A E T N Logo P B S logo
Support the Programs You LoveDONATE NOW

Barnes and... A Conversation with Richard Leaky

Loading the player…

TRANSCRIPT

HELLO, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, RICHARD LEAKEY IS A PROFESSOR AT NEW YORK, BUT HE HAS FROM ONE OF THE MOST DIVIDED FAMILIES OF SCIENTISTS, "TIME" MAGAZINE, IDENTIFIED THE RICHARD LEAKEYS AS ONE OF THE CENTURY'S 100 GREATEST COLLECTION OF BRAINS AND MINDS, AND YOURS WAS AT THE VERY TOP OF THE RICHARD LEAKEY CLAN. BUT IT'S A THREE GENERATIONAL OPERATION, IN THE STUDY OF PALEOANTHROPOLOGIST AND NOW YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER, IN THAT PURSUIT.

YES, IT'S TRUE, IN FACT, IT GOES FURTHER BACK, BUT, WITH SOME BREAKS, IN THE MIDDLE, BUT IT WAS MY MOTHER'S GREAT UNCLE WHO WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO RECOGNIZE THE ARTIFACTS, AND PUBLISHED A PAPER.

MULTI-GENERATIONAL.

WELL, IN ADDITION, TO ANY NUMBER OF BOOKS AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND LECTURES, THERE'S BEEN MR. RICHARD LEAKEY, HAS DECEASED, KIDNEY DISEASE, FRACTURED SKULL, AIRPLANE CRASHES. AND, THE OCCASIONAL GOVERNMENT FROM KENYA. YOU'RE STILL WORKING.

I'M STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE AND VERY HAPPY AND, I HAVE NO REGRETS ABOUT ANYTHING THAT I HAVE DONE. I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY WISH ALL OF THEM TO BE DONE AGAIN. BUT, IT WAS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

AT THE TIME.

IF YOUR WORK HAS BEEN THE STUDY OF THE ORIGINS OF THE HUMAN SPECIES, IT IS LONG SINCE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE PROSPECTS FOR SURVIVAL, NOT ONLY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES BUT ALL SPECIES. SO, IN AUTUMN OF 2008, WHAT IS THE STATE OF LIFE ON EARTH TODAY?

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MORE THREATENED, BY CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND, AND ANY TIME THAT I KNOW OF, IN THE EXPERIENCE OF HUMANITY, THIS CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE IS REAL. I THINK, IT WILL BE DRAMATIC, AND I THINK, WE MAY HAVE MADE SOME ERRORS OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS THAT WILL LEAD TO VERY SITTING LOSS OF SPECIES, AND I'LL CLARIFY. WE'VE PUT MOST OF OUR MOST VALUED SPECIES, INTO NATIONAL PARKS, AROUND THEM, WILDLIFE AREAS. AND WE'VE ALLOWED LAND USE TO DEVELOP AROUND THEM, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO ANY FORM OF WILD SPECIES. WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, MANY OF THESE SPECIES, INSIDE THE PROTECTED AREAS ARE LIKELY TO GO EXTINCT. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TO CREATE ISLANDS AND IN THE RECORD, WE ARE MAJOR CLIMATE CHANGES HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND IT HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES, THE ISLAND FOREIGNERS ARE UP FOR EXTINCTION. AND WE MAY HAVE PUT ALL OF THEM ONTO ISLANDS, WHICH IS CREATED AND WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT HOW TO GET OFF, WHEN THEY NEED TO GET OFF.

OR TO ENCOURAGE SPECIES OUTSIDE OF THE ISLANDS.

WHERE THEY MIGHT EXIST AND WE DON'T KNOW THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. IF WE AVOID EXTINCTION, WE HAVE TO THINK OF NEW STRATEGIES TO RETAIN THE GENETIC VIABILITY OF THAT DIVERSITY, IN OTHER SITUATIONS SO THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, WHEN WE MAY SEE A REVERSAL OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, SOME OF THESE THINGS COULD GO BACK. THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE DON'T LOSE SIGHT TO MAINTAIN THER A TORE AS SPECIES DISAPPEAR.

I HAVE TO HEAR SOME OF OUR VIEWERS SAY, I THINK I READ A NOVEL ABOUT THAT. PRESERVING THEM AND BRINGING THEM BACK.

I HAVEN'T READ THAT NOVEL. TELL ME ABOUT IT. WRITTEN BY CARLTON. BUT, TELL US MORE ABOUT IT. THE PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN SPECIES.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT LIFE, EVERYTHING IS EATS SOMETHING. IT'S WHAT WE CALL A FOOD-CHAIN. AND, I MEAN, LET'S TAKE A SIMPLE EXAMPLE, IN THE ARCTIC AND GREENLAND ICE SHEETS CONTINUE TO MELT AND IF WE CONTINUE TO PRODUCE CARBON DIOXIDE AT THE RATE WE'RE PRODUCING IT, ABSORBS IT. THERE'S BEING SUNK INTO LIVING FORMS AND PLANT.

AS IT'S BEING SUCKED ON, BECAUSE THERE'S MORE IN THE ATMOSPHERE, OCEANS ARE BECOMING MORE ACID DICK AND THINGS THAT ARE SUCKING IT DOWN, WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO DO SO, BECAUSE THEY'LL DIE. SECONDLY, THE THEY MAY CHANGE AND, WARM THE WATER MOVES. AND FISHES MAY DISAPPEAR OR MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE. BUT, ON THE LAND, YOU MAY LOSER TAKEN SPECIES, THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO OTHER SPECIES, IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY FEED ON. IF THEY GO, WHAT DO THOSE OTHER SPECIES EAT IF THEY'RE NOT THERE? YOU COULD GET A COLLAPSE. THIS HAS HAPPENED. IT'S A TIPPING-POINT. AND I SEE NO REASON TO BELIEVE WE'RE NOT VERY CLOSE TO A TIPPING-POINT ON PROTECTED AREAS.

DOMINO EFFECT.

YES, AND IT IT WILL GO THIS WAY AND THE OTHER WAY. IT WILL BE RANDOM. BUT, IT WILL BE DRAMATIC.

ON THE MATTER OF CLIMATE CHANGE, GLOBAL WARMING, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THOSE WHO SAY, THIS IS A CYCLICAL, THIS PLANET HAS SEEN THIS CYCLE BEFORE.

OF COURSE IT HAS. AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RIGHT. AND TAKE NO COMFORT FROM THAT. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GUESSING THE CONSEQUENCES. WE CAN SEE IT, AND IT'S EFFECT. WE KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE DRAMATIC. SEA LEVELS HAVE CHANGE BY TENS OF METERS, AND WHOLE FRESH WATER SYSTEMS, CAN DRY UP. AND FOREST AND DESERT. CLIMATE CHANGE IS A WELL-KNOWN PHENOMENA. WHAT CONCERNS ME AND SHOULD CONCERN OUR VIEWERS AND YOU, IS THAT THERE WERE, AT THE LAST MAJOR CLIMATE CHANGE, ONLY ABOUT 2 MILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. THERE'S 6 BILLION NOW. THERE'S NO WAY, THAT I CAN SEE AN EASY FIX FOR THAT MANY PEOPLE, IN THE EVENT OF A CLIMATE CHANGE OF THE MAGNITUDE THAT THE LAST ONE WAS, AND THIS ONE MAY BE AS BIG IF NOT BIGGER.

IT'S BEEN ARGUED, THAT, FACING ALL SPECIES, BUT PARTICULARLY THE HUMAN SPECIES. WHILE GLOBAL WARMING IS SIGNIFICANT, THE DEPLEASE OF RESOURCES MAY BE THE PROBLEM THAT IS MORE IMMINENT IN THE SENSE THAT OUR OCEANS ARE BEING OVERFISHED, AND CLEARING VAST ACRES OF RAIN FOREST FOR PRODUCTS OF WHICH TO BUILD HOUSES AND THEN, THE QUESTION BECOMES, DOES THIS EARTH HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON IT? CAN SOMETHING BE DONE ABOUT THAT ETHICALLY IN TIME TO AVERT THAT.

I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY DEBATE AS TO WHETHER WE'RE TOO MANY ON THIS PLANET. FAR TOO MANY. YOU CAN GO TO A FARM ORANGE AND NATIONAL PARK AND WORK OUT, WHAT THE CARRYING CAPACITY IS FOR CERTAIN SPECIES. LOOK AT PLANET EARTH AND COME TO THE CAPACITY OF THE PLANET FOR US. IT'S FAR BELOW WHAT WE ARE TODAY. 6 TO 7 BILLION PEOPLE, MAYBE WE COULD SORT IT OUT AND EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT, BUT, DOUBLE THAT, AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S HARD ENOUGH DEALING WITH THAT MANY PEOPLE, WITH THE DISPARITY OF WEALTH AND WHERE THE RESOURCES ARE AND WHO MOST NEEDS THEM AND TAKES THEM.

PLANET CHANGE, IF THE SEAS WARM UP, IF THE WEATHER GETS COLDER OR WARMER OR DRYER WHY WOULD WE ASSUME WE CAN CONTINUE TO PRODUCE THE FOOD WE'RE PRODUCING? MAYBE MORE IN SOME PLACES BUT MUCH LESS IN OTHERS. IF IT WAS A STAT PARTICULAR WORLD, EXCEPT FOR THE POPULATION CRISIS WE COULD DEAL WITH IT. WE HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE, IN THE WORLD TODAY, IF THE WORLD GETS HARDER TO LIVE ON, BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, NATURAL OR PROVOKED, WE HAVE A PROBLEM, AND WE CAN'T AFFORD TO WONDER AROUND AND SAY IT'S NOT OUR FAULT. IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE. WHOSE FAULT IT IS, DOESN'T MATTER. HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT, WITH 6-10 MILLION PEOPLE? WHOLE COUNTRIES, ISLAND COUNTRIES. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT 70 MILLION PEOPLE. FOR THOSE LISTENING TO US IN THE UNITED STATES, TAKE 70 MILLION MUSLIMS, INTO YOUR COUNTRY, I HOPE YOU WILL. BUT IF IT WAS JUST THEM THAT'S ONE THING. BUT, WHAT ABOUT INDONESIA? WHAT HAPPENS TO MUCH OF THE SEABOARD OF EUROPE AND INDIA AND SOUTH AMERICA AND AFRICA. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IN THE NEXT 30-50 YEARS, A MOVEMENT OF HALF-A-BILLION OR MORE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEIR COUNTRIES HAVE DISAPPEARED, INTO THE SEA. THIS IS DRAMATIC STUFF. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. YOU CAN, BUT FOOLISH TO DO SO.

IS IT WITHIN OUR CURRENT CAPACITY, TO DO MUCH ABOUT IT?

I THINK YOU CAN STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE. NOW, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE THINGS BETTER IN THE SHORT-TERM. BUT, THE ANALOGY THAT MANY USE, IS A FREIGHT TRAIN PULLED UP AND A LOT OF THE CAR GO IS TOXIC AND THE DRIVER GOT OUT OF HIS TRAIN TO GET A CUP OF COFFEE. AND HE REALIZED THAT HE DIDN'T PUT THE BRAKES ON AND HE LOOKS OUT AND SEES HIS TRAIN SLIDING BACKWARDS ON A LONG, SLOW SLOPE. GO BACK AND GET A SECOND COFFEE, AND SAY, I DON'T HAVE A JOB BUT LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. OR TRY TO GET ON T. BUT, THIS TRAIN HAS GONE TOO FAR. HE COULD USE HIS KNOWLEDGE AND PHONE IT, DELAY IT BEFORE IT PICKS UP MAXIMUM OR SAY, WELL, LET'S SEE WHERE THIS ENDS UP. THE TRAIN MIGHT DERAIL AT 70-MILES-PER-HOUR, IS LEFT TO ITS OWN DEVICES. WE CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO DO SOMETHING. WHETHER DOING SOMETHING WILL PREVENT SOME TERRIBLE MOMENTS, I DOUBT. BUT WE CAN MAKE THEM LESTERABLE DOWN THE ROAD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

IT IS OFTEN POSITIVE THAT, A GREAT NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL THING TO ATTACK THIS PROBLEM, CAN HAVE ENORMOUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS. RECOGNIZING THAT YOUR FOCUS IS THE SCIENTIFIC RATHER THAN THE COMMERCIAL. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? NEED THIS BE DONE ON A PURELY PROFIT MOTIVE? ARE WE LIKELY TO FALL SHORT.

I THINK, IT HAS TO BE AN INTERNATIONAL EFFORT FIRST OF ALL, AND I THINK IT WILL BE LED BY CERTAIN NATIONS, WHO HAVE SOME OF THE EXPERTISE. BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE GLOBALLY. IT'S GLOBAL. SO, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT ON AN INTERNATIONAL SCALE. IS IT AN OPPORTUNITY? ABSOLUTELY. GOOD HEAVENS. THE OPENINGS FOR FINDING WAYS TO DEAL WITH A NEW ENERGY REQUIREMENTS. FOR DEALING WITH NEW CROPS OR FOR DEALING WITH NEW SOURCES OF PROTEIN AND SO MANY THINGS. THIS IS ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, THIS IS A NEW AGE THAT'S DAWNING, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE MAKING MONEY OUT OF MAKING THINGS BETTER. BUT, LET'S REMEMBER, THAT THE MIDDLE-CLASS AND MIDDLE-CLASS ON A GLOBAL SCALE AND YOU WON'T SAVE THE UNITED STATES IF YOU DON'T SAVE THE WORLD, BECAUSE IT'S GLOBAL.

WHICH TAKES US TO THE SENSITIVE MATTER OF SCIENTIFIC LITERACY. NOW, IN SCOTLAND, AND AUSTRALIA, OTHER PARTS OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD. RUSSIA. NOT SO MUCH RUSSIA, EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA, OUR FAILURE TO PRODUCE SCIENTIFICALLY LITERAL YOUNGSTERS. THOSE WITH NOT JUST A CRAVING FOR A CAREER IN SCIENCE BUT LET ME UNDERSTAND.

AFRICA, TOO, IS SUFFERING FROM THIS PROBLEM, TOO. BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN INFLUENCED BY WESTERN THINKING AND MUCH OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS NOW INFILTRATED BY THIS ANTI SCIENCE THESIS. SO, WE'RE SUFFERING WITH THIS. BUT, THE POINT IS, THAT UNLESS WE PUT SCIENCE BACK INTO EVERYBODY'S EARLY EDUCATION TO BECOME SCIENTIIVEGHTS AND PUT GEOGRAPHY BACK.

AND UNDERSTAND THE WORLD IS MORE THAN A STATE OR A NATION. THE WORLD IS A PLACE THAT, IS INTERDEPENDENT, IN TERMS OF WHERE THE LINES ARE DRAWN. WE HAVE TO THINK, IN MANY COUNTRIES OF PUTTING BACK THE IDEA OF A MANDATORY, MINIMUM EDUCATION, ON CERTAIN THINGS, WE DEMAND THAT KIDS READ AND WRITE, AND DEMAND THAT THEY DO SIMPLE MATH AND THEY LEARN BASIC GEOGRAPHY AND BASIC SCIENCE AS A PREPARATION FOR THEIR HIGH SCHOOL. I WOULD DO IT EARLY, AND I HAVE NO WISH TO INTERFERE IN AMERICAN EDUCATION POLICY, IT SEEMS, TO ME, IT WOULD BE WISER TO CONSIDER, WHETHER THAT BASIC EDUCATION SHOULDN'T BE MANDATED TO A CENTRAL AUTHORITY, AND LEAVE EXTRA EDUCATIONAL, LATER IN LIFE TO YOUR SCHOOL BOARD SYSTEM. BUT, THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR LEAVING SCIENCE AND GEOGRAPHY OUT OF BASIC EDUCATION.

I WENT TO THE INTERNET AND OUR HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, ARE 17TH IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD IN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF MATH AND SCIENCE. 17TH. IN SOME CASES, YOUNGSTERS, IN BULGARIA, SCORE WELL ABOVE U.S. STUDENTS, FROM SOME REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

I WOULD AGAIN, BRINGING AFRICA INTO THIS, THERE'S A HABIT IN THE WEST OF FORGETTING AFRICA. BUT IT'S TRUE. THERE'S SOME VERY BRIGHT STUDENTS, THAT SCORE HIGHER BUT VERY FEW. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. AND PEOPLE HAVE POINTED OUT AND SCIENTISTS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT IT. BUT, NOTHING IS BEING DONE. IF WE'RE GOING TO COPE WITH SOME OF THE PROBLEMS, WHICH AL GORE SPOKE OF, IN HIS FILM, WE HAVE TO HAVE SCIENCE TAUGHT AND UNDERSTOOD AND PRACTICED INDEED DECISION-MAKING.

YOU BROUGHT UP MR. GORE'S FILM AND IT'S BEEN WIDELY SEEN AND PRAISED, AND WIDELY CONDEMNED, AS BEING OVERSTATED, YOUR REACTION TO THAT. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE FILM?

I THOUGHT IT WAS OVERSTATED TO AN EXTENT, BUT I'M NOT SURE HE COULD HAVE AFFORDED TO UNDER STATE THE GRAVICITY OF THE SITUATION. IT WAS ONE OF THE BEST WAKEUP CALLS, THAT PEOPLE HAD. IF PEOPLE GOT ANGRY, IT'S NOT A BAD THING, THEY SAW IT.

IT SEEMS TO RUN, ALMOST INTO FEARS THAT, CONCERN, THAT, DOING MUCH TO SIGNIFICANTLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM, WOULD HAVE EXTREMELY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE WESTERN STANDARD OF LIVING, THROUGH ITS ECONOMY. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISASTER OF ITS ECONOMY.

I WOULD ASK, WHO LIVED THAT LAST, IS YOUR STANDARD ANY LESS HIGH IF YOU DIDN'T THROW AS MUCH AS WHAT YOU PRODUCE AWAY. THE CULTURE OF WASTE IT'S SHOCKING AND ALTHOUGH I WOULD AGREE, IF YOU PRODUCE LESS BECAUSE YOU NEED LESS, YOU MIGHT EFFECT SOME ASPECTS OF THE FARMING AND MANUFACTUREING. I CAN SEE NO JUSTIFICATION, IN GOING TO A PWREFRBG FAST MEETING, IN A COLLEGE, KIDS OUT OF EVERY BACKGROUND, WHERE 24 PEOPLE SIT AROUND, AND ARE FACED BY A MOUNTAIN OF FOOD THAT WOULD FEED 124. AT THE END OF THE BREAKFAST MEETING? IT'S TRASHED. ALL RIGHT. IT'S TRASHED. PERHAPS TO FEED PIGS AND OTHER LIFESTYLE. BUT, WHAT DID IT COST TO PRODUCE THE BUNS AND SWEET THINGS? AND THE BAY -- BACON? DOES IT MAKE YOU A BETTER MEMBER OF OUR SPECIES, BECAUSE 50% YOU THROW OVER YOUR SHOULDER. YOU COULD HAVE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN USE. BUT WHY SPEND ALL THAT ENERGY ON SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T USE. IF YOU CUT WASTE, AND NOT YOUR STANDARD OF LIVING, THEN SURELY, THERE ARE MORE RESOURCES THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING WITH.

THE APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCES, IN THE PURSUIT OF PURE RESEARCH HAS, IT WOULD APPEAR, SLACK KENNED, THE COMMITMENT, IN THE UNITED STATES, IN RECENT YEARS, WITH NOTICEABLE CONSEQUENCES.

I THINK THERE ARE NOTICEABLE CONSEQUENCES. BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW HAVING RUN A GOVERNMENT IN AFRICA. GOVERNMENT DIDN'T HAVE RESOURCES. PEOPLE DO. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE CUSTODIAN OF OUR RESOURCES. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO ALLOCATE OUR MONEY AND TAXES TO SUPPORT RESEARCH, THAT WILL GIVE OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, THEY SHOULD BE COMMITTED TO WISE LEADERSHIP, IN DEVELOPING SCIENCE. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY. THEY HAVE NO MONEY AND I THINK IT IS TIME THAT THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE, YOUR COUNTRY, AND MY COUNTRY, BRITAIN, AND SCOTLAND, AND CHINA SAID, LISTEN, WE KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW THERE'S PROBLEMS COMING AND WE'RE NOT PERSUADED THAT YOU'RE ALLOCATING ENOUGH TO BASIC SCIENCE AND RESEARCH. WE MUST HAVE MORE.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT JUST A DIFFICULTY IN THE UNITED STATES, OR COMPLAINT AMONG THE CITIZENS OR SCIENTISTS BUT IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, AUSTRALIA, I KNOW OF LATE, IN THE U.K. IN THE E.U., OTHER SOUTH AMERICA, AND THAT'S THE POLIT SISATION OF SCIENCE, BEING MADE TO CONFORM TO A TRUTH.

YES, AND, YOU KNOW ONE COUNTRY THAT SAW A HUGE PRICE FOR THAT WAS WHEN THE SOVIET UNION ALLOWED SOME CRAZY PEOPLE TO PROPOSE AN  AGCULTURAL POLICY BASED ON PURE HUMBUG AND THEY WENT INTO A FAMINE AREA, WHERE SCIENCE WASN'T OPEN AND DEBATED AND WE HAVE TO RESIST OF IT, ANYTHING THAT COULD THREATEN OUR WELL BEING, SUCH AS ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE, AND FINDING NEW WAYS TO DEAL WITH DISEASE. THERE'S A HUGE DEBATE ABOUT STEM CELLS AND THOSE ISSUES. IT'S FINE FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T HAD THE NEED TO HAVE SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF THAT RESEARCH. USED TO BE A HUGE SCREAMING ABOUT THE USE OF PRIMATES, TO DEVELOP THE ABILITY TO TRANSPLANT ORGANS. I HAD TWO DIFFERENT KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS. I'M ALIVE AND TALKING TO YOU, BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAD THE COURAGE TO DO THE SCIENCE, AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS OF ORGAN REJECTION. I'M FOR SCIENCE, AND KEEPING POLITICS OUT OF SCIENCE. IF SCIENCE COMES UP WITH SOME BAD THINGS, THEN IT'S THE REALM OF THE POLITICIAN. BUT, DON'T MAKE IT POLITICAL.

WE HAVE THE COLLISION, WHICH WE'VE HAD, IN THIS COUNTRY, OF FAITH AND REASON, AND FAITH AND SCIENCE, SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BELIEVE THAT CREATION, AND DESIGN, IN THE CLASSROOM, ALONGSIDE EVOLUTION, OR TO AND THECLUSION OF EVOLUTION, YOU SEE OTHER STEM-CELL RESEARCH. IT COLLIDES WITH THE MORAL SENSIBILITY. HOW DO YOU MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE COMPATIBLE?

I THINK TEACHING CREATION NISM AS AN ALLER NATIVE TO EVOLUTION. CREATION NISM HAS NO PLACE, IN THE CURRICULUM. IT'S RELATED TO FAITH. I HAVE NO PROBLEM ABOUT ANYBODY LEARNING ABOUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND WHAT THE HOLLY BOOKS SAY. BUT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE BOOKS SHOULD ALLOW TO YOU COMMIT YOUNG PEOPLE TO A SINGLE COURSE IN LIFE. LET'S TALK ABOUT FAITH, AND HAVE AN AN ANTIRELIGION DISCUSSION BUT DON'T TAKE SOMETHING, THAT IS BASED ON HEARSAY, THAT DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO ANY FORM OF EMPER A CAL EVIDENCE, COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S FOUNDATION ON REPLICABILITY AND REPEATABLE FACTS. THE TWO ARE INCOMPATIBLE. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE AND IN AFRICA WHO PREFER THE CREATION STORY, DOESN'T ANSWER ALL THE THINGS. DOESN'T ANSWER TELEVISION, AND AIRWAVES, AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT .

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS AT STAKE HERE.

YES, IT IS. AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN AFFORD IT. I CAN'T AFFORD TO SIT AROUND AND NOT SAY NO. NOW, IN A DEMOCRACY, THE MAJORITY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEAD. BUT, I WOULDN'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THIS WITHOUT A REAL FIGHT. TO ME, HUMBUG.

THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CREATION KNIT AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN, ARGUES THAT IT IS THEIR ACADEMIC FREEDOM.

YOU CAN SPLIT HAIRS IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU YOU CAN COMPARE MYTH WITH OBSERVABLE DEVELOPMENTS AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEING ATTEMPTED. THERE'S NO REASON, WHATSOEVER, WHY A PERSON, WHO IS DEEPLY RELIGIOUS CAN'T ALSO HAVE A COMPLETE COMMITMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION. IT HAPPENS ALL THROUGH THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND MANY FAITHS AND IT'S JUST A RATHER FEW GROUP OF PEOPLE, WHO GOT TOGETHER, AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, WHO ARE VERY MUCH COMMITTED, TO THE STORY OF CHRIST AND TO THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, WHO ARE INVOLVED IN BREEDING ANIMALS, AND FINDING SOLUTIONS AND FINDING SOLUTIONS TO THE RAIN FOREST AND CONSERVATION OF THE WORLD, AND, NEW APPLICATIONS FOR MEDICINE. HOW CAN THEY ASSUME THAT THEY CAN CONTROL THE CURRICULUM?

THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. IT'S A PLEASURE.

THANK YOU. SEE YOU NEXT TIME ♪

AETN.org > Programs > Barnes and... > Barnes and... A Conversation with Richard Leaky