um and genetic testing has freed them. on the other hand, we haven't seen some of the, the down sides of the invasion into privacy just yet. and maybe the technology hasn't been there. so that the, you know, people who are holding this could have use it again, information as power and getting genetic information about someone could lead to having an immense amount of power over them. so, you know, the secret to life is balance and we have to balance here, privacy versus all the, the wonderful uses that genetic unlocking can bring advert versus the detrimental benefits or the detrimental, the downsides. so for instance, there's privacy, there's lack of consent. we have accuracy and reliability concerns. so we have instances where this could not only be used against one person, but could be used against people, you know, group genetic groups of what is genetic discrimination and how do dna testing factor in. so imagine if the law enforcement has an incomplete profile and they say, well, we know the killer, the robber, the bu

that was solved by genetics. there, there is a lot of old, you know, cold cases the brings piece to, to the families and the bring security to society. on the other hand, we're having these, these corporations sell us out or, or be very, very invasive. again, people wouldn't want to give up their cell phone. why would they want to give up their, their genetic code? um, even if you have nothing to hide, it's not really what's, what, what's on you. it's really about where is, is going and who's going to have it. can you trust that person? can you trust that person to act ethically? do you think that person cares as much about your privacy as you do? do you think the person cares about the genetic privacy that that you have, or the privacy that you have in your own genes in a testing has lied to conviction, but can also prove innocence. therefore, for someone who is innocent, what did they be favorable to dna testing if they were being charged criminally? and certainly, yes, the, we have the innocence project, which

groups the, what is genetic discrimination? and how do dna testing factor in? so imagine if the law enforcement has an incomplete profile and they say, well, we know the killer, the robber, the burglar, the rapist, has, you know, it is a, is a male, is of this racial group. then the police could go to a certain area and kind of use that as a pretext to kind of start shaking down members of that group, whether they have probable cause or not. well, you know, we know it's this certain group. there's only, uh, let's say, you know, one percent of that population in this city. let's go to, you know, where the population is concentrated, and, and start, you know, doing a shakedown, so to speak, that that would be the concern is, is this a craze all over the world, or just in the west? it's happening all over the world. so it's generally speaking, i do lots of commentary on, on legal analysis, you know, supreme court cases, how, what i tell people is that if you had a bed, you know, i don't have a crystal ball. but if you had a bed be

genetically altered salmon is fit for consumption says the government. u of the s food and drug administration has sparked a new debate about genetically modified food. in particular frankenfish that salmon produced by a company is just as safe for humans to eat as regular salmon. they grow to full size in as little time as normal salmon. i'm going to have more on what this all means for traditional fisherman in a moment. you should know that some of the nations biggest and best known food retailers are already saying no thanks to genetically salmon. they include groger and target whole foods and cosko and that's one sign that gmos have as much to do with money and fear as it does scientific evidence. most major scientific groups say gmos are safe. but most americans don't buy that. a food research survey say the major thought g much o foods are unsafe. you wonder how many, of the 80% of the food contains contains genetically modified ingredients. most consumers want to know if the food they're buying contains gmo. the labels now contain that they do not

critically acclaimed books on genetically modified foods including genetic roulette a documented health risks of genetically engineered foods jeffrey joins me now in the studio you're welcome thank you thanks for joining us back in the eighty's when the g m o's were first coming out there there were no laws there were no regulations and monsanto actually went to the i believe it was the bush administration history was the reagan administration ok and so we'd like you to regulate it was this all about what have you see monsanto has not been a very popular company for decades because of continually lying about the toxicity of their products so they figured if the government gave a rubber stamp to it and it looked like it was the government approving it then they were kind of off the hook and in the next decade they got what they wanted a rubber stamp that meant nothing but it gave the illusion that the government was regulating g.m.o. so. how so will the person in charge of policy at the f.d.a. was michael taylor monsanto's former attorney he had been put in that position because the whit

to approve genetically modified salmon. they say it's safe, you say it could pose a threat to wild salmon tabbing -- stock, why? >> they did a yes cursely look at the federal level. we asked for an gens review to be done, an environmental impact statement. the federal government refused to do that. nicks, if the fish make it to market. consumers will not know they are genetically engineered, because requirement. a bigger concern is everywhere we have seen salmon farmed - whether it's norway, chile, canada or washington state, there has been escapees. the canadian government made a finding that they expect there'll be escapees with these fish as well. >> let's go through some of these things. what do you think the sda will find if it did a full environmental review. >> one thing they would find is the sterilisation process that is contemplated is not 100% effective. even after sterilising the fish, 5% are able to reproduce. if they escape into the wild. they can produce in the wild, and that would pose a threat to wild salmo

for genetic errors and even one day correct the genetic heritage before we even develop an egg or an embryo. over down mary-ellen penrod to run is examining a sixty six day old humans from metazoa. has this chemist made a breakthrough in the treatment of male sterility. whose that will fail to design a design we used hydrogen as materials in a tube uniform and these hydrogen tubes turned out to be excellent bioreactors for ensuring the maturation of spermatozoa it's from the south this is us you have that much of us till this moment to do this in the general. said. the team worked for twenty three years to attain this result the first spermatozoa we obtained was from a rat. i don't use that we moved on to humans do a ha. on the. man. now we have to show that the spermatozoa is our fertile. we have to all stay reasonable and understand that there's still lots of work to be done it's not a transgenic mouse that we're setting out to make we say so little human beings and if he says. do we get lots of sterile men contacting us who want to see if we can help them in the fact they want to

so again, we do not need genetic engineering. what we need, and if just a small amount of the massive research that's been directed to genetic engineering since genetically-engineered food started being developed in the early '80s, we would, there would be so much better knowledge and so much more food being produced in the third world. because very little money, relatively speaking, is still being given to organic and agro-ecological. it's really a shame, but that's the case. so there should be a diversion of funds. the bill and melinda gates foundation should be stopping, should stop funding the development of yes genetically-engineered foods. you know, he is the richest man in the world -- or used to be. he now, i guess, is seesawing with other people, but he's one of the richest. his wealth has come from software development, and yet he is using a significant part of that substantial, massive fortune to fund a technology that is violating the basic principles of software development. i mean, it's one of the most ironic of the

itll codes all of my genetic information. the thing about it is 2000 they were able to sequence the human gene. that's called the human genome project. that was pretty amazing i was on the cover of "time" magazine. but it did not do much all they had to do is read the gene the important thing is to rewrite the genes is a t bad problem. with the gene editing tool d called crisper. >> human genome project laid the roadmap down. one of the many they talk about in the book found that route to gene editing. in the book you get very detailed it's really comprehensive. if you could walk us through i think crisper is a littlee confusing to people because you talk about dna but messenger rna. give us the lehmans version if you don't mind laying out the science behind it. >> there's bacteria and they're not much smarter than we are. they took a mug shot which they will take a snippet of the genetic code. weave it into their own dna. so we have these repeated sequences sequences get called crisper. at the wait for bacteria to remember t

for genetic errors and even one day correct those genetic errors before we even develop an egg or an embryo. move. without mary ellen parar do run is examining a sixty six day old humans for matters oid. has this chemist made a breakthrough in the treatment of male sterility. visible face. these are designed we used hydrogen as materials in a tube uniform and these hydrogen tube. it's turned out to be an excellent bioreactors for in showing the maturation of spermatozoa it's from the south this is us throughout much of us feel this don't let us leave this in the jungle. said he went to team work for twenty three years to attain this result the first spermatozoa we obtained was from a rat. news that we moved on to humans do ha no get on the best. man. now we have to show that the spermatozoa is our fertile. the focal i still we have to all stay reasonable and understand that there's still lots of work to be done it's not a transgenic mouse that we're setting out to make so little human beings in it he says until. we get lots of sterile men contacting us who want to see if we can help

genetically modified crops. we've used them for over 15 years. and they've allowed us to become better stewards of the soil and ward. we use far, far fewer pesticides and grow a higher quality crop at a better price for the american consumer. my fear is once we start labeling things like this we're creating a definition between the two, and we're essentially saying that one product is superior to the other, or gmo product is inferior. >> kevin, you're a scientist. this is what you study. jeff mentioned there have been decades of science behind this, but it's interesting to me that 64 other countries passed laws that require gmo labeling. what kind of science were they using? >> it's the same process that they're using here. here people with an agenda are deciding to change the law, set up some sort of infrastructure that will force us to do this kind of labeling. science is not a democracy. it's not about how many signatures you can get or the science is dictated by the number of people who voted for a certain initiative. the science is loud and

because we could also screen cells for genetic errors and even one day correct those genetic errors before we even develop an egg or an embryo. move. without mary ellen parar do run is examining a sixty six day old humans from matters oid. as this chemist made a breakthrough in the treatment of male sterility. visible face. these are the design we used hydrogen as materials in a tube uniform and these hydrogen tube. turned out to be an excellent bioreactors for ensuring the maturation of spermatozoa it's from the south this is us throughout i met you last year all this time it was really about doing this in a gentle and. fun to follow the team work for twenty three years to attain this result the first spermatozoa we obtained was from a rat. is that we've moved on to humans do ha we'll get on the best. man. we have to show that these spermatozoa ads are fertile. before course the ones we have to all stay reasonable and understand that there's still lots of work to be done it's not a transgenic mouse that we're setting out to make so little human beings in it he says until. we get lots of s

it was not a genetic lee -- genetically engineered food. look at the data, the animal testing data, chemical composition, nutritional volumes of the foods that are produced. give these products a stamp of approval. that has not been done. the fda takes a cursory look at a small sampling of the data that companies selectively provide. senator durbin has considered legislation, but there has been very little support for such legislation to ensure the safety of the gmo's. the industry does not want it, because it fears it will trigger the need for more expensive testing. i think genetic engineering can provide tremendous benefits in terms of reduced pesticide use, drought resistance and improved nutritional values. we need to take advantage of this technology. at the same time, we need to guard against risks such as cancer or dive believe that these may conjure up. labeling is a very crude instrument. if food has to be labeled, nobody would buy them especially regarding gmo's. we do not have the educated public that we would like. i think we n

even if they end up with a genetic manipulation, genetic alteration he wants they-- those cells cannot be put in the ground and grown into a plant. so, a very unnatural process referred to as tissue culture has to be employed in which a series of hormone-- plant hormones and new churches are added and the plant-- that cell can be coaxed actually forced to grow into a mature plant, but the process through which that happens is not precisely the same as the process to which a seed will grow into a mature plant and in fact it's a disruptive process. tissue culture is known to be highly mutagenic and has been used to create mutations to see if they could find something good and some scientists have referred to the effect it has on the organism as a genomic shock, so no matter how precise the crispr technology can be on the manipulation side, as long as they use tissue culture to get their creation into a plant there is no way they can claim as precise. it's highly mutagenic and it's irresponsible to ignore tissue culture and most promoters of ge foods try to pretend it doesn't exist and no

is there a distinction between genetically modified and genetically engineered? >> as a technical matter, gmo refers to an organism as opposed to genetic engineering which we think of as having to do with modern biotechnology. >> one of the concerns that i have and want to know if it is a concern for you, i come from a family where just about half of us have some kind of food allergy. if you are changing proteins around and you have things that ought for the general public are recognized as safe, and you able in what you do to distinguishes a protein that someone added to a product that they may not know the protein has been included. >> that is part of the evaluation process and if there were to be an addition that might prompt an allergic reaction that one would not expect, we would require a label disclosure. >> you would pick those things which people are highly allergic to or there is a significant percentage of folks that have a problem with and you can't put the strawberry ingredient into this? >> or we would require disclosure most likely would be. >> i a

that's when genetic engineering was invented. you may also be surprised there are actually human beings walking around that are gm owes. that is a fact, they are only alive because i have a gene in them they didn't have when they were born because they were born with a lethal disease, most of you may be surprised that if you use insulin or other drugs, they are made that have human genes that were injured engineered in them. if you are wearing blue jeans, the blue color was reengineered. there are a lot of different organisms that are gm owes. from a plant point of view, those of us who do these things to try to improve agriculture, we would consider genetic modification the classical way or the modern way by adding genes or tweaking them. >> okay. >> that's what's so exciting >> i will come back to you about some more excitement. so ted, the next natural question would be, has there been work and how do we know these things are safe >> well you never know for sure because you can't prove a negative. science doesn't prove anythin

it is genetic engineering. you've done with with a better set of tools and so the overarching aim is to make genetic engineering and and life science. in general easier to engineer so what does that look like well in 30 years ago doing genetic engineering required laboratories that are essentially complicated kitchens. it requires using specialized equipment. it requires having specialized training and specialized reagents ultimately to take the dna molecule and to edit it the same way we used to edit films by physically cutting the film in this case cutting the dna molecule and splicing it together to make new edits this you can imagine is difficult to do because you're working with a molecule. it's not something you can see. synthetic biology started to bring the same tools that we started to see in music editing and film editing to the genetic world allowing us to sit down at a computer screen. work with digital dna that has come off of the dna sequencers machines that read dna code and put it into computer

the brca genetic mutation, also called the "braca" genetic mutation, can lead to breast or ovarian cancer, or perhaps other cancers. it is so dangerous that some people will take drastic surgical measures to prevent it. well, there is a major effort under way to get researchers to focus on brca genetic mutations and encourage people to get tested to find out who has the mutation in the family. and leading that effort is our first guest -- evan goldberg, a silicon valley tech leader, a father, and the founder of the brca foundation, which was recently launched. and it was launched with a whole bunch of money thanks to a successful career, so congratulations on that. >> thank you. >> you have an incredible story about how you even began to think about this, so tell us about that. >> yeah, well, i was adopted, and when i was 35 -- so 15, 16 years ago -- i was contacted by my biological parents, who actually had stayed married. and one of the reasons that they contacted me was to give me this medical information. my mother had had breast cancer twice, and she found out that it was caused by t

with genetic engineering, it's just moving very small parts of that genetic information, and pulling it out in a very precise way, and then pasting it back into another plant. >> reporter: at the university of california berkeley, biologist peggy lamow is genetically engineering a cereal called sorghum. 3 million people in africa eat sorghum porridge every day, and often little else. >> what you want to do is make whatever they eat, sorghum in this case, a complete nutritional package. >> reporter: but sorghum is difficult to digest. so with initial funding from the bill in the melinda gates foundation, they're tweaking the seeds so it produces 20 times more of a protein that makes the plant more digestible. >> when we're ready to genetically engineer sorghum, we will open up the seed, and we will pluck out that very tiny little immature embryo. >> reporter: a member of her team mixes a group of embryos with a liquid containing a type of soil bacterium that transports the tweaked sorghum gene into the embryo. the process is similar for other crops. >> over a period of time, you selec

that is a true jewel to my genetic predisposition. -- attribute a bowl to my genetic predisposition. he said after my arrest, this was discovered. i started prescription medication. my behavior change. my behavior changed so much that the death penalty was not warranted because my aggressive behavior was genetic. it is now treated. it is a treatable condition. i am not the worst of the worst kind of criminal offenders. retributive theory it is based on the moral culpability of the offender. if they person has less control are they less morally culpable? is there a current value and executing -- executing them? is a question that is showing up repeatedly in quite a few cases. quite a few were ineffective. the answer seems to be at least from the supreme court that failing to investigate in urological basis for a person's behavior does constitute an effective counsel. no investigation for a person's behavior in many cases that constitutes this counsel. not sure if it is this cumulative. they tried to show that the person was -- had some mental health component to their behavior. a comp

if you just use genetics, it's not going to work.r every answer, at least dr yiannis later confirmed that i'm free to drink coffee whilst i mull over my need for any diet change or not. i tell you, she'd never have given it up anyway. now, back at decode genetics in iceland, founder kari stefansson has been looking at a similar and possibly controversial topic — how our genes shape our bodies, our minds and our personalities. i can tell you how we can use genetics to explore in a way the nature of man. his most recent scientific paper has been looking at how that relates to one of the developed world's biggest health problems. if there is one condition that predisposes to more diseases than anything else, it is obesity. obesity predisposes to heart failure, to liver diseases, to osteoarthritis, to type ii diabetes — it predisposes to an incredible number of all cancer diseases. now, some people are genetically predisposed to become obese. their genetic make—up means that they're just more likely to overeat. not all of these people do

>> well we have one federal law on genetic discrimination, the genetic information nondiscrimination act. it focuses exclusively on health insurance and employment. but genetic information can be used to discriminate on a whole host of different areas, from disability insurance to long term care insurance. it can be used by a bank if they want to make a long term loan and they think there's information in your genome that you will not live long enough to pay back that long term loan. >> isn't it at some point a genie that gets out of the bottle and maybe a little too much power in people's hands? >> first of the all-- the genie is out the bottle. this stuff is moving, period. there's no way to put it back in the bottle. the only countermeasure for me for all of this, is massive transparency. getting a point where, in fact, yes, the norm is that your genome is on the cloud and open to all. we're heading towards a society in which we're going to know anything you want anytime you want anywhere you want. there are no secrets anymore. >> and what's the impact of that? >> fundamental re-s

genetic modification by breathing and the other is genetic modification by adding an additional gene or tweaking a gene by doing work in the cells and stuff. from the popularization of gmos in this day and age, it is being born with the gene that one didn't have originally. i think most people would be really surprised that this technology is now 40 years old. you may also be surprised there are human beings walking around that are gmos. that is a fact. that are only alive because they have a gene in them that they didn't have when they were born because they were born with a lethal disease. most of you may be surprised that if you use insulin they are made in bacteria that were engineered in them. if you are wearing genes, the blue color is made in engineer jeans. from a plant point of view, those that try to improve agricultural, we would consider genetic modification the classical way by adding genes or tweaking them. that is what is so exciting. moderator: i will come back about more excitement. so, ted, the next natural question would be, i guess, has there been work and how do

[laughter] i think genetically modified.[laughter] >> me too. >> for you sir, what is the most interesting you been lately? it can be raw or at a fine dining experience. >> i don't know. most interesting thing. you know i did something this is totally off-topic. but i'm working on a book with somebody who is one of this kind of very advanced, norton that weird, he is advanced in that weird way that weird perfection way. he is the coach for the american -- a big cooking competition it takes place. he was second last time and he is the coach this year. >> is a gavin? >> no. he did it three or four times ago. -- did it to. i was up at the lab. protecting their dishes and watching them sharpen carrots with life this great big pencil sharpener. every carrot was exactly the same size. and then, gluing together the skin of the chicken breast with the chicken meat and then horsemeat and different things put together. it was very weird and in its own way gmo exciting. [laughter] dishes that were not intended in nature.it sounds unnat