David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (2:13)

Discussion.

David Frum (2:16)

As I record this episode. In late April 2025, the United States.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (2:21)

Is gripped by an outbreak of measles.

David Frum (2:24)

More than 800 cases have been diagnosed in 24 states. Three people are dead, two of them unvaccinated school aged children, one of them an unvaccinated adult. We are only about one third of the way through the year 2025, and.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (2:37)

Yet the United States has suffered nearly.

David Frum (2:39)

Triple the number of cases of measles in 2025, as it did in all of 2024. The measles is caused, of course, by.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (2:46)

A pathogen, but it is enabled by human ignorance and human neglect. Rising numbers of children are going unvaccinated. About a third of American children fail to get the full suite of vaccines that the CDC Centers for Disease Control.

David Frum (2:59)

Recommends, and about 7% of American children.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:02)

Go unvaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella.

David Frum (3:05)

These are invitations to human harm and.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:08)

Human suffering, and they come about because.

David Frum (3:10)

Of a rise in American attitudes of ignorance and unawareness about the the causes of disease and how diseases are prevented.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:17)

Let me read you a recent statement.

David Frum (3:19)

From the Kaiser Family foundation, an important.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:21)

Source of health and medical research information.

David Frum (3:24)

Here's Kaiser when it comes to false.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:26)

Claims that the measles vaccines have been.

David Frum (3:28)

Proven to cause autism, or that vitamin A can prevent the measles infections, or.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:33)

That getting the measles vaccine is more dangerous than becoming infected with measles, less.

David Frum (3:37)

Than 5% of adults say they think.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:38)

These claims are definitely true, and much.

David Frum (3:41)

Larger share say they are definitely false.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:43)

That's the good news.

David Frum (3:44)

Returning to Kaiser, however, at least half.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (3:46)

Of adults are uncertain about whether these claims are true or false, falling in the malleable middle and saying each claim.

David Frum (3:52)

Is either probably true or probably false, while at least half of adults express some level of uncertainty. Partisans differ in the shares who say.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (4:01)

Each of these false claims is definitely, probably true, with Republicans and Independents at least twice as likely as Democrats to believe or lean toward believing each false claim about measles.

David Frum (4:11)

One third of Republicans and a quarter.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (4:13)

Of Independents say it is definitely or.

David Frum (4:16)

Probably true that the MMR vaccines have been proven to cause autism, compared to.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (4:20)

1 in 10 Democrats. Three in 10 Republicans and independents say it is definitely or probably true that vitamin A can prevent measles, compared to 14% of Democrats. And 1 in 5 Republicans and independents believe or lean toward believing that the measles vaccine is more dangerous than measles infection. Compared to about 1 in 10 Democrats, Republicans are believing things that are putting their own children at risk.

David Frum (4:44)

We see again here how the MAGA.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (4:47)

Cult is becoming a death cult that consumes the lives of its believers. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died preventably from the COVID virus. Your chance of dying from COVID was about the same whether you were a Republican or a Democrat.

David Frum (5:00)

The disease did not discriminate by political.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (5:02)

Affiliation, but after vaccines became available, the disease began to discriminate. Suddenly, people in blue towns and blue states began to survive the disease at much higher rates than people in red towns and red states. Those deaths were overwhelmingly concentrated in areas where people were loyal to Republican ideas and listened to Republican influencers. The price of believing your favorite right ascent influencer could have been your own life. What kind of political movement sacrifices its.

David Frum (5:33)

Own people in that way to make.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (5:34)

Some point, to make money, or to score a political jab against an opponent? It's a little hard to explain exactly what they thought they were doing. It's not hard to explain it. It's a little unpleasant to contemplate the explanation of what they thought they were doing. But we can measure the effect of what they were doing in lost lives and now the spread of measles and the shrinkage of measles vaccines according to political affiliation, we can say the same horizontal, horrible process of death by political partisanship reoccurring in the middle 2000 and twenties as at the beginning of the 2000 and twenties. Against this spread of weaponized ignorance, what is needed is the clearest possible messages from everyone in positions of authority, whether.

David Frum (6:14)

Public or private, that it is your.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (6:17)

Duty as a parent to see that your child is vaccinated against preventable disease. And if your children are unvaccinated, you have failed in your duty as a parent. And that is a message that needs to be spread by everyone who's in a position to spread a message. And the authorities should also say that in the hard cases where it can be shown that a child died because of an intentional failure by the parent to vaccinate the child, that parent should be held to account in much the same way as in my opinion, if the child died because of an unsecured firearm in the child's home left there by a parent, the parent should be held to account. Protecting your child is your most important duty as a parent. Put the gun in a safe and make sure the child is vaccinated. And yet instead, we are seeing people put into positions of high authority who are not only hesitant to spread that message, but in fact are the leading hoaxers and fraudsters against the vaccines. At the head of the Health Department of Health and Human Services is the most notorious proponent of letting people suffer the measles, measles, death, of spreading false claims, outrageous claims, debunked claims, exploded claims against, against the vaccines, and by the way, demeaning and insulting people who struggle with autism. People with autism can live meaningful lives. Yet according to our present secretary, they're no better than wasted lives and useless people who need to be counted in some kind of registry so he can keep tab of their numbers. For what sinister purpose who can barely begin to imagine, but clearly not for a purpose of respect and dignity. And because of this outrageous and cruel lack of regard for people who are on the autism spectrum, many of which scans a lot of cases, both worst cases and less bad cases. He is urging Americans or he has over his lifetime urged Americans to leave their children unvaccinated. And as Secretary of Health and Human Services is staffing his agency with people who are at mealy mouthed or worse in the fight against this preventable, unnecessary cause of death. The anti Vax ideology comes from some strange places. It comes, I think in the first place from a myth of a benign nature. I think one of the reasons why it tended to maybe before the Trump era, be so prevalent on certain parts of like the vegetarian left. If you believe that nature is kind and good and benign and only human, and the only wickedness is human, and if you are unaware of how massively human lives are at risk from disease before the modern era, it may seem like why am I intruding into my beautiful child's body this sharp needle then that makes them squawk for a moment and introducing these at least foreign substances. Why would I do that when nature wants us all to live and rejoice? Well, nature doesn't want you to live and rejoice. Nature is utterly indifferent to your hopes and wishes. And if it were up to nature, half your children would be dead and you'd be dead too by age 50 at the latest. Nature is not our friend. Nature is a resource that we must protect and steward, but it is not our friend. It does not wish us well. It doesn't have wishes at all. I think some of the anti vax cult also comes from another myth, the myth of malign government. Not just that government is inefficient, as it often is, and clumsy, as it often is, but that actually there's some kind of secret conspiracy up there of people who for some bizarre and nefarious purpose, want to prevent Americans from enjoying the beneficent benignity of nature and instead want to inject them with all of.

David Frum (9:33)

These artificial products like seat belts.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (9:37)

I think this is the part of the myth that has gained the upper hand most recently. This myth of conspiracy and government and other high places. But the truth, nature is not benign and government is not maligned. But there are a lot of fraudsters out there. That's the truth. And they have more ways of reaching.

David Frum (9:55)

People than ever before.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (9:57)

And the cost of these frauds is becoming ever more terrible in lost human lives. So as you listen to my talk today about Alan Bernstein, we're going to talk about many of these issues. I think we're going to try to talk as dispassionately as possible. But as I talk about them, I'm really angry about this. I'm really angry about this. It should be one of those things that just as there are no Republican and Democrat ways to sweep the streets, shovel the snow, there should be no Republican or Democrat way. Disagreement about protecting our children from preventable diseases. All of us should salute vaccination. It's one of the most magnificent achievements of human civilization. One of the ways that marks us off from all the sad eras that went before us. When parents had to grieve half their children before their third birthday or before their 20th birthday, we have an opportunity to live better, healthier lives than ever before in history. How could we refuse such a thing? And how much should we condemn and revile those people who deceive their fellow citizens into refusing this magnificent gift of science and technology? So we're going to speak dispassionately with Alan Bernstein. I'm not dispassionate about this. I hope you won't be dispassionate either.

David Frum (11:00)

But first, a quick break.

Target Advertiser (11:05)

When life gets ahead of your list, just tap Target. Between juggling school schedules, surprise messes and tag team baby duty, life has a way of throwing you off.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (11:14)

Honey, we're low on diapers and wipes.

Spanish Language Advertiser (11:16)

And toilet paper and cat food.

Target Advertiser (11:19)

But what they don't know is you already knew. With target circle 360, same day delivery. It's already on the way. Delivery when you want it. With Target Circle 360, just tap Target. Membership required, subject to terms and conditions. Applies to orders over $A Carlos Nolle.

Spanish Language Advertiser (11:36)

Gusta larena por quese pega todo cuando pare lembito el dorami pasaro nuna semana ne lagua vives paratener las cosas a tugusto. Vivimos cascada. Tina Yuna, Regader and craible expedia. Vivimos paraviajar.

David Frum (12:16)

Alan Bernstein. Welcome to the David Frum Show. Thank you for joining us. You have spent your career as a practitioner of science, as a director of science, as an advisor to governments about science. It looks to those of us who are not scientists, like the government of the United States is engaged in a campaign against science of almost unprecedented, historic proportions. As you and I speak, there is A measles outbreak in the United States. Actually, there are 10 separate outbreaks, 800 cases, three dead as of the time we speak. There are dramatic firings and cuts to government agencies, the National Institutes for Health, the vaccine program progress toward cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's is supposed to have been slowed or maybe halted altogether. And of course, there are these extraordinary pressures on medical and scientific research at universities. So if you would offer your assessment of how much has been done to science in the United States in these past weeks.

Alan Bernstein (13:15)

So first, David, it's a pleasure to be on the show with you. First of all, backing up a little bit and just saying how important science has been to America's success. I think people don't quite appreciate that, but it goes back to actually World War II. And Harry Truman, when he was president, realized that in one way science kind of won the war. It wasn't just the atomic bomb, it was penicillin, it was radar, it was sonar. And so he asked a guy called Vannevar Bush, I don't think it's a relation to the other Bushes, to make some recommendations about what America should do. And he wrote what's a famous book in scientific circles called the Endless Frontier. In that book, Bush recommended that America invest heavily in science and particularly in American universities, because it would lead to economic well being, it would lead to power in the world, it would lead to security for America. And I don't know that anybody at that time appreciated just how right he was. Because if you look at the growth of the American economy and the growth of American well being and health outcomes, anything you want to measure, the numbers are anywhere between 20 to 40 to 50% of America's well being, if you will, and growth in GDP and all those things was due to science and innovation. Today, as we're witnessing kind of the destruction of the institutions behind American science, it's hard to believe that any administration would do this.

David Frum (14:58)

All right, well, destruction is a dramatic word. How severe is the damage?

Alan Bernstein (15:03)

I think it's very severe. And it's not just my own personal view. I was talking to a close friend at Stanford actually, and she was talking even though Stanford has not been hit by one of the things that Columbia, nyu, the east coast elite universe, so called elite universities have been hit by. They no longer are guaranteeing salaries for PhD students who enter into the graduate program at Stanford. Stanford is a wealthy university. So they're kind of circling the wagons and harvesting their funds in case that the Trump administration goes after them. I think it's hard to overstate how serious this is. I think the thing we should all keep in mind is by going after the institutions of science, I would say there's several categories. The funders of science. The nih, the National Institutes of Health, is the world's largest funder of biomedical research. By cutting its budget, by severely cutting its staff, it's crippling the world's major funder of biomedical research, never mind the America's major funder of biomedical research, by going after the top research universities in the United States, the Columbia's, the Johns Hopkins, the Harvard's, the Yales. It's also crippling the major institutions that are supporting researchers in the U.S. that's first of all unprecedented, of course, but it's also crippling for the institutions that support science in the US not just the individuals. So it's hard to overstate how serious this is.

David Frum (16:47)

From my lay understanding, there are four main categories of scientific institutions that have come under different kind of pressure. There are the direct practitioners of science within the United States government organizations like NASA, the Aeronautics Agency, noia, the Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, the direct practitioners of science inside the government under pressure. There are also the government funding institutions, as you said, the National Institutes for Health. These don't do the work themselves. They make grants to others. They're under pressure. There's the kind of sword and shield of technological application at the Department of Defense. Agencies in the Department of Defense that do cyber warfare, cybersecurity, cyber innovation, they've come under pressure. And finally, fourth, so first, direct science inside the government. Second, funding, third, swords and shields. And fourth and last, the universities that get government grants, but where government doesn't direct how the money will be spent. Is that the lay of the land? Have I got that correct?

Alan Bernstein (17:44)

You do, actually. That's the sort of the etymology of American funding institutions. And there are some that cover at least two. So the nih, for example, has a very large so called intramural program that funds research within government in Bethesda, Maryland. And then there's also institutions that actually fund the nih, also funds science at American University. So it does both. You also left off in that list a very important one, the Department of Energy. It funds about a billion dollars worth of research both in house and at American universities. And as you might imagine, the Department of Energy traditionally has been one of the leading research institutions for funding research on climate change and renewable energy.

David Frum (18:33)

So there are budget cuts, there are personnel cuts. There also is this immigration squeeze because the United States has often worked by attracting talent from all over the world, setting them to work in American universities. Many of those people then stay for the rest of their lives. Or science being so global. There are many people in the scientific world who have spouses or partners who come from other countries and their spouses or partners are under pressure, causing those scientists to reconsider their own careers. Tell me a little bit about the way that the immigration pressures affect science.

Alan Bernstein (19:04)

Well, again, historically, America has been a magnet for scientific talent for almost the entire 20th century. It started with a flood during World War II when many emigres from Germany, Austria, France came to the US and they set an important precedent. The success in building the atomic bomb under Oppenheimer was in large part due to those emigres. The one person that jumps out to me is Enrique Fermi, who went to Fermi Labs in the University of Chicago. He was an emigre from Italy and there's many, many others. That tradition has continued and young people from around the world want to come to America to do science for lots of obvious reasons. I think one is the institutions are so strong. They have the resources, they have the energy, the culture of we can do anything and if it's going to be done, it's going to be done in America. That sort of bravado is so characteristically American and it's evaporating before our eyes. Secondly, of course, having the immigration of people descending on some of the immigrants who are here on visas in the United States and either taking them away and imprisoning them or sending them home at the drop of a hat without any kind of hearing is sending a clear signal, not an ambiguous one. A clear signal. You are not welcome in the United States anymore. And so if I was a young person working in Europe, in Canada, Australia, you name it, I would not go to the United States at the moment to do my postgraduate degree or training. It just wouldn't happen. And indeed, I think that that pipeline of talent from abroad has probably shut down completely.

David Frum (20:56)

Let's talk about your special area of expertise, which is infectious diseases. There seems to be a special malice toward innovation and research in that area. Under Robert Kennedy Jr. The Department of Health and Human Services has announced they're going to do all these investigations into well attested vaccines whose safety and efficacy has been proven for dozens of years. Kennedy's promised some kind of big review in September. I don't know why he's taking that long. He knows the answer he wants and is going to enforce. He could do it tomorrow. Why the pretense that there's any real work here. And we are seeing this extraordinary outbreak or outbreaks of measles across the United States. How does that connect with government policy? How alarmed should people be about these outbreaks?

Alan Bernstein (21:36)

You know what's particularly frustrating for me, and I'm sure many of my colleagues in American science and in biomedical research in particular, is we are in a golden age in biomedical research. It is such an exciting time to be in this field, including in the vaccine field, because vaccines have been traditionally used against infectious disease. And indeed, it's hard to estimate the number of lives that have been saved because you can't count what hasn't happened. It's hard to count that. You can count how many people die, but you can't count how many people you've saved. But it's of the order of hundreds of millions of people around the world whose lives have been saved because of vaccines. Smallpox, which was the world's largest killer over centuries, has been eradicated. There is no smallpox in the world today. It is eliminated completely, largely through American know how in America, in perseverance with the who, in partnership with the who, ditto with polio and measles. So a young physician today has never seen smallpox, has never seen polio, has never seen measles. And so when it appears they're seeing a new disease, and these were diseases certainly when I was growing up, and I suspect, David, when you were growing up, my mother wouldn't let me go swimming in a common swimming pool because of polio. We don't worry about polio anymore today. We shouldn't, because children should be vaccinated. And Kennedy's point that they haven't been proven to be safe is really a criticism of the fda. It's saying that the FDA has not done their job properly. Well, if you look at the fda, it is the gold standard for approving new drugs and vaccines. It's very stringent. It really does a superb job. And it always outweighs the risks and the benefits of any drug, including vaccines. And so it's hard to imagine a medicine that has not got some risk associated to it. And the thing about vaccines, which makes it hard to convince somebody that they really are good and they should be taken as their children should certainly take them, is when you take a pill when you're sick and you get better, you go, oh, that pill made me better. When you take a preventative vaccine, you don't get ill. And so there's no miraculous recovery. There's the absence of disease and you could always say, and people do say this, well, I wouldn't have got the disease anyways. So there wasn't the vaccine.

David Frum (24:15)

And sometimes your arm is a little sore and sometimes you have a reaction to the introduction of the agent in the vaccine. And sometimes if you are phobic, the vaccination is followed by all kinds of psychosomatic symptoms, and psychosomatic symptoms appear to the receiver of those symptoms just as real as actually symptoms caused by organic illnesses in the body. So people have a lot of reasons for attributing the problems in their lives to this disruption, especially if, and I'm. I am surprised to discover how many people have this feeling they are phobic about having a needle inserted into their body. But one of the things that bothers me a lot, there's an intellectual movement right now in the United States very properly, to look back at the COVID experience and to learn lessons from it, as of course exactly should happen. And there's a lot of criticism of measures that were taken that may be overshot. And in particular the decision to keep schools closed past the fall of 2020. States where schools open pretty rapidly have done much better by children than states where schools were kept closed for long periods of time. But this is essentially a politically right coded movement, or when it's done by more liberal people, there are people who are speaking to right coded audiences. And I just read an important book published by University Press by two liberal leaning academics and went through all the things that were done wrong and many of which I agree with, Keeping the.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (25:32)

Schools Closed Too Long.

David Frum (25:33)

The book was called How Politics. I think something like How Politics Failed Us. And they, and they have one paragraph about vaccine resistance because they say, well, that's inherent in the population. Politics didn't cause that. Well, of course politics killed those people. There's a lot of research. They're not randomly distributed. They are concentrated in red states and red counties. If you're lived in a red state or red county, your leaders, political and cultural, the people you looked up to, risked your life and got many of your co adherents killed in order to score political points. I mean, it is, it's astonishing, it's shocking, it's a crime. And we've accepted it as a normal part of politics.

Alan Bernstein (26:09)

So there's a couple of interesting facts about all this. I think if we were Talking about this 500 years from now or 300 years from now, and we look back and say it's remarkable that whether you wore a mask or not or took a vaccine or not, at the height of this pandemic, depended on your political party that you belong to, no one would believe you. It's like in America. And yet it happened, and it happened five years ago. So that's perplexing. Now, I think there's a mea culpa here. I think the scientific community everywhere did not do things perfectly. And I think the mistake we made, we need to make sure we don't do it again. As we talk to the public, here are the facts, here's what we know you should do or not do, as opposed to saying, here's what the facts as we know them today, this might change. And we've never encountered this virus before. We don't know whether lockdowns are good, bad or indifferent. Here's the consequences of locking down, not locking down, et cetera. We need some hubris here, some modesty, admission that we don't know everything. Science is based on evidence and facts. How can you have evidence before the fact? So I think there was a bit of too much black and white. This is the way it is on the part of the scientific community. And so when we first said, you should wear a mask. Sorry, sorry. You should wash your hands and wash surfaces, and then weeks later changed our minds and said, no, no, no, actually you should wear a mask because this virus is in aerosols, not on surfaces. I think that caused a lot of lack of confidence amongst the general public about the scientific community.

David Frum (28:09)

I want to take that load of guilt off the. I think when scientists talk to the general public, they assume some basic grade 8 familiarity with science. So it is the most natural thing in the world for scientists to say something square bracket state of knowledge today obvious. I mean, as you say, I have heard from many people, well, they said one thing in March, they said a different thing in May, they said a different thing in September. How can we trust them? I think this is not religion, and that's how you know you should trust them.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (28:37)

If it.

David Frum (28:39)

If they said the same thing all the way through, they'd be priests, not scientists. And the scientists assumed some basic literacy from the public. And they also assumed some good faith in the political system, where it's not the job of scientists to communicate the science, it's the job of political leaders. And those political leaders are unused to an atmosphere of such malice and distortion as existed in 2020 and even more in 2021. I think a lot of what happened during COVID was there had been a Republican president during 2020. He had mishandled the disease in many important ways. Then there was a Democratic president. In 2021, things began to be handled somewhat better and there was a political imperative to make 2021 a failure.

Alan Bernstein (29:19)

So, you know, I'm a scientist, so I'll speak about the science. You know, the great. And you alluded to, David, the great strength of science is that it's not ideological, is based on the currently available data or evidence. And so when scientists change their mind, the public still, despite the grade 8 education that you refer to, the public still says, you're changing your mind. That's not good. Whereas to the scientific community, that's what it's all about. That's the strength of science, not the weakness of science. It's not religion. It's not an ideology, political ideology. And so I think it goes back to how we teach science in schools. We teach it as a series of facts as opposed to the way to look at the world and to change our minds as the evidence changes.

David Frum (30:09)

Can I ask you about how powerful the stop start button is for the scientific endeavor? So right now, the government is pressing stop on Parkinson's, stop on Alzheimer's, stop on many vaccines. Five years from now if you press start, four years from now if you press start, how quickly does the start ignition sequence resume after the stop button that has been pressed today?

Alan Bernstein (30:30)

That's a great question. And, you know, I think the right answer is it depends. You know, we don't know what the Trump administration is going to do tomorrow, never mind five years from now. So I think we all wake up in the morning wondering what the news will bear about what the Trump administration is doing now. So I think a lot depends on how long these cuts. I'll just use cuts or attack on universities in science, how long that goes on and how deeply those cuts actually take are in the end of the day. And I don't know the answers to either of those questions. I don't think anybody does. I don't think President Trump does. So I think how quickly things recover will depend on those variables, and we don't know the answer. I do think that institutions take longer to recover than individuals. The thing that we all need to remember is talent can move. You know, I have a publication from Europe that has listed in its latest edition all the things that European countries are now doing to attract American scientists, especially young people who are finding that their careers are cut off or ended because of what's going on. And so talent can move to Europe easily. And we'll be watching to see what happens in The United States four years from now, if it doesn't change, they'll stay in Europe just like the emigres moved to the United States when the atmosphere changed radically in Nazi Germany, for example, or Fascist Italy. So what happens will depend on a lot of things that I don't pretend to know the future, but I do know that science is going to continue elsewhere, and particularly in the eu. Canada's going to reinvest. The new prime minister said he will reinvest in science and in China. China is investing huge, huge amounts and increasing it by 10, 20% a year over the next few years. And so if one thinks about the standoffs between these two great superpowers, the United States and China, we have the United States attacking one of its most powerful weapons in the current 21st century war between countries, and the Chinese investing. Now, which one do you think is right? Well, I go back to what Harry Truman said after World War II. Science played a major role in winning World War II. The drones that were used or are being used by the Ukraine in the war on Russia, those drones are largely powered by artificial intelligence. AI didn't just happen. AI came out of universities. The Nobel Prize in physics this year went to Geoffrey Hinton, who works at the University of Toronto. So the new weapons of warfare are largely going to come out of universities. I think that's not a prediction. That's a safe prediction. And yet Americans are attacking those universities where all this is happening.

David Frum (33:24)

If you were to talk to people in the Trump administration about what they were doing, and if they were to answer you, which they tend not to do, but if they did, I think they would say, look, we're not waging a war on science. We're waging a war on dei, diversity, equity and inclusion. We're waging a war. We're trying to stop all these crazy client scientists who are bringing us news that either we don't think is true or that we don't want to hear. We're cracking down on the people who warn us about Russian disinformation because we think that harms many of our friends and allies who are spreading Russian disinformation, often for pay. And I think they also have a sense of, there may be some sense of ideology that this research anyway should be done to the private sector, not the public, public sector. So we're not waging a war on science as such. We have a very specific list of targets. Do you see any merit to any of that? Is there anything that one could concede to the case that they're prosecuting or is it just dumbassery all the way down?

Alan Bernstein (34:15)

Look, I don't think universities are perfect. I think there is a lot of wokeism that probably is gone a bit too far. But having said that, I would quickly add the great strength of, of universities and the role of universities and the role of acquiring new knowledge is to challenge the status quo. You know, if you're just going to reaffirm the status quo, you don't need a university to do that. And that goes back to Galileo. You know, 500 years ago, Galileo challenged the church. The church does the earth go around the sun or vice versa? So I think political leaders have to allow for this freedom and this openness and small l liberalism that goes on in universities if they're going to get the kind of value out of universities that have been going on for a thousand years now, since Oxford was created. So I think there needs to be an understanding on the basis of our political leaders that dissent looking at different ways of doing things can be uncomfortable. And that is the role of the universities. No other institution in society does that as well as a university. In fact, no other institution in society as far as I can think, does that at all. So I think we need to acknowledge that and the politicians need to acknowledge.

David Frum (35:39)

That and tolerate it as we end remind us of what the stakes are here. How close are we to breakthroughs in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other diseases that seem to be yielding to scientific investigation as we speak?

Alan Bernstein (35:54)

I don't like predicting the future and I don't like talking as a biomedical scientist. Cancer has been my own area. I don't like saying it's around the corner because then people lose interest after a while. But I do think if I look in the immediate past, how remarkable the progress has been not just in scientific advances, but in clinical advances. I think back to when my wife had breast cancer. Now, as you reminded me 15 years ago, she would not be alive today if she had had that cancer 25 years ago. Certainly when I started in cancer research, I won't say how many years ago, we knew nothing about the cancer cell. The tools that clinicians had at their disposal were crude at best. Crude at best. Today we know the most intimate molecular changes that makes a cancer cell behave differently than a normal cell. We know the mutations in the DNA that are causing these changes and we know the effects on the proteins that those genes code for. Now we can design drugs that, that exploit those changes. And so if you're a woman with breast Cancer, you're going to be treated if your cells are HER2 positive. I'm sure every woman knows that phrase. You'll be treated with Herceptin because we know that molecular difference. If you have chronic myelogenous leukemia, you'll be treated with Gleevec. Or if you have GI stromal cancer, you'll be treated with Gleevec. These are all based on information that's come out over the last dozen years or so. Of course, now the big excitement, and not just in cancer, but in other diseases, is using vaccines to treat disease and to prevent disease. So again, these are advances that have happened recently and are on the horizon to continue to happen. So I'll take in contrast to where cancer research is, which I view as the beachhead disease, if you will. If you think about mental illness, schizophrenia, bipolar disease, we have only very crude tools to treat those very serious diseases. And the reason is we don't understand those diseases. But I think every scientist who's working in the field of biomedical science is optimistic that it is just a matter of time before we will understand really serious diseases like bipolar depression, Alzheimer's, dementia, and from that will come a whole new class of drugs. And when that will happen, I don't know. But I think what we have been seeing is an acceleration of new drugs coming on the market because of the advances that have been made at universities and exploited correctly by the pharmaceutical industry. So this is a very exciting time. And so to cut that off would be just a shame. Just a shame.

David Frum (38:52)

Thank you so much for your time today.

Alan Bernstein (38:54)

My pleasure, David.

David Frum (39:00)

An official message from Medicare.

Medicare Advertiser (39:03)

I'm saving money on my Medicare prescriptions. Maybe you can save too. With Medicare's extra help program, my premium is 0 and my out of pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $24,000 a year or. Or married couples who make less than $32,000. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays.

David Frum (39:23)

To find out, go to ssa.gov extrahelp paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Mint Mobile Advertiser (39:30)

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it.

David Frum (39:47)

Are you.

Mint Mobile Advertiser (39:47)

Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com switch.

Target Advertiser (39:53)

Upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan $15 per month equivalent required New customer offer first 3 months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra.

David Frum (39:59)

See mintmobile.com thank you so much to Ellen Bernstein. Now some questions from viewers and listeners. The first comes from Nathan. In Donald Trump's first term, there were innumerable norm violations. The administration's M.O. seemed to be, if there isn't a law explicitly prohibiting an action, we can take that action. After Trump won, why were there no efforts to codify any of the gray areas or the ones that everyone had previously thought no president would ever do that? Is it because people wanted to keep the possibility of using those same tactics open to themselves in the future? If so, what do you think that says about the direction of the country and the culture within the government? Now, first, I want to stress that there was one very important reform after the Trump administration, and that was the reform of the Electoral Count Act. The law now makes clear, as it mostly made clear before, but now it unmistakably makes clear that the vice president.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (40:55)

Of the United States does not have.

David Frum (40:56)

The authority to substitute his or her own judgment for the judgment of the people of the states and in the electoral count process. So one of the very worst things that Donald Trump tried to do, use violence to intimidate his vice president into overthrowing the 2020 election, that can't be done anymore.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (41:13)

And so that's a change.

David Frum (41:15)

But for the most part, I think that's right. I think we have been reluctant to. Part of it, I think, is just it's hard for Americans to take on.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (41:22)

Board the magnitude of the criminality in.

David Frum (41:24)

The first Trump term. We maybe have made a serious mistake about that as we see the even greater magnitude of criminality in the second Trump term.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (41:32)

But I would also caution there is.

David Frum (41:34)

A problem with trying to write things into law. The American culture and the American mentality are very legalistic. Americans tend to assume that the law is the divide, and they will often.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (41:44)

Say, if something is not illegal, that.

David Frum (41:46)

Means it's okay for me to do. But in life, there are lots of.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (41:50)

Things that are not literally illegal but that you still shouldn't do. And in a free society, we don't write down everything that could be an offense and try to turn it into law. We have to rely to some degree.

David Frum (42:02)

On the public spirit and decency of people.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (42:05)

And that needs to be especially true with people in the highest reaches of the land.

David Frum (42:09)

You know, we talked about this last.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (42:12)

Week with Peter Kiesler, the former attorney general under George W. Bush, to some degree. Democracy is going to have to be the answer here. We cannot write laws for everything. We can't anticipate every contingency. What we can say instead is with.

David Frum (42:26)

The famous prayer of John Adams that is carved into the lintel or into.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (42:31)

The mantelpiece of the East Room.

David Frum (42:33)

Let none but honest and wise men update that to men and women.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (42:36)

Let none but honest and wise men and women rule under this roof. We have seen what happens when there is an abuser and we may have outrun the limits of law.

David Frum (42:46)

From KC it seems to me that there is an argument that Trump and.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (42:50)

Republican legislators are acting as if there will never be another Democratic majority or administration that might hold investigations or hearings into their behavior. This leads me to believe that the.

David Frum (43:00)

26 and 28 elections won't be rigged. Rather, I'm beginning to believe that Trump.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (43:05)

Will look for ways a national emergency.

David Frum (43:07)

Perhaps not to hold them at all. Your thoughts?

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (43:10)

Am I worrying needlessly? No one is worrying needlessly when they.

David Frum (43:13)

Worry about the integrity of the 2026 and 2028 elections. I worry about it all the time.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (43:19)

But we need to focus what it is exactly. We're worried about that for Donald Trump to try to turn off the elections altogether by declaring a national emergency and calling out the army and using powers.

David Frum (43:30)

Left over from the Cold War and.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (43:32)

World War II, that's a constitutional crisis. In the end, that is the kind of scenario that is met by people in the streets and is met by officers of the army refusing to obey illegal orders from the president. I think that case is so intense that we can't plan for it. We can plan for are the things that we can see that are already underway and those are attempts to sabotage vote counts to make it difficult for the Democrats to fundraise or any opponent of Donald Trump to fundraise and to concentrate sabotaging efforts in the states that are most likely to swing one way or another, the Wisconsin's, the North Carolinas, the Georgias. It's a state level problem. So where I think your energy needs to go is in focusing attention on your state governors, state legislators and state courts to make sure that they will uphold honest, free and fair elections in the respective states. We have seen the enormous pressure in the state of North Carolina to prepare a false outcome in 2026. Citizen vigilance has been mobilized and citizen vigilance needs to stay mobilized again. It's a Democratic problem and your attention is the best answer. So if there's something you want to do between now and 2026 make sure that that the vote will be honest in the states where the vote is most in doubt. Last from Josh I'm a high school government teacher. So much of my teaching is centered on hope and optimism about our civic system and our citizenry. Hope and optimism felt like a lie.

David Frum (44:58)

In the Trump era.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (44:59)

Is there a hopeful and optimistic message that properly addresses the current climate that I can give to my students now? As I'm sure Josh well understands, it's not the place of a teacher to tell students, particularly near voters like those in high school, what they should think or who they should support. Many students will have many different views, and that's as it should be. And all the points of view should, of course, be treated with attention and.

David Frum (45:20)

Respect in the classroom.

David Frum (continuation or emphasis) (45:22)

But I think a message that a teacher can communicate is to say to the students, this is a moment where their country really needs them and it's an honor and a privilege to be alive at a time when your country needs you. And without telling them the exact nature of that need. And without in any way presuming to direct their actions to make them feel like their vote matters and their actions matter. You know, as we've discussed today, a lot of the secret weapon of Trumpism is cynicism and despair and a feeling like, oh well, things are unfolding without me. Lol. Nothing matters. But everything matters. Your students matter. Teach them that and watch them be better citizens. Thank you so much for the questions. Please send next week's to producer@the davidfromshow.com thank you so much for watching and listening. Remember, please, it matters a lot to the algorithm gods that you rate and review and like and subscribe, whether you listen on Audible Podcast or whether you view us on YouTube. Thanks for your comments on YouTube. Those also really matter and I try to read as many of them as I can. I don't always respond, but I see so many of them and I'm so grateful for them and so often touched by their warmth. Thank you for watching this episode. See you again next week.

David Frum (46:32)

I'm David Frum. This episode of the David Frum show was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdes. It was engineered by Dave Grine. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards. Claudine Abayad is the Executive producer of Atlantic Audio and Andrea Valdez is our Managing Editor. I'm David Frum. Thank you for listening.