← Plain English with Derek Thompson
Plain English with Derek Thompson
The Year's Biggest Breakthroughs in Science and Tech (Feat.: OK, But Seriously, What Is Quantum Computing?)
01:18:12
Loading summary
Transcript108 lines
- [00:01]
Chris Vernon
What's up everybody? Chris Vernon here and welcome to a new season of the NBA and the Mismatch. And huge welcome as well to my new co host, Dave Jacoby. I can't wait to link with you.
- [00:13]
Dave Jacoby
Twice a week, every Tuesday and Friday.
- [00:15]
Chris Vernon
Right here on the Mismatch to break.
- [00:17]
Dave Jacoby
Down everything that's happening in the league.
- [00:19]
Chris Vernon
Who's playing well, who we loved, who we loathed, trade rumors, team dysfunction. We've got you covered right here. So follow us, subscribe, and hit us with those five star ratings on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And also, don't forget to follow us on social media. That's Ringer NBA. And check out the full Mismatch episodes with the two handsomest podcasters in the history of podcasting right on The Ringer NBA YouTube channel. This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify the the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.comtech all lowercase. That's shopify.comtech this episode is brought to you by LifeLock. The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply today. Our final episode of the year is also my favorite annual tradition, conversations with scientists about the most important and often just plain mind blowing breakthroughs of the previous 12 months. Today, we're talking about the key Biotech advances of 2024 with Eric Topol, an American cardiologist and author who is also the founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. But first, a breakthrough in quantum computing. This past December, as you might have heard, Google announced that its new quantum computer, based on a chip called Willow, solved a math problem in five minutes that would take one of the fastest supercomputers roughly 10 septillion years to crack. For context, 10 septillion years is the entire history of the universe, about 14 billion years repeated several trillion times over. The achievement was so audacious that some people speculated that Google's computer worked so fast that because it was simultaneously performing its calculations in parallel universes, thus confirming the existence of a multiverse, maybe the idea of a computer working in multiple universes at the same time makes you feel queasy, uncomfortable. Maybe it makes you feel thrilled and awestruck. I'll be honest with you, it kinda just makes me feel confused and even a little annoyed. Quantum computing doesn't make sense to most people. And to be quite blunt, when I read the news about Google, it made no sense to me. Typically, when I've heard the term quantum computing, I've felt several things at total bafflement about the concept, a bit of annoyance about an idea that seems like a lot of high tech hype, and a strange feeling that's something like intellectual jealousy is kind of like maybe there are people in your life who have fancy tastes in movies and they tell you about some 1970s French film that they consider the best movie ever made. So you turn on the movie and 15 minutes in you're like, this is gobbledygook. What the hell are these movie hipsters talking about? This movie isn't even boring. It actually makes no sense. Okay, that is how I've historically felt about quantum computing. But I don't like to feel this way. Many of the smartest people in the 20th and 21st century have been awed by, obsessed by, inspired by the promise of this thing. And I want to feel their sense of awe. I want to appreciate their sense of wonder. So today's episode begins with my attempt to do just that. I cannot promise that this is the single best summary of quantum computing that exists in the world. Actually, I can probably promise you that it's not. But after reading several books about quantum and after speaking to several physicists and computer scientists, this is my best attempt to help folks like me feel the awe that the smartest scientists feel when they think about this machine. So the best way to explain the value of a quantum computer, I think, is to explain the origin of of Quantum mechanics. In 1687, Isaac Newton published his Principia Mathematica, maybe the most important work in the history of physics. In it, he laid the groundwork for so called classical physics, or classical mechanics. Newton came up with precise rules for how everything in the universe moves in response to everything else. His theory was beautiful because among other things, it explained reality as we experience it. The rise of the sun, the orbit of the moon. Even better, it explained the most quotidian details of our life to perfection. When we throw a baseball Into a windless sky. It falls in an arc toward a friend's glove. And that beautiful parabola can be exquisitely determined by knowing just a few factors, like the velocity of the ball and the forces acting on it. Classical physics is so intuitive that even its most sophisticated ideas can be turned into thought experiments that a child could understand. For example, in the early 1900s, Albert Einstein famously overturned our understanding of gravity by proposing that it was a warping of space and time. In his biography of Einstein, Walter Isaacson explains this theory of gravity in one simple image. Picture what it would be like to roll a bowling ball onto the two dimensional surface of a trampoline, Then roll some billiard balls. They move toward the bowling ball, not because it exerts some mysterious attraction, but because of the way it curves the trampoline fabric. End quote. How lovely is that? Gravity is not a force that lives inside of things. It is a field that permeates everything. Gravity is the infinite trampoline that holds every atom in the cosmos within its bendy frame. This is the point I want to emphasize about classical mechanics, because it's going to come back to bite us when I talk about quantum computing. Newton's theories are are beautifully intuitive. And classical physics gives us hope that when we look at the world, we see things as they actually exist. And then in the early 1900s, scientists gradually realized that this was wrong. The world we see is not reality as it actually exists. In this period, between about 1900 and 1935, scientists with names you might recognize. Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and yes, Albert Einstein realized that when we moved our attention from huge visible things like planets to smaller visible objects like baseballs, Newton's formulas still worked beautifully. But when we shifted our attention toward the smallest things, subatomic particles like electrons, particles of light called photons, the rules of Newton completely fell apart. Compare, for example, the rules governing a baseball and a photon. If you toss a ball at a brittle window, you can predict what will happen next. If you toss the ball very softly, it'll bounce back. If you throw the ball quickly, the window shatters. Classical mechanics accounts for all of this perfectly. F equals ma, force equals mass times acceleration. A harder thrown ball hits the window with more force. It's obvious Newton's world is a deterministic universe, all tennis balls and brittle windows. But what if you fire something much, much smaller at a window, like a particle of light or photon, as the physicist and author Brian Greene explains in his book the Fabric of the Cosmos? If you're Wearing a pair of sunglasses, there's a 5050 chance that a particular photon Reflected toward you from, say, the surface of a lake Will make it through your polarized lenses. When the photon hits the glass, it seems to randomly choose between reflecting back and passing through, as if some God of light is flipping a coin. It gets weirder than that. Before the photon hits your sunglasses and you see what actually happens, Quantum mechanics says it will exist In a fuzzy overlap, or superposition, of both passing through the glass and being reflected. Superposition is the idea that a quantum system can exist in multiple states at the same time until it's measured. And these quantum states are described by what scientists call amplitudes, which are related to the probability that we'll find a photon in any particular place when we look for it. It gets weirder still, Just as you're ready to jump in the ocean, when light reflecting off the surface of a lake hits your sunglasses, we're talking about not just one photon, but countless photons, Many of which have been entangled with another light particle. The destiny of these photons making contact with your sunglasses Is intimately connected to Those entangled photons 10 mil away or 10 light years away, what Einstein memorably called spooky action at a distance, or what we more simply call entanglement. So the world as we know it is, in fact, two worlds. There is a world of planets and baseballs and, predictably, broken windows, which looks and feels and sounds like our solid reality. But that solid reality is underpinned by a second world, A spooky world, A quantum world of probability or amplitudes of superposition and of entanglement. If you feel a bit lost, that's okay. Some of the smartest people who ever lived, like, say, Albert Einstein himself, Hated many of the implications of quantum mechanics. God does not play dice with the universe, Einstein famously said. And he challenged his friend Erwin Schrodinger, one of the giants of quantum mechanics, to make sense of this world that he and the other quantum scientists were building. Schrodinger, for his part, actually agreed. He thought the implications of superposition Were kind of ridiculous. In a letter back to Einstein, Schrodinger came up with a funny thought experiment, A closed box with a cat, which is rigged with a poisonous contraption and a trigger. Before you open the box and make a measurement of the cat's state, Schrodinger said, the math of quantum mechanics seems to hold that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time inside of that closed box. This thought experiment is now known as Schrodinger's cat. It's a very famous visualization. It's often used as a shorthand for two things being true at the same time or mere uncertainty. To be honest, I always assumed that Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's way of explaining quantum mechanics to a dummy like me, but that's completely wrong. It turns out that Schrodinger came up with his thought experiment not to persuade his peers that he was right, but rather to commiserate with Einstein about the fact that quantum mechanics was too absurd to be taken seriously. Here's Scott Aronson, a theoretical computer scientist at the University of Texas, Austin, with a slightly more technical explanation of Schrodinger's cat.
- [12:47]
Scott Aronson
Schrodinger's cat was his attempt to sort of construct a reductio ad absurdum showing, like, why this couldn't possibly be the whole story, right? He said, suppose that we had all the particles in a cat entangled with each other, right? So that, you know, with some amplitude, you know, we. The entire cat is dead, and with some other amplitude, the entire cat is alive, right? And now we've perfectly isolated this cat from its environment. That's what the box is for. And now we would have to say that until something external makes a measurement, you know, to learn the state of the cat, the actual truth is that it is in a superposition of the alive state and the dead state. We can't say that it's one or the other. And now he said, okay, but that is. Since that is an obvious absurdity, then we conclude that quantum mechanics can't be the full story.
- [13:49]
Chris Vernon
But as far as we can tell, this is the whole story.
- [13:54]
Scott Aronson
No one has managed to put a cat in a superposition of alive and dead or anything nearly that big. But they can effectively do the Schrodinger's cat experiment with buckyballs, for example, with, you know, molecules involving hundreds of or even thousands of degrees of freedom of particles. They can put this whole molecule, which is, you know, okay, it's still tiny, but it's huge by the standards of an electron. Let's say they can put the whole thing into a superposition of traveling through one slit and traveling through the other slit, and then by looking at the interference of the amplitudes that we were talking about before, they can prove that it really was in that superposition state, right? It wasn't just in one state or the other.
- [14:44]
Chris Vernon
The math of quantum mechanics is sound at the tiniest level. Reality is not fixed. It is Probabilistic. It is a superposition of quantum states whose probabilities are described with amplitudes. But what the hell does that even mean in, say, plain English? Well, one interpretation of quantum mechanics says that there is no definite state of physical reality until we make an observation. It is by opening the kitty box and looking inside that the cat state becomes our reality.
- [15:25]
Scott Aronson
So this seems like a chair, like maybe the most basic challenge to our conception of reality that physics has ever coughed up. This is saying, no, when physical systems are isolated from us, they don't have a definite state at all. They exist in the superposition of different states. And then the next question becomes, is there any limiting principle to that?
- [15:51]
Dave Jacoby
Right?
- [15:52]
Chris Vernon
There is a strange kind of poetry to this. The world only comes into being when we look upon it. Or as the Chilean novelist Benjamin Labatou once put, like the moon in Buddhism, a particle does not exist. It is the act of measuring that makes it a real object. It is kind of a beautiful idea, except it might not even be true. Because there's another interpretation of quantum mechanics that's even trippier.
- [16:26]
Scott Aronson
Once you've accepted that, you know, quantum systems exist in these superpositions of states, the next question becomes, what limiting principle is there that is going to prevent that from being true at the scale of everyday life, right? And now the classic answer that, you know, Bohr and Heisenberg and the other founders of quantum mechanics would give was basically, well, look, there is a quantum world, you know, that's the mike, microscopic world. And then there's the classical world that we live in, right? And when you make a measurement, when you ask, you know, your photon, where it is, then in effect, the classical world is reaching down into the quantum world, you know, interrogating it, right? It is then forcing the photon to make up its mind, you know, about where it wants to be.
- [17:16]
Chris Vernon
The same way that opening the box forces the cat into a position of alive or dead.
- [17:22]
Scott Aronson
But then, you know, that answer, I think, was bound not to satisfy people for very long because then they said, well, wait a minute, aren't we made of atoms also, you know, and aren't our measuring devices made of atoms? Don't each of those atoms obey the same laws of quantum mechanics? So, like, where does the buck stop, right? Like, at what scale do we pass from the quantum world to the classical.
- [17:48]
Chris Vernon
World back to Schrodinger's cat? When we open the box and see the cat is alive, what happens to the other version of the cat, right? Where's the dead cat? The dead Cat was just here right in front of us, so to speak. Where is it now? In 1957, an American physicist named Hugh Everett had an idea.
- [18:10]
Scott Aronson
Everett's simple but radical answer to that was, well, you know, the whole universe just continues to evolve in a superposition of states. And when you measure. This is just a special case of entanglement.
- [18:22]
Dave Jacoby
Okay?
- [18:22]
Scott Aronson
This is just a situation where you're measuring apparatus, the atoms in the room, the air molecules, are all becoming entangled with the state of system that was measured. That state is getting recorded in all of these degrees of freedom, which you could describe as well. The whole universe is now splitting into two different branches, in one of which you perceive one outcome and in the other of which you perceive the other. Okay, and you know, the. The equations tell you that those two branches will then continue to evolve independently from each other, right? But. But. But there's sort of nothing in the Schrodinger equation that would make one of the branches disappear.
- [19:09]
Chris Vernon
This is called the many worlds interpretation. And if you think it sounds like a multiverse, that's because it pretty much is a multiverse. In Everett's theory, the lifespan of a person like you or me is a branching tree in time. Every day, multiple copies of you are constantly being created. As you come into contact with other quantum systems, countless parallel universes keep branching out over and over, even though we only have the experience of one of those branches moving through time. Of course, this sounds like absurd science fiction, but it's actually the opposite of science fiction. In a weird way, the many worlds interpretation, the idea that we live in a multiverse of constantly branching realities, might be the most straightforward way to make sense of quantum mechanics.
- [20:07]
Scott Aronson
So in some sense, it's not that you're positing multiple universes, it's just that you are taking the Schrodinger equation completely literally.
- [20:17]
Chris Vernon
So you might be thinking at this point, Derek, I thought this was supposed to be an episode about quantum computers. I don't see any computers here in this picture. Good point, imaginary listener. So let me sum up before I take us there. For 100 years, two things have been true about quantum mechanics. First, it is the most fundamental truth we know about the cosmos. The scientist Sean Carroll has called quantum mechanics the deepest, most comprehensive view of reality we have. Second, quantum mechanics is too complicated to fully understand today. A hundred years after the quantum revolution. We can't use it to, say, make better drugs or design stronger materials or simulate quantum systems in a way that would tell us what this thing we call reality even is. In the first place, the physicist Richard Feynman once said, quote, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. End quote. Feynman was no fool. He might have been one of the smartest people to ever live. The title of his biography is literally Genius. The Life and Science of Richard Feynman by James Glick. Fantastic book, by the way. If Richard Feynman says that quantum mechanics is too weird to fully understand, I think it's forgivable of us to agree with him. So what do we do with a truth so bewildering? Consider a strange allegory. The astrophysicist Adam Frank has frequently raised the possibility that scientists will one day discover ancient alien civilizations not by looking out to the heavens, but by digging down here on Earth that buried deep in this planet's fossil record, we will find evidence of ancient alien life. Now imagine what might happen if archaeologists discovered evidence of an advanced alien civilization in a deep dig. Volumes and volumes of pages produced by this superior intelligence. But then we realized this alien language was impossibly complex. Words were not spelled out linearly. Sentences did not follow sequentially. Instead, in this alien codex, each page of text included thousands of mysterious letters in a grid, like looking at a vast crossword puzzle in a foreign script. It took our best minds years and years to learn a word here, a word there. But it was taking too long to fully crack the alien cipher. And then someone came along with a clever idea. What if we built a special code breaking machine to decipher sentences, paragraphs, entire books from this ancient alien language? What if we built an alien computer? Well, in a way, the discovery of quantum mechanics really was like the discovery of a language that is alien to our intuition. But this alien language doesn't come from another planet. It comes from our own digging. We found it here on Earth, nestled in the fabric of our own reality. And while our best minds have made important progress here and there, we are fundamentally blocked on its most important implications. We don't know how to use it. We don't know how to fully model it. We don't even really understand what quantum mechanics means. And so, in the 1980s, some of the smartest physicists in the world came up with a crazy idea that if the alien allegory clicks for you, you'll realize, isn't that crazy at all. If we want to really understand quantum mechanics, they said, what we need is something beyond human intuition. We need a special computer that speaks the language of quantum mechanics like a native a quantum computer.
- [24:27]
Scott Aronson
So a quantum computer is Just a computer that would operate according to the principles of quantum mechanics that we've been talking about. So it's an idea that several people arrived at independently in the late 70s and the early 80s.
- [24:43]
Chris Vernon
One of them was Richard Feynman himself.
- [24:46]
Scott Aronson
Feynman was mostly interested in the practical question of how do you simulate quantum physics on a computer?
- [24:54]
Dave Jacoby
Right.
- [24:54]
Scott Aronson
And since the early days of electronic computers, people had been trying to do that. But the trouble is that they could only simulate very small quantum systems. And why is that? Because once you remember that I have to keep track of all of these amplitudes for a bunch of entangled particles, the number of amplitudes will, in general, grow exponentially with the number of particles.
- [25:27]
Chris Vernon
Between the 1920s and 1950s, physicists and mathematicians were winning awards left and right for their ability to extend our understanding of subatomic particles and quantum mechanics. But fundamentally, what we want from science is practical applications. We want chemists to model a quantum system in a way to give us better drugs. But it was simply too hard to track all of the variables.
- [25:51]
Scott Aronson
The chemists and physicists recognize this from at least the 1950s as a practical problem. And so they were mostly focused on inventing tricks and approximation methods to get around this. And the better approximation methods, like density functional theory, were awarded with Nobel prizes. But then Feynman posed the question in the early 80s, is there a general way to get around this? Does simulating quantum mechanics on a classical computer inherently require an exponential blow up? In at least some cases. And then he had this amazing proposal that if it does well, then why don't we make this lemon into lemonade? In other words, if nature is giving us this intractable computational situation because of this exponentiality of amplitudes in quantum mechanics, then why don't we build our computers to exploit that very same exponentiality? Why don't we build computers out of qubits instead of bits, and let them evolve into entangled states so that they, too, would be able to take advantage.
- [27:14]
Chris Vernon
Of this, a qubit or quantum bit. So traditional computers, like your smartphone or my laptop, process information as a parade of binary switches that flip between 1 and 0. Quantum computers use qubits, which can represent both a 1 and 0 simultaneously, thanks to our friend superposition. As you add more qubits, the computational power grows exponentially.
- [27:41]
Scott Aronson
If I have one qubit, that's two amplitudes, right? Amplitude to be zero, amplitude to be one. Okay? But if I have two qubits, now I need four amplitudes. I need an amplitude for zero, zero for zero. One for one zero and for one one. Okay, if I have three qubits, now I need eight amplitudes, 10 qubits, 1,000. More than 1,000amplitudes, 20 qubits, that's more than a million. And now if I have 1,000 qubits, that's two to the 1,000 power amplitudes, which is more than you could explicitly write down in the whole observable universe.
- [28:16]
Chris Vernon
So what would this computer, this machine that is fluent in the alien language of quantum mechanics, actually be useful for? In the 1980s, the interest in quantum computing was mostly theoretical. And outsiders could be forgiven for thinking the quantum computer was really just a name for a very, very, very fancy calculator. But in the 1990s came a breakthrough that put quantum computing on the map in a whole new way.
- [28:45]
Scott Aronson
You know, the big breakthrough There came in 1994 when a mathematician named Peter Shor, then at Bell Labs, discovered a fast quantum algorithm for finding the prime factors of huge composite numbers. Right, and why do we care about that? Well, you know, most people have seen that problem, you know, at least in school, right? The, the ancient Greeks, you know, thought about that problem of factoring. But today it is especially important because it underlies the security of most of the encryption that protects the Internet, right? You know, anytime you order from Amazon or, you know, whatever you. Or visit any website with HTTPs, right, Your information, including your credit card number and so forth, is being protected by what's called a public key encryption system, right? That, you know, the wonder of these systems is that they let us exchange secure messages without having to agree in advance on a secret key. Like, you didn't have to meet with someone from Amazon in a dark alley at 3am to agree on the key, right? But the, the Achilles heel of these systems, which were discovered in the 1970s, is that if anyone could find a fast way to factor huge numbers, for example, or solve some related problems in number theory and algebra, then they could break these systems, okay? Now, for, for half a century, no one, at least, at least no one that we publicly know of, has found a fast method to break these systems using a classical computer, okay? But what Shor showed in the 90s was that if you build a quantum computer, then you could quickly factor hue like 2000 digit or 10,000 digit integers. And therefore, this whole scheme that we use to protect communications over the Internet would be broken, would no longer be secure.
- [31:03]
Chris Vernon
And thus, quantum computers went from being a curiosity of physicists and theoretical computer scientists to a technology with possible geopolitical consequences. Money started flowing into quantum computing. But still the engineering challenges were massive.
- [31:24]
Scott Aronson
After Shor, you know, came up with the ideas of, you know, of Shor's algorithm and so forth. And 30 years ago, a lot of people said, you know, this is nice on paper, but no one is ever going to build anything like this, right? You will never be able to control qubits nearly well enough to build this. Right. So then it just seemed like an absolutely staggering engineering problem. And, you know, the significance of the present moment is that it seems like we are now, you know, at the very least, the majority of the way to, to solve the, you know, the relevant engineering problems. Right. So when I entered this field, which was the late 1990s, it would be amazing if you could just, even just get two qubits to interact with each other with, let's say, 50% accuracy. But then at some point, 50% became 90% became 99%. And now within the last year, what we've seen is people doing two Qubit operations with 99.9% accuracy. Now, five years ago, in 2019, Google demonstrated a chip with 53 superconducting Qubits, which they called Sycamore. And they demonstrated some computation that at least at the time seemed very challenging to simulate using a classical computer.
- [32:59]
Chris Vernon
And now, at long last, let's finally talk about this year's breakthrough in quantum computing.
- [33:07]
Scott Aronson
Okay, so now what has happened with the Willow chip this year? So, you know, it's the same kind of thing as their sycamore chip in 2019, but now it's got twice as many qubits, it's got 105 qubits, I think, and the qubits stay alive for five times longer. So you sort of cross the threshold where as you do bigger and bigger error correction, it helps more and more rather than helping less and less.
- [33:38]
Chris Vernon
Willow didn't just prove that scientists were closer to building an error correcting quantum computer. Remember, it solved a Math problem in five minutes that would take the fastest supercomputer roughly 10 septillion years. Now, to be fair, this was a math problem that was gift wrapped for Willow, designed specifically so that Google's computer would have an advantage. But it's still pretty impressive. And this is where we bring back the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many people I saw commenting on Google's quantum computing chip said this achievement was only possible because the computer could access millions of parallel universes at the same time to speed up the task. Right? It solved the problem in five minutes rather than ten septillion years, because it could access like ten septillion different parallel universes and borrow computing power from all of them at the same time. Pretty trippy idea. But it wasn't clear to me that the people making these comments knew what they were talking about, so I put the question to Scott directly. Right. Is that interpretation possible? Did Google just prove to all of us that we live in a multiverse?
- [34:54]
Scott Aronson
I would not say so, no. And the reason is that if you believed in the sort of philosophical argument that quantum computing implies the truth of many worlds, then you should have already accepted it before Willow.
- [35:07]
Dave Jacoby
Right.
- [35:08]
Scott Aronson
And if you didn't accept that philosophical argument, then nothing here should cause you to change your mind. In some sense, all of this is like an artifact of trying to express things in, In. In. In. In language that wasn't designed for it.
- [35:25]
Dave Jacoby
Right.
- [35:26]
Scott Aronson
It's like, it's like you could say, like the real truth of the matter is that you had a superposition. Right. The world is quantum mechanical. And this was another, yet another demonstration of the quantum nature of the world that, you know, that, that, yes, the true state of a system is this, you know, gargantuan superposition. Right. I think that part is undeniable.
- [35:49]
Dave Jacoby
Right.
- [35:49]
Scott Aronson
But now, you know, should we describe that in terms of. Well, you know, when you, when you make a measurement, then, you know, the universe splits into all these copies, you know, with all these different, different versions of conscious beings like ourselves. You know, I think, you know, that would be a further extrapolation, let's say, you know, and it's an extrapolation that some people would make. But, you know, they could. They, they, they. If they were going to make it, then they should have made it long before this experiment.
- [36:21]
Chris Vernon
Now, of course, I'm interested in the philosophy of all this. I, I want to know if we live in a multiverse. But I'm a realist. I know a lot of people don't give a crap about all that. They're not remotely interested in the philosophy of many worlds, the possibility of parallel universes. What they care about is I want drugs that make me healthier. I want materials that make my electronics work faster. I want my energy to be cheaper. So what I really wanted to know from Scott was what would effective quantum computing mean for people, the economy by, say, 2030.
- [36:57]
Scott Aronson
So the truth is we don't really know. Right. This is exploratory science. I mean, people, in order to raise the amounts of capital that are needed to build these devices, people always try to sort of fit this into the category of, you Know, a, a business proposition that, like, here's what it will lead to. I mean, what we, what we're confident of is that it ought to help a lot with simulating quantum systems and, and, you know, simulating a complicated entangled quantum systems for which our existing classical approximation methods have failed. Right. And that, and that ought to be useful. You know, it is, it is hard to see how it, it could fail to sometimes be useful to, you know, the battery industry, the photovoltaics industry, to combinatorial drug design, to, you know, any, any situation where you, you basically have a complicated entangled quantum systems that you're trying to simulate. Now, the hard part with quantum computers is that it's never enough to just do something using a quantum computer. You have to beat the best that could be done with a classical computer.
- [38:13]
Dave Jacoby
Right?
- [38:14]
Scott Aronson
And classical computers can fight back. Right. Like it is, it is again and again happen that someone announces like, with great fanfare, like we did such and such using a quantum computer, and it was 10,000 times faster than the classical solution. Okay? But then as soon as people look at it, they say, well, you didn't try very hard to optimize the classical side, did you? Right. And as soon as they do that, then they find that the quantum computer, quantum advantage goes away.
- [38:41]
Chris Vernon
I love this answer. This is the breakthroughs episode, which is to say it's sort of inherently a hype episode. I want people to feel excited about scientific and technological progress. But Scott's closing message is anti hype. Yes, quantum computing could transform Internet security. It could help us design better batteries and better drugs by understanding electron behavior and subatomic particle dynamics. But the only honest answer to the question, what will quantum computers actually do for us? Is we just don't know yet. But after reading books like by Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Walter Isaacson, and after speaking with Scott Aronson, I decided to be excited about quantum computing anyway. If quantum mechanics is, as Sean Carroll says, the ultimate truth of reality that is yet somehow alien to our intuition, and if Scott is right that our existing machines are insufficient to handle the breadth of mathematics required to speak that language fluently, then I say bring on the alien translation device. Bring on the machine that closes the distance between our puny human minds and the truth, the vast and hidden truth of our reality. We'll be right back.
- [40:13]
Dave Jacoby
This episode is brought to you by Amazon. Sometimes the most painful part of getting sick is the getting better part. Waiting on hold for an appointment, sitting in crowded waiting rooms, standing in line at the pharmacy. That's Painful Amazon One Medical and Amazon Pharmacy Pharmacy remove those painful parts of getting better with things like 24. 7 virtual visits and prescriptions delivered to your door. Thanks to Amazon Pharmacy and Amazon One Medical Healthcare just got less painful.
- [40:41]
Chris Vernon
Welcome back. So every year the journal Science, Just like this podcast, names its breakthrough of the year. And this year's breakthrough of the year was a new injectable drug to protect people from hiv. In one clinical trial of South African and Ugandan girls and young women, this shot, which is called lenacapavir, reduced HIV infections by 100% in the intervention group. Another trial of people across several continents reported an efficacy rate of 96%. Clinical trial results do not get much more successful than this. This matters of course, because around the world, 40 million people live with HIV and an estimated 600,000 of them die from AIDS related illnesses every year. This disease has no cure. But a drug this successful that only has to be taken once every six months, that is something we can call incredibly close to an HIV cure. And it happened this year. So to talk about Lena Capaveer and the most interesting other things happening at the frontier of biotech, we now welcome back Eric Topol, an American cardiologist and author who's also the founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.
- [42:05]
Eric Topol
Eric Topol, welcome to the podcast.
- [42:07]
Dave Jacoby
Great to be with you again, Derek.
- [42:09]
Eric Topol
Well, this is one of my favorite conversations from last year and talking to you about the most significant scientific breakthroughs in the field of medicine and biotech. So I was very grateful when you agreed to do this again. In my open, I talked about Lenacapavir, which is the new, rather miraculous HIV therapy that science named its breakthrough of the year. Before we dive into the subjects that you really wanted to talk about, let's take a pit stop on Lena Capavir. What do you find most important about this therapeutic breakthrough?
- [42:42]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, I mean, I think it's got three dimensions that are like, wow factors. The first is, of course, the two trials that showed, well, one in that was 2,000 young women in Africa, 0% 0 infections. I mean, that's unprecedented. And then replicated four continents again, 2002 infections. It's amazingly effective. You don't see efficacy like that very often. Now, that's one. The second thing, though is going after the capsid. So all the things that we do against viruses, like for example, SARS, COV2, we go after these enzymes, proteases. The M Pro is the one that we go after with, for example, Paxlovid. But here it's the structure that's holding the virus, the guts of the virus, the business part that basically knocks it out from beginning into the nucleus, going through the nuclear pore complex or if somehow it gets through, which makes it much more difficult and much more rigid, then it blocks it from being produced. So it's like a double whammy against it. But the other third thing is it's a precursor to a lot of the new medications we're going to be seeing in the future, which is this once a year or once every six months. So it's kind of amazing. Of course it's now every six months, probably go to once a year. But we have now cholesterol lowering medicine that's, you know, once every six months we're going to have blood pressure medicines injectable once every six months or once a year. So we're seeing whether it's because it's low solubility or whether it's a small interfering rna. We're not used to having medicines once a year. So those are the three things that I think are really noteworthy about this. And it opens up the ability to knock out the capsid for many other viruses because we haven't been thinking that way. We've been thinking about how do we get to the virus's replication machinery rather than the structure that it's housed in. So there's a lot of other viruses that we could do some real good stuff with this way.
- [44:59]
Eric Topol
I love that quick review. Let's just go one level deeper on the third thing that you mentioned.
- [45:03]
Chris Vernon
Why is it so significant that you.
- [45:05]
Eric Topol
Only have to take Lenacapavir once or twice a year? Does it have to do with the fact that with many medications, one of the problems is that patients aren't necessarily very good at adhering to once a day, once a week, pills, injections. But if it's once every six months, much easier to get on sort of the doctor's schedule and you know, get that shot. If you miss your appointment by two weeks, well, you're still basically in the window of being protected from this medication still for the entire year. Is it about adherence or is it about something else?
- [45:38]
Dave Jacoby
Well, adherence, of course, it varies with the indication. So for hiv, you know, we had these different pills that work really well for prophylaxis, but they just weren't taken. And in that trial where compared to the six month Lenacapavir, I mean, they didn't really do much, the pills, because the adherence is so bad, but people, because for example, blood pressure doesn't really cause any symptoms when it's high. For the most part, people just say, I don't need to take my blood pressure medicine again. Cholesterol levels, you know, you're not. It doesn't cause symptoms. So adherence to these medications is not great. So if you could just get a jolt that lasts and does the job for a year, you know, we're. These are new. Like right now, for example, the hottest drug ever is the GLP1 family of drugs. And it's given once every week, you know, self injection. And obviously millions of people are taking it. But there's going to be a GLP1 family drug that's going to be every three months or every six months and that's going to change things a lot. So that's where a lot of medications are headed. And it's not a vaccine, but the level of potency and the duration. It's kind of like a pseudo vaccine in terms of its impact.
- [46:53]
Scott Aronson
Right?
- [46:54]
Eric Topol
Like a half vaccine. You're saying GLP1. I never heard it said GLP1. I'd always read it or said it in my head as GLP1. But these for people listening are drugs like Ozempic and Zepbound, which initially came around for diabetes 2, but now are widely used for weight loss and a bunch of other miraculous side effects that he may be having as well.
- [47:13]
Chris Vernon
Let's go to some of your favorite.
- [47:15]
Eric Topol
Breakthroughs of the year, starting with proteomics. Proteomics, one of the interesting new omics that are coming online. This one dealing with the new science of proteins. You wrote a comment in Science Journal on some recent developments in blood tests which determine our health by studying thousands of proteins in these blood samples. Tell me how this works and what you were most impressed by this year.
- [47:43]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, so this is really a striking advance. You know, you don't see these sort of things very often, but basically because of two different companies. One is Thermo Fisher that has this assay called Olink and the other is Somalogic that has an assay called Somascan. They are Getting now between 5 and 11,000 plasma proteins in our blood from a tiny couple of microliters of blood. So it's just a tiny sample and they're getting these thousands of proteins that are telling us things we never knew about in our body. So for one that was kind of shocking when it first came out was the so called organ clocks. So each of us on all of our organs, whether it's the brain, kidney, liver, heart, our immune system as an Organ we can track that. Are we accelerated aging or are we slower than expected aging? And so we used to be we'd say oh somebody, it looks like they're aging quickly on the external total body wide. Now we can pinpoint really for the first time what organ, if any, is the, is the trouble spot. And that's great because now we have all these different ways to partition high risk and get all over this so that the person doesn't accelerate, doesn't continue that adverse course of fast aging of a particular organ organ system. But it's much bigger than that Derek, because one of the recent studies, they found causal proteins that have never been identified for hundreds of diseases because they also factored in with this so called technique of Mendelian randomization and knowing the genomics and the proteins. And then the other thing that's been really striking that caused a lot of attention or stir is that everybody always thought aging was a linear process. You just deteriorate more as we get older. Turns out, no, no, now there's a few studies that have shown it's really coming in spurts. Your aging is the first bad wave is in your like 35, 45. The second one is around 60 ish. And then you have a third wave that's you know, right around age 80. So that's another thing that we're just starting to get our hands around, arms around and more. I mean this is a, a revolution that people don't appreciate that we're learning about the proteins in our body at a very accelerated pace and it's going to change the way we approach patient.
- [50:23]
Eric Topol
I want to make this super concrete for people. So the idea is, tell me how this is wrong. I go to the doctor, the doctor takes my blood, there's an analysis of my blood that's fed into some kind of AI model, sort of like an advanced version of copy pasting a complicated essay into ChatGPT and saying summarize this for me, pull out the most important points and the AI will essentially pull out this analysis of the proteins that gives you an age specific organ clock. So I'm 38 years old. I don't smoke. I do however, love wine and cocktails and I walk just enough. So maybe I'm 38, but my lungs are 37, my heart is 38 and my liver is 40.
- [51:03]
Chris Vernon
Right.
- [51:04]
Eric Topol
There's gonna be some kind of error bound there because chronological age is very precise. But I can't imagine we're super duper precise when it comes to the exact biological age of the cells in our liver. But is that the general idea, that this sort of spectrum of organ age measurements can tell the patient and his or her doctor what to focus on as their health is being monitored? Because you can see which parts of the body are more likely to break down or develop disease in the near future? Is that the so what here?
- [51:40]
Dave Jacoby
That, that's the so what? I mean, the only thing what I say is you're right about, you know, plus or minus a couple years. That's not, you know, what you're really looking for. You're looking for an outlier, you know, 5, 10 year difference. And you're the biologic age of an organ from these proteins versus the chronolog age of your real age. So that's what this is about, this, this kind of age gap in an organ. And it's especially important because, as you know, these, the three big diseases, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, namely Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, and cancer, These diseases take 20 years or more to take hold to get, you know, take root. So if you can anticipate that there's an organ that's acting up ahead of time, you know, you can get all over it and go into a tight surveillance and there's prevention things that we would do. And so sometimes these are not related to your lifestyle like you reviewed. It could be your genetics, it could be environmental exposure that you're not aware of. You know, I would liken it to, you know, these days, if you take your car in with advanced diagnostics and they can check every, every part of your car electronically. You know, this is kind of like doing this into pinpointing an issue in your body that you might not be aware of. Obviously this needs more work because it's fresh and it has to be validated that when you know this information that you actually change the natural history of a person, person's health in a favorable way. You don't want it to lead to incidental rabbit hole expeditions, that kind of thing. But it looks quite promising because we've not ever seen this type of unraveling new aspects about a person's health before.
- [53:22]
Eric Topol
I'm glad you mentioned that this needs to be validated because I have one question that comes from skepticism, but I have another question that comes from enthusiasm. So let me start with enthusiasm and then go to skepticism. It seems to me like a next step here that would be very interesting is connecting other interventions to the concept of organ specific aging clocks. So for example, someone could do a study of what is the effect of GLP1 or GLP1 drugs on organ aging.
- [53:50]
Chris Vernon
Right.
- [53:51]
Eric Topol
What is the effect of Ozempic on the age, so to speak, of various organs that are related to inflammation? If GLP1 in fact has a positive effect in reducing inflammation, that would be fascinating. What about statins? What is the measurable effect of statins on the heart's age related organ clock? Or what's the effect of, you know, people are talking about ultra processed meats. What's the effect of ultra processed meats on organ aging? What organ ages fastest because of consumption of ultra processed meats? You mentioned, you know, pollution, environmental factors, air pollution, effect on the age related organ clock of the lungs. Is this, is this part of the hope that we get a more refined, more detailed, more specific way to talk about various interventions and environmental factors on our internal health? Because we can use this more specific language to talk about its effect on individual organs and not just overall mortality outcomes?
- [54:55]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, you always process things well and quickly, Derek. I think the key here is that by knowing this status of a particular organ, that we have lots of actionability to get all over it. And we didn't have this insight before. Now what's interesting is, as you say, if you were sedentary and you start exercising, do you reverse your heart clock? As a great example, we have seen that GLIP one drugs slow the epigenetic clock, which is a body wide aging clock. And that's one of the only things besides exercise that can do that. But that's not organ specific. So matching up a person's organ at risk, particularly in younger people like you, and also the pairing it with the right types of potential interventions, that's where we're headed with this. That's exactly how it's going to be used in the future.
- [55:54]
Eric Topol
So here's the question from skepticism. This space of aging science has both some science that's held up quite well over time and some science that's passed through various hype cycles. I don't even know where we are on telomeres, for example. I feel like telomeres were incredibly exciting hard science for a while, and then there was a backlash against telomere length, and now maybe there's a backlash to the backlash. How does our confidence in the proteomics of age specific organ clocks compare, for example, with our confidence about, say, telomere length as a proxy for age?
- [56:35]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, so good point. A lot of the stuff on aging assessments have not really panned out the telomeres. It went commercial very quickly and it really has never been shown to change a person.
- [56:49]
Eric Topol
Why don't you take half a step back? I should have done this in my question. Take half a step back and just, just tell people what's a telomere? What do people think telomeres for proxies for and then what's the current state of the science?
- [56:59]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, so the idea was the tips of the chromosomes, the telomeres, if they shorten, that's a bad sign of aging in a accelerated, premature fashion. And so some of the people involved in the early work of telomeres actually formed a company or multiple companies eventually that were selling. You get your telomere length of your chromosomes and it has no value really. And there are a lot of other aging things that have been hoaxes like you know, resveratrol and you know, for all sorts of things, you know, make a long list. But they never got clinical validation. Now the difference here is first of all, there's no company on organ clocks that's good. There's only companies that do the plasma proteins and they're doing it for research purposes. And there are going to be ways to get your organ clocks in the future. That's where we have to find out. There's been three major papers now. The first one came out of the Stanford group, Tony Wiss, Corey in Nature, and then two more students that followed. And these are large populations of the UK Biobank with tens of thousands of people with 15 year follow up. So these multiple publications look very encouraging. We never had that for telomeres or these other interventions or diagnostic test. But we still have to show that once you have this information that it makes a difference in people. And that takes time. It takes, you know, that's another level of research that's, that's in suspension until we get it done.
- [58:33]
Chris Vernon
Right.
- [58:34]
Eric Topol
And to a certain extent it seems like it, it's just inevitably going to take time to learn whether advanced aging of organs correlates with later disease. Because for example, if you run a bunch of studies on say a 25 year old and say this 25 year old has a liver that's 40 years old, well, it's still going to take 20, 30 years to learn whether or not that matches up with them getting advanced liver disease three decades prematurely. So to a certain extent it's just going to take some time to learn whether or not the measurement of the age specific organ clocks matches up with life outcomes.
- [59:17]
Chris Vernon
Right.
- [59:18]
Eric Topol
Like that's just inevitably going to take a certain amount of years.
- [59:20]
Dave Jacoby
So one key point here is we're no longer just going to assess organ clocks alone. We're going to be using it so called multimodal AI or multi layered AI. This is a whole new layer that's now becoming available and the cost is just precipitously dropping, which is really great. But it will be with our genome, with our environmental exposure, with our electronic health record, with our images and other conventional labs and our, you know, social determinants of health lifestyle. So the point here is that we're not any longer going to rely on one layer. So if you have an organ clock that's showing up, you know, a particular issue, you've got other layers we call orthogonal to corroborate it with, you see. So the work that's going forward now is not going to be like, oh, we're just going to check telomeres. No, no, we're looking at the whole holistic package to be able to chart one's health course long before they ever have a condition that they were predisposed or susceptible to. That's really what this is about. This is a new layer, a new dimension of data that we didn't have until recently that is just adding to the mix that we're not going to assess on its own because that's old stu style, that's narrow ice pick. We're going for the broad holistic story.
- [60:49]
Eric Topol
Let's move on from proteomics to a subject that is near and dear to your heart, pun only slightly intended, which is breakthroughs in cardiovascular health science. So the stakes here don't need much setting, but I'm just going to set them anyway. Cardiovascular disease, heart attack, stroke, heart failure is the number one cause of death in the US and in most developed countries. We have made really incredible strides here in cardiovascular disease mortality in the last 50 years, thanks to, among other things, advances on at least two fronts. Drugs that manage cholesterol, like statins and interventions to treat blockages in arteries. But there's another front in this war that you consider highly promising, which is treating inflammation. Before we talk about the advances in treating inflammation this year, can you set the stage by helping me understand why inflammation is important and why perhaps something so important has been somewhat overlooked in.
- [61:50]
Chris Vernon
The last 50 years or so of.
- [61:52]
Eric Topol
Medical advances in this space.
- [61:54]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, I mean, this is actually striking to me is that we're kind of into blockages. Oh, the cholesterol build up and it's now limiting the blood supply and fixated on that. And on cholesterol, bad cholesterol, particularly LDL cholesterol and we're not thinking about the bigger picture is how did that blockage get there? And by the way, it's not just the LDL cholesterol. There's other ways that you can get arteries act up to cause a heart attack. And it doesn't even have to have a blockage. You could just have a minor, so called plaque where it just cracks or ruptures. So the biggest miss, as I call it, is this layer of information of how is the artery inflamed? Is there a sign that the artery is inflamed? And unfortunately, we've only had these very rudimentary, what I would call really primitive ways to assess that. One of them is called a C reactive protein, CRP level in the blood. And then there's these other blood markers, inflammation that aren't used very much like interleukin 6 or cytostatin. So we don't have a good blood marker. But we do know, for example, that statins. And if you do lower the ldl, it tends to lower inflammation. And when we fix an artery, whether it's with a stent or if a person still undergoes a bypass, it gets rid of the blockage, but it doesn't necessarily do anything with the inflammation that's underlying that caused the problem. And heart attacks and strokes very commonly involve the inflammatory process as an underpinning. So the story is we've not given enough, I guess, recognition, acknowledgment of how important this process is, partly because we didn't have a way to measure it. The blood tests are just very shaky. And even with the shaky blood test, we saw some evidence of coltazine and another drug in a trial that worked that are not what we would call really primo anti inflammatory drugs. So there's a room here to make great headway for preventing heart disease and actually also preventing a lot of strokes too. And that's to take advantage of this process of detecting inflammation unsuspected and getting all over it to block the process.
- [64:24]
Eric Topol
And what's happened in the last 12 months specifically that makes you most excited, most optimistic about this space.
- [64:32]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah. So I consider a landmark paper. It was in the journal the Lancet and it was from the uk and they have a way to detect inflammation in our heart arteries, our three major heart arteries that we don't have in the U.S. so I'm envious. Okay. Basically what they do is they use AI to look at what they call the fat attenuation index of each artery on the image, a CT angiogram which can be done very readily through a CAT scan with an IV that gives a limited amount of dye. And so you get this image of the arteries. But unlike what we have in this country or anywhere else, they have in 40,000 people with seven year follow up, eight hospitals in the UK, they have the so called inflammation index for each of the three arteries. All those people with follow up. And again, when we were talking about earlier about the Lena Capavir drug having zero events in that large population of young women. Well, this is also similarly striking in people that had three arteries inflamed without even any blockage. They had a 30, 29.8 fold risk of a heart attack and even one artery inflamed 13 fold risk. So the point is that if we were worried about somebody with heart disease now because of these layers of data, why wouldn't we do this and find out if they have inflamed arteries? Or better yet, Derek, why don't we get the proteins nailed down from those plasma proteins which correlate with this AI determined inflammation from the images. So this is a hot, hot area. That's the wrong word to use because heat and inflammation are obviously intertwined. But we have a new way to find people with heart attacks. Liability. I mean, a 30 fold risk. How many things in our world in medicine where we have a 30 fold risk, it's like, wow. So it's exciting to see this. We don't have it in the us we have ways to do CT angiograms, but no AI package that's available to do the inflammation index. But the data here is really impressive.
- [67:06]
Eric Topol
To connect the stories of organ clocks and heart inflammation. It seems like a theme of this generation of breakthroughs is that we're getting a lot smarter about detection.
- [67:23]
Chris Vernon
Right?
- [67:23]
Eric Topol
I mean, that's what we're talking about with being able to sample the protein levels in your blood to determine the age of your organ. That's detection. Being able to run a test that determines whether or not your inflammation is 30x normal and therefore likely lead to a heart attack or some kind of cardiovascular event. Another example of detection. Is there a big picture reason why we seem to be in this golden age of disease detection?
- [67:53]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, well, I think it opened up when we started being able to assay 11,000 proteins in our blood with a tiny blood sample. There's even now, Tarek, a newly reported sensor you can put in the body that would monitor inflammation in your body from proteins continuously. So as opposed to this very primitive CRP blood test, we're now going to have either a plasma protein panel or a sensor. And the point here is that the diseases, the big three diseases, whether it's brain, degenerative disease or cancer or cardiovascular, they have one thing in common, which is hyper inflammation, often below the surface without symptoms. So if we know people, whether it's an inflamed coronary or an inflamed brain, we have sensors. Whether it's taking a blood test or potentially someday the report in science of this continuous real time sensor of inflammation proteins. But the common theme is we just didn't have this window into our body's proteins until now. Whether it's thousands of proteins or sensor or panels, it's happening really quickly. So we paid so much homage to the genome revolution, starting back in 2000 with the human genome sequence. But if you look at what's really happening today, the protein revolution is taking hold at a pace that's just dizzying really.
- [69:31]
Eric Topol
And that's what I really want to understand better is why do we have such a brilliantly clear window into not.
- [69:40]
Chris Vernon
Only our protein levels, but what those.
- [69:43]
Eric Topol
Protein levels mean for our health now?
- [69:47]
Chris Vernon
Like what are the.
- [69:50]
Eric Topol
It could be one or two, or a convergence of breakthroughs in AI or proteomics that allows us to read our proteins in a way that's just much more legible than it was 10, 20 years ago.
- [70:04]
Dave Jacoby
Yeah, I mean, the most extraordinary example I've seen in recent times was when not only could you get proteins in the blood, but you can get proteins of the cell. So that was the work done in Germany where they did laser capture of the cells and got the hundreds of proteins in the cell, cracked the case for why these people would have died with toxic epidermal necrolysis and then found the pathway that was causing these sick proteins to form and they saved their lives. I mean, so again, the protein story is been just to see something like that, you know, I call it, you know, spatial medicine. But you know, we talked about spatial biology, spatial omics, but the protein story is just unraveling, things like that. I mean, when it starts to become life saving, then you start to realize, you know, that doesn't require a lot of proof that it's doing something good. So I think it's just a matter of an outpouring of data at a body wide level, at a tissue level, organ level, and even cellular level. This is something that's extraordinary and it's all happening in this, you know, in this very dense, you know, at one time a cluster, if you will.
- [71:22]
Chris Vernon
Eric, final question.
- [71:24]
Eric Topol
I've read that a lot of the.
- [71:26]
Chris Vernon
Advances we've made in proteins and understanding biomarkers come from the UK Biobank and similar projects that inventory the health data of thousands and thousands of people. Can you tell us what is the UK Biobank and how are its discoveries and the discoveries of other biobanks connected to these breakthroughs we've been talking about today?
- [71:49]
Dave Jacoby
The UK Biobank, just to be clear for everyone has 550,000 participants now have been followed for about 15 years. And a lot of the studies that I've been talking about today with you are derived from that incredible resource, right? And it's publishing almost every day. Sometimes you know more than because the whole world research community is cracked into it. It's open for research now the all of us is about almost 800,000 people of diverse ancestry, which is a good thing, but it only has a much more limited follow up since it's new. But the other thing is of course the UK is now it wasn't happy just with the UK Biobank. Now they have our future health 5 million people already 2 million people participants within a year. So we're getting these massive data banks with multi year file and that's where the things that we've been talking about today are getting their validation because it's already assembled, the samples are just stored, you can just check and see oh well, what this protein, how did they correlate with? And we have their genomes and we have all their, you know, electronic records. So when you have all these layers of data and you have people already 15 years of follow up, that's when you can say hey, this stuff really works. This stuff is really meaningful and so it gives us a jump. And one other thing I just want to mention with this organ clock story and these proteins, you know there's a lot of candidate drugs maybe someday for promoting health span and longevity. But we the fda, there's no path to get approval because we don't consider aging a disease. Right. But what we don't know and what is tantalizing, what if you had this drug that significantly, substantially slowed the aging of a organ clock by many years in a person who was susceptible to that, Would that be enough criteria to approve that using a protein panel and a drug. So that's where this could be headed someday. It changes the potential ground rules for a drug that is designed to change aging not at a body wide level, but at a particular organization or individual level.
- [74:08]
Eric Topol
It's fascinating. Eric Topol, thank you so much.
- [74:11]
Dave Jacoby
Thank you Derek. It's been fun.
- [74:14]
Eric Topol
Thank you for listening. Plain English is hosted, written and researched by me, Derek Thompson, produced by Devin Beraldi in 2025. We are coming back to you with our regular schedule of 2ish episodes per week. We've got some awesome features cooking. We're very excited to share them with you.
- [74:32]
Chris Vernon
Thanks for listening as always. And if you like what you hear.
- [74:35]
Eric Topol
Give us five stars on whatever podcast platform you listen to.
- [74:39]
Chris Vernon
Talk to you soon.