Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Monster House Presents.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
This is the ad supported version of Monster Talk. We're
dependent upon the revenue from these ads and from the
support of our patrons at Patreon dot com forward slash
monster Talk to continue making this show. As a disclaimer,
your hosts are unable to control what ads you will hear,
and while we have done what we can to avoid
ads that are divisive, the system that injects them sometimes
(00:29):
ignores our preferences and always seems to ignore our efforts
to not interrupt the conversational flow. While we understand this
can be disruptive, we're trying our best. Patreon remains the
best way to enjoy commercial free listening to our content,
plus you generally get extending coverage of the subject. We're
working on other ways to consume our content as well,
so please stay tuned.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
At Colossal Biosciences in Dallash, the mission is clear payer
cutting edge science with high tech tools to reach a
goal of preist store proportions.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
We are less than five years away from seeing mamos
back on the planet. Not if it's going to happen,
when it's going to happen. It's simply a function of time.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
So two brilliantteresting, which is why co founder and CEO
Ben Lamb says now's the time to embrace the term
de extinction, the process of creating an extinct species, or
at least an animal that resembles one. In Colossal's case,
the wooly mammoth, which died off roughly four thousand years ago.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
We turned out of that remarkable scientific breakthrough thirteen thousand
years after the last dire wolf walk the earth.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Scientists say they've now brought them back.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Tonight.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
How thirteen thousand years in the making. In a first
for science, biotech company, Colossal Biosciences says it brought the
extinct dire wolf back to life.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
It's actually quite unlike anything we've ever seen before. A giant,
hairy creature, part ape part in Luckness, a twenty four
a mile long bottomless lake in the Highlands of Scotland,
get a creature known as the Luckness Monster. Monster Talk.
(02:33):
Welcome to Monster Talk, the science show about monsters. I'm
Blake Smith.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
And I'm Karen Stolsner.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Hey there, folks. This episode's been on the back burner
for a while, but the news releases that keep generating
topic requests just keep coming. So we finally decided to
tackle it. As you heard in the news clips at
the top of the show, there are stories everywhere right
now claiming that the extinction of lost species is taking place.
(03:00):
Has science brought back the dire wolf, our mamm that's
soon going to be roaming the tundra again. Well, Karen
and I sat down this week to discuss these controversial stories,
and I don't know what you think, but I found
this all to be pretty shocking, more obstrutal. So Kiaren,
(03:21):
I have to say the topic this week, I think
is going to be a little controversial. And I say
that because we've had emails and messages on social media
from listeners on the grounds of, hey, please cover this
whole dire wolf thing because people are saying it's not
real science. And then we've had people saying, hey, please
(03:44):
cover this direwolf thing because it's obviously BS. And I'm
going to probably end up having to edit myself because
I think the idea of BS is going to come
up a lot in this conversation.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Well, yeah, I think this is an interesting topic, And
be honest, I didn't really see those messages myself, and
I hadn't really heard much about this, and I mentioned
it to Matt and he was like, Oh, yes, I've
been hearing about this debate, and I think d extinction
is such an interesting term, and I'm thinking, Jurassic Park.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
You should, I mean you should, because it's pretty clear
that the company we're going to be talking about, which
is called Colossal Biosciences, is absolutely leaning into that Jurassic Park.
What is that, I like to say culturally available template, Like,
they're absolutely without saying they're doing Jurassic Park, they're absolutely
(04:37):
cosplaying Jurassic Park. And I think what I'd like to
talk surmize is why are they doing that, you know,
and how much of it's real and how much of
it is not real? And if it's not real, what
is it they're doing so.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Yeah, and how they're doing it exactly. There's a lot
to unpack here. I guess we should start with the definition.
What is d extinction?
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah, it's a interesting question. I think in the in
the strictest in the strictest sense, the extinction is about
the idea of resurrecting the DNA through actually building type
specimens of species that have gone extinct by either cloning
(05:19):
good samples or reconstructing samples of their DNA. That's what
the classic definition is. You'll see the extinction coming up
a lot in talks about the colossal bioscience. But I
don't think what they're doing qualifies. They're doing something a
(05:41):
little different. Now, I guess there's I guess I was
maybe going to say this. Let's just talk about the topics.
There's sort of three models. There's the the extinction through
resurrection of literal DNA, and then there is what Jack
Corner talked about with the dino chicken, the idea of
(06:01):
undoing gene sequences and seeing if you can reverse engineer
previous sort of versions of an animal from its genome. So,
in other words, if if modern birds used to be
therapied dinosaurs, what can we do during their development to
trigger the genes to get access to those atavistic traits,
(06:25):
you know, So chicken getting birds with hands like get
in claws would be you know, like one interesting step.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So this is a little bit and not particularly that
in particular that style, but just this whole concept. Is
it a bit like what we've been hearing about with
the Tasmanian tiger as well? The same.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yeah. Well, now you may recall we actually talked to
the team that was trying to bring back the Tesmanian tiger,
and they're doing what I would call or they're trying
to do like general de extinction through replication and reconstruction
of ancient DNA or or whatever. The samples they're not
that ancient.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
But you know which, Yeah, I mean we're talking about
a creature that was around less than one hundred years ago,
as opposed to these dire wolves or when when did
they When were they in existence?
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Oh, wild back. I don't remember the dates, but it's
been a long time ago. There's samples in the Librea
tar pits, but I don't know if they were co
contemporaneous with humans at all.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Yeah, so we took me about ten thousand years ago
or something like that.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Thousands of years, yeah, exactly, Yeah, not millions. Right. The
whole thing with Jurassic Park is DNA doesn't last that long.
I mean, some really interesting discoveries have happened in fossils
where they've been able to extract proteins from these stones.
I mean it's not DNA, but like you know, seeing
blood vessels and proteins that was super controversial, but I
(07:50):
don't think it's controversial anymore. It seems like they're actually
able to sort of dissolve the stone and actually find
there's still protein around from sixty five million years ago,
which is just not DNA though the DNA breaks down,
so you can't you can't really do the Jurassic Park trick.
But what Colossal Bioscience is doing is something yet a
third option, which is to take existing species and then
(08:15):
to insert DNA either from those other species are similar species,
to get the kinds of traits that we would expect
with the lost species. Now, okay, that's interesting, and that's
a real genetic modification, but it's not the extinction. And
(08:36):
yet if you look at the news stories, all the
headlines are about the return of the dire Wolf and
the return of the thila scene and the return of
the moa and.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Exactly like that.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Yeah, so let's see if we can sort of unpack
what's going on and why.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Well, yeah, so who is involved in this project?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Then? Good question. So it comes down to a guy
named Joe words Church, who is the scientist and I
mean he's legitimate DNA expert, who's really done interesting biological
work with DNA manipulation absolutely real. He was one of
(09:16):
the pioneers of Crisper and crisper. I'm sure our science
fans here are going to know what chrisper is, but
it just is remind you. It's a gene editing tool.
People describe it as being like scissors for DNA. It
comes from a natural process that your cells use to
(09:37):
fight incoming infections. They can like snip out bad sequences.
And what scientists have figured out is how to use
those tools to snip out sequences and then replace them
with sequences they want to use and create new self
replicating cells that now have a different DNA makeup than
(09:57):
the original cell, which is really amazing.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
It seems a bit more important to me than bringing
back a Dodo bird. I don't know, There're all different
things right now.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
I mean, the technique has been absolutely revolutionary. It has
completely changed the possibilities within genetic manipulation.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
So amazing. And well, what I'm wondering is, I can't
go to the zoo and watch a chimp without getting
that passed by an ethics committee. So how are these
kinds of things being done and being acceptable and.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Really great questions. So Colossal Biosciences is a commercial venture,
not an educational one, right, so they have different restrictions
you'll notice, you know. I guess we should get into
as funding mechanisms and how they're doing their fundraising a
(10:52):
little bit. Let me finish talking about church for just
a moment. His background. He's absolutely a real scientist. He's
absolutely done really important work with crisper and genetic manipulation.
But he has controversies surrounding him, and I.
Speaker 5 (11:07):
Guess, well, he's he seems like the kind of guy
who's super interested in what's possible and maybe less interested
in what's ethically sound.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
That's one way of looking at it.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
I've seen that before.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or
not they couldn't they didn't think they should things he
gets into, like he got into supporting a DNA dating
app that was all about uh, I mean, maybe matching
people with good genes. What would you call that? Like
good genes? Surely there's another phrase for that. If I
(11:45):
can't think, Oh, I remember now, eugenics. Yeah, yeah, this
is ethically a hot potato. Maybe it's a hot potato
with tentacles and extra eyes. But it's a hot potato.
And but Church has not avoided that kind of controversy.
(12:06):
In fact, that's not the only baggage he carries, because
he also had a lot of interaction and meetings with
famous science supporter Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
That's a different epithet for him, famous science supporter. I've
heard other descriptions on her.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Yeah, yeah, maybe that's not his most famous trade. Now
as you mentioned it, I mean, unfortunately Epstein when he
was doing his bad things with teens, and that's absolutely real, folks,
that's not a conspiracy. When he was doing his bad
things with teens, he was also doing some very weird
(12:48):
stuff that involved funding lots of scientists and taking them
to his private island.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Like Lawrence Krause and others.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yes, like Lawrence Krause. I mean people that were I
guess mainstays of the sort of science cheerleader crowd in
the you know, amid ten twenty thirteen, in that zone
that long ago, not that long ago, how they have fallen. Yeah,
being affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein has generally been, if not
(13:20):
a career ender, it's certainly the kind of contamination you
just don't want on your resume, but it has not
well again, you know, some people just ignore it, you know,
I mean, you know, people just pretend it's not happening.
But this guy, dude, yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Defend himself. I know, Lawrence Krause came out and said
some kind of troublesome things at the time to defend
what it is.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
I mean, Unfortunately, Lawrence Krause, Stephen Piker, these guys were
really close and when it came out the Epstein, these
legal accusations were made against them and eventually convictions. Some
of them continue to support him. George Churtz took the
(14:07):
tack that well, I'm just a nerd, like I don't
know about those things, like that's not a thing that
I was just interested in talking science, you know.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
And that's sounds a bit like some of the yeah
Nazi arguments during.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
There following orders, but I was definitely following funding, right,
So yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Yeah, I guess we could really get bogged down into
this aspect. So that's interesting to know, and it certainly
does affect a lot of aspects of this research.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Would be conversation ever bogged down by a mention of Epstein,
so that would be new.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Well, that's unfortunate. Is he the only person who's involved.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
No, No, there's another billionaire tech bro named Ben Lamb
who's one of the principal funders. But I'll say this
about most of your billionaire or multimillionaire funding people. They
get addicted to opim you know, not the drug, the letters,
OPM other people's money. So they're always looking for.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Funding maybe opium too.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Yeah, it is, it is. It is very addictive.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
So and I empathize to an extent. I mean, how
otherwise do you do your research. I'm not talking specifically
about the nature of the research, but ye, it's a
tough game. Academia is.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
In fact that that's one of those things that's got
to be covered in my TechBook because the reality is
innovation doesn't happen just through enthusiasm. It takes money, and
I you know, I again, I don't want to spoil
it because I really need to be writing about it.
But one of my hypotheses is that innovation behaves a
little bit like life in that it has sort of
(15:52):
a biome, it has an ecosystem, and the energy it
doesn't come from calories, it comes from dollars or money.
And that's what keeps innovation moving and growing and mutating.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Interesting idea.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
If you don't have money, you just don't get innovation.
You might get inventions, but they don't go anywhere without money.
It takes money to make these things happen.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
I think nothing comes from nothing. So who is behind this?
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Then?
Speaker 1 (16:17):
The in terms of investment.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Well, that's the thing. It's bin Lamba. George Church have
it set up and they have done this meticulous social
media and pr master work of bringing in people who
are closely associated with high profile projects. So, for example,
I guess the one in the news all right all
(16:40):
the time now is George R. R. Martin being involved.
He's a funder and they're trying to bring back the
dire Wolves us. He's a beautiful giant, snow white dire
wolf puppies they're calling them here, okay, monster talking listeners.
I know we're always putting the pin in our big
(17:02):
balloon monsters, but I have to say this one breaks
my heart because I would love this to be real.
But what they're making is not a dire wolf. Also,
the things in George R. Martin's books are not dire wolves.
Dire wolves are not these pony sized wolves I mean
they're just a little bigger than the modern timber wolf,
(17:22):
like they're extinct. They were big and impressive, but not
big like in Game of Thrones. That's just not a thing.
So but every one of these things they hook up
with a person who's well known. So they've got Peter
Jackson trying to resurrect the mo right. Yeah, So they
keep getting these high profile people who are affiliated with
(17:48):
ideas of properties and they bring them in. They've got
Peter Teel involved, one of my sort of intellectual arch enemies.
They got social media people on n they've got the
Winklevoss twins from the early days of Facebook. They've got
influencer and self help guru Tony Robbins. They've got yeah, no,
(18:13):
it's not it's not good. So it's got a lot
of high profile people who like to have their names
in the news as well, you know, and egos egos
and the profiles themselves, the projects they're doing. Uh, they're
like they claim they want to bring back the dire wolf.
Why why do we need a dire wolf?
Speaker 3 (18:34):
No?
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Is it? Is it some important part of the ecosystem
we're missing right now? No? Were we responsible for it?
Going extinct. I don't think there's any proof of that.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
That's a good point. Which animals do we bring back
and why exactly?
Speaker 2 (18:48):
The other one obviously huge? Uh the wooly mammoth. Uh
would be when that they're trying to bring back allegedly,
except you know, how are they proving they can do
this because they're making wooly mice? Karen and I think
we all know that mice are the next step before
you get to full sized elephants. It's a well known fact.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Yeah, I guess there's always mice and rats and worms
they work with first. But that's exactly something out of AI.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Yeah, it does. I mean, I mean they're legitimately modifying
these creatures, but to what end?
Speaker 1 (19:22):
I mean, and are they the same thing?
Speaker 2 (19:24):
No, they are absolutely not the same thing. It would
be interesting to see the moa come back. It is
a big scary bird. Again, if you see the bones,
they're huge. So I mean, is are bad enough?
Speaker 4 (19:38):
So?
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Yeah, they are?
Speaker 1 (19:40):
That's right. Yeah. The castle here, we remember our episode?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I do.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Yeah, so I'm not too sure about this. I think
interesting in theory.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
The castle worries are great, but we needn't be better
if they were nine feet tall. You know, I think
we all know it would right.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
My Nightmass, I.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Mean, where are they put these things right? And they're
making this just claims like that if they could bring
back the wooly mammoth, it would help stop global warming
because you know they would keep the tundras safe.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Well, you know, that just makes me think about our
episode on cane toads and the introduction of the cane
toads into Queensland and how that disrupted the ecosystem. So
you can you imagine if we're talking about dinosaurs and
other creatures, what would we be unleashing and what would
be the result?
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Right? I mean, I know, I know Peter Jackson is
not Australian, he's a New Zealander, but only the news
just traveled to New Zealand that maybe introducing species is
maybe not the best idea, maybe maybe not, you know, so.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
He should know better.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
So I think the reality is that I think you
have to sort of if you look past all that, like,
if they look past the hype, what they're really trying
to do is raise lots and lots of money, So
that means you have to ask, is this a grift?
And now skeptics. Okay, let me be clear, these guys
(21:12):
are big, rich business people, and I don't want to
get sued.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
But oh yeah, last thing we need. Huh.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
But this is not my first rodeo with nonsense claims
in the media around science and health, and this has
all the earmarks of a scam slash grift. Now it
may have true components, but what they're doing, the real
things they're doing, are so far away from the things
(21:41):
they're claiming that it just comes across to me as well.
The only word that makes any sense is bullshit.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
Karen mm hmm, yep, yep. No fair enough call a
spade a spade. But yeah, I mean, do they well
I was going to ask if they know that, but
obviously they have some inkling that it's not going to
turn out exactly the way that they're pays you.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
I mean, if you're talking about Church, I mean, he's
got to know. But I don't think Tony Robbins, I
don't think Peter Jackson, I don't I don't think George R.
And Martin. They're not trained scientists. They're certainly you know,
they're not trained in you know, spotting hoaxes and tricks.
You know.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
I mean, yeah, you got me thinking about Tony Robinson
firewalking now, so absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
Yes, Tony Robbins in particular. You know, he takes and
collects lots of ideas from different writers and puts them
together into his own narratives, right, and that they all
so there can be good info in there and it's
helped people. But there's also the subscription fees and the
high priced seminars and the idea that you got to
(22:53):
keep investing, and then the cost fallacy. There's a lot
of traps there.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Well, you're making me think of people like James Arthur
Bray and what happened with him and that criminal case
and people dying during his camps.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
It's a lot of people that the self help industry
is full of grifters and charlatan's. It doesn't mean they
all wealthy ones. Yeah, very wealthy ones. Who how do
they sleep on a big pile of money at night? Yeah? Exactly,
that's you know, because who are the most frequent victims
of self help gurus? Desperate people who don't have to
(23:29):
give like they Maybe if I'll just keep pouring my
money into this, it'll turn things around.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
For me, you know, yeah, multi level marketing in a sense.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Really you're going through this and I am too of
this job loss situation that you're within your household. And
I don't know how Matt's been dealing with it, but
my LinkedIn feed has just been a waterfall of scammers
trying to say, I've got a deal for you. Here's
a job, you work from home, You'll make three thousand
dollars a week. I know you won't.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
You know, tons of recruiters too, who are asking for
money so that you can just search for work and
of you pay us and we'll find you a job.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
And exactly it's crazy anyway. So it's a terrible ecosystem
that victimizes the desperate.
Speaker 1 (24:14):
So and absolutely all the time.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
Yeah, I mean, I know, I skepticism is a big
umbrella or as I like to say, reality based activism.
It's there's lots of ways that critical thinking can help
protect you in this story. I think we need to
use those tools to separate the science fiction and the
possible economic drifting from what's actually interesting science.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
So, okay, how do we do that?
Speaker 2 (24:43):
You know, it's kind of like I am very immersed
in this large language model AI stuff, right, now there
are real useful things that can do, but the hype
around it is so explosively large that I can only
say it's a bubble and when it blows up, it's
going to be devastating. Does it do good things?
Speaker 5 (25:03):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (25:03):
It can. But are most people who are using it
actually going to be able to get a return on
investment from that stuff? No? They aren't.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
You know, it's not level marketing again.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Yes, you know, it's the tulip thing again. I mean,
you know, it's all these It's just we as humans.
We are constantly repeating that that looping you know, getting
something for nothing, you know, and investors in Wall Street
just want quick return, they want, you know, exponential growth.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Right, everything old is new again.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
If you don't have a model for actually producing something
that is not sustainable, eventually it collapses because it's a bubble.
Eventually reality comes calling.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
Sure, absolutely, that that's what we're all about. So I
guess at this point in the conversation, can we talk
a little bit about the die wolves then, and the
claims and the reality?
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Yeah, so they these beautiful pups.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
There's three some pictures.
Speaker 2 (26:05):
Yeah, so I think what's called Khalisi and the other
promul remis mixing your metaphors as like, well, I just
want our characters something cool from our game, you know, Okay, whatever,
this is some dungeons and dragon stuff here. I mean
they are editing gray wolves. Then they too gray wolf genomes,
(26:27):
and they made modifications. So what will that turn out
to be? You know, I don't know, I mean, and
will they be able to not a dire wolf for sure?
Speaker 1 (26:38):
It's just you know, I've heard the term mosaic.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
It's a nice term. It's good.
Speaker 1 (26:44):
Yeah, yeah, is that what's going on. It's a kind of.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
We also talked about chimerical, right, I mean, I guess
it's probably a mosaic if it's you know, relatively a
cane in to canid. But if they were to say
put you know, they do a lot of things where
they put like bio luminescent markers or fluorescent markers into
life forms so that they can see if genes are
(27:09):
activating by putting a fluorescent light on them. That's really cool,
you know, But that's I think if you're bringing something
from another species, it's chimerical. In this case, they're calling
it what we just said, the terms mosaic yea mosaic.
Yeah sorry, yeah.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
So yeah, just a kind of variation on a thing.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
I need to do a little insert here. The animals
currently being developed by Colossal Biosciences are probably best described
as engineered hybrids. This term more accurately reflects their nature
than the word mosaics are the word kimera, which have
actually very specific scientific meaning. A camara in an organism
(27:54):
is made from the fused cells of two separate embryos.
While a mosaic has different DNA within its sales due
to mutation, colossals process is quite different. It involves editing
the genome of an existing species to introduce traits from
an extinct one. For example, they are supposed to be
(28:15):
modifying elephant DNA to express wooly mammoth characteristics. Well they've
done it with a mouse anyway, not quite an elephant.
Their stated ultimate goal is the extinction, and the company's
current work, and if I'm being very generous here in
regarding their sincerity or their motives, is more of a
proof of concept. They're creating smaller, incremental projects like the
(28:39):
mice with traits from extinct rodents and wolfly canines to
demonstrate and refine the genetic engineering techniques. These animals are
not yet the fully resurrected megafauna that the media portrays,
and I wonder why they portray it that way. Could
it be they're reading the press releases. Instead, they are
(29:00):
stepping stones, living laboratories for the complex process of genetic
modification that might one day make the extinction a reality.
I guess we'll find out. And again it is it
has been said not by me, but by someone clever
(29:21):
that this is an act is clearly for spectacle, and
I think that is exactly exactly what it is. It's
what we used to call science through pr or science
through press release. Right, instead of like doing incremental changes
and having those published in a journal and being peer reviewed,
you just released the story of Wired magazine or the
(29:43):
Time or whatever, you know, the New York Post whatever,
like whoever published the story.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Big difference.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Being in stars and well known people is a great
way to bypass that whole you know, the questions of
peer review and.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
So make you can get more money, more funding.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah, and again real scientists doing this, But that doesn't
mean what he's doing is following the scientific method.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
Oh absolutely not know.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
So I mean maybe worth mentioning again, what is science? So,
and know there's lots of definitions, but I lean into
the idea of the what do they call it the
paparion the science philosopher who says that you, Carl Popper,
you've got to have a falsifiable hypothesis and then test
it because what science is best at is finding out
(30:34):
what's not true. Right, So if you can't eliminate it,
as you know, maybe there's something there, but you keep
testing it to see if it's not true, and then
what remains is tentatively true, right, but you keep questioning.
You're always looking for it to change. Now, other philosophers
(30:54):
of science have pointed out that we don't usually see
paradigm changes in science without the death of an entire age.
So it takes a long time to get scientists to
come in to accept a new idea when there's an
existing paradigm. But but science is not stagnant. It's constantly
looking to overturn those ideas, those existing paradigms, because that's
(31:17):
how you make your name for yourself. Or you do
some stunt and get into a bunch of news stories.
I mean, you know, so you jump a couple of Yeah,
so I'm not saying they're not doing anything. I'm just
saying that they're not doing what they're claiming. So and
I think that's pretty clear.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
Hmm.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
Yeah, it's just such an interesting contrast to the other research.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
But it is and again, there's real good science being
done with Crisper. It is changing the world, you know.
And again I don't avoid the politics, but scientific funding
is under attack right now because I think a lot
of people would serve and kinds of ideas don't want
(32:02):
to see changes. You don't want to see certain kinds
of research being done if they see it as having
a political agenda. And it's a human process, so it
is political. I mean, you basically can't escape personally political.
You certainly can't escape ethics. So the fact that they
are trying to sort of circumvent those things by you know,
(32:24):
getting stars to come in and support it is kind
of disturbing. It's kind of disturbing. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
It does speak volumes too, though, I think, just are
you mapping it out like this, laying it out? It's
really interesting. It's certainly instar contrast to what I'd originally
heard about these creatures. It sounded more along the lines
of the whole dolly thing. Obviously sheep.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
Well, I mean google headlines about dire wolves, right, and
I'm just reading this off. It's like Time Magazine the
Return of the dire Wolf CNN. Scientists say they've resurrected
the dire wolf. So Nature, this company claims to have
de extincted dire wolves. New York Times scientists vive the
dire wolf for something close.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Okay, no, well, Nature is hedging a little bit, but
maybe less the other outlets.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
There is scientific skepticism out there, it's just not in
the mainstream publications. Serious science outlets recognize this for what
it is, science through pr and that's not how you
do things in fact in our lifetime, I guess the
most notorious case of this was the cold fusion fiasco.
(33:38):
Was it Fleischmann and Ponds, I think about it. They
claimed that they had done cold fusion in the lab,
and instead of doing a journal and peer review and
all that sort of thing, they just went and did
a giant press conference and then within I don't it
was like probably forty eight hours it had been demonstrated
to be nonsense. But for just a few glorious moments
(34:00):
people thought maybe we had a giant energy breakthrough. So
and meanwhile, I'm gonna say, real or apparently real efforts
for things like actual fusion have you know, thirty years later,
you know, we're just now getting the breakthrough, starting to
get you know, chain reactions that produce more energy than
goes into them. So I feel like that's exciting. I
(34:23):
hope something comes of that.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
But you know, well, you're making me think too. You
and I have both been to Coral Castle, and I'm
just thinking about all the pamphlets that you can buy
there in which this lead Skeleman was claiming he'd invented
a perpetual motion machine.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
I literally have a stack of them on my shelf
over here. Yeah, what an interesting little man he was.
You know, my mother in law fled from Latvia during
World War Two with her mom. He was Latvian, so
she ended up in Miami. They came to Rochester, but
work took my wife's father down to Miami and they
(35:00):
were right there, they were right there by Coral Castle.
And so it was like pride that this little Latvian
man had done. And he did cool stuff. I mean,
he did really impressive, cool stuff. But he did he
did with magic, you know.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
So simple machines.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Yes, And it's so funny because I just went again
to visit and they've really even more than last time
I went. They've stepped back from some of the supernatural claims,
which I applaud, right, but they always need that. But
maybe it was something else. But maybe it was something else,
you know.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Oh yeah, yeah, But I remember when I was there,
that was quite some time ago. They were really leaning
into that, and they had that very interesting book there
that made lots of associations between him and what he
was doing and all different other kinds of paranormal phenomena.
Even Nazism was very very strange, some of the claims
that they were making. But yeah, I guess we're deviating.
(35:58):
We are a little bit, but you know, uh, that's
what we do.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Whenever we get a chance to talk about girl Castle,
we have well you're gonna have to do make the
Castle the old news host from wait, wait.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
Don't tell me, but well, maybe to be confused.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
Every time I heard cral Castle's name, I was like,
cral Castle, no.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
A little different. Yeah, well this is really interesting and
it certainly makes me think about other uh creatures that
we've looked at, like the thiless scene and the the Moa,
and these probably deserve their own episodes too, of the
wooly mammoth uh these other colossal projects, as.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
You, they deserve moa skepticism. I thought she talks southernly.
So yeah, I hope that we've answered both kinds of
queries we've been receiving and I don't. So, by the way,
(36:57):
I'm sorry if you haven't received these. I need to
make I need to do some out of metion better
about making sure that I forward stuff to you that
I get. But if you send the emails a blanketcolate
or Karen must or we do get it.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
So yeah, Well, I think in terms of the Internet,
you and I see different things, but together usually we
managed to see just about everything, all most of it.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Anyway, It's like me and my wife. I mean, between
the two is we almost make a perfectly functional person.
Speaker 1 (37:27):
So well, it just sounds like this just raises a
lot of interesting questions. I guess more questions than providing
answers at this point. And it's to be continued this
yeah kind of science.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
If you were if you're interested in this, and you think,
are they doing real science? They're doing something If you think, wow,
they're changing the future and they're going to bring back
these animals. Should I give them money? You know, No, don't.
In fact I do. I think one of the ethical
concerns people have which I would not have thought this.
I read this, it was like, oh, yeah, that's a
good point. To some small extent, These kind of high
(38:05):
profile we can fix it with DNA resurrection processes do
detract from more serious efforts to save species that are
still alive today, in the same way that we got
to get to Mars and terra form Mars. Okay, it
is a lot cheaper to fix Earth than it is
(38:26):
to fly to another planet.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
It just is in priorities.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Huh. Yeah, I mean, would it be cool to have
basis on Mars. Yes, I'm a sci fi fan. It
would be great. But does it make any kind of
sense to do that as our primary plan? No, it
just doesn't. So yeah, yeah, that is.
Speaker 1 (38:43):
A really good point that you raise, and what's important
what should be our priorities? And that really does I
think position this as being more about I guess, as
you said, spectacle.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Yeah, and also Georgia r MICUs, just stop holding dire
wolves and get back to right now, next book.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Well again, priorities, right.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
That's right. Well, I love him, take as long as
he needs to. But I think this is I think
the old man's been duped on this one. Yeah, they
are beautiful puppies.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
Though I can understand the allure. I mean, you and
I have really been immersed in skepticism and immersed in
a lot of aspects of science from different perspectives obviously,
but I think for the average person and someone who's
got a little bit of money and they think, well,
I can be attached to this, I can be a
part of something big. I can really understand the allure
of that, but the reality is quite different.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
I mean, this is a little fringy, but totally plausible.
One of the things George Church has done is encode
a book in DNA, just to show that it could
be done. His book, you know, so you know, I
mean they could do something wacky like, you know, help
us bring back the dire Wolf and will inclode that
will enclode in code, well, in code the funders' names
(40:05):
in the DNA sequence. They could totally do that. That's
crazy but real.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
You know, that's a big Kiss fan, and he's told
me a few times about the it was a Kiss
comic or something that had some of their blood, Yeah,
the members blood put into it.
Speaker 2 (40:19):
Yeah. I think they did that with The Squadron Supreme too,
one of my favorite comics when the when the author died,
I think they did an issue where they included some
of his blood in the ink. Yeah. So it's a
way to be immortalized, I guess, you know.
Speaker 1 (40:34):
Timothy, Yeah, Leary sending himself out into space.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
Yeah. I think a lot of people from Star Trek
have gone up there. I know James Dewan has, so,
you know. I mean that's ashes. It's not actually the
best preservation, but it's symbolically beautiful.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, Well, well, lots of things going on.
But it's an interesting topic, and I think we should
stay tuned because it doesn't sound like this is the
end of it.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Oh it's not for sure, but you know, again, uh,
just be skeptical of these kind of claims. If it
sounds too good to be true, probably is it probably is,
you know, I don't Again, I'm not trying to be
a downer at all. I love experimentation. I want there
to be frank and beet. Of course I do food,
(41:22):
you know. Yeah, yeah, the old The Attiger's Guide dinner
creature that wants to be devoured and tells you, oh
you should try this, you.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
Know, like, oh god it Davidson.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
By the way, did you know that from the the
BBC TV version is Peter Davison and he ends up
becoming one of the doctors and doctor who So oh, you're.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
Making me think of those trucks where you like a
butcher and you see a pig that's being chopped up
and it's got a big smile on its face.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Yes, Or the weirdest one all over the South is
the go to a barbecue place and the cook is
a pig cooking the other pig eggs. It's like, this
is delicious, Come on in and have some of me,
you know.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
It's like, well, you are reminding me that we're going
to be talking about cannibalism again soon. Brian Sharpless in
a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
That is. I love talking to Brian, so oh yeah,
I mean that book is a treasure trove of cool stuff.
Speaker 1 (42:19):
So yeah, yeah, absolutely, and yeah, we I think since
there are those other documentaries where we did the cover
the documentary recently, the ghost Hunters, and we're going to
have to follow up with the other two documentaries of
the one on Lockedness and the one on UFOs too
because we have just had such interest in that particular episode.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
We also, I'll tell you one more we need. I'll
probably cope this out and just leave it in for
the patrons because I don't know how much speculation about
future episodes we need to leave in for the regular show.
But yeah, yeah, I've been looking for It's probably been
three or four years now. I've been collecting articles about
what I like to think of is the Milwaukeean hypothesis,
(43:04):
the idea that there is this god Moloch that people
sacrifice children to and it exists as an idea. Demonizing
your enemies by claiming that they sacrifice their children to
demons is an ancient idea which is still going on today,
(43:25):
Like even right now, it's happening in American politics, people
saying that on their they sacrifice their kids to demons,
or you know, are there's baby farms or all these
great but this ancient idea, it won't go away. And
it came up in the Gulf War, and I have
an interesting story about that.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
So uh yeah, okay, well yeah, well high patrons, yeah,
and uh yeah, definitely we'll go to get around to
these things.
Speaker 2 (43:54):
Yeah. So just again, I know we said all the time,
but just be skeptical, you know, hold on to your
money to you're sure, you know so exactly when it
comes to supporting Monster Talk, which is absolutely worth your investment.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Indeed, we make no promises.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
All right, I think that went very well.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
All right, I think that sounded great and you don't
have to worry you You sounded absolutely fine.
Speaker 2 (44:18):
So do I actually feel pretty good. I'm gonna stop recording.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
That is great, and good luck tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (44:26):
You've been listening to Monster Talk, the science show about monsters.
I'm Blake Smith and I'm Karen Stoltner. You just heard
a discussion about Colossal Biosciences claims that they're de extincting species.
I've put links in the show notes for further reading
and listening. And I'm sorry that some of the stuff
here got so dark. The technology and ethics questions around
(44:50):
this stuff is really challenging enough without having to bring
in sketchy celebrity endorsements, and you know Jeffrey Epstein affiliations.
So will the few true eventually see mankind restoring extinct
species to nature. The problem is I can't see the future,
and I refuse to not see the past. We hope
(45:11):
you've enjoyed this episode of Monster Talk. Each episode we
strive to bring you the very best in monster related content,
with a focus on bringing scientific skepticism into the conversation.
If you enjoy Monster Talk, we now have a variety
of ways to support the show, all with convenient links
at monster talk dot org forwarde slash support. That's monster
(45:33):
talk dot org forwarde slash support. We have links there
to our Patreon page, as well as a donation button.
Another great way to support the show is to buy
books from our Amazon Monster Talk wish list, which directly
helps us with our research. We love used books very much,
so don't feel compelled to buy new ones, and we
love kindles so we can share our digital libraries with
(45:54):
each other. And finally, without spending any money at all,
you can support us by leaving a positive review and
iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. Positive reviews help
keep us visible in iTunes, which is a great way
to help us find you listeners, and please share our
show on your favorite social media platforms. Monster Talks theme
(46:17):
music is by Peach Stealing Monkeys. As always, thank you
for making Monster Talk a part of your listening life.
(47:12):
This has been a Monster House presentation. It's a free
It's a dire Wolf.