would actually, i would love to have been like sting and been a teacher. i really would have liked to have done that. what gets-- what really sort of gets me off is to be able to introduce people to new things. i love the feeling of introducing a new subject or something, especially to younger people, that maybe excites them and gets them going on something. and it influences them to do something. you know, opening up some kind of world. i love taking people to art galleries and really corny things like that i love going to museums with them as well. and it is a joy that i have always had with my son especially, it's been just trefng to be able to do i take him to the theater one week, maybe, and then take him to a dance club or a rock show and

then an art mu seevment all these different things. it's just great to see how somebody else takes these same influences and puts them together their own way. because i remember when people did that for me. i always felt it was a gift when anybody took me anywhere. and or showed me a new way of doing things. i always felts that that was the greatest gift that they could give to me. i loved doing that back. >> rose: you have always, comes from disfunctionalavethat or-- madness out of. >> you know, i think, i have often wondered if actually being an artist in anyway, any nature, is a kind of a sign of a certain kind of disfunction of social disfunctionallism, anyway. it is an extraordinary thing to want to do. to express yourself in such rareiified terms. i think there is a-- i think it is a loony kind of thing to want

to do. i think the sainer and rational is to survive steadily fastly and create a protective home and create a warm loving environment for one's family and get food for them. that's about it. that is actually-- anything else is extra. all culture is extra. culture is, you know i guess it's a freebie, it's something that we don't-- we only need to eat. we don't need a particular color plates or particular high chairs or anything. anything will do but we insist on making 1,000 different kinds of chairs and 15 different kinds of plates. it's unnecessary and it's a siefn the irraisal part of man, i think. >> rose: how do you feel about let's dance. >> it became an inkrebled-- it was an extraordinary acceptance that i had there. i had never had anything quite like that before. up until that time, i was quite happy being a sort of a major

cult figure in a way. you know, it was a nice place to be. it gave me a lot of freedom. i could-- i knew that i could depend on an audience that would virtually follow my whims, you know. and i could sort of do what i wanted. but the let's dance thing almost became a hindrance and obstacle, in fact t did, because i suddenly-- my polls changed. my suddenly my focus was on well, what are the audiences expectations of me now. and i started maybe writing for an audience which i have never, ever done before. when i learned that that was for me, that was a stupid thing to do, i got back into the way of writing for myself, again. and i think balances equilibrium has been arrived at now. i'm now very, very happy with the way things are. both museically and the kind of sim pat cohave i with my audience. >> rose: earthling got a lot of very good reviews. >> it did, indeed.

i was so pleased with that. because its with an album that had no compromises on it whatsoever. it was very hard-nosed. and i was just so pleased the way it was send. it was great. it was lovely. >> that's very nice when that happens. >> rose: when did you sell brait your 50th birthday. >> yeah, 51 now, charlie. 51 now. >> rose: but you're not unhappy about that, are you. >> not at all. >> rose: you seem to have arrived at some acceptance that might not have been as hard as 40 was for you. >> no, 40 was pretty difficult. >> rose: because you didn't want to let go of the idea that you were still 20. >> everything was wrong, no, it was more about the fact that it was also my idea as a mus ig, i was writing crap and it just, nothing was going write artistically for me. i thought, you know, i thought i was trying to write for audiences t was right in the middle of that period, 1987. and it was just astonishingly awful time for me. and i think i just had to kind of almost, it's almost about pulling yourself together and saying hey, i've got maybe this

fin identity length of time left, i really would like to enjoy it, so you know, stop self-piltee and stop all these kinds of things and just pull yourself together. and maybe make some decisions about what it is you really want out of life. and i think the first thing i wanted was each day to be really good, and so i had to go about changing everything in my life, everything. angry i have arrived now at a place that i hope that i'm not so satisfied but i'm certainly a fulfilled man. i'm fulfilled romantically, musically, artistically, i love my family. we are a's so close now. have i a terrific relationship with my son, just, i can't tell you how great. and so it is something i just want to keep on the front burner every day. i just want it to be just like that until death strikes, you know. and that will be cool. >> rose: david bowie, dns dns david bowie, dead at 69.

>> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes vits us online at pbs.org and charmie rose.com. ♪ ground control to major tom ♪ ground control to major tom ♪ take your protein pill and put your helmet on ♪ ground control to major tom ♪ commencing countdown ♪ engines on ♪ check ignition and my god's love be with you ♪

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org this is ground control to major tom ♪ you've really made grade ♪ ♪ funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:

[ mid-tempo music plays ]

[ paper rustling ] [ dog barking ] [ dog whines ] [ wind whistling ] [ wind whistling ] [ engine turns over ] [ engine revs ] [ engine shuts off ] [ rainfall, footsteps splashing ]

"film school shorts" is made possible by a grant from maurice kanbar, celebrating the vitality and power of the moving image, and by the members of kqed.

♪ >> announcer: this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. on edge. stocks attempt to stabilize even as oil prices continue to plummet. and they may have even further to fall. another threat. alcoa kicks off earnings season, and this time around investors could be in for a rare earnings recession. the up side of volatility. why you may be one of the millions who could save money on your mortgage even now. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for monday january 11th. good evening, everyone. and welcome. stocks staged a late-day comeback in a volatile session, but the sell-off in oil prices deepened. domestic crude hit a fresh 12-year low, flirting with $31 a