We Have the Cure. Why is Tuberculosis Still Around?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Short Wave (NPR)
Episode: We Have the Cure. Why is Tuberculosis Still Around?
Date: October 21, 2025
Hosts: Emily Kwong, Regina Barber (with science correspondent Nate Rott)
Length: ~15 minutes

---

Overview

This episode dives into the ethical, practical, and scientific debates surrounding the use of synthetic biology—specifically genetic modification—to help combat environmental crises, such as endangered species and biodiversity loss. Framed through the lens of ongoing efforts to save frogs from a deadly fungus, the hosts and guests examine how far humans should go to intervene in and “fix” nature, weighing the promise of technological progress against deep uncertainties and risks.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Promise and Challenge of Synthetic Biology

(00:32-02:53)

• Nate Rott introduces the episode’s central tension: Should humans use cutting-edge genetic tech to save species, even if the effects on nature are unpredictable?
• Anthony Waddle, frog researcher at Macquarie University in Australia, highlights the plight of frogs facing the chytrid fungus, a pandemic-level threat to amphibians.
  • Quote [00:56]:
    “Frogs are little wet things that run around in the mud. They should be absolutely just covered in infections at all times. And the reason they're not is they produce antibiotics.” – Anthony Waddle
  • Waddle’s “classic conservation” work (breeding, relocating, and surveying frogs) had limited, local success, but species are still vanishing globally.
• Synthetic biology (genetic modification) may enable splicing disease-resistant DNA into at-risk frogs, but public skepticism is high.
  • Quote [02:46]:
    “I think the challenge isn't the science. … The challenge is going to be convincing people that it's a good idea.” – Anthony Waddle

2. Defining Synthetic Biology and Its Scope

(04:41-06:41)

• Guy Reeves (German nonprofit scientist) likens synthetic biology to jazz:
  • Quote [04:58]:
    “Synthetic biology is like jazz. It's very difficult to define, but people think that they know it when they see it.” – Guy Reeves
• The term is broad, covering genetic engineering, gene editing, and creating biological components.
• Critics warn that successes like lab-grown insulin aren’t equivalent to open-environment gene editing (e.g., modifying corals or trees for climate resilience).
  • There is a lack of real-world, peer-reviewed evidence that edited wild species will thrive or not cause more problems.
  • Quote [06:20]:
    “They have absolutely no peer reviewed evidence that they work. They've never been used.” – Guy Reeves

3. Unpredictable Consequences and Irreversibility

(06:41-07:13)

• Dangers include unforeseen ecological impacts, harmful mutations, or new “problems to fix.”
• Reeves highlights fears that irreversible changes to ecosystems could happen inadvertently.
  • Quote [07:13]:
    “Ultimately it comes down to do you trust that humans at this point have the capacity to re engineer nature … or do you not think we're that clever?” – Guy Reeves

4. The Big Conservation Debate (IUCN Meeting)

(07:39-12:17)

• The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) held a major forum where delegates debated policies on synthetic biology.
• Two competing proposals:
  1. Moratorium Proposal – Temporary ban on releasing genetically modified species until more is understood.
     • Ricarda Steinbrecher warns about prior well-intentioned ecological interventions going wrong (e.g., rabbits in Australia).
     • Sue Lieberman (Wildlife Conservation Society):
       • Quote [09:13]: “Like if you put a rabbit into an area like Australia, we know what happened … it became a very invasive species and big problems. Nobody expected that.”
  2. Regulatory Framework Proposal – Allow research with strict guardrails and a requirement to weigh risks, benefits, and limits.
     • Lieberman emphasizes reality: synthetic biology is already in use, so regulation is critical to prevent mistakes.
     • Quote [10:12]: “…if it is being used, let's at least have guardrails that say if you're considering it, you need to look at A, B and C, you need to look at the benefits, you need to look at the risk, and there are going to be things you don't do.” – Sue Lieberman

5. Urgency vs. Caution

(11:39-12:17)

• Proponents like Ryan Phelan (Revive and Restore) warn that a moratorium would chill research and innovation, at a time when environmental crises demand rapid action.
• Quote [11:55]:
  “There are 1500 or some reef building corals worldwide and we've already lost probably hundreds of species. We don't even know what they are. They're gone. The idea that we can just stand back and not intervene with nature, it's not gonna work anymore. We're gonna lose it.” – Sue Lieberman

6. The Decision and Ongoing Debate

(12:17-13:25)

• IUCN voted narrowly against the moratorium, but approved a framework for careful, regulated use of gene editing in conservation.
• The debate is ongoing and far from settled, with ethical, cultural, and scientific questions likely to resurface.
  • Quote [13:16]: “If a butterfly is genetically modified, would we still care for it the same way …? Would you?” – Nate Rott

7. Historical Perspective and Our Role in Nature

(13:34-14:00)

• Anthony Waddle offers context:
  • Quote [13:34]:
    “Like a Chihuahua is the same species as a wolf. That's a bigger sin against nature than doing one little gene change. Like I think people need to acknowledge that we already impact nature in a profound way and we have the capacity to use it for good for once. And maybe we should just consider it.” – Anthony Waddle

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Quote | Speaker | |-----------|-------|---------| | 00:56 | “Frogs are little wet things that run around in the mud. … They produce antibiotics.” | Anthony Waddle | | 02:46 | “I think the challenge isn't the science. … The challenge is going to be convincing people that it's a good idea.” | Anthony Waddle | | 04:58 | “Synthetic biology is like jazz. It's very difficult to define, but people think that they know it when they see it.” | Guy Reeves | | 06:20 | “They have absolutely no peer reviewed evidence that they work. They've never been used.” | Guy Reeves | | 07:13 | “Ultimately it comes down to do you trust that humans at this point have the capacity to re engineer nature … or do you not think we're that clever?” | Guy Reeves | | 09:13 | “…put a rabbit into an area like Australia … it became a very invasive species and big problems. Nobody expected that.” | Sue Lieberman | | 10:12 | “…if it is being used, let's at least have guardrails that say … you need to look at the benefits, you need to look at the risk, and there are going to be things you don't do.” | Sue Lieberman | | 11:55 | “We've already lost probably hundreds of [coral] species. … The idea that we can just stand back and not intervene with nature, it's not gonna work anymore. We're gonna lose it.” | Sue Lieberman | | 13:34 | “Like a Chihuahua is the same species as a wolf. That's a bigger sin against nature than doing one little gene change…” | Anthony Waddle |

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:32-03:01 — The frog crisis and the concept of synthetic biology for amphibian resilience.
• 04:50-06:41 — What is synthetic biology? Where does genetic engineering fit?
• 07:39-09:13 — International conservation debate, IUCN meeting, and perspectives on policy.
• 10:12-11:12 — The argument for regulated innovation vs. the chilling effect on research.
• 12:21-13:25 — IUCN’s decision: reject the moratorium, support rules for cautious use.
• 13:34-14:00 — Reflection on humanity’s existing, deep impact on nature.

---

Conclusion

The episode offers a rich, balanced portrait of the dilemma facing conservationists: Synthetic biology might be a powerful tool to fight biodiversity loss, but it is fraught with uncertainty, lack of evidence, and ethical riddles about humanity’s right (and capacity) to reshape the natural world. The science is rapidly advancing, but society’s debate on how, when, or whether to deploy these technologies in wild ecosystems is only just beginning.

Tone: The hosts balance curiosity, skepticism, and light humor, encouraging listeners to weigh the complicated issues and write in with their own thoughts.

---

Transcript

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

This message comes from Bonterra. Your nonprofit's mission is big, but your team is small. With fundraising software from Bonterra's network for good, you can focus on changing lives. Big impact, less stress. Learn [e-mail] NFG you're listening to Short Wave from NPR.

[Emily Kwong]

Hey, shortwavers. Emily Kwong here. Today we're going to focus on an emerging field that could help the natural world, but is also a little controversial.

[Nate Rott]

Yes, controversial because it gets at an almost like philosophical question, Emily, about what our role should be in the natural world.

[Emily Kwong]

Science correspondent Nate Rott, ever the philosopher.

[Nate Rott]

I'm a pretty poor excuse for a philosopher, but, you know, I think the easiest way to explain this technology that we're gonna be talking about is to start with an effort that's going on to save something we all know and love, frogs.

[Anthony Waddle]

Frogs are little wet things that run around in the mud. They should be absolutely just covered in infections at all times. And the reason they're not is they produce antibiotics.

[Nate Rott]

This is Anthony Waddle, a researcher at Macquarie University in Australia.

[Anthony Waddle]

It's just chytrid is too good.

[Nate Rott]

Chytrid fungus, which is like this horrendous and deadly skin disease affecting amphibians that, you know, the antibiotics they have often can't fix.

[Sue Lieberman]

And.

[Nate Rott]

And this disease is now found on every continent except Antarctica.

[Anthony Waddle]

It's considered the worst pandemic ever, worst invasive species ever in terms of biodiversity loss.

[Nate Rott]

Anthony has been focused on protecting frog populations from chytrid pretty much his entire scientific career. And he started with the type of desert frog that lived near his hometown, Las Vegas.

[Anthony Waddle]

That work was like classic conservation, you know, bringing eggs in from the remaining populations, raising them up, putting them at new sites, augmenting existing sites, surveys.

[Nate Rott]

And Anthony says it worked for that population of frogs. But the further he got into the.

[Anthony Waddle]

Frog world, I'm being approached by people that are watching species and populations go extinct, and they're desperate for solutions.

[Nate Rott]

It became clear to him what they really need, he says, is like some kind of permanent solution that makes the species more resilient into the future. And he thinks one of those solutions could be something called synthetic biology, which in this case basically means genetic modification. Anthony wants to use genetic tools, new technologies, to essentially splice that chytrid resistant DNA into frogs that do not have it.

[Emily Kwong]

Oh, okay. So he's hoping to genetically modify frogs to help them fight off this disease, the chytrid.

[Nate Rott]

Yes, that's kind of like the pie in the sky aim. But here's where I think this whole thing gets super interesting.

[Anthony Waddle]

I think the challenge isn't the science. We can do this. The challenge is going to be convincing people that it's a good idea.

[Nate Rott]

Because as you might imagine, Emily, the idea of genetically modifying things and then putting them out in the natural world worries a lot of people.

[Emily Kwong]

Today on the show, the debate over synthetic biology. How far should we go to save species? You're listening to Shortwave, the Science podcast from NPR.

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

This message comes from LinkedIn ads. One of the hardest parts about B2B marketing is reaching the right audience. That's why you need LinkedIn ads. You can target your buyers by job title, company role, seniority and skills, all the professionals you need to reach in one place. Get a $250 credit on your next campaign so you can try it yourself. Just go to LinkedIn.com nprpod that's LinkedIn.com nprpod Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

[Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Announcer]

This message comes from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer center, they know that a cancer diagnosis touches more than one life. It touches entire families. Make a gift to MSK in honor or in memory of someone you love. Your donation fuels groundbreaking research and compassionate care for patients and their families all over the world. Honor their legacy. Give hope to others. Your impact can be doubled for a limited time. Donate [e-mail] honor2x this message comes from Square. Every neighborhood has different kinds of businesses with different goals. Whether that's adding new locations, expanding what they sell, or anything else, they can dream. Square has tools to help them grow. Go to square.com go npr.

[Emily Kwong]

All right, Nate, I know we're going to get philosophical in talking about nature. First, though, let's dwell upon synthetic biology. What is that?

[Nate Rott]

Okay, so probably the best answer I heard when I asked this question to many people was from Guy Reeves, a scientist who's now working with a German nonprofit.

[Guy Reeves]

Synthetic biology is like jazz. It's very difficult to define, but people think that they know it when they see it.

[Emily Kwong]

Cop out answer. What does that even mean? Synthetic biology is like jazz.

[Nate Rott]

It's just like it's kind of this catch all term, right, for a suite of technologies like genetic modification, genetic engineering that basically allow scientists to modify or engineer living cells.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay, so it's like gene editing.

[Nate Rott]

Yeah, basically. So like think of the kinds of work that scientists do to genetically modify foods, like, you know, making crops more resistant to pesticides or like hardier to endure drought, that kind of stuff.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah, I'm thinking about there's genetic work done to refine and produce new medicines.

[Nate Rott]

Totally. Yeah, it's the same exact thing. So the problem the guy has with this kind of like, know it when you see it. Broad definition is that it's jazz when supporters, it's jazz, it's just jazz hands. The problem is that it's like so broad that supporters of this technology often talk about synthetic biology as if, you know, genetically engineering insulin in laboratories for people, which is like a proven good use of it, is the same thing as genetically engineering coral so it's more resistant to warming waters and then making those changes heritable and so they can pass them on from generation to generation and then releasing that into the wild.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah, those don't sound the same.

[Guy Reeves]

They have absolutely no peer reviewed evidence that they work. They've never been used.

[Nate Rott]

So it's like we don't know if it's going to work. And beyond that we don't know if there might be any unintended consequences. Like yeah, what if the genetic changes hurt the animal in some way or the broader ecosystem they live in, like completely on accident, but it's possible.

[Emily Kwong]

Well, this is what happens when we mess with the genetics of species beyond our own. Any harmful mutation or unforeseen issue could be passed on to offspring in the wild.

[Nate Rott]

Yeah. And I mean, in Guy's view, if that happens. Right. He thinks it could be irreversible. Like how would you capture a bunch of flies that have been released into the wild that are genetically mutated? Yeah. So he really worries that scientists could accidentally misuse these new technologies and accidentally create more problems that they're then trying to fix. So he kind of sums up the whole debate that we're having in this way.

[Guy Reeves]

Ultimately it comes down to do you trust that humans at this point have the capacity to re engineer nature and probably have to continue to re re engineer it, or do you not think we're that clever?

[Emily Kwong]

I don't think we're that clever. I don't trust us to get along at the moment to agree on anything when it comes to science.

[Nate Rott]

That's definitely true. We are not in a, we are not in an age of, of agreements. But you know, like why I started looking at this big question now is because like one of the largest conservation groups in the world, right. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature just weighed in on this debate that we're having right now at a big meeting this month.

[Emily Kwong]

Oh, fascinating. What did they say?

[Nate Rott]

Okay, so the IUCN's World Conservation Congress only happens every four years. And not to get too wonky and bureaucratic, but the iucn, for, like anyone who doesn't know what it is, it basically uses the best available science to set conservation standards for the world to use. So Sue Lieberman, the vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society, was at this meeting in Abu Dhabi last week and she says it's important to know that the IUCN does not have any regulatory authorities. Like, it can't freeze, force governments to do anything.

[Guy Reeves]

But since its members are both governments and conservation organizations, if something passes, then it becomes, it's seen with a lot of respect.

[Nate Rott]

And last week they voted on two proposals that directly addressed synthetic biology. One which called for a moratorium on releasing any genetically modified species into the wild. And to be clear, it'd be like a temporary ban. So advocates for it, like European biologist Ricarda Steinbrecher, more or less described it as kind of like pumping the brakes on these new technologies until we better understand them. Because she says, you know, nature, as we all know, is in a super vulnerable place right now. And there are so many examples where well intentioned human interventions have gone wrong.

[Sue Lieberman]

Like if you put a rabbit into an area like Australia, we know what happened, that it became a very invasive species and big problems. Nobody expected that.

[Nate Rott]

There are so many times that people introduce an animal purposefully or accidentally and sometimes well intentioned, and it upset the existing ecosystem. And Ricardo says when it comes to synthetic biology, there's a lot of hype.

[Sue Lieberman]

Around it, which really sort of makes a proper debate very difficult because it's pushed. Synthetic biology is so often pushed as the solution to problems and most of the problems cannot be solved with the technology.

[Emily Kwong]

Nate, there were two proposals you said up for a vote. What was the second one?

[Nate Rott]

Yeah, so the other proposal basically says, okay, like if conservationists are going to explore using these technologies, here's how we should do it. But Sue Lieberman says even that was controversial at the recent meeting because some.

[Guy Reeves]

People think, no, no, if you have a policy, that means you might use it. But the point is it is being used. So if it is being used, let's at least have guardrails that say if you're considering it, you need to look at A, B and C, you need to look at the benefits, you need to look at the risk, and there are going to be things you don't do.

[Emily Kwong]

When she says that genetic engineering, synthetic biology is already being used, what does she mean?

[Nate Rott]

That scientists like Anthony Waddle, who we heard from earlier, are already doing this research. You know, like scientists are looking right now at how to genetically modify coral to be more resistant to hotter temperatures in the water, how to alter trees like the American chestnut to be more resistant to disease.

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

Yeah.

[Nate Rott]

You know, so from her point of view, the horse is out of the barn. And the fear I heard from people who opposed this moratorium, people like sue, was that it would make it harder for researchers to fund research in this area. Here's Ryan Phelan, the co founder and executive director of the nonprofit Revive and Restore, which provides funding for synthetic biology conservation efforts.

[Sue Lieberman]

It's hard to find funding for innovation, and it's even hard for researchers to get permission to, to do research and to get support even in their own institutions. If it's at all going to be concerning. Everybody cares about reputation, right?

[Emily Kwong]

And if a big international organization, the iucn, is saying don't do something, scientists and institutions would be more hesitant. But I don't understand still, what's the harm in pumping the brakes a little?

[Nate Rott]

Yeah. So in Ryan's opinion, and I heard this from pretty much everybody who supports the use of synthetic biology, is that when you consider, like, how fast the climate is changing right now and how poorly we've done to this point globally at stopping issues like deforestation, we just don't have time.

[Sue Lieberman]

I mean, there are 1500 or some reef building corals worldwide and we've already lost probably hundreds of species. We don't even know what they are. They're gone. The idea that we can just stand back and not intervene with nature, it's not gonna work anymore. We're gonna lose it.

[Emily Kwong]

So what did the IUCN ultimately decide with these two proposals?

[Nate Rott]

They voted no on the moratorium by, like a hair. And yes, on a framework to integrate synthetic biology into conservation with like all of the safeguards that we mentioned.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay, so it sounds like the IUCN decided scientists can release gene edited species into the wild, so there's no more debate.

[Nate Rott]

Well, they're not going to just like instantly release a bunch of stuff into the wild. Like, that's still going to take a lot of time. But in terms of the debate, I think this is still very much up for discussion. Like, everyone I talk to thinks this will show up again at the next big IUCN meeting. And everyone I talked to thinks that's a good thing because one of the concerns I heard here is that there's the potential that this could fundamentally change our relationship with nature. Like, if a butterfly is genetically modified, would we still care for it the same way we would for one that's just fluttering around now like, would you?

[Emily Kwong]

I love all living things, so yes, but, but I don't know. I mean I, I hard to say until that future comes to pass, right?

[Nate Rott]

It's a tough question. Anthony Waddle, the frog scientist we started with, hears that argument, but his response is that we've already fundamentally changed nature.

[Anthony Waddle]

Like a Chihuahua is the same species as a wolf. That's a bigger sin against nature than doing one little gene change. Like I think people need to acknowledge that we already impact nature in a profound way and we have the capacity to use it for good for once. And maybe we should just consider it.

[Emily Kwong]

What a fascinating debate. Okay, I hope shore wavers who are listening right in with their thoughts on this because I, I had never considered it before. Nate, thank you so much for bringing this on the show.

[Nate Rott]

Yeah, thank you so much for letting me talk about something that I am endlessly geeked about.

[Emily Kwong]

Our email, by the way, is shortwavepr.org this episode was produced by Burleigh McCoy and edited by our showrunner, Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts and Jimmy Keeley was the audio engineer. Beth Donovan is our vice president of podcasting. I'm Emily Kwong. Thank you for listening to Short Wave from npr.

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

This message comes from Vanta. In today's fast changing digital world, proving your company has trustworthy security practices is essential. Vanta helps companies of all sizes earn and prove trust with the industry's best AI, automation and continuous monitoring. So whether you're a startup tackling your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta's trust management platform makes it easier. Visit vanta.comNPR to sign up for a demo today. This message comes from NPR sponsor Shopify, the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all E commerce in the US get started with your own design studio. Sign up for your $1 per month [e-mail] NPR this message comes from Bombus. You need better socks and slippers and underwear because you should love what you wear every day. One purchased equals one donated. Go to bombus.com NPR and use code NPR for 20% off.