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.