Edge 235 — February 6, 2008
(15,900 words)

"Edge: brilliant, essential and addictive"
— Publico (Lisbon), Cover Story, Sunday Magazine


Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins
A Conversation in Munich
(Moderator: John Brockman)
Complete One-Hour Video & Transcript

By Kevin Kelly


Edição Lisboa
Cover Story, Sunday Magazine
When the world's great scientific thinkers change their minds
By Ana Gerschenfeld

A Sense of the Future
Scientists, writers, athletes and others try to see what lies ahead
By Paul Boutin

The Triumph of Stephen Jay Gould
By Richard C. Lewontin

(Victoria, British Columbia)
Boffins wax poetic about their passions; Mainstream media, readers seem scared despite fine writing, fascinating facts
By Barbara Julien

CRAIG VENTER: One of the exciting elements that people who are interested in the digital world here may find is we can use the genetic code to watermark chromosomes. You can use it in a secret code, or you can—basically what we're using is the three-letter triplet code that codes for amino acids. There's 20 amino acids, and they use single letters to denote those. Using the triplet code, we can write words, sentences, we can say, "This genome was made by Richard Dawkins on this date in 2008."  A key hallmark of man-made species, manmade chromosomes, is that they will be very much denoted that way.

RICHARD DAWKINS: What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure.

Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins: A Conversation in Munich

(Moderator: John Brockman)

It's not everyday you have Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter on a stage talking for an hour about "Life: A Gene-Centric View". That it occured in Germany, where the culture has been resistant to open discussion of genetics, and at DLD, the Digital, Life, Design conference organized by Hubert Burda Media in Munich, a high-level event for the digital elite — the movers and shakers of the Internet — was particularly interesting. This event was a continuation of the Edge "Life: What a Concept!" meeting in August, 2008.

Edge is pleased to report on the event: the complete one hour video; the verbatim transcript; a sampling of the press from event articles in Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Spiegel Online, and Stern.


Thirty-two years ago, Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene, one of the landmark books of the 20th Century. In it, he set forth the "gene's-eye" view of life. (See "The Selfish Gene: Thirty Years On" on Edge).

"Individuals are not stable things," he wrote, "they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into oblivion, like hands of cards soon after they are dealt. But the cards themselves survive the shuffling. The cards are the genes. The genes are not destroyed by crossing over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course they march on. That is their business. They are the replicators and we are their survival machines. When we have served our purpose, we are cast aside. But genes are the denizens of geological time: genes are forever."

"Notions like Selfish Genes, memes, and extended phenotypes are powerful and exciting," notes computer scientist W. Daniel Hillis. "They make me think differently. Unfortunately, I spend a lot of time arguing against people who have over interpreted these ideas. They're too easily misunderstood as explaining more than they do. So you see, this Dawkins is a dangerous guy. Like Marx. Or Darwin."

Part of Dawkins' danger is his emphasis on models derived from cybernetics and information theory, and that such models, when applied to our ideas of life, and in particular, human life, strike some otherwise intelligent people numb and dumb with fear and terror. According to psychologist Steven Pinker, "Dawkins's emphasis on the ethereal commodity called "information" in an age of biology dominated by the concrete molecular mechanisms is another courageous stance. There is no contradiction, of course, between a system being understood in terms of its information content and it being understood in terms of its material substrate. But when it comes down to the deepest understanding of what life is, how it works, and what forms it is likely to take elsewhere in the universe, Dawkins implies that it is abstract conceptions of information, computation, and feedback, and not nucleic acids, sugars, lipids, and proteins, that will lie at the root of the explanation."

Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is Charles Simonyi Professor For the Understanding of Science, Oxford University. His most recent book is the international bestseller, The God Delusion. (See Richard Dawkins's Edge Bio page)

Craig Venter, who decoded the human genome, is on the brink of creating the first artificial life form on Earth. "I have spent", he says, "the last fifteen years of his career doing, digitizing biology. That's what DNA sequencing has been about. I view biology as an analog world that DNA sequencing has taking into the digital world."

According to Venter (in his recent BBC Dimbleby Lecture "A DNA-Driven World"), "the future of life depends not only in our ability to understand and use DNA, but also, perhaps in creating new synthetic life forms, that is, life which is forged not by Darwinian evolution but created by human intelligence

"To some this may be troubling, but part of the problem we face with scientific advancement, is the fear of the unknown — fear that often leads to rejection...Science is a topic which can cause people to turn off their brains".

At the end of June, Venter announced the results of his lab's work on genome transplantation methods that allows for the transformation of one type of bacteria into another, dictated by the transplanted chromosome. In other words, one species becomes another. In talking to Edge about the research, Venter noted the following:

Now we know we can boot up a chromosome system. It doesn't matter if the DNA is chemically made in a cell or made in a test tube. Until this development, if you made a synthetic chromosome you had the question of what do you do with it. Replacing the chromosome with existing cells, if it works, seems the most effective to way to replace one already in an existing cell systems. We didn't know if it would work or not. Now we do. This is a major advance in the field of synthetic genomics. We now know we can create a synthetic organism. It's not a question of 'if', or 'how', but 'when', and in this regard, think weeks and months, not years.

Venter is Director, The J. Craig Venter Institute, and the author of the recently published autobiography, A Life Decoded: My Genome: My Life. (See Craig Venter's Edge Bio Page).

DLD, Europe's conference for the 21st century, took place January 20-22, 2008 at HVB Forum in Munich, Germany. DLD covers digital innovation, science and culture and brings together thought leaders from Europe, the Middle-East, America and Asia. The three-day event was chaired by Edge contributors publisher Hubert Burda (See "Hubert Burda — Germany's Agent of Change" on Edge) and investor Yossi Vardi and hosted by Stephanie Czerny and Marcel Reichart.

Craig Venter & Richard Dawkins: A Conversation in Munich

(Moderator: John Brockman)

Richard Dawkins & J.Craig Venter

Click here for the complete one hour video of the event.

The following is the unedited transcript ...

MARCEL REICHART (Hubert Burda Media/DLD): And here we're going to have one of the true highlights. Steffi...

STEFFI CZERNY (Hubert Burda Media/DLD):  John Brockman is talking to Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter.  This is a very special thing, and we are very grateful, John, that you brought this panel together.  We have known John for a long time.  He always inspired us a lot.  He was the one who introduced me to the term "digerati."  And now he's introducing all of you to the most essential issue of the new century.

JOHN BROCKMAN: Thank you, Steffi and thank you all for coming.

It's not every day you have Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter on a stage together. Richard Dawkins is responsible for possibly the most important science book of the last century, The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, which set forth an agenda of the gene-centric, or gene's eye, view of life, which has become the basic science agenda for biologists for the last quarter century. And without that worldview, you wouldn't have Craig Venter changing the world the way he is today. 

Craig Venter is the man who led the private group that decoded the humane genome in 2001. He's working on the forefront of artificial life, synthetic biology. He's traveling around the world on a sailboat finding millions of new genes in the oceans and in very dramatic fashion. And most recently, in June, his lab was responsible for transplanting the information from one genome into another. In other words, your dog becomes your cat. What we'll do first is a conversation between Craig and Richard, and then if any of you have questions, please raise your hands.

DAWKINS:  I thought I'd begin by reading a quotation from a famous philosopher and historian of science from the 1930s, Charles Singer, to give an idea of exactly how much things have changed. And Craig Venter is a leader, perhaps the leader, in making that change today.  So, this is a quote from 1930, Charles Singer: "Despite interpretations to the contrary, the theory of the gene is not a mechanist theory. The gene is no more comprehensible as a chemical or physical entity than is the cell or, for that matter, the organism itself. If I ask for a living chromosome, that is, for the only effective kind of chromosome, no one can give it to me, except in its living surroundings, any more than he can give me a living arm or leg. The doctrine of the relativity of functions is as true for the gene as it is for any of the organs of the body. They exist and function only in relation to other organs. Thus, the last of the biological theories leaves us where the first started in the presence of a power called life, or Psyche, which is not only of its own kind but unique in each and all of its exhibitions."  You couldn't ask for a more comprehensive destruction of a conventional view than that. That is not just wrong. It is catastrophically, utterly, stupefyingly wrong. It's wrong in an interesting way, and Craig is the best person to tell us what's wrong with all that. 

VENTER:  I feel like this is a quiz, Richard (chuckles). As you heard from John, Richard's book on The Selfish Gene really influenced most thinking in modern biology. I actually didn't like his book initially. I've never told him that. I figured it was safer at a distance now. But I've come to appreciate it immensely. I was looking at the world from a genome-centric view—the collection of genes that put together to lead to any one species—but as we traveled around the world trying to look at the diversity of biology, we came up with larger and larger collections of genes. We now have a database of roughly ten millions of these. That number will probably double again this year to 20 million. 

To put it in context, we as humans only have around 22,000 genes. We represent sort of a minority of the usage of genes on this planet. But I've switched, and I've really come to view the world from a gene-centric point of view, in part, because we're now going into the design phase. I'm looking at genes as the design components of the future, not just interesting elements of biology. I now look at genomes as interesting composites of genes. But we have almost an infinite variety that we could put together to create biological machines of the future. Unlike that quote, chromosomes can exist independently. Genes can exist independently. They can move around independently.

Regarding the study that John was referring to in the introduction—last year, we isolated the chromosome from one bacterial species and transplanted it into another one. The chromosome in the species that we transplanted into was destroyed, and all the characteristics of one species went away and got transformed into what was dictated by the new chromosome. It's sort of the ultimate test in proving that this is the information of biology and dictates what a cell can do and maybe even should do. This was a precursor to being able to now design life, build synthetic molecules by looking at individual genes. We now have some gene families where we have 30, 40, 50,000 members—natural variants that occur in the population. And we have major problems we're trying to overcome by looking for solutions, changes in modern society.

The first uses we're trying to put these to is trying to come up with alternate ways of making fuel. Instead of taking carbon out of the ground, looking at this diversity of biology, we have thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of organisms that can take the energy from sunlight, carbon dioxide from the environment, fix the carbon from the carbon dioxide and also make a potential fuel—natural gas such as methane. When we look at cells as machines, it makes them very straightforward in the future to design them for very unique utilities. All these speak against that one quotation.

DAWKINS: It's more than just saying that you can pick up a chromosome and put it in somewhere else. It is pure information. You could put it into a printed book. You could send it over the Internet. You could store it on a magnetic disk for 1,000 years, and then in a thousand years time, with the technology that they'll have then, it will be possible to reconstruct whatever living organism was here now. So, this is something which was utterly undreamed of before the molecular information revolution. What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It's digital information. It's precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it's probably "the" major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves. It's something would have boggled the mind of Darwin, and Darwin would have loved it, I'm absolutely sure.

BROCKMAN:  And for this conference it's almost as important as advertising online. 

VENTER:  Well, to speak to this, for the past 15 years, we have been digitizing biology. When we decoded the genome, including sequencing the human genome, that's going from what we consider the analog world of biology into the digital world of the computer. Now, for the first time, we can go in the other direction. With synthetic genomics and synthetic biology, we are starting with that purely digital world. We take the sequence out of the computer and we chemically from four raw chemicals that come in bottles, we can reconstruct a chromosome in the laboratory, based on either design, copying what was in the digital world, or coming up with new digital versions. In fact, somewhat jokingly, we can argue that this is the only nanotechnology that actually works. Biology is the ultimate nanotechnology, and it can now be digitally designed and reconstructed.

DAWKINS: There are people who are very uneasy about this kind of science. They sometimes call it scientism. And there's a certain suspicion of arrogance. The phrase, "playing god" has been brought up. I don't think I have a problem with that, but I think it's something we ought to take seriously. What I do have a problem with is the possible unforeseen practical consequence of some of the sorts of things that not just you are doing, but many other people are doing. I suspect that the phrase "playing god" is actually a kind of, it's a bit like the boy who cried ‘wolf', because accusing a scientist of playing god is obviously stupid. But what is not obviously stupid is accusing a scientist of endangering the future of the planet by doing something that could be irreversible. And what I mean by the boy who cried wolf is that we may become so used to fending off idiotic accusations of playing god, and, thereby, humanity might overlook the real dangers. Do you think that's a possible danger?

VENTER:  It's a real-life danger that we're facing now. I've argued that we are 100 percent now dependent on science for survival of our species. In part, science of today has to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of previous years because we've advanced internal combustion engines, because we're so good at burning carbon that we take out of the ground, we did it blindly without any consequences of, that it might totally affect the future of the planet. 

Now, the numbers—and I've had to change my slides three times last year of the amount of carbon that's going into the atmosphere and staying there—that number is now 4.2 billion tons of carbon. It's accelerating faster than anybody projected. My slide at the start of 2007 was 3.5 billion tons of carbon. It's expected perhaps with increasing industrialization of China and India, within 20 to 40 years, that number could be on the order of 20 billion tons of CO2. There are several environmental scientists that have argued that there is almost nothing we can do to reverse that, though. We may be fixed in our destiny regardless of whether we have new approaches. I don't like that scenario. We have to try and do something. I hope those people are wrong with their projections.

If we can do two things—number one: replace using the carbon we're taking out of the ground by using renewable sources, and the best renewable source we have is energy from the sun. Over 100 million terawatts a day hit the earth. We have cells that capture carbon back from the environment. And it turns out, chemically and biologically in the lab we can make anything in the lab that come out of the ground in terms of carbon. We can make octane. We can make diesel fuel. We can make jet fuel. We can make butanol. Ethanol, humanity's been that forever through simple fermentation.

These are ideas that are slow to catch on. Very much in the notion that you were talking about. People are much more concerned that there might be new consequences of engineering biology than this potential disastrous route we're on—totally changing our atmosphere, maybe making it impossible ultimately for our species to survive. That's a far more dangerous experiment.

DAWKINS: Did I understand you to be saying that whereas the energy we get out of the ground—oil and coal—took millions of years of all those terawatts of sunlight hitting leaves in the Carboniferous and being stored, do I understand you to be saying that now, with the biotechnology that you are doing, it should be possible to capture those terawatts of energy on the fly, as it were, and use them in the present rather than stored over millions of years from the past and dug out of the ground?

VENTER:  Exactly. What we're doing with burning oil and coal is we're taking millions of years of compressed biology, we're burning that over the course of years and putting it in the atmosphere. We can do just the opposite. We can even capture back some of that CO2. It only takes about one percent of the sunlight that hits the earth daily to replace all the fuel we use, all the energy we use for transportation. These are not huge leaps. There's just been no motivation for it because oil was cheap. We've gone through this cycle, two times now, where people rapidly pursued alternate energy sources, then the cost of oil dropped. In fact, that's my biggest concern now. The price of oil is in the hands of very few people. And if there's truly alternatives that come on the market, the cost of oil could be artificially dropped to really low prices killing off these new industries that are essential. The way forward in a political sense is there has to be a carbon tax on nonrenewable carbon to disincentivize people from burning this carbon that's nonrenewable that is going to take us down this route that I think people have—even the Bush administration recognizes that we're in the realm of client change due to carbon going into the atmosphere. If they understand it, the rest of the world can. 

BROCKMAN:  At "Life, What A Concept!" meeting, Freeman Dyson, who's extremely heretical, basically challenged Richard by saying evolution is now back to pre-biotic stage of communal, horizontal gene transfer, and with the interlude of what he would call the "Darwinian Moment". Richard rebutted that in an email. It's rather exciting reading, and you can get it on The Edge Web site and download it. But the question I have is:  Dyson maintains that evolution is now man-made; it's cultural rather than Darwinian, Open Source, communal. Is it?

VENTER:  All evolution is based on selection. We as species have been affecting the direction of evolution whether we wanted to or not for some time by changing the environment. Now we can do it in a deliberate, hopefully thoughtful, fashion by deliberate design. But that deliberate design still has to be followed by selection. But looking back at how even the early processes of evolution that Richard's been writing about for so many years, when we look at that same experiment we did with transplanting a genome from one species to another, so many people that tried to argue against evolution on a religious basis try to stick to this point mutation and selection mode, the most limited version of Darwinian evolution, to point out how complexity couldn't occur from that. What we see with chromosome transplantation is, we can get a million changes in a species in an instant.

And not only does this happen just by our work in the lab, looking back in history, we see major species evolution was from species taking on new chromosomes. When they take on a new chromosome, it's like adding a new DVD full of software to your computer. It instantly changes the capabilities and the robustness of what you can do. Our cells can do that. I guess it's by definition Open Source because it happens in the environment almost on a daily basis. We have real-time Darwinian evolution taking place in our lungs. Everybody in this room has a different species of bacteria in their lungs because, as your immune system attacks these organisms, there's built-in mechanisms to the genetic code where they're constantly making minor variations, making different proteins to fool our immune system. 

Selection—this is case selection by our antibodies, and our physiology is changing those—we're changing selection of the species, perhaps ones that will survive in a higher CO2 environment. As we sailed around the world, one of the most disturbing things was we could barely go a mile in the ocean without seeing plastic trash. We'd go to beaches that—we did not anywhere in a complete circumnavigation see a pristine beach without it being covered with trash. But talk about a new environment, after the major tsunami, as we sailed across the Indian Ocean, all the beaches were covered with flipflops. But they turned into rafts for crabs. So we have a new habitat for crabs as they float around the ocean on people's flipflops. We are very much affecting evolution on our planet. My contention is, we need to start doing it in a very deliberate fashion.

DAWKINS: I want to come back to John's point about Freeman Dyson. And I didn't actually disagree with him all that much. The only thing I disagreed with him was that he was talking about natural selection as though it was selection between species, which it is not. However, the extremely interesting point he is made is the transition from a very early stage of evolution, which was much more Open Source, because bacteria still copy and paste information in a kind of promiscuous fashion, which is exactly what we are now in a position to do both genetic information through people like Craig but also other kinds of information, cultural information. 

So, there is a really interesting sense in which there was, still is, a middle phase of what Dyson called the Darwinian phase, by which what he really meant was the highly ritualized phase of sexual exchange of information which, as I say, is ritualized, as opposed to the Open Source system, which bacteria still do, and which human biotechnology now does. By ritualized, what I mean is that in every generation, exactly 50 percent of the genes of a male and 50 percent of the genes of a female are put together to make a new individual.  Now, that is a highly stylized, ritualized, courtly kind of genetic information exchange, which took over from the bacterial system and which caused the invention of what we call a species, because a species just is a collection of individuals who are taking part in this stately gavotte of genetic exchange. Having usurped the earlier stage of promiscuous shoving genetic information around all over the place, and we're moving back into a new promiscuous phase. However, I wouldn't write off what Dyson called the "Darwinian Phase". It's been going for a couple of thousand million years and it's going to go on all around us, never matter mind what humans are doing. I mean, the rest of life is going to go on like that.

VENTER:  You did use the phrase "schoolboy howler".

DAWKINS: Schoolboy howler. I did use the phrase, "schoolboy howler", and that was about that one point, about suggesting that natural selection is about one species displacing another species, and that is, that is a schoolboy howler. A lot of people think that Darwinian selection means one species goes extinct and another species takes over. That is not Darwinian selection. That is species extinction. It's a totally different kind of process.

BROCKMAN:  Speaking for Freeman. He still maintains he's correct. One interesting aspect is that in science, debate is the way people work together, the way they advance their ideas. It's usually civil. In this case, it was very good-natured. The two major German newspapers, Suddeutsche Zeitung and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, were present, and they both ran feuilleton features on the event. And one of them said, if this discussion was in Germany, there'd be riots and fist fights. But the audience here all seem so calm.

VENTER:  Let me pick up on a point that Richard was making about the simplistic notions about Darwin and evolution. In fact, it was one of the biggest surprises for the scientific community. What we found in the environment. Most people expected just one dominant species. What we found were thousands, tens of thousands, of very closely related organisms, all basically the same linear set of genes, tremendous variation in those genes.  But there was not one dominant one. There was this community of related organisms where perhaps none of them had gone extinct, or, if they had, there were literally thousands of ones to replace them. The problem we've had, I think, with looking at evolution, I think it's been overly simplified because we've always been looking at the visible world, not the absolute majority of life on this planet, which is the invisible world. 

In one milliliter of sea water, there's a million bacteria and ten million viruses. In the air in this room—we've been doing the air genome project—all of you just during the course of this hour will be breathing in at least 10,000 different bacteria, and maybe 100,000 viruses. I would look closely at the person sitting next to you to see what they're exhaling.

This is the world of biology that we live in, that we don't see, where evolution takes place on a minute-to-minute basis, not on the speciations of giraffes versus elephants versus kangaroos but the tens of millions of species that constantly are affecting the metabolism of our planet. The air that we breathe comes from these organisms. The future of the planet rests in these organisms. And the question is: If we take over the design of these organisms, does that really shift the balance in any way? Or is it such a small portion of what's out there that we'll only affect industrial processes not the living planet?

DAWKINS: My vision of life is in a sense even more radical than that, because I would like to regard the genomes of the giraffes and kangaroos and humans that you refer to as just another set of viruses in close-knit societies. So the gene pool, I should say, of giraffes, or the gene pool of humans, or the gene pool of kangaroos is a huge society of viruses. I'm using the word loosely. I'm using the word "viruses" because the viruses you're talking about, the bacteria you're talking about, are kind of free spirits who are out there in the sea, and they're out there in the air. But there's another whole class of them who have, not agreed, but who have come together in gigantic clubs, gigantic societies, which is you and me. And so, as far as a piece of DNA is concerned, there are just various ways of making a living. And some of the ways of making a living are floating around free in the air and floating around free in the water. Other ways of making a living are to club together with other bits of DNA, making a genome, and influencing the phenotype, influencing the body in which they sit to pass them on to future generations. These are just different ways of making a living. The whole of the biosphere is a gigantic collection of crisscrossing interacting DNA, some of which jumps from kangaroo to kangaroo, or from giraffe to giraffe, but via the normal route of reproduction, sexual reproduction, others of which jump around through the air or through the water. But it's all the same kind of stuff. 

VENTER:  In fact, the jumping I think is a lot further; they can jump from planet to planet. We have organisms that can withstand three million rads of radiation. They can be totally desiccated. It's been shown that they can survive easily in outer space. We exchange roughly 200 kilograms of material between Earth and Mars each year. Undoubtedly, we're exchanging these organisms. It's a question of how far they can transfer. We're starting to look at the gels from space dust to see if we can find DNA in them. These organisms, if they were shielded within a comet within any other material, the estimations that we came out of this conference could literally last tens of millions of years, find a new source of water and start replicating again. Our viruses can affect the universe just not the girl next door.

DAWKINS: There's a precious beauty in the experiments you've just been describing because Charles Darwin himself did just the same thing but with transmission of organisms from continent to continent. Darwin was concerned for theoretical reasons to argue that it's possible for living things to survive enormous long journeys in seawater or other transmission conditions. Darwin did experiments very analogous to yours in which he took seeds and showed that they could survive for long periods of time, for long enough to drift across from one continent to another. It's a beautiful analogy

VENTER:  Well, in fact, the thinking was remarkable, looking back at history, as Europeans went out to look at other continents, they were expecting the equivalent of space aliens on these different continents. We seem to extrapolate much more in our imaginations than we do in life. I'm certain we will find bacterial life on Mars, whether it's actively replicating or not still is a question. But it won't differ from what we have on this planet.

DAWKINS: But it'll be Earth.

VENTER:  Because it will either have originated there and come here, or originated here and become contaminated there.

BROCKMAN:  Have you thought exo-planets—Dimitar Sasselov…

VENTER:  Dimitar says there's in our own galaxy 100,000 Earth or super Earth planets, just within our own galaxy, that could all support life. We will find life as a universal concept. Anywhere we will find highly intelligent life, we will find it's a design concept. It's an electronic concept. It's an information concept. We can transfer life across the universe as digital information. Somebody else could in their laboratories build that genetic code and replicate it. Perhaps publishing my genome on the Internet had more implications than I thought.

BROCKMAN:  When you talk about design, you're inferring that life is a technology. Would that be true?

VENTER:  Life is machinery. Life is a ... it becomes a form of technology as we learn how to engineer it and reproduce it.

BROCKMAN:  One of Richard's colleagues, J.Z. Young, at Oxford, in his 1951 Reith Lecture, said we create tools and we mould ourselves through our use of them. So if life has moved from reality to a tool to a technology. How is that going to change our view of who and what we are?  

VENTER:  It's a question that's sort of come up from the beginning of looking at the genetic code. Many argued that we would diminish humanity by looking at our own genetic code and understanding it. That's a very simplistic view. From even with our species, looking at our genetic code and trying to understand how we go from the same 22,000 genes in every one of our 100 trillion cells to a John Brockman and a Richard Dawkins is far more fascinating than anybody can conjure up I think from any religious or poetic form. I don't think it diminishes humanity to understand it.

BROCKMAN:  It sounds fascinating now. Twenty-five years from now, it'll sound, to the next generation, trite and taken for granted. Things are going to change. With this scheme of things, I don't see any place for religions. I think we're going to relate to each other differently. The whole cybernetic idea is a huge epistemological breakdown of our traditional ways of looking at each other. We go down an empirical road, until it hits a wall, and you have to rethink everything. And that's where we are right now.

VENTER:  Well, it certainly changes the definition of an Internet virus. If we can have an actual virus, digitize its code, we can transmit it around the Internet and somebody else could build that same one, or more importantly, a cell to make octane from carbon dioxide based on sunlight. We need to get these transfers very quickly. We are a species that everything is out of sight and out of mind. While we worry about GMOs, primarily in Europe, I worry most about the several trillion organisms that get transferred as ballast water that they pick up in any port after they dump their cargo, take that to another part of the world, and contaminate that part of the world with all those microorganisms and viruses. This has been going on ever since ships have taken on ballast water. We are doing a cross-contamination. The experiment that Darwin did, every time a ship takes on ballast water, it moves some place else and dumps that water, they're moving billions to trillions of organisms and viruses around to create environments that wouldn't normally exist. 

BROCKMAN:  The audience might interested in your adventures with national governments in your surveying their waters in the South Pacific. 

VENTER:  What John's referring to, it's actually almost impossible as a modern scientist today to do what Darwin was able to do. On his voyage, he, on a survey ship, going around, first South America, took biological samples, characterized them everywhere he went. We now have international treaties that every country owns every species within 200 miles of its borders. So we found, as we sailed across the Pacific Ocean with a one-knot current that carried a million organisms per milliliter of ocean water across a border, they went from organisms that were international organisms to become French genetic heritage. And it changes the ownership. It changes the view of science.  Where most states now don't want discoveries made and that information published on the Internet or published in scientific journals. So we've gone the extreme opposite of Open Source to it's very hard to find a country that doesn't want to block the publication of information of biology that's either originated in that country or drifted across its borders.  

BROCKMAN:  At the "Life: What a Concept" conference, you said something about artificial life—that it's not "if", it's "when"; that it's happening, and it's going to happen sooner than we think. So, what is the prognosis on that? 

VENTER:  Well, just for the record, we have not yet created a cell driven by a man-made chromosome. Based on the chromosome transplant experiment, though, we know that that is definitely possible. There's a lot of barriers to it. There's different mechanisms in cells where, because these are in fact key mechanisms of evolution, if you're a cell swimming in the ocean and not only you take up a gene but you take up a whole chromosome from another species, and it instantly transforms what you do as a species, some species wanted to develop mechanisms to protect them against that. There's a lot of barriers we have to overcome. I'm hopeful that will happen this year. 

DAWKINS: Can I talk a bit about some of the risks? Craig, you were just talking about the sort of almost criminal contamination of oceans when tankers release ballasts of seawater, and, thereby contaminate one ocean with the organisms of another. And we're all now quite used to the idea of contamination of organisms. When you go to New Zealand, you hear thrushes and blackbirds, because the early settlers felt nostalgic for British birds, and wanted to bring British birds. I mean, it's criminal. The Duke of Bedford imported American grey squirrels into Britain, and now the red squirrel is all but extinct. We're entirely used to this idea of contamination. However, what's the equivalent that we might be doing now? What if scientists of the future are unable any longer to do serious molecular taxonomy work because the scientists of the 20th and 21st Centuries, let's say 21st and 22nd Centuries, contaminated genomes by introducing genes from other radically different parts of the living kingdoms? 

It's probably all right, as long as very, very careful records are kept. However, you could imagine a situation in the future where the rather strict separation, at least in Freeman Dyson's middle stage of evolution, the sexual phase, where on the whole evolution is all divergent, there's virtually no cross-contamination of genes, if humans suddenly start cross-contaminating genes, so you have kangaroo genes in giraffes or melon genes in aardvarks, how are we going to do our molecular taxonomy? Won't it be a bit rather like people trying to study the faunas and ecology of New Zealand?

VENTER:  Richard, that's the most naive question you've ever asked. And I assume you're asking it to be provocative, because in fact that's the opposite of what we see happens with evolution. Viruses move genes around from totally disparate species in a very common fashion. We have genes in our genome that resemble some, you know, from distant viruses. In fact, a third of our genome is basically viral contaminate. When we sequenced the small pox genome, the small pox genome had half a dozen clearly human-derived genes. We see bacterial genes moving in a lateral fashion from archaea to bacteria to plants to single cell eukaryotes. We do have constant information exchange across the diversity of species on this planet. I've never heard the term until this meeting, that of the "schoolboy howler", but I would put that in that category, the simplistic view of biology.

DAWKINS: Are you saying, then, that a molecular taxonomist who's trying to work out, say, the taxonomy of marsupial mammals or placental mammals would be thrown out because a bacterium or a virus has at some point carried across a kangaroo gene into a jackal genome or something ... You're not saying that. Are you?

VENTER:  We're saying that we see evidence of every branch of life in almost every genome. It depends on which gene you choose, and that's been the problem with molecular taxonomy. If you choose one gene out of two or three thousand in a genome and try and classify it on that, you come up with one answer. If you pick another gene, you get a different tree. If you try and look at the genome as a whole, you get a totally different answer. So yes, we see genes moving around.

You know, the visible world and these few visible species to me are somewhat bizarre, extremes of evolution. They're not the standard. But if you look in those, in the marsupial versus, you know, a platypus genome, you would definitely find a clear cut similarity. If we sequenced another mammalian genome, we would not discover a single new gene. We would discover unique combinations that made that mammal versus us. But we have saturated the gene set for mammals. So we can pronounce and say here ... but the gene set of mammals, over half of those are shared broadly with other species. You can't draw a bright line in every gene, and say, "These are plants and these are mammals. These are humans and these are marsupials, " because we've used—it gets back to the gene-centric view. We've used those in the random design of biology, as we will use them in the very specific design that we do in the laboratory. And taxonomy is something where people sort of fool themselves by justifying what they see with their visual acuity. 

DAWKINS: The overlap of mammal genes that you're talking about could come about through common ancestry. So the platypus and kangaroo genomes contain shared genes because they go back to a common ancestor. That is the normal assumption that's made by molecular taxonomists. 

VENTER:  Yes but once you have lateral transfer, whether it's due to viruses or anything else, the tree concept of life goes away.

DAWKINS:  That's what I'm asking you. To what extent does molecular taxonomy now have to be, not overthrown but at least thought of with great suspicion, because you cannot tell which genes are in common because they're shared in a common ancestor or because they're cross-contaminated by viral or bacterial transfer?

VENTER:  One of the exciting elements that people who are interested in the digital world here may find is we can use the genetic code to watermark chromosomes. You can use it in a secret code, or you can—basically what we're using is the three-letter triplet code that codes for amino acids. There's 20 amino acids, and they use single letters to denote those. Using the triplet code, we can write words, sentences, we can say, "This genome was made by Richard Dawkins on this date in 2008."  A key hallmark of man-made species, manmade chromosomes, is that they will be very much denoted that way.

You could obviously copy something that was out there and make minor variations and nobody would necessarily know. But the other key tenet of what we're doing is the organisms that we're designing, that other people are thinking of, are designed not to survive outside of the lab, outside of a production facility because they have very strict requirements for it. I don't know anybody that's advocating making a new specie and throwing it in the ocean to get better conversion to put more oxygen in the atmosphere.

BROCKMAN:  I'm sure some of you have questions? 

QUESTIONER: I have a question for Richard Dawkins. You've known Craig Venter for quite a while and you remember ten years ago, when the world was too slow for him sequencing the genome, and he said, "I want to do it myself. I want to do it quicker."  Now he announces that he wants to create artificial life to resolve the energy crisis and bring the oil price down and create new forms of energy. When will he come up with the first form of energy?

DAWKINS: You're asking me a question about Craig.

QUESTIONER: Yes. I asked him already a couple of weeks ago, and he didn't say anything about the timeline (Laughter).

VENTER: So supposedly I told you in secret what the real answer was, and you're going to reveal it now.

DAWKINS: I'm not going to reveal anything. I want an answer from Craig about the kangaroos and the — (Laughter) I think you're confusing two quite different things. I mean, of course you can make viruses and bacteria transfer things, and we know there are a few genes that have cross-contaminated from radically different parts of the animal and plant kingdoms,  but I didn't know until you told me today, and I'm skeptical about it, that molecular taxonomy of, for example, mammals, is endangered by cross-contamination of genomes. I don't believe molecular taxonomists yet, at least, say, "Oh, well, we can't use this gene to get our kangaroo taxonomy right, because it's clearly been imported from a rhinoceros."

VENTER:  So when we look at bacterial evolution, a typical bacteria will have 2,000 genes in it, each one of those 2,000 genes has its own separate evolutionary tree that you can construct, and none of them have the same time line that you could put together. 

DAWKINS: But that's bacteria.

VENTER:  But that's bacteria. So, viruses pick up bacterial genes all the time. They pick up mammalian genes all the time. A third of your genome is virus. It's not just you personally. It's, all of us have that. And there are subtle differences in those, that if a taxonomist was to measure viral genes, unmistakingly thinking it was a human gene, they would come up with a very different answer than one that was in the human lineage, perhaps from the beginning. 

QUESTION: You mentioned that there's 100 trillion cells in our body, so to speak. A hundred trillion. Right. Aren't most of them non-human? Aren't we really dependent on, for our life, to have a lot of animal cells in our body? And in essence, are we not a human but a zoo?

VENTER:  No. It depends on what you had for breakfast. So we have 100 trillion human cells. We have at least that many bacterial cells associated with us. So ...

QUESTION: So we are a zoo?

VENTER:  Well, we're, it depends, there's not too many bacterial zoos. But an important part of human metabolism, human diet is, you're not so much what you eat, as people say, you're what you feed the bacteria in your gut. So when we look at the chemicals in the blood after a meal, there's roughly 2,500 compounds that we as a species can make. We see roughly twice that many as bacterial metabolites in our guts from what we feed them. So, we live in a bacterial milieu. We breathe it. Our guts, every orifice, our skin; we have more bacterial cells than we have human cells, and they're a very key part of our existence. We can't exist in a healthy life without them. So that could be a zoo, if you had a microscope.

QUESTION: I have two questions, actually. One referring to Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion. And I would like to know from Venter how happy had he been about this book, because, well, if there's no God, you can't tinker with Genesis. So, you don't have any ethical problems with that maybe. The second one is:  Do you think that humankind is overtaking evolution? So, well, it will happen in the lab and not in the natural environment anymore?

DAWKINS: The first question seemed to be rather a strange question. It mentioned my book, The God Delusion, Der Gotteswahn.  And then said, "What's Craig Venter's attitude to that because"—and I didn't quite understand what the "because" was, but something to do with, "he doesn't have to worry about Genesis anymore." I don't suppose he ever did worry about Genesis (Laughter). 

VENTER:  I guess the assumption is, we can't play God if there is no God (Laughter).

DAWKINS: All the more reason to do so.  

QUESTION: In response to Mr. Brockman's annual Edge question where have people changed, where have you, for example, changed your minds, where have the two of you changed your minds? And could you comment on Steven Pinker's response to that question, where he stated that he once thought that humans were essentially not evolving anymore, but now he believes that they are?

DAWKINS: Right. The questioner points out that John Brockman's Edge Website this year has a question, "When have you changed your mind and why?" And it ended up with the statement that Steven Pinker had changed his mind about whether humans had stopped evolving. I answered the question about changing my mind, and I won't give my answer because it takes too long to explain. However, I will say that in response to Craig Venter today, I am prepared to change my mind, if he gives a better answer to my question about molecular taxonomy. Maybe now is not the time to do it. But I'm on the brink of changing my mind, but I remain highly skeptical as to whether I will in fact have to do so. 

VENTER:  We'll have to go through some genome data as we follow up on this ... I think Pinker thought there was no human evolution because he spent so much time at a university (Laughter/Applause). 

QUESTION: We've talked a lot about design and technical things. How about soul? Science tried to figure out where our souls sit. Where is it in your mind, Mr. Venter?

DAWKINS: The question is about:  Where does the soul sit? Either the soul doesn't exist at all, and I don't believe it does exist in the sense of anything outside the brain, or it is a manifestation of brain activity. I certainly would think it highly, highly unlikely that there's anything like a soul that survives the death of the brain. So I think that one of the aspects of the revolution in biology is a complete destruction of dualism and of obscurantist mystification. 

QUESTION: Craig's comment about being able to, perhaps in the future take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and create fossil fuels, good ones because one's not digging them out of the ground, is admirable. Of course, it's always dangerous to try and predict what kind of future technologies will be. But it seems that, to me, there are two classes of technological solutions that might be able to use your invention, when you come up with it. One would be some kind of black box that takes the carbon dioxide in the immediate vicinity of black box and converts it into fuel. And the problem here is that you only have about 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So you would require an enormous amount of processed energy to be able to get enough carbon dioxide to make the kind of quantities of fuel that we need.

The other broad class of technological solution would be perhaps you could create some kind of enzyme, or whatever you would call it, but take advantage of the huge surface area of the oceans, and you could sort of, then, put it in the ocean and then it would then take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and convert itself into oil. But then we would have the problem of the oceans covered with oil, another undesirable solution.

VENTER: They're thoughtful questions. The first, about the concentration of CO2, is relatively easy to deal with. The KMS of the enzymes and these organisms that exist throughout our planet are able to capture CO2 out of the atmosphere, out of the water. But we don't need to rely on that. We have two phenomenal and, soon a third, point source of carbon dioxide. The two largest are power plants and cement factories. If we could simply capture back the CO2 from those two point sources, it makes it very easy because of the incredible concentrations you have there, and will eventually get in a cycle of a renewable source from that. We also have a third. It's a clustered carbon dioxide from a variety of sources that's been discussed to be pumped down into oil wells or coal beds. So, we are working in one of our programs with BP, trying to look at converting that CO2 back into methane, so you could constantly be in a recycling mode. Once you sequester CO2, we could use that as a source of energy instead of constantly taking more out of the ground. So we have so many incredible point sources of CO2 production right now; that's the least of our worries.

BROCKMAN:  Thank you. Thank you all for coming.

In the late summer of 2007 he hosted the now legendary symposium 'Life: What a Concept!' at his farm in Connceticut. This was where six pioneers of science had jointly proclaimed a new era: After the decyphering of the human genome soon whole genomes sequences could be written. That would be the beginning of the age of biology.

22. Januar 2008


The future of Selection: Scientists Craig Venter and Richard Dawkins in Munich (Die Zukunft der Selektion)

Digital or biological? There was a moment during Munich's conference about the future at DLD ( Digital Life Design) this past Monday, that felt like the exchage of a baton. After a rather dull discussion about social platforms on the internet a burly man entered the stage, introduced himself as John Brockman and proclaimed that the topic of the hour would now be biology.

John Brockman was not just another moderator. In the late summer of 2007 he hosted the now legendary symposium 'Life: What a Concept!' at his farm in Connceticut. This was where six pioneers of science had jointly proclaimed a new era: After the decyphering of the human genome soon whole genomes sequences could be written. That would be the beginning of the age of biology.

Synthetic Genes

Brockman brought Craig Venter with him to the conference in Munich—the key participant in the earlier meeting.  An American entrepreneur, molecular biologist, and the first person to decode the genome, he personifies the future of biotechnology.  Not only that, in recent years Venter has more than doubled the number of genes in the public databases, and right before the meeting in Connecticut, he applied for a patent on the first-ever artificial life form—his Mycoplasma laboratorium, after a self-propagated cell division, will be the first life form to carry a synthetic chromosome. And according to Venter, this will likely be before the end of 2008.

Brockman's second guest was enthusiastic about these prospects. British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, known primarily for his books The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, evoked how seamlessly an eventual "synthetic biology" could fit into Darwin's theory of evolution.  For Dawkins, new microbes resulting from human reproduction and microbes fabricated in the lab are equally products of Nature's big experiment—irreversible, yes, but also unstoppable. Since man is at the mercy of the forces of evolution, there is no reason for him to shrink from conducting genetic experiments. 

Craig Venter, who takes obvious pleasure in his Institute's rapid advancements, assumed a more cautious stance.  Fully aware of Europe's reservations towards genetic engineering, he stressed in particular the urgent need for forced intervention in Nature's architecture: the disturbance by humans to the environment is leading to a state of such irreparable damage that the only possible way out of a catastrophe is to push forward.  He hopes one day to create a synthetic gene out of his manipulated chromosomes, which for example could reduce our emission of carbon dioxide by converting light into hydrogen.

Venter made a good case for his work, denounced the restrictive legislation in genetics that many nations have put in place, and described in detail the future selection process, which at the very least would be less chaotic than before.  In his introduction as moderator, Brockman postulated in jest that thanks to Venter's research, before long any pet cat could be transformed into a dog—Venter however distanced himself greatly from any manipulation of animals and spoke only of intervention in molecular biology.

Understandably, he won't allow any allusion to his playing a God-like role.  Given the countless uninterrupted transitionss in life forms, the very concept of a Creator can only be a myth.  Laughing, he bowed down to Dawkins anti-religious polemic The God Delusion: where there is no God, one also cannot play God.


Translated by Karla Taylor

German Language Original

Amidst all the enthusiasm for technology, one conversation had more explosive potential than the talking points of all the old and new digital entrepreneurs put together. 

January 22, 2008


Craig Venter wants to email life (Craig Venter will Lebewesen e-mailen)
By Christian Stöcker

A pioneer in the field of genetics can envision a fantastic future in which genetic codes are sent by email and then reassembled as living beings at the other end.  Or so Craig Venter forecast at an Internet conference in Munich.  He also hopes to solve the problem of global warming—with designer microbes. ...

CRAIG VENTER: LIFE VIA EMAILStart Slide Show: Click on photo (6 photos)

It is a dense network.  At the annual gathering of the digital elite, organized by Burda Media in Munich, cell phone networks have barely enough capacity.  WLAN and UMTS are groaning under their full load, as everyone calls, surfs the Internet, types—everywhere you look people have their Smartphones and their laptops, and the crowds of Blackberry devotees now also have an iPhone handy.

The event is called DLD. Previously this stood for the "Digital Lifestyle Day," but it is now "Digital Life, Design."  The attendees are first-rate—in part because the event is so opportune: many of the international business stars to whom the publisher pays tribute in Munich will subsequently travel on to Davos for the World Economic Forum. And so this year we are running into people like Richard Dawkins and Marissa Mayer of Google in the hallways.  And Jason Calacanis, who invented the concept of blogging, chatted with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales—oh yeah, and even Naomi Campbell will make an appearance today.

Bio-revolutionaries amidst technology fans

The excitement is palpable, latching on to topics like the new markets in India and China, social networks, and above all the mobile network.  Although it possible that this last issue seems especially urgent because everyone is constantly trying to get on the Internet, and failing.

Amidst all the enthusiasm for technology, one conversation had more explosive potential than the talking points of all the old and new digital entrepreneurs put together.  Only hardly anybody noticed.  DLD is always so crowded that you have to stand for the interesting events. But when genetics entrepreneur Craig Venter and genetics revolutionary Richard Dawkins, who took on the entire religious Right with his antireligious tome The Selfish Gene, got up on stage yesterday to talk about a "gene-centric world view," noticeably fewer people were standing than is often the case. And this even though their talk contained more revolutionary statements and wild forecasts by far than the other presentations looking toward future.

Venter, who last made headlines when he published his personal genome in full on the Internet, made brazen claims, but nobody reacted. Venter insisted that climate change represents a much greater risk to humanity than genetic engineering, which could actually help fight it.  For example, with genetically manipulated microbes capable of absorbing CO2: "We can change the environment through genetic engineering."  John Brockman, who is the literary agent of both Dawkins and Venter, had the role of moderator, but let Dawkins take over. When Venter began to speak of specific genetically engineered correctives for the environment, however, he abruptly woke up.  Somebody once explained to him that when you talk about these subjects in Germany, "it causes an uproar—but everyone appears so calm!"  And he is right.

"Life is becoming technology"

The momentum was building and, always one to provoke, Venter was on the ball.  Dawkins' was inevitably the role of Devil's advocate and he asked whether Venter considers that all life is technology.  "Life is machinery," he answered, "which as we learn how to manipulate it, becomes a technology."  Dawkins, who wore shirt sleaves and an eccentric white and gray tie, and who came across a bit like a friendly math teacher, suddenly found himself delivering a tentative warning: the unchecked intermingling of gene pools could have unforeseen consequences.  He drew a parallel to the unforeseen devastation that introducing new microbes, plants, or animal species can cause to ecosystems.

Dawkins knows what he is talking about—in the '70s he acheived fame with his book entitled The Selfish Gene. At the start of his talk, he declared that "genes are information." From this Venter transitioned into the depiction of a future in which genetic information could be sent over email for the receiver to reassemble as a living being: "We can already reconstruct a chromosome in the laboratory." Last October, the Guardian already reported that Venter would soon be the first to create an entirely artificial life form—something he is accomplishing even as he speaks of a future in which genes are software and humans, at their discretion, can produce life that conforms to their wishes.  The question of what happens when genes, which behave all too selfishly in Dawkins' own portrayal of them, breed freely did not come up.

At the same time as this staggering conversation took place on the podium, between a radical genetic engineer and a mastermind in the science of genetics, who evoked a future with artificially designed life and DNA-printers that is already emerging from their current scientific revolution, directly next door a group of Web Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists were engaged in a heated discussion about social networks and earning opportunities.  But next to the two dignified grey haired figures onstage, they suddenly seemed a little colorless—almost even a little outdated.

Translated by Karla Taylor

German Language Original

When Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and dispeller of the God delusion, and Craig Venter, who first decoded the human genome, come together for their conversation, the audience feels privileged to listen in, and strains to follow their not-entirely-easy-to-follow lines of reasoning. The two thinkers are in agreement that, as Dawkins put it, "genetics has entered the realm of information technology." The growing understanding of our genetic makeup and the complex interplay of our genes has been "the biggest revolution in the history of human self-knowledge."

January 23, 2008

"Digital, Life, Design" Conference
DR. BURDA'S DIGITAL SUMMIT (Dr. Burdas digitales Gipfeltreffen)
By Dirk Liedtke, Munich

[Photo: Two men with many opponents: Critic of Religion Richard Dawkins (left) and Genome Decoder Craig Venter]

Once a year publishing legend Hubert Burda invites the biggest names in science, economics and the arts to Munich.  This year, Genome-decoder Craig Venter chatted with staunch atheist Richard Dawkins; Deutsche Telekom CEO René Obermann chatted with EU Commissioner Viviane Reding, and even one of the Facebook founders looked on.

The conference is unique in its composition. For the fourth time Internet entrepreneurs, scientists, artists, CEOs, and bloggers descended on lovely Munich at the invitation of small media mogul Hubert Burda for the DLD Conference (DLD = Digital, Life, Design), whose purpose is none other but to save the world.  Or at least to make it a “better place”, as is mission statement reads in English. A patron of the arts and a man of wide-ranging interests, who publishes a little bit of everything, beginning with the lightweight magazines “Focus” and “Bunte”, together with his guests turns his attention to the big important questions of our time.  And because this is Munich, everyone is on-the-go and schmoozing. 

The Brazilian best-selling author Paulo Coelho talks about what inspires his work. The Italian photographer Oliviero Toscani reveals why he gave his models HIV tattoos in order to advertise sweaters.  Wikipedia-founder Jimmy Wales talks about his plans to create a new commercial version of the ingenious not-for-profit online encyclopedia.  And the CEO of the world's largest advertising agency, WPP, Sir Richard Sorrell, explains why he would choose to live in China today, if he could be 25 years old again. For three days, the conference brings to the quaint hometown of laptops and lederhosen the spirit of Davos, where the World Economic Forum will be held immediately afterward, and the perpetually fresh and innovative energy of Silicon Valley.

There is always a seat for Hubert

There is always front row seat reserved for, alternatively,  "Hubert", "Dr. Burda" or "Professor Burda". The Americans call him by his first name, the Germans and those who work for him use the academic title he earned with his PhD in art history.  For some of the talks, seated next to the 67-year old is his wife Maria Furtwängler, 26 years his junior. The actress' role as crime investigator Charlotte Lindholm placed her among the ranks of glamorous television stars. She is there by choice, along with her daughter. Freshly coiffed and sitting very tall, hers is a very different look from her unmade-up, tomboyish television character, and she noticeably outshines her husband. She constantly fiddles with her Blackberry.

The Patriarch of "Hubert Burda Media" and his family hold court. The bevy of young staffers who swarm around Burda appears almost blood-thirsty. In contrast, a second group of the DLD team stands out in grey hooded sweaters, adopting the more casual approach of the Google generation. Everything is photographed, filmed, blogged and posted quasi-live on the Internet. It is a conference held in real time, attended by invitation only, but whose discussions you can follow online without a problem.

At one point, when not everyone can find a seat on the podium, the Patriarch intervenes personally. "Here is an empty seat," he says. At the conference's opening session, which is full of very rich, old, white men, Burda expresses gratitude to his children from his second marriage who have kept him up-to-date on their generation's digital life-style. He shares anecdotes about them, like how they once stole somebody else's stretch limo in Davos, which carry a single message: We are established, we are rich, and we have nothing left to prove.

It must be very satisfying to, like Burda, be able to assemble so many interesting people and then deliver a universal course of study in art, and a crash course at the highest level in today's hottest topics in economics, science and technology.

[Photo: Hubert Burda treats himself annually to the DLD Conference]

The Disillusioner and the Decoder

When Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and dispeller of the God delusion, and Craig Venter, who first decoded the human genome, come together for their conversation, the audience feels privileged to listen in, and strains to follow their not-entirely-easy-to-follow lines of reasoning. The two thinkers are in agreement that, as Dawkins put it, "genetics has entered the realm of information technology." The growing understanding of our genetic makeup and the complex interplay of our genes has been "the biggest revolution in the history of human self-knowledge."

[Photo: The author John Brockman speaks at the DLD Conference in the HVB Forum]

Craig Venter, who intermittently can be found crossing the world on his sailboat, is also a practitioner and man of action, who intends to connect business with science and environmental policy: "We are entering the design phase. We are creating the biological machinery of the future. " Venter does not have cyborgs in the Schwarzenegger-Terminator sense. He dreams of designer micro-organisms that could guzzle the carbon dioxide emissions that result from our addiction to oil and natural gas combustion, and convert the environmentally destructive gas into useable methane. A clever, imaginative scientist who, with his many talents is well-versed in theory and practice, lab coats and business suits, science and stock markets, Venter spread optimism in the face of the current climate hysteria and appetite for end-of-the-world anxiety: "The survival of our species depends on science," he said. And, with an ironic hand gesture toward his conversation partner's bestseller The God Delusion: "We cannot play God, if there is no God."  With this volte-face Venter took the wind out of the sails of every skeptic, who had cast him as a present-day Doctor Frankenstein to be feared.

Translated by Karla Taylor

[German Language Original]

This super-distribution system has become the foundation of our economy and wealth. The instant reduplication of data, ideas, and media underpins all the major economic sectors in our economy, particularly those involved with exports — that is, those industries where the US has a competitive advantage. Our wealth sits upon a very large device that copies promiscuously and constantly.

By Kevin Kelly


"I am still writing my next book which is about what technology wants," writes Kevin Kelly. "I'm posting my thoughts in-progress on The Technium, a semi-blog." Kelly is one of the three sages that I consult with regularly editorial matters pertaining to Edge. The other two members of the hitherto ultra-secretive "Council of Elders" are Stewart Brand and George Dyson. Here, he invites the Edge community to look over his shoulder and provide feedback on his latest thoughts.


KEVIN KELLY is Senior Maverick at Wired magazine. He helped launch Wired in 1993, and served as its Executive Editor until January 1999. He is currently editor and publisher of the popular Technium, Cool Tools, True Film, and Street Use websites. He is the author fo Out of Control.

Kevin Kelly''s Edge Bio Page


The internet is a copy machine. At its most foundational level, it copies every action, every character, every thought we make while we ride upon it. In order to send a message from one corner of the internet to another, the protocols of communication demand that the whole message be copied along the way several times. IT companies make a lot of money selling equipment that facilitates this ceaseless copying. Every bit of data ever produced on any computer is copied somewhere. The digital economy is thus run on a river of copies. Unlike the mass-produced reproductions of the machine age, these copies are not just cheap, they are free.

Our digital communication network has been engineered so that copies flow with as little friction as possible. Indeed, copies flow so freely we could think of the internet as a super-distribution system, where once a copy is introduced it will continue to flow through the network forever, much like electricity in a superconductive wire. We see evidence of this in real life. Once anything that can be copied is brought into contact with internet, it will be copied, and those copies never leave. Even a dog knows you can't erase something once its flowed on the internet.

This super-distribution system has become the foundation of our economy and wealth. The instant reduplication of data, ideas, and media underpins all the major economic sectors in our economy, particularly those involved with exports — that is, those industries where the US has a competitive advantage. Our wealth sits upon a very large device that copies promiscuously and constantly.

Yet the previous round of wealth in this economy was built on selling precious copies, so the free flow of free copies tends to undermine the established order. If reproductions of our best efforts are free, how can we keep going? To put it simply, how does one make money selling free copies?

I have an answer. The simplest way I can put it is thus:

When copies are super abundant, they become worthless.
When copies are super abundant, stuff which can't be copied becomes scarce and valuable.

When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied.

Well, what can't be copied?

There are a number of qualities that can't be copied. Consider "trust." Trust cannot be copied. You can't purchase it. Trust must be earned, over time. It cannot be downloaded. Or faked. Or counterfeited (at least for long). If everything else is equal, you'll always prefer to deal with someone you can trust. So trust is an intangible that has increasing value in a copy saturated world.

There are a number of other qualities similar to trust that are difficult to copy, and thus become valuable in this network economy. I think the best way to examine them is not from the eye of the producer, manufacturer, or creator, but from the eye of the user. We can start with a simple user question: why would we ever pay for anything that we could get for free? When anyone buys a version of something they could get for free, what are they purchasing?

From my study of the network economy I see roughly eight categories of intangible value that we buy when we pay for something that could be free.

In a real sense, these are eight things that are better than free. Eight uncopyable values. I call them "generatives." A generative value is a quality or attribute that must be generated, grown, cultivated, nurtured. A generative thing can not be copied, cloned, faked, replicated, counterfeited, or reproduced. It is generated uniquely, in place, over time. In the digital arena, generative qualities add value to free copies, and therefore are something that can be sold.

Eight Generatives Better Than Free

Immediacy — Sooner or later you can find a free copy of whatever you want, but getting a copy delivered to your inbox the moment it is released — or even better, produced — by its creators is a generative asset. Many people go to movie theaters to see films on the opening night, where they will pay a hefty price to see a film that later will be available for free, or almost free, via rental or download. Hardcover books command a premium for their immediacy, disguised as a harder cover. First in line often commands an extra price for the same good. As a sellable quality, immediacy has many levels, including access to beta versions. Fans are brought into the generative process itself. Beta versions are often de-valued because they are incomplete, but they also possess generative qualities that can be sold. Immediacy is a relative term, which is why it is generative. It has to fit with the product and the audience. A blog has a different sense of time than a movie, or a car. But immediacy can be found in any media.

Personalization — A generic version of a concert recording may be free, but if you want a copy that has been tweaked to sound perfect in your particular living room — as if it were preformed in your room — you may be willing to pay a lot. The free copy of a book can be custom edited by the publishers to reflect your own previous reading background. A free movie you buy may be cut to reflect the rating you desire (no violence, dirty language okay). Aspirin is free, but aspirin tailored to your DNA is very expensive. As many have noted, personalization requires an ongoing conversation between the creator and consumer, artist and fan, producer and user. It is deeply generative because it is iterative and time consuming. You can't copy the personalization that a relationship represents. Marketers call that "stickiness" because it means both sides of the relationship are stuck (invested) in this generative asset, and will be reluctant to switch and start over.

Interpretation — As the old joke goes: software, free. The manual, $10,000. But it's no joke. A couple of high profile companies, like Red Hat, Apache, and others make their living doing exactly that. They provide paid support for free software. The copy of code, being mere bits, is free — and becomes valuable to you only through the support and guidance. I suspect a lot of genetic information will go this route. Right now getting your copy of your DNA is very expensive, but soon it won't be. In fact, soon pharmaceutical companies will PAY you to get your genes sequence. So the copy of your sequence will be free, but the interpretation of what it means, what you can do about it, and how to use it — the manual for your genes so to speak — will be expensive.

Authenticity — You might be able to grab a key software application for free, but even if you don't need a manual, you might like to be sure it is bug free, reliable, and warranted. You'll pay for authenticity. There are nearly an infinite number of variations of the Grateful Dead jams around; buying an authentic version from the band itself will ensure you get the one you wanted. Or that it was indeed actually performed by the Dead. Artists have dealt with this problem for a long time. Graphic reproductions such as photographs and lithographs often come with the artist's stamp of authenticity — a signature — to raise the price of the copy. Digital watermarks and other signature technology will not work as copy-protection schemes (copies are super-conducting liquids, remember?) but they can serve up the generative quality of authenticity for those who care.

Accessibility — Ownership often sucks. You have to keep your things tidy, up-to-date, and in the case of digital material, backed up. And in this mobile world, you have to carry it along with you. Many people, me included, will be happy to have others tend our "possessions" by subscribing to them. We'll pay Acme Digital Warehouse to serve us any musical tune in the world, when and where we want it, as well as any movie, photo (ours or other photographers). Ditto for books and blogs. Acme backs everything up, pays the creators, and delivers us our desires. We can sip it from our phones, PDAs, laptops, big screens from where-ever. The fact that most of this material will be available free, if we want to tend it, back it up, keep adding to it, and organize it, will be less and less appealing as time goes on.

Embodiment — At its core the digital copy is without a body. You can take a free copy of a work and throw it on a screen. But perhaps you'd like to see it in hi-res on a huge screen? Maybe in 3D? PDFs are fine, but sometimes it is delicious to have the same words printed on bright white cottony paper, bound in leather. Feels so good. What about dwelling in your favorite (free) game with 35 others in the same room? There is no end to greater embodiment. Sure, the hi-res of today — which may draw ticket holders to a big theater — may migrate to your home theater tomorrow, but there will always be new insanely great display technology that consumers won't have. Laser projection, holographic display, the holodeck itself! And nothing gets embodied as much as music in a live performance, with real bodies. The music is free; the bodily performance expensive. This formula is quickly becoming a common one for not only musicians, but even authors. The book is free; the bodily talk is expensive.

Patronage — It is my belief that audiences WANT to pay creators. Fans like to reward artists, musicians, authors and the like with the tokens of their appreciation, because it allows them to connect. But they will only pay if it is very easy to do, a reasonable amount, and they feel certain the money will directly benefit the creators. Radiohead's recent high-profile experiment in letting fans pay them whatever they wished for a free copy is an excellent illustration of the power of patronage. The elusive, intangible connection that flows between appreciative fans and the artist is worth something. In Radiohead's case it was about $5 per download. There are many other examples of the audience paying simply because it feels good.

Findability — Where as the previous generative qualities reside within creative digital works, findability is an asset that occurs at a higher level in the aggregate of many works. A zero price does not help direct attention to a work, and in fact may sometimes hinder it. But no matter what its price, a work has no value unless it is seen; unfound masterpieces are worthless. When there are millions of books, millions of songs, millions of films, millions of applications, millions of everything requesting our attention — and most of it free — being found is valuable.

The giant aggregators such as Amazon and Netflix make their living in part by helping the audience find works they love. They bring out the good news of the "long tail" phenomenon, which we all know, connects niche audiences with niche productions. But sadly, the long tail is only good news for the giant aggregators, and larger mid-level aggregators such as publishers, studios, and labels. The "long tail" is only lukewarm news to creators themselves. But since findability can really only happen at the systems level, creators need aggregators. This is why publishers, studios, and labels (PSL)will never disappear. They are not needed for distribution of the copies (the internet machine does that). Rather the PSL are needed for the distribution of the users' attention back to the works. From an ocean of possibilities the PSL find, nurture and refine the work of creators that they believe fans will connect with. Other intermediates such as critics and reviewers also channel attention. Fans rely on this multi-level apparatus of findability to discover the works of worth out of the zillions produced. There is money to be made (indirectly for the creatives) by finding talent. For many years the paper publication TV Guide made more money than all of the 3 major TV networks it "guided" combined. The magazine guided and pointed viewers to the good stuff on the tube that week. Stuff, it is worth noting, that was free to the viewers. There is little doubt that besides the mega-aggregators, in the world of the free many PDLs will make money selling findability — in addition to the other generative qualities.

These eight qualities require a new skill set. Success in the free-copy world is not derived from the skills of distribution since the Great Copy Machine in the Sky takes care of that. Nor are legal skills surrounding Intellectual Property and Copyright very useful anymore. Nor are the skills of hoarding and scarcity. Rather, these new eight generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset, how generosity is a business model, how vital it has become to cultivate and nurture qualities that can't be replicated with a click of the mouse.

In short, the money in this networked economy does not follow the path of the copies. Rather it follows the path of attention, and attention has its own circuits.

Careful readers will note one conspicuous absence so far. I have said nothing about advertising. Ads are widely regarded as the solution, almost the ONLY solution, to the paradox of the free. Most of the suggested solutions I've seen for overcoming the free involve some measure of advertising. I think ads are only one of the paths that attention takes, and in the long-run, they will only be part of the new ways money is made selling the free.

But that's another story.

Beneath the frothy layer of advertising, these eight generatives will supply the value to ubiquitous free copies, and make them worth advertising for. These generatives apply to all digital copies, but also to any kind of copy where the marginal cost of that copy approaches zero. (See my essay on Technology Wants to Be Free.) Even material industries are finding that the costs of duplication near zero, so they too will behave like digital copies. Maps just crossed that threshold. Genetics is about to. Gadgets and small appliances (like cell phones) are sliding that way. Pharmaceuticals are already there, but they don't want anyone to know. It costs nothing to make a pill. We pay for Authenticity and Immediacy in drugs. Someday we'll pay for Personalization.

Maintaining generatives is a lot harder than duplicating copies in a factory. There is still a lot to learn. A lot to figure out. Write to me if you do.


"Edge: brilliant, essential and addictive"

Publico 14 Jan 2008 Edição Lisboa

Front Page

History Shows That Famous Thinkers Also Get It Wrong. And they admit it

Cover Story, Sunday Magazine
When the world's great scientific thinkers change their minds

Click here for PDF of Portugese Original

One hundred and sixty-five eminent thinkers, researchers, and communicators, at the annual request of the edge.org website, answered the following question: "What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?"

Ana Gerschenfeld


January 26, 2008


A Sense of the Future
Scientists, writers, athletes and others try to see what lies ahead
By Paul Boutin

How do you predict the future without making a fool of yourself? You can extrapolate current trends to their logical next steps, but unless you stick to the weather — hurricanes a-comin' next year! — you're likely to be wrong. Human beings should have been cloned by now. Gasoline should be pumping at $5 a gallon. California, to the disappointment of many, has yet to collapse into the sea along its fault lines, metaphorical or otherwise. What, then, is the point of predicting the future at all?

On the evidence of the more nuanced forecasting in "What's Next" and "What Are You Optimistic About?," looking ahead is best undertaken not as a guessing game but as a way of glimpsing humanity's most realistic yet provocative possibilities, good or bad.

...Not surprisingly, the most detailed predictions in both books come from information technologists. Second-guessing current trends is, after all, an integral part of their work. Taken together, the optimistic visions of several of Mr. Brockman's Net-savvy essayists seem not just wonderful but plausible: The Internet, for all it has brought so far, is only the first step before a much bigger leap in information and interconnectivity between people. ...


Volume 55, Number 2 · February 14, 2008

The Triumph of Stephen Jay Gould
By Richard C. Lewontin

One of the most interesting developments of the last sixty years in the popularization of intellectual concerns and higher culture has been the appearance of "public intellectuals." They are, for the most part, academics who use a variety of means of access to a wide audience to disseminate ideas that are sometimes an integral part of their expertise, and sometimes very far from their professional field. ...

When I was a boy The New York Times had one science reporter, Waldemar Kaempfert, who wrote an occasional column. It now has a staff that produces an entire ten-page Science Times every Tuesday. Of the twenty-two contributors to the 2007 Fall Books edition of The New York Review, nine were academics. The pages of that edition included twenty-six advertisements from university presses announcing 154 books. Nor are university presses the sole publishers of the work of professional thinkers. Really successful public intellectuals employ a literary agent who places his clients' work with major trade publishers or may even serve as the editor of a collection of articles of his clients, [3] which is then published by a major house.

There is a considerable variation in the degree to which academic public intellectuals stray from their own technical work in their public writings. Even those who begin with both feet planted firmly in their discipline find it hard to resist the seduction of generalizing, especially if they see some relevance of their knowledge to human history and social structure. E.O. Wilson, a great expert on the biology of ants and especially on ant behavior, devoted most of his famous book on sociobiology to the social behavior of "lower" animals, but his status as a public intellectual arose from his extension of those ideas and observations to claims about human nature and human social institutions. After all, Homo sapiens is an animal, so why should we not be able to understand human history as just another example of a general theory about animal behavior?

Some depart entirely from their expertise and build a public career with only the slimmest connection to their professional knowledge. It will not be obvious to the readers of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel that he is, in fact, a physiologist and an expert in tropical biogeography. Still others are public figures concerned with political questions quite separate from the content of their intellectual accomplishment. Noam Chomsky's politics have nothing to do with his theory of universal grammar, although he might gain attention for his political arguments because we already know that he is very smart. It is even possible to become a public intellectual in science with no institutional home in a technical discipline. Richard Dawkins, who was trained as a biologist and who obviously knows a great deal about genetics and evolution, is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. ...

[3] See, for example, What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty, edited by John Brockman (HarperPerennial, 2006).


TIMES COLONIST (Victoria, British Columbia)
January 27, 2008 Sunday

Boffins wax poetic about their passions; Mainstream media, readers seem scared despite fine writing, fascinating facts
By Barbara Julian, Special to the Times Colonist

In its roundup of best books of 2007, The Economist claimed that "there is something for everyone" — but there wasn't.

There was not a single science title, which is curious, even for a business and political affairs periodical, given not only the technology-invention-business connection but also the fact that we are currently in a golden age of literary science writing.

That we are is affirmed by British science journalist Matt Ridley in his introduction to a recent collection of essays on evolution. Scientists, says Ridley, "(are) writers and their currency (is) words: poetic flights of fancy, ample use of metaphor, and personal appeals to the reader."

Many editors, reviewers and other publicists don't seem to have heard the news, however. Not only The Economist but also the Globe & Mail and the New York Times snubbed 2007's science titles. ...

...In his Christmas Day sermon, the Archbishop of Canterbury praised his compatriot Richard Dawkins for expressing humanity's "amazement and awe" at nature, and urged people to treat nature with "reverence." It seems that for some, the famous long cultural war between science and the humanities can now be over, and that "science literature" can now be literature.

That is certainly the opinion of editor John Brockman whose exhilarating science site "edge.org" profiles dozens of groundbreaking scienists by asking them an annual New Year's Big Question. This year's is "What Have You Changed Your Mind About?"

Their answers add up to, roughly, "everything." That is what science frees thinkers to do: change their theories as new evidence comes in. Most responders one way or another emphasized the ethical demands of good science, and described scientific work as subjective, dynamic and creative — rather like the humanities, in fact.


Edge Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit private operating foundation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

John Brockman, Editor and Publisher
Russell Weinberger, Associate Publisher

contact: [email protected]
Copyright © 2008 By Edge Foundation, Inc
All Rights Reserved.