Storytelling with Impact | Science

Paula Hammond: A new superweapon in the fight against cancer @ TED Talks Live

October 28, 2020/in Genetics, Science, TED, TED Talk/by Mark Lovett

TED Talks Live were held at The Town Hall Theater in NYC, in November of 2015. I had the pleasure of attending all six nights to hear speakers present impactful Ideas Worth Spreading. This post is an analysis of a talk by Paula Hammond on how science is developing new techniques for battling the most aggressive and tricky forms of cancer.

Watch Paula’s TED Talk. Notice how she narrows the focus of her story to just a subset of cancers that are the most difficult to treat, then masterfully describes the problem, the solution, and the results of these new treatments.

Transcript

(my notes in red)

Cancer affects all of us — especially the ones that come back over and over again, the highly invasive and drug-resistant ones, the ones that defy medical treatment, even when we throw our best drugs at them. Engineering at the molecular level, working at the smallest of scales, can provide exciting new ways to fight the most aggressive forms of cancer.

Paula’s opening phrase, that ‘Cancer affects all of us’, is powerful in that it speaks to a disease we all know about, but I wish she had continued with something along the lines of, ‘While not everyone gets cancer, most everyone knows someone – friend, relative, co-worker – who has dealt with it.’ That would have been a much better way to expand on the narrative thread.

The balance of her opening establishes the context of her story as she speaks about the most challenging forms of cancer and a strategy of working at the molecular level to address them.

Cancer is a very clever disease. There are some forms of cancer, which, fortunately, we’ve learned how to address relatively well with known and established drugs and surgery. But there are some forms of cancer that don’t respond to these approaches, and the tumor survives or comes back, even after an onslaught of drugs.

Paula’s slide helps to illustrate the broad range of cancers, and the fact that while therapies have been developed to address some types, others do remain resistant to those therapies. She doesn’t need to list them off, the slide provides that information to the audience.

We can think of these very aggressive forms of cancer as kind of supervillains in a comic book. They’re clever, they’re adaptable, and they’re very good at staying alive. And, like most supervillains these days, their superpowers come from a genetic mutation. The genes that are modified inside these tumor cells can enable and encode for new and unimagined modes of survival, allowing the cancer cell to live through even our best chemotherapy treatments.

Using the term ‘supervillains’ is an appropriate analogy to describe how powerful and crafty these cancers are, and how difficult it is to defeat them. In this case, their craftiness comes from ‘a genetic mutation’, and to explain that term, Paula describes how the process works using language that the general public can better understand. This is something to keep in mind if your story contains terminology (on any topic) that your audience may not fully grasp when they hear it. Think about how you can explain what the term means in simpler words.

One example is a trick in which a gene allows a cell, even as the drug approaches the cell, to push the drug out, before the drug can have any effect. Imagine — the cell effectively spits out the drug. This is just one example of the many genetic tricks in the bag of our supervillain, cancer. All due to mutant genes.

While such mutations may manifest in many ways, Paula cites one example to illustrate her point. In a longer talk, 2 or 3 examples could be cited in order to paint a more detailed and diverse picture of the problem, but even this one example underscores the concept of cancer’s trickery. Identifying multiple story blocks will give you the option to expand or contract the length of your story.

So, we have a supervillain with incredible superpowers. And we need a new and powerful mode of attack. Actually, we can turn off a gene. The key is a set of molecules known as siRNA. siRNA are short sequences of genetic code that guide a cell to block a certain gene. Each siRNA molecule can turn off a specific gene inside the cell. For many years since its discovery, scientists have been very excited about how we can apply these gene blockers in medicine.

Once again, a technical term – siRNA – is simply explained and connected to the previous passage. A gene causes the problem, this approach blocks the gene. Easy to understand.

Paula then says, ‘For many years since its discovery…’, which is general in nature and keeps the focus of the sentence on the fact that scientists have been excited about the possibilities.

An alternative approach would have been to specify the year of discovery and/or name the scientists who made the discovery. That would add a sense of historical perspective and give credit to those who pioneered the technology. In the end it’s up to the speaker to determine how that statement will be worded. Something to consider when crafting your narrative.

But, there is a problem. siRNA works well inside the cell. But if it gets exposed to the enzymes that reside in our bloodstream or our tissues, it degrades within seconds. It has to be packaged, protected through its journey through the body on its way to the final target inside the cancer cell.

Some solutions are straightforward and easy to implement, but often times there’s a catch, a challenge that prevents the solution to work as intended. The use of words such as ‘exposed’, ‘degrades’, ‘packaged’, and ‘protected’ are common, nontechnical terms that clearly explain the problem and resolution.

So, here’s our strategy. First, we’ll dose the cancer cell with siRNA, the gene blocker, and silence those survival genes, and then we’ll whop it with a chemo drug. But how do we carry that out? Using molecular engineering, we can actually design a superweapon that can travel through the bloodstream. It has to be tiny enough to get through the bloodstream, it’s got to be small enough to penetrate the tumor tissue, and it’s got to be tiny enough to be taken up inside the cancer cell. To do this job well, it has to be about one one-hundredth the size of a human hair.

Paula’s use of ‘supervillain’, ‘superpower’, and ‘superweapon’, creates an alliteration of sorts (please correct me if you have a better grammar definition) that takes the listener from the ‘villain’ to ‘weapon’ via ‘power’.

Let’s take a closer look at how we can build this nanoparticle. First, let’s start with the nanoparticle core. It’s a tiny capsule that contains the chemotherapy drug. This is the poison that will actually end the tumor cell’s life. Around this core, we’ll wrap a very thin, nanometers-thin blanket of siRNA. This is our gene blocker. Because siRNA is strongly negatively charged, we can protect it with a nice, protective layer of positively charged polymer. The two oppositely charged molecules stick together through charge attraction, and that provides us with a protective layer that prevents the siRNA from degrading in the bloodstream. We’re almost done.

In the previous passage Paula explains what the solution has to do, and in this passage she talks about how that was actually done. Think about these three steps – this is what the problem looked like, this is what the solution needs to look like, and this is how that solution was created. This is a beautiful way to present a technical story to a nontechnical audience.

But there is one more big obstacle we have to think about. In fact, it may be the biggest obstacle of all. How do we deploy this superweapon? I mean, every good weapon needs to be targeted, we have to target this superweapon to the supervillain cells that reside in the tumor.

But our bodies have a natural immune-defense system: cells that reside in the bloodstream and pick out things that don’t belong, so that it can destroy or eliminate them. And guess what? Our nanoparticle is considered a foreign object. We have to sneak our nanoparticle past the tumor defense system. We have to get it past this mechanism of getting rid of the foreign object by disguising it.

So we add one more negatively charged layer around this nanoparticle, which serves two purposes. First, this outer layer is one of the naturally charged, highly hydrated polysaccharides that resides in our body. It creates a cloud of water molecules around the nanoparticle that gives us an invisibility cloaking effect. This invisibility cloak allows the nanoparticle to travel through the bloodstream long and far enough to reach the tumor, without getting eliminated by the body.

On one level we know this process is highly complex, but using ‘a cloud of water molecules’ to provide an ‘invisibility cloak’ is all we need. We understand the concept of using a disguise to avoid detection.

Second, this layer contains molecules which bind specifically to our tumor cell. Once bound, the cancer cell takes up the nanoparticle, and now we have our nanoparticle inside the cancer cell and ready to deploy. Alright! I feel the same way. Let’s go!

Paula is so clear in describing the problem and solution she’s dealing with that the audience gets excited and cheers. They can sense victory. This is no easy task, but if your story involves a problem / solution scenario, think about how you can build up a sense of anticipation and accomplishment within your narrative.

The siRNA is deployed first. It acts for hours, giving enough time to silence and block those survival genes. We have now disabled those genetic superpowers. What remains is a cancer cell with no special defenses. Then, the chemotherapy drug comes out of the core and destroys the tumor cell cleanly and efficiently. With sufficient gene blockers, we can address many different kinds of mutations, allowing the chance to sweep out tumors, without leaving behind any bad guys.

So, how does our strategy work? We’ve tested these nanostructure particles in animals using a highly aggressive form of triple-negative breast cancer. This triple-negative breast cancer exhibits the gene that spits out cancer drug as soon as it is delivered. Usually, doxorubicin — let’s call it “dox” — is the cancer drug that is the first line of treatment for breast cancer. So, we first treated our animals with a dox core, dox only. The tumor slowed their rate of growth, but they still grew rapidly, doubling in size over a period of two weeks.

Then, we tried our combination superweapon. A nanolayer particle with siRNA against the chemo pump, plus, we have the dox in the core. And look — we found that not only did the tumors stop growing, they actually decreased in size and were eliminated in some cases. The tumors were actually regressing.

Once a solution has been architected, it must be deployed, else it’s just a theory. In this passage, which is just over a minute, Paula provides a specific case where the solution was used. Note how she delivers the final sentence – ‘The tumors were actually regressing.’ – her pace slows as she clearly enunciates each word, one at a time. We feel the importance of her words and understand the impact that her solution had on the cancer.

What’s great about this approach is that it can be personalized. We can add many different layers of siRNA to address different mutations and tumor defense mechanisms. And we can put different drugs into the nanoparticle core. As doctors learn how to test patients and understand certain tumor genetic types, they can help us determine which patients can benefit from this strategy and which gene blockers we can use.

Ovarian cancer strikes a special chord with me. It is a very aggressive cancer, in part because it’s discovered at very late stages, when it’s highly advanced and there are a number of genetic mutations. After the first round of chemotherapy, this cancer comes back for 75 percent of patients. And it usually comes back in a drug-resistant form. High-grade ovarian cancer is one of the biggest supervillains out there. And we’re now directing our superweapon toward its defeat.

As a researcher, I usually don’t get to work with patients. But I recently met a mother who is an ovarian cancer survivor, Mimi, and her daughter, Paige. I was deeply inspired by the optimism and strength that both mother and daughter displayed and by their story of courage and support. At this event, we spoke about the different technologies directed at cancer. And Mimi was in tears as she explained how learning about these efforts gives her hope for future generations, including her own daughter. This really touched me. It’s not just about building really elegant science. It’s about changing people’s lives. It’s about understanding the power of engineering on the scale of molecules.

A key aspect of the Ideation phase is to identify why your story matters to those who will be listening, watching or reading. Paula does just that as she uses a story block about another person – in this instance two people, the mother and daughter – to bring home the message that ‘engineering on the scale of molecules’ has such far reaching effects, and may very well touch those in the audience.

I know that as students like Paige move forward in their careers, they’ll open new possibilities in addressing some of the big health problems in the world — including ovarian cancer, neurological disorders, infectious disease — just as chemical engineering has found a way to open doors for me, and has provided a way of engineering on the tiniest scale, that of molecules, to heal on the human scale.

In conclusion, Paula provides three examples – varian cancer, neurological disorders, and infectious disease – where this technology may deliver promising solutions. She brilliantly ends with a connection between ‘tiniest scale’ and ‘human scale’.

I encourage you to watch this talk a second time. Pay attention to how every word matters, and how she constructs the problem / solution storyline. Despite the complexity of her topic, we are never lost or confused. In similar fashion, your story should ideally take people on a journey without any bumps along the way.

Thank you.

[Note: all comments inserted into this transcript are my opinions, not those of the speaker, the TED organization, nor anyone else on the planet. In my view, each story is unique, as is every interpretation of that story. The sole purpose of these analytical posts is to inspire a storyteller to become a storylistener, and in doing so, make their stories more impactful.]

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!

James Green: 3 moons and a planet that could have alien life @ TED Talks Live

October 21, 2020/in Science, Technology, TED, TED Talk/by Mark Lovett

TED Talks Live were held at The Town Hall Theater in NYC, in November of 2015. I had the pleasure of attending all six nights to hear speakers present impactful Ideas Worth Spreading. This post is an analysis of a talk by James Green about a planet and three moons within our solar system that may be home to lifeforms of some sort.

Watch James’ TED Talk. Most science talks are based on research performed in a laboratory. Hypotheses are codified, tests performed, and the results published. But once we leave the earth, the concept is a bit different. While any scientific discovery involves speculation, this factor becomes more prevalent off planet.

If your story involves science, and you’re thinking that science can’t be fun or it won’t seem exciting, this is a talk that will convince you otherwise. It’s a brilliant example of how technical information can be brought to life.

Transcript

(my notes in red)

Is there life beyond Earth in our solar system?

Asking a rhetorical question can serve as a powerful opening. As a reminder, rhetorical questions are asked in order to make a point and/or stimulate the thought process of a listener. It’s not meant to solicit an answer. In this case, James asks a question that’s been asked for thousands of years, and it’s one that most of us would love to have an answer to.

This question provides a physical frame of reference – not on earth, but still within our own solar system. Rhetorical questions can take us back in time, or into the future. Phrases such as ‘Imagine you are…’, or ‘What if…’ signals the audience that you want them to change their perspective away from the here and now. In doing so, it sparks their imagination.

Note: In general, I’m not a fan of speakers asking literal questions as a way to engage their audience. It makes sense in very specific situations but the majority of the time it’s a feeble attempt to connect with the audience, and indicates a weakness in the speaker’s story.

Wow, what a powerful question. You know, as a scientist — planetary scientist — we really didn’t take that very seriously until recently. Carl Sagan always said, “It takes extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.” And the claims of having life beyond Earth need to be definitive, they need to be loud and they need to be everywhere for us to be able to believe it.

James takes a moment to frame how he will answer the question in his talk – from a scientific point of view – one that is based on evidence.

So how do we make this journey? What we decided to do is first look for those ingredients for life. The ingredients of life are: liquid water — we have to have a solvent, can’t be ice, has to be liquid. We also have to have energy. We also have to have organic material — things that make us up, but also things that we need to consume. So we have to have these elements in environments for long periods of time for us to be able to be confident that life, in that moment when it starts, can spark and then grow and evolve.

James provides another aspect of the framing, so that there is clarity regarding the process. When your story is intended for a public audience, don’t assume they will know each of the parameters that you’re working within. In most situations you will need to be explicit. Otherwise, confusion will crop up later in your narrative.

Well, I have to tell you that early in my career, when we looked at those three elements, I didn’t believe that they were beyond Earth in any length of time and for any real quantity. Why? We look at the inner planets. Venus is way too hot — it’s got no water. Mars — dry and arid. It’s got no water. And beyond Mars, the water in the solar system is all frozen.

In this brief historical story block, James looks back to describe what scientists previously thought about the question at hand. This is a common technique, used to contrast how things were in the past versus how things are today.

But recent observations have changed all that. It’s now turning our attention to the right places for us to take a deeper look and really start to answer our life question. So when we look out into the solar system, where are the possibilities? We’re concentrating our attention on four locations. The planet Mars and then three moons of the outer planets: Titan, Europa and small Enceladus.

The use of this visual image is impactful as the planet and moons he’s referring to become more that just his words. We can see the relative sizes and differences in color. We are not given any details, yet our imaginations continue to engage.

So what about Mars? Let’s go through the evidence. Well, Mars we thought was initially moon-like: full of craters, arid and a dead world. And so about 15 years ago, we started a series of missions to go to Mars and see if water existed on Mars in its past that changed its geology. We ought to be able to notice that. And indeed we started to be surprised right away. Our higher resolution images show deltas and river valleys and gulleys that were there in the past.

And in fact, Curiosity — which has been roving on the surface now for about three years — has really shown us that it’s sitting in an ancient river bed, where water flowed rapidly. And not for a little while, perhaps hundreds of millions of years. And if everything was there, including organics, perhaps life had started. Curiosity has also drilled in that red soil and brought up other material. And we were really excited when we saw that. Because it wasn’t red Mars, it was gray material, it’s gray Mars. We brought it into the rover, we tasted it, and guess what? We tasted organics — carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur — they were all there.

You can hear the excitement in his voice, the sense of surprise at what the rover had found. As you listen to your rehearsal recordings, always pay attention to whether the emotion on the page is reflected in your voice. Happy, sad, angry and perplexed have unique tones.

So Mars in its past, with a lot of water, perhaps plenty of time, could have had life, could have had that spark, could have grown. And is that life still there? We don’t know that. But a few years ago we started to look at a number of craters. During the summer, dark lines would appear down the sides of these craters. The more we looked, the more craters we saw, the more of these features. We now know more than a dozen of them.

A few months ago the fairy tale came true. We announced to the world that we know what these streaks are. It’s liquid water. These craters are weeping during the summer. Liquid water is flowing down these craters. So what are we going to do now — now that we see the water? Well, it tells us that Mars has all the ingredients necessary for life. In its past it had perhaps two-thirds of its northern hemisphere — there was an ocean. It has weeping water right now. Liquid water on its surface. It has organics. It has all the right conditions. So what are we going to do next? We’re going to launch a series of missions to begin that search for life on Mars. And now it’s more appealing than ever before.

Science becomes real when it’s described in language that the average person understands. We understand the search for water, the discovery of a river bed, a robotic rover identifying elements, and craters weeping water. Without being there we can visualize what James is describing.

He doesn’t just say, ‘we went to Mars and discovered water and chemicals’, he takes the time – in this instance around 3 minutes – to paint a vivid picture with words, but he also includes images that say so much more. Think about how you can use a combination of sentences and images to give your audience a richer experience.

05:23
As we move out into the solar system, here’s the tiny moon Enceladus. This is not in what we call the traditional habitable zone, this area around the sun. This is much further out. This object should be ice over a silicate core.

But what did we find? Cassini was there since 2006, and after a couple years looked back after it flew by Enceladus and surprised us all. Enceladus is blasting sheets of water out into the solar system and sloshing back down onto the moon. What a fabulous environment. Cassini just a few months ago also flew through the plume, and it measured silicate particles. Where does the silica come from? It must come from the ocean floor. The tidal energy is generated by Saturn, pulling and squeezing this moon — is melting that ice, creating an ocean. But it’s also doing that to the core.

Now, the only thing that we can think of that does that here on Earth as an analogy … are hydrothermal vents. Hydrothermal vents deep in our ocean were discovered in 1977. Oceanographers were completely surprised. And now there are thousands of these below the ocean.

What do we find? The oceanographers, when they go and look at these hydrothermal vents, they’re teeming with life, regardless of whether the water is acidic or alkaline — doesn’t matter. So hydrothermal vents are a fabulous abode for life here on Earth. So what about Enceladus? Well, we believe because it has water and has had it for a significant period of time, and we believe it has hydrothermal vents, with perhaps the right organic material, it is a place where life could exist. And not just microbial — maybe more complex because it’s had time to evolve.

In this story about the moon Enceladus, James uses an analogy to compare something we’re unsure of, to something here on Earth that we do have knowledge of. This is a big ‘what if’ as the answer to what’s happening on Enceladus isn’t known so he uses the phrase ‘we believe’. When you’re presenting scientific information, it’s important to differentiate between what is ‘believed’ versus ‘what has been proven’. The phrase ‘it now seems’ is rather different from saying ‘we now know’.

Another moon, very similar, is Europa. Galileo visited Jupiter’s system in 1996 and made fabulous observations of Europa. Europa, we also know, has an under-the-ice crust ocean. Galileo mission told us that, but we never saw any plumes. But we didn’t look for them. Hubble, just a couple years ago, observing Europa, saw plumes of water spraying from the cracks in the southern hemisphere, just exactly like Enceladus.

These moons, which are not in what we call a traditional habitable zone, that are out in the solar system, have liquid water. And if there are organics there, there may be life. This is a fabulous set of discoveries because these moons have been in this environment like that for billions of years. Life started here on Earth, we believe, after about the first 500 million, and look where we are. These moons are fabulous moons.

Another moon that we’re looking at is Titan. Titan is a huge moon of Saturn. It perhaps is much larger than the planet Mercury. It has an extensive atmosphere. It’s so extensive — and it’s mostly nitrogen with a little methane and ethane — that you have to peer through it with radar. And on the surface, Cassini has found liquid. We see lakes … actually almost the size of our Black Sea in some places. And this area is not liquid water; it’s methane. If there’s any place in the solar system where life is not like us, where the substitute of water is another solvent — and it could be methane — it could be Titan.

Early on James states that one of the requirements for life is a liquid solvent, which I assumed would be water. But in describing Titan he speaks about another solvent – methane – that could also work. That had me wondering how life could exist in a liquid solvent other than water. I would have appreciated the addition of one minute to this talk for an explanation.

But my desire serves to highlight the potential problem of a story’s length. If James was only given ten minutes for this talk, that extra minute wasn’t in the cards, unless the story was cut elsewhere, and I couldn’t find any aspect of this story that could be cut and not lose meaning. You may very well come up against a similar constraint and have to chose what to include or cut. Stories don’t go on forever.

Well, is there life beyond Earth in the solar system? We don’t know yet, but we’re hot on the pursuit. The data that we’re receiving is really exciting and telling us — forcing us to think about this in new and exciting ways. I believe we’re on the right track. That in the next 10 years, we will answer that question. And if we answer it, and it’s positive, then life is everywhere in the solar system. Just think about that. We may not be alone.

James concludes where he started by admitting that we don’t know if life exists beyond the boundaries of earth, but he offers his personal view that we’ll have an answer in the next decade. And his final words, ‘We may not be alone.’ are a perfect mirror to the words that he opened with, ‘Is there life beyond Earth in our solar system?’

Thank you.

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!

Sal Khan: Let’s teach for mastery, not test scores @ TED Talks Live

October 7, 2020/in Education, Science, Technology, TED, TED Talk/by Mark Lovett

TED Talks Live were held at The Town Hall Theater in NYC, in November of 2015. I had the pleasure of attending all six nights to hear speakers present impactful Ideas Worth Spreading. This post is an analysis of a talk by Sal Khan about how mastery and mindset can improve learning.

It’s a classic problem/solution story. One that describes a process that is being used on a global scale – in this case the process of learning – but often delivers less than ideal results. In such situations the stakes are high and new ways of thinking are required in order to address rapid changes in society.

Watch Sal’s TED Talk. He demonstrates that the status quo is not serving most students as it should, and offers an alternative that is based on his experience running the Khan Academy. In his view, it’s imperative that we change the way we learn. And if we do, the benefits to society are significant.

Transcript

(my notes in red)

I’m here today to talk about the two ideas that, at least based on my observations at Khan Academy, are kind of the core, or the key leverage points for learning. And it’s the idea of mastery and the idea of mindset.

When a speaker is well known, as is the case with Sal Khan who founded Khan Academy, a phrase such as ‘my observations at Khan Academy’ speaks volumes. He doesn’t need to explain his role or the history of the academy, but if you don’t have such notoriety, adding another sentence of explanation will keep the audience from being confused about who you are and the work you’re doing. In fact, at no point in his talk does Sal speak about his credentials. Few of us would be so fortunate.

I saw this in the early days working with my cousins. A lot of them were having trouble with math at first, because they had all of these gaps accumulated in their learning. And because of that, at some point they got to an algebra class and they might have been a little bit shaky on some of the pre-algebra, and because of that, they thought they didn’t have the math gene. Or they’d get to a calculus class, and they’d be a little bit shaky on the algebra. I saw it in the early days when I was uploading some of those videos on YouTube, and I realized that people who were not my cousins were watching.

Having introduced ‘the idea of mastery and the idea of mindset’, Sal provides an example that is also personal – ‘my cousins’ and by mentioning that it happened ‘in the early days’, he takes us back in time to the beginning of his journey. When you’re taking an audience on a journey of discovery, of developing a new view of the world, people want to know where it all started. What’s your origin story?

And at first, those comments were just simple thank yous. I thought that was a pretty big deal. I don’t know how much time you all spend on YouTube. Most of the comments are not “Thank you.” They’re a little edgier than that.

But then the comments got a little more intense, student after student saying that they had grown up not liking math. It was getting difficult as they got into more advanced math topics. By the time they got to algebra, they had so many gaps in their knowledge they couldn’t engage with it. They thought they didn’t have the math gene. But when they were a bit older, they took a little agency and decided to engage. They found resources like Khan Academy and they were able to fill in those gaps and master those concepts, and that reinforced their mindset that it wasn’t fixed; that they actually were capable of learning mathematics.

He then shifts the narrative from his cousins to the general public who have been watching his math videos on YouTube. In doing so Sal offers evidence that people who struggled with math could master the concepts that had been troublesome. In your idea-driven story, can you offer examples of how your idea is having an impact? That signifies that your idea has been, to some extent, validated.

And in a lot of ways, this is how you would master a lot of things in life. It’s the way you would learn a martial art. In a martial art, you would practice the white belt skills as long as necessary, and only when you’ve mastered it you would move on to become a yellow belt. It’s the way you learn a musical instrument: you practice the basic piece over and over again, and only when you’ve mastered it, you go on to the more advanced one.

Sal uses the examples of martial arts and music to support the idea of mastery that he began with. In this way we understand that the principle at hand is not confined to his one subject, but instead is common in many aspects of life. Most social problems have parallels elsewhere in society.

But what we point out — this is not the way a traditional academic model is structured, the type of academic model that most of us grew up in. In a traditional academic model, we group students together, usually by age, and around middle school, by age and perceived ability, and we shepherd them all together at the same pace. And what typically happens, let’s say we’re in a middle school pre-algebra class, and the current unit is on exponents, the teacher will give a lecture on exponents, then we’ll go home, do some homework. The next morning, we’ll review the homework, then another lecture, homework, lecture, homework. That will continue for about two or three weeks, and then we get a test. On that test, maybe I get a 75 percent, maybe you get a 90 percent, maybe you get a 95 percent. And even though the test identified gaps in our knowledge, I didn’t know 25 percent of the material. Even the A student, what was the five percent they didn’t know?

Even though we’ve identified the gaps, the whole class will then move on to the next subject, probably a more advanced subject that’s going to build on those gaps. It might be logarithms or negative exponents. And that process continues, and you immediately start to realize how strange this is. I didn’t know 25 percent of the more foundational thing, and now I’m being pushed to the more advanced thing. And this will continue for months, years, all the way until at some point, I might be in an algebra class or trigonometry class and I hit a wall. And it’s not because algebra is fundamentally difficult or because the student isn’t bright. It’s because I’m seeing an equation and they’re dealing with exponents and that 30 percent that I didn’t know is showing up. And then I start to disengage.

In this story block, Sal describes how a traditional education system works and identifies a fundamental flaw in the learning process – the fact that students are expected to learn new concepts using a foundation that contains knowledge gaps. This description not only resonates with the highly educated audience at the event, but will also be familiar with students around the world. In doing so, he builds a connection to the local, as well as the remote, audience.

To appreciate how absurd that is, imagine if we did other things in our life that way. Say, home-building. So we bring in the contractor and say, “We were told we have two weeks to build a foundation. Do what you can.” So they do what they can. Maybe it rains. Maybe some of the supplies don’t show up. And two weeks later, the inspector comes, looks around, says, “OK, the concrete is still wet right over there, that part’s not quite up to code … I’ll give it an 80 percent.” You say, “Great! That’s a C. Let’s build the first floor.”

Same thing. We have two weeks, do what you can, inspector shows up, it’s a 75 percent. Great, that’s a D-plus. Second floor, third floor, and all of a sudden, while you’re building the third floor, the whole structure collapses. And if your reaction is the reaction you typically have in education, or that a lot of folks have, you might say, maybe we had a bad contractor, or maybe we needed better inspection or more frequent inspection. But what was really broken was the process. We were artificially constraining how long we had to something, pretty much ensuring a variable outcome, and we took the trouble of inspecting and identifying those gaps, but then we built right on top of it.

As he did previously, Sal uses an analogy – this time building a house – to illustrate the result of creating a flawed foundation. Analogies can be an impactful part of your narrative, as they provide your audience with another way of seeing the problem that you’re addressing. When Sal says ‘Let’s build the first floor.’ what goes through your mind is, ‘This is not going to end well.’ Which is the point he’s making about the education system. You would never consider building a house with a flawed foundation.

So the idea of mastery learning is to do the exact opposite. Instead of artificially constraining, fixing when and how long you work on something, pretty much ensuring that variable outcome, the A, B, C, D, F — do it the other way around. What’s variable is when and how long a student actually has to work on something, and what’s fixed is that they actually master the material.

Every story that is concerned with a problem, must naturally shift to the solution, which in this story is ‘… to do the exact opposite.’ The change is from focusing on the time constraint to focusing on ‘mastery learning’. Where this pivot occurs is different in every story. In this talk, it’s about the half way point, which is pretty common. What’s important is that the pivot is clear the audience.

And it’s important to realize that not only will this make the student learn their exponents better, but it’ll reinforce the right mindset muscles. It makes them realize that if you got 20 percent wrong on something, it doesn’t mean that you have a C branded in your DNA somehow. It means that you should just keep working on it. You should have grit; you should have perseverance; you should take agency over your learning.

As he continues with the benefits of his approach to learning, Sal touches upon the second idea that he mentioned at the beginning of his talk – mindset. Rather than feeling that a low score is the final word, he encourages students to take control of their situation, to have grit, perseverance and agency. Solutions to problems that require individual action should include the inspiration to take those actions.

Now, a lot of skeptics might say, well, hey, this is all great, philosophically, this whole idea of mastery-based learning and its connection to mindset, students taking agency over their learning. It makes a lot of sense, but it seems impractical. To actually do it, every student would be on their own track. It would have to be personalized, you’d have to have private tutors and worksheets for every student. And these aren’t new ideas — there were experiments in Winnetka, Illinois, 100 years ago, where they did mastery-based learning and saw great results, but they said it wouldn’t scale because it was logistically difficult. The teacher had to give different worksheets to every student, give on-demand assessments.

If there are audience members who doubt the veracity of your idea, including an opposite viewpoint story block allows the speaker to address concerns that might be present. In this case he includes the example of a previous experiment, the challenges they encountered, then follows on with his view that such issues are no longer a problem today. The general approach is ‘you may see the situation this way, but I have a different view that I want to share with you’.

But now today, it’s no longer impractical. We have the tools to do it. Students see an explanation at their own time and pace? There’s on-demand video for that. They need practice? They need feedback? There’s adaptive exercises readily available for students.

In a longer talk there would be time to provide examples of how ‘on-demand video’ and ‘adaptive exercises’ would work for students. I was left with a concept, but not much in the way of understanding. Hearing one story about an individual would have made the idea much more impactful.

And when that happens, all sorts of neat things happen. One, the students can actually master the concepts, but they’re also building their growth mindset, they’re building grit, perseverance, they’re taking agency over their learning. And all sorts of beautiful things can start to happen in the actual classroom. Instead of it being focused on the lecture, students can interact with each other. They can get deeper mastery over the material. They can go into simulations, Socratic dialogue.

Sal reiterates some of the key point previously mentioned in his talk – mastering the concepts, building a growth mindset, building grit and perseverance and taking agency. This is a way to remind the audience of those factors which are important to your solution. Once again, however, I wanted to hear a story. An example of how a more dynamic classroom would operate. Take me inside the room. Let me feel the experience.

To appreciate what we’re talking about and the tragedy of lost potential here, I’d like to give a little bit of a thought experiment. If we were to go 400 years into the past to Western Europe, which even then, was one of the more literate parts of the planet, you would see that about 15 percent of the population knew how to read. And I suspect that if you asked someone who did know how to read, say a member of the clergy, “What percentage of the population do you think is even capable of reading?” They might say, “Well, with a great education system, maybe 20 or 30 percent.”

But if you fast forward to today, we know that that prediction would have been wildly pessimistic, that pretty close to 100 percent of the population is capable of reading. But if I were to ask you a similar question: “What percentage of the population do you think is capable of truly mastering calculus, or understanding organic chemistry, or being able to contribute to cancer research?” A lot of you might say, “Well, with a great education system, maybe 20, 30 percent.”

But what if that estimate is just based on your own experience in a non-mastery framework, your own experience with yourself or observing your peers, where you’re being pushed at this set pace through classes, accumulating all these gaps? Even when you got the A, that 95 percent, what was that five percent you missed? And it keeps accumulating — you get to an advanced class, all of a sudden you hit a wall and say, “I’m not meant to be a cancer researcher; I’m not meant to be a physicist; I’m not meant to be a mathematician.”

And I suspect that that actually is the case, but if you were allowed to be operating in a mastery framework, if you were allowed to really take agency over your learning, and when you get something wrong, embrace it — view that failure as a moment of learning — that number, the percent that could really master calculus or understand organic chemistry, is actually a lot closer to 100 percent.

The use of a ‘what if’ type of hypothetical question allows the audience to envision what could be better if the process was improved. In a problem/solution, idea-driven storyline, that’s a way of asking, ‘What if my solution were implemented? What would the result be?’ There are no guarantees that a proposed solution will work, but if you explain it clearly and give examples, the audience can imagine what the future might look like.

And this isn’t even just a “nice to have.” I think it’s a social imperative. We’re exiting what you could call the industrial age and we’re going into this, whatever, information revolution. And it’s clear that some things are happening. In the industrial age, society was a pyramid. And at the base of the pyramid, you needed human labor. In the middle of the pyramid, you had an information processing, a bureaucracy class, and at the top of the pyramid, you had your owners of capital and your entrepreneurs and your creative class. But we know what’s happening already, as we go into this information revolution. The bottom of that pyramid, automation, is going to take over. Even that middle tier, information processing, that’s what computers are good at.

Sal brings up an important point, that society is changing rapidly due to a revolution in information processing, which in his mind, means that it’s imperative to adopt a new way of learning. This is common for social issues that are not static. Which is to say, your solution is not just about solving a current problem, but is also needed going forward to prevent even greater harm. Think about how the future will look without your ideas being implemented. Is there a similar imperative within your story that the audience needs to understand?

So as a society, we have a question: All this new productivity is happening because of this technology, but who participates in it? Is it just going to be that very top of the pyramid, in which case, what does everyone else do? How do they operate? Or do we do something that’s more aspirational? Do we actually attempt to invert the pyramid, where you have a large creative class, where almost everyone can participate as an entrepreneur, an artist, as a researcher?

And I don’t think that this is utopian. I really think that this is all based on the idea that if we let people tap into their potential by mastering concepts, by being able to exercise agency over their learning, that they can get there. And when you think of it as just a citizen of the world, it’s pretty exciting. I mean, think about the type of equity we can we have, and the rate at which civilization could even progress. And so, I’m pretty optimistic about it. I think it’s going to be a pretty exciting time to be alive.

Thank you.

The visual of ‘inverting the pyramid’ is powerful, it’s a classic, ‘turn the problem on its head’ sort of narrative, but I’m not sure it works here. It may make sense to you, but it had me scratching my head. I was thinking that Sal’s approach to learning, whereby students learn at their own pace, master each level before moving on, and take control of their future, feels more like ‘leveling the playing field’.

But that’s a relatively small complaint, as the crux of his talk is about how our education system is fundamentally flawed, but doesn’t need to be. That we can change how the system operates, and in doing so, give students the opportunity to thrive instead of struggle.

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!

Juan Enriquez: We can reprogram life. How to do it wisely @ TED Talks Live

September 21, 2020/in Genetics, Humanity, Science, TED, TED Talk/by Mark Lovett

TED Talks Live were held at The Town Hall Theater in NYC, in November of 2015. I had the pleasure of attending all six nights to hear speakers present impactful Ideas Worth Spreading. This post is an analysis of a talk by Juan Enriquez about reprograming life, and our role in managing / influencing the process.

Crafting a narrative that takes an audience inside an advanced scientific topic is difficult when those listening are members of the general public, rather than a bunch of PhDs who work in research labs. In this talk he explores the topic of reprograming life. Something that our species better get right.

Watch Juan’s TED Talk. If you’re preparing an experience-driven talk, think about whether there is a science story block that can be part of your narrative. If you’re working on an idea-driven story, especially one based on how science may affect our future, pay attention to how Juan presents a very challenging subject.

You may want to watch the talk once and take your own notes as to how the story flowed, how he used examples, and how he made a very complex topic understandable. Then read through the notes below and watch it again. There were many beautiful moments, but also times when I wanted to hear more.

Transcript

(my notes in red)

So, there’s an actor called Dustin Hoffman. And years ago, he made this movie which some of you may have heard of, called “The Graduate.” And there’s two key scenes in that movie. The first one is the seduction scene. I’m not going to talk about that tonight.

It can be tempting to begin a science story with something that’s related to the scientific topic that the story is about, and Juan gets there soon enough, but in a counterintuitive move, he opens with humor. It’s a reference that the audience is familiar with, so it gets a laugh, but it also has people wondering where he’s going next – it’s a combination of humor and mystery in a matter of seconds.

The second scene is where he’s taken out by the old guy to the pool, and as a young college graduate, the old guy basically says one word, just one word. And of course, all of you know what that word is. It’s “plastics.” And the only problem with that is, it was completely the wrong advice.

Let me tell you why it was so wrong. The word should have been “silicon.” And the reason it should have been silicon is because the basic patents for semiconductors had already been made, had already been filed, and they were already building them. So Silicon Valley was just being built in 1967, when this movie was released. And the year after the movie was released, Intel was founded. So had the graduate heard the right one word, maybe he would have ended up onstage — oh, I don’t know — maybe with these two.

Juan spends moment on a more serious note based on his reference to silicon – the early days of silicon valley – and once again we think the talk is going to get serious, but he pivots back to humor with a slide featuring Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Note that he refers to them as ‘these two’ and doesn’t mention their names. You can often avoid saying something that a slide says for you.

So as you’re thinking of that, let’s see what bit of advice we might want to give so that your next graduate doesn’t become a Tupperware salesman.

So in 2015, what word of advice would you give people, when you took a college graduate out by the pool and you said one word, just one word? I think the answer would be “lifecode.” So what is “lifecode?” Lifecode is the various ways we have of programming life. So instead of programming computers, we’re using things to program viruses or retroviruses or proteins or DNA or RNA or plants or animals, or a whole series of creatures. And as you’re thinking about this incredible ability to make life do what you want it to do, what it’s programmed to do, what you end up doing is taking what we’ve been doing for thousands of years, which is breeding, changing, mixing, matching all kinds of life-forms, and we accelerate it.

Now we see why Juan opened with a reference to The Graduate. It’s because the iconic scene in the movie was all about one word – plastics – and now Juan is ready to use that same theme to introduce the word that will define his story about genetic modification – ‘lifecode’. That’s a creative use of the callback technique.

It’s a word that few in the audience have heard before so he offers an explanation as to what it means. In doing so, he relates the programming of life (something the audience knows little about) to the programming of a computer (something most everyone understands, at least at a basic level). He also makes reference to the fact that humans have been doing this for a long time, though using nature to do it. This is a way to normalize something different.

And this is not something new. This humble mustard weed has been modified so that if you change it in one way, you get broccoli. And if you change it in a second way, you get kale. And if you change it in a third way, you get cauliflower. So when you go to these all-natural, organic markets, you’re really going to a place where people have been changing the lifecode of plants for a long time. The difference today, to pick a completely politically neutral term is — Intelligent design

In this section he offers up a specific example of how one thing – mustard weed – can become three different things. And in this situation – broccoli, kale and cauliflower – are things that everyone knows about. The science is no longer abstract, it’s something we put on the dinner table.

It’s also a good example of using a short historical story block when he says, “And this is not something new.” Providing a historical reference helps an audience think about past, present, and future. It puts the topic in perspective. The beautiful slide that Juan uses provides even more detail to what those changes were, and the visual representation of the three vegetables reinforces our sense of familiarity.

We’re not even at the 3 minute mark in Juan’s story, and yet he’s built a solid foundation for where he’s taking the audience on the next phase the journey.

We’re beginning to practice intelligent design. That means that instead of doing this at random and seeing what happens over generations, we’re inserting specific genes, we’re inserting specific proteins, and we’re changing lifecode for very deliberate purposes. And that allows us to accelerate how this stuff happens.

Juan now pivots toward the science and connects the idea of ‘intelligent design’ to the previously mentioned ‘lifecode’. Note the use of ‘random’ and ‘deliberate’, connecting ‘inserting’ to ‘changing’, as well as ‘generations’ to ‘accelerate’. Condensing what could be hours of discussion on a complex topic into minutes on stage requires this type of word choice to allow a public audience to follow along. We often understand through contrast.

Let me just give you one example. Some of you occasionally might think about sex. And we kind of take it for granted how we’ve changed sex. So we think it’s perfectly normal and natural to change it. What’s happened with sex over time is — normally, sex equals baby, eventually. But in today’s world, sex plus pill equals no baby.

And again, we think that’s perfectly normal and natural, but that has not been the case for most of human history. And it’s not the case for animals. What it is does is it gives us control, so sex becomes separate from conception. And as you’re thinking of the consequences of that, then we’ve been playing with stuff that’s a little bit more advanced, like art. Not in the sense of painting and sculpture, but in the sense of assisted reproductive technologies. So what are assisted reproductive technologies?

Assisted reproductive technologies are things like in vitro fertilization. And when you do in vitro fertilization, there’s very good reasons to do it. Sometimes you just can’t conceive otherwise. But when you do that, what you’re doing is separating sex, conception, baby. So you haven’t just taken control of when you have a baby, you’ve separated when the baby and where the baby is fertilized. So you’ve separated the baby from the body from the act. And as you’re thinking of other things we’ve been doing, think about twins. So you can freeze sperm, you can freeze eggs, you can freeze fertilized eggs. And what does that mean? Well, that’s a good thing if you’re a cancer patient. You’re about to go under chemotherapy or under radiation, so you save these things. You don’t irradiate them. But if you can save them and you can freeze them, and you can have a surrogate mother, it means that you’ve decoupled sex from time. It means you can have twins born — oh, in 50 years?

In this story block Juan mentions two widely known processes – in vitro fertilization and freezing eggs – but explains them in a new way by stating that humans have separated the act of sex from conception and baby while also decoupling sex from time, thus allowing conception and birth to happen into the future. When I spoke with audience members after the talk their comments were similar. “I never thought of the technology that way.” That’s an important aspect of impact. Seeing the world and our future differently.

In a hundred years? Two hundred years? And these are three really profound changes that are not, like, future stuff. This is stuff we take for granted today. So this lifecode stuff turns out to be a superpower. It turns out to be this incredibly powerful way of changing viruses, of changing plants, of changing animals, perhaps even of evolving ourselves. It’s something that Steve Gullans and I have been thinking about for a while.

Let’s have some risks. Like every powerful technology, like electricity, like an automobile, like computers, this stuff potentially can be misused. And that scares a lot of people. And as you apply these technologies, you can even turn human beings into chimeras. Remember the Greek myth where you mix animals? Well, some of these treatments actually end up changing your blood type. Or they’ll put male cells in a female body or vice versa, which sounds absolutely horrible until you realize, the reason you’re doing that is you’re substituting bone marrow during cancer treatments. So by taking somebody else’s bone marrow, you may be changing some fundamental aspects of yourself, but you’re also saving your life.

Often times there is a dark side of change. What happens if things don’t go as expected. Some speakers choose to focus only on the benefits of their idea or invention, but that can leave an audience feeling that you did just that, that you intentionally avoided the possible negative impacts.

And as you’re thinking about this stuff, here’s something that happened 20 years ago. This is Emma Ott. She’s a recent college admittee. She’s studying accounting. She played two varsity sports. She graduated as a valedictorian. And that’s not particularly extraordinary, except that she’s the first human being born to three parents. Why? Because she had a deadly mitochondrial disease that she might have inherited. So when you swap out a third person’s DNA and you put it in there, you save the lives of people. But you also are doing germline engineering, which means her kids, if she has kids, will be saved and won’t go through this. And her kids will be saved, and their grandchildren will be saved, and this passes on.

Shifting from the overarching storyline, Juan introduces a story block about a specific person. It illustrates how the technology can work. Going from the more general to the more specific is how a listener/viewer/reader comes to better understand on multiple levels.

That makes people nervous. So 20 years ago, the various authorities said, why don’t we study this for a while? There are risks to doing stuff, and there are risks to not doing stuff, because there were a couple dozen people saved by this technology, and then we’ve been thinking about it for the next 20 years. So as we think about it, as we take the time to say, “Hey, maybe we should have longer studies, maybe we should do this, maybe we should do that,” there are consequences to acting, and there are consequences to not acting. Like curing deadly diseases — which, by the way, is completely unnatural. It is normal and natural for humans to be felled by massive epidemics of polio, of smallpox, of tuberculosis.

When we put vaccines into people, we are putting unnatural things into their body because we think the benefit outweighs the risk. Because we’ve built unnatural plants, unnatural animals, we can feed about seven billion people. We can do things like create new life-forms. And as you create new life-forms, again, that sounds terribly scary and terribly bothersome, until you realize that those life-forms live on your dining room table. Those flowers you’ve got on your dining room table — there’s not a lot that’s natural about them, because people have been breeding the flowers to make this color, to be this size, to last for a week. You don’t usually give your loved one wildflowers because they don’t last a whole lot of time.

In addition to benefits and risks, advances in science (and changes of most any sort) also presents questions, or quandaries. Answers are not always clear. Vaccines clearly save lives, and we enjoy the flowers on our dining room table, but the fact is, both are ‘unnatural’, which is to say that humans have intervened. And this topic of intervention is something that everyone who is crafting an idea-driven narrative needs to consider. What are all the consequences of your proposal – both positive and negative?

What all this does is it flips Darwin completely on his head. See, for four billion years, what lived and died on this planet depended on two principles: on natural selection and random mutation. And so what lived and died, what was structured, has now been flipped on its head. And what we’ve done is created this completely parallel evolutionary system where we are practicing unnatural selection and non-random mutation.

Sometimes story blocks can be a couple of sentences, and in this case, Juan scans back over billions of years to highlight the way things have historically worked, up until humans came on the scene and started changing nature intentionally.

So let me explain these things. This is natural selection. This is unnatural selection.

While a number of the previous slides used were unnecessary, in my opinion, the one used here is informative, visually interesting, and it happens to be funny. Read the text below without the benefit of the slide. The words are still informative, but they only provide a factual description. That’s not bad, but notice how the same words can be received differently when using an image. You decide how you want to do it, of course, but realize there are options.

So what happens with this stuff is, we started breeding wolves thousands of years ago in central Asia to turn them into dogs. And then we started turning them into big dogs and into little dogs. But if you take one of the chihuahuas you see in the Hermès bags on Fifth Avenue and you let it loose on the African plain, you can watch natural selection happen.

In this case, no visual is needed. The audience can visualize on their own what would happen if a small dog was set free in a wild environment. We’ve probably seen that in various wildlife documentaries. In fact, an image of any sort might kill the humor (pun intended) and make the audience squeamish.

Few things on Earth are less natural than a cornfield. You will never, under any scenario, walk through a virgin forest and see the same plant growing in orderly rows at the same time, nothing else living there. When you do a cornfield, you’re selecting what lives and what dies. And you’re doing that through unnatural selection. It’s the same with a wheat field, it’s the same with a rice field. It’s the same with a city, it’s the same with a suburb. In fact, half the surface of Earth has been unnaturally engineered so that what lives and what dies there is what we want, which is the reason why you don’t have grizzly bears walking through downtown Manhattan.

In this story block Juan provides additional description of unnatural selection. It’s not so much a story of one person, or even a group of people, but of society as a whole. It also includes a powerful statistic, that half of the earth’s surface has been engineered by humans. There’s no reference as to where that number comes from. On the one hand, I will tend to believe what Juan says, but on the other, I’m left scratching my head, wondering if that number is accurate. it’s something to consider whenever you quote startling statistics. Will the audience believe you based on your personal authority?

How about this random mutation stuff? Well, this is random mutation. This is Antonio Alfonseca. He’s otherwise known as the Octopus, his nickname. He was the Relief Pitcher of the Year in 2000. And he had a random mutation that gave him six fingers on each hand, which turns out to be really useful if you’re a pitcher.

How about non-random mutation? A non-random mutation is beer. It’s wine. It’s yogurt. How many times have you walked through the forest and found all-natural cheese? Or all-natural yogurt? So we’ve been engineering this stuff. Now, the interesting thing is, we get to know the stuff better. We found one of the single most powerful gene-editing instruments, CRISPR, inside yogurt. And as we start engineering cells, we’re producing eight out of the top 10 pharmaceutical products, including the stuff that you use to treat arthritis, which is the number one best-selling drug, Humira.

The nugget that’s revealed here is that the gene-editing technique known as CRISPR was found inside yogurt. That could be a talk of its own. The history of how that discovery happened and what it means to the field of biological research. If Juan was giving a 30 minute talk, or a 45 minute keynote, this might be a topic that could be expanded upon and comprise a detailed scientific story block.

So this lifecode stuff. It really is a superpower. It really is a way of programming stuff, and there’s nothing that’s going to change us more than this lifecode. So as you’re thinking of lifecode, let’s think of five principles as to how we start guiding, and I’d love you to give me more.

He’s about 80% done with his story, and at this juncture comes back to the key word of his talk, lifecode. Though it’s a very complex topic, with dozens (if not hundreds) of things to think about, he keeps the options limited by offering the audience just five principles to consider now that they’ve heard the backstory on how humans are changing life forms. In essence, these are his calls to action.

So, principle number one: we have to take responsibility for this stuff. The reason we have to take responsibility is because we’re in charge. These aren’t random mutations. This is what we are doing, what we are choosing. It’s not, “Stuff happened.” It didn’t happen at random. It didn’t come down by a verdict of somebody else. We engineer this stuff, and it’s the Pottery Barn rule: you break it, you own it.

Principle number two: we have to recognize and celebrate diversity in this stuff. There have been at least 33 versions of hominids that have walked around this Earth. Most all of them went extinct except us. But the normal and natural state of this Earth is we have various versions of humans walking around at the same time, which is why most of us have some Neanderthal in us. Some of us have some Denisova in us. And some in Washington have a lot more of it.

Stating ‘there have been at least 33 version of hominids’ is another surprising statistic with no backup information. Once again, that could be a talk of its own, or expanded upon in a longer version of this story. As to the number, I did my own search and found a range of numbers / estimates provided – 9, 10, 12, 15 – sometimes there were references to speculation that there were many we haven’t discovered yet.

And every reference I could find states that we’re the only one left. So to say ‘most all of them went extinct’, implies there are other versions walking around. It’s just one word, but there’s a world of different between ‘most all’ and ‘all’. I don’t claim to have the answer, but I bring it up to highlight the fact that what you say – every word – matters greatly to the audience.

Principle number three: we have to respect other people’s choices. Some people will choose to never alter. Some people will choose to alter all. Some people will choose to alter plants but not animals. Some people will choose to alter themselves. Some people will choose to evolve themselves. Diversity is not a bad thing, because even though we think of humans as very diverse, we came so close to extinction that all of us descend from a single African mother and the consequence of that is there’s more genetic diversity in 55 African chimpanzees than there are in seven billion humans.

Using statistics in a comparative fashion can be powerful. In this case, comparing 55 chimpanzees to 7 billion humans within the topic of genetic diversity. That said, I don’t feel that this statistical comparison connects to the topic of ‘choice’, which is what this principle is supposed to be about. And I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but the topic of personal choice when it comes to altering out genetic makeup needs much more time.

Principle number four: we should take about a quarter of the Earth and only let Darwin run the show there. It doesn’t have to be contiguous, doesn’t have to all be tied together. It should be part in the oceans, part on land. But we should not run every evolutionary decision on this planet. We want to have our evolutionary system running. We want to have Darwin’s evolutionary system running. And it’s just really important to have these two things running in parallel and not overwhelm evolution.

This is an interesting point, and draws applause from the audience. While I agree with the statement, someone else may feel that there should be no limits on how much of nature humans can alter. Another opinion might be that it’s too late, that humans have already overwhelmed evolution with far too much genetic manipulation.

Juan states that it’s ‘really important to have these two things running in parallel’, but why? He uses the phrase ‘overwhelm evolution’, but what does that mean? It would have been nice to hear specifics about the downside, but once again, that would require a longer story.

Last thing I’ll say. This is the single most exciting adventure human beings have been on. This is the single greatest superpower humans have ever had. It would be a crime for you not to participate in this stuff because you’re scared of it, because you’re hiding from it. You can participate in the ethics. You can participate in the politics. You can participate in the business. You can participate in just thinking about where medicine is going, where industry is going, where we’re going to take the world. It would be a crime for all of us not to be aware when somebody shows up at a swimming pool and says one word, just one word, if you don’t listen if that word is “lifecode.”

He describes his five calls to action – take responsibility, celebrate diversity, respect others, protect nature, educate ourselves – then does a callback to the beginning. To the movie reference about one word ‘plastics’, and how the new word to pay attention to is ‘lifecode’. There’s a power and completeness to that kind of full circle storytelling.

Thank you very much.

Overall, I enjoyed Juan’s talk. He was able to take a very technical topic and craft a story in under 15 minutes which makes us think about the technology that is here now, and that will continue to evolve in the future. The point being made is that our decisions will have an effect on what that technology is used for.

My main issue with this story involves the points which needed far more exploration. I would like to hear a one hour version of this talk, but even then there would be many points without full explanations. That’s an issue that virtually all storytellers have to face. Taking a long story and presenting it within a short timeframe.

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates!