Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

The Current Transcript for February 27, 2020

Host: Matt Gallaway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

[fclip]1703888451738" onerror="continue" />

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: It feels like the whole world flies into London's Heathrow Airport. It is a busy, busy place and now a plan to make it even busier may never get off the ground. Environmentalists have won a major fight to prevent a third runway at Heathrow, citing climate change concerns. In an hour, how this decision could shape big projects around the world, including here in Canada. Also this morning, as the Corona virus continues to spread, the hunt for a vaccine is also underway. Could the best hope rest in a lab in Montreal?

SOUNDCLIP

The chances that it may recognise this coronavirus is [unintelligible] increase, but we have to wait and see the result. We have to be careful not to give false hope because we haven't tested.

MG: In an hour, the brother of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the race for answers at the forefront of the coronavirus fight. We begin, though, with Jean Vanier, a man considered a near saint in Canada and reports of sexual assaults that have shaken the faith of his followers. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

'I got so angry': Members of L'Arche respond to reports Jean Vanier sexually abused women

Guests: John Guido, Stacy Gilchrist, Nancy Mayer

SOUNDCLIP

Every person is precious. At the very far to every human person there's this primal innocence.

MG: Jean Vanier's words from two years ago are haunting today. In 1964, John Vanua founded L'Ache. His vision. People with disabilities deserve to live with dignity in communities, not institutions. Now, less than a year after his death, the community that he founded is reeling. An investigation by large international reveals that Jean Vanier sexually abused at least six women with whom he'd had, quote, "manipulative sexual relationships" between 1970 and 2005. None of the women had intellectual disabilities. John Guido is the outreach coordinator for L'Arche Toronto and a volunteer. Stacy Gilchrist received support from L'Arche. Good morning to you both.

JOHN GUIDO: Good morning, Matt. Good morning, Stacy.

STACY GILCHRIST: Good morning.

MG: Thank you for being here.

MG: How long have you been part of the L'Arche community, John?

JOHN GUIDO: It'll be 35 years in August since I came as a really young man from the United States to live in this community. That's why I came.

MG: What has it meant to that community over that time? That's a long time.

JOHN GUIDO: I had been someone who had been looking at the priesthood. I wanted to do to do service for others and to contribute to the world. But I was also seeking community. And I and I found that in L'Arche and I was in relationships with some of the people with intellectual disabilities with whom I shared a home. For 10 years. I lived in L'Arche homes with people with disabilities. And they became my teachers. We learned together, we grew together. We helped each other with mutual respect, mutual care. And that's really been the foundation for all that I've been able to accomplish in all my relationships since.

MG: Stacy, how long have you been part of L'Arche?

STACY GILCHRIST: Nine years.

MG: Nine years. And what support do you get from L'Arche? What happens at L'Arche for you?

STACY GILCHRIST: I have friends in the house.

MG: You have your friends in the house?

STACY GILCHRIST: Yes.

MG: And what does that mean to you?

STACY GILCHRIST: We do stuff together. We go swimming with Mia and Pierre.

JOHN GUIDO: You gave up going swimming just to be here today.

STACY GILCHRIST: Yes.

MG: I appreciate that. Thank you for coming.

STACY GILCHRIST: Yes.

MG: Swimming is a fun thing, so you don't want to give that up too often. When you heard about these allegations, John, the allegations that were made against Jean Vanier, what was your immediate reaction? What went through your mind?

JOHN GUIDO: You know, it's not in time when we should be shocked by abuse of power and harm caused by people in positions like Vanier had, you know, we've heard so many now before. And it's it's so disheartening, though, when it's a person you believed in and you didn't see- You know, there was no evidence in my whole journey at large that something like this could have been happening. So it was just kind of breaks down all of the understanding we've had. And you have to start then asking questions and thinking, what is it that's true still at L'Arche. But it but very quickly, I got in touch with that sense that, you know, this is not- this behaviour is horrible. Those women suffered terribly. And I can't even imagine what they went through, especially with all the people praising Vanier that they their journey must have been a particularly difficult suffering. And I'm so grateful that they've come forward and that they're getting support today.

JOHN GUIDO: But personally, it's been really difficult for you this last week. Absolutely shattering. You know, it's just, it's, it's hard to, it's hard to reconcile. And I don't think we can that this could have happened and that we weren't aware and that these individuals were harmed.

MG: The name that L'Arche used for the people that it serves, or its members, how have you gone about telling the members of L'Arche about what happened?

JOHN GUIDO: We had prepared a bit. So I did not hear it just last week because some people in leadership were brought in so that we could be prepared. We wanted to be able to first go through our own feelings and process them a bit so that we would be able to create a safe space for those people who were hearing the news for the first time and for whether they were, again, persons with disabilities or not. And we know that the people with disabilities will understand this information in different ways. There are a diverse group. Some will be traumatized, but others will be the ones who are going to lead us forward. That's what we're seeing. L'Arche International created a booklet which actually gives the key facts of what this investigation reported, but used pictograms illustrations that showed the key points and their graphic to a point where even inappropriate touch of women by the priests, Father Thomas and by Jean Vanier are illustrated in the works so that people could understand. Our members have been doing abuse prevention training for many, many years. Our staff are trained in working that way and are all of the members with disabilities have been doing abuse prevention courses for years. So they are familiar with the materials that that help them understand that they have a right to their own bodies and no one has a right to touch them sexually without their express consent.

MG: Why the language is very plain spoken, very direct in this booklet and why that approach? There is nothing sugar-coated. Do you explain what happened and why people should be upset by this?

JOHN GUIDO: Absolutely We're very clear we're all in this together. We always have been and we weren't at this time we don't want to back away from that. There were dark secrets at the heart of this, the violation of the women. And that's also been the experience of some of our members and some of it that includes some of our staff, the assistants. And we didn't want to be part of anything that's continuing to keep secrets. We all are in this together. We're all adults. So we wanted to make sure that everyone had the information they need to process to know that this behaviour is not tolerated in L'Arche, that everyone has a right to their own bodies and safety.

MG: Stacy, what happened when you learned about Jean Vanier?

STACY GILCHRIST: He touched people's bodies.

MG: Were you angry when you learned that?

STACY GILCHRIST: Yes.

MG: Why were you angry?

STACY GILCHRIST: He not supposed to do that.

MG: How did it make you feel in learning that?

STACY GILCHRIST: Sad and angry.

MG: Is that generally, John, the response that your members have given that they feel. I mean, angry is one thing, but sadness is a heavier emotion in many ways.

JOHN GUIDO: That's true. I think it's important for me to say, though, that what was shared there is held in confidence that it was as kind of a sacred circle for people to be able to share whatever they needed to say. I can say in general terms that there was enormous amount of pain in the room and that that was expressed in deep sadness, confusion, some real anger was expressed. The members with disabilities in the circle were asking me how I was doing with this news too. Their care for me is equal to my care for them. I think, Stacy, it's true that for you, when we had a chance and after sharing about it, Stacy worked with her friend Julie to prepare. And, you know, we had an opportunity for people to come forward to the large group after that. And that was Wednesday, so you stood up. You were the first person to speak and you came up to the mike. And you were in front of the group. And there were probably 80 people in the room. We had worked together in twos and threes at smaller table circles within the big group. But you had the courage really to come forward because that was really important that you were heard, right.

MG: What did you say, Stacy?

JOHN GUIDO: Do you want to read the words you said?

STACY GILCHRIST: Yes.

STACY GILCHRIST: I don't like this. I don't like Jean. He touched women's bodies. It was wrong. He was very bad, and he was naughty. He was not supposed to do that. He was not very nice. It was bad. He makes me angry. I got so angry about him. I'm not going to talk about him again.

MG: Thank you for reading that.

STACY GILCHRIST: Okay.

MG: What is it like knowing your connection with the community to hear? It's hard to stand up in front 80 people and talk about something.

JOHN GUIDO: I think for me, and I know for some others, there, when Stacy stood up. She just gave voice to something that we were all feeling and some of the people in the room don't have verbal communication and may not have been able to express. And it was really quite powerful how much Stacy's words just kind of rippled in through the group. What it really reminded us all was that despite what our founder did to harm women in secret, we've created a place where people who are safe and where their voices are heard. And I in a way, I never felt more proud to be part of L'Arche than when Stacy's stood up and spoke. the truth.

MG: Well, it's an incredibly, even in this moment here in the studio, it's incredibly powerful and really moving to hear that now. And I mean it even in a conversation like this, why is it important for you that she's here as part of this discussion?

MG: Well, certainly when we were invited to be part of this program. I've thought of Stacy and we invited her. You know, it's a risk to share your feelings with the whole world and we wouldn't ask, not everyone in the group would we be confident that would be a safe thing for them to do. But Stacy, I think you just kept saying this is important. Right?

STACY GILCHRIST: Yes.

JOHN GUIDO: And I'm just I think that's just the truth, that you're a woman who has something to say and that people need to hear.

MG: Did you know Jean Vanier? Had you met him?

JOHN GUIDO: I wasn't ever in one of the people who knew Jean very closely. I came kind of the second generation. Certainly, many of the people I was closest to L'Arche over the years still am. We were friends of John and had worked with him more closely, including many of the people with disabilities. He knew all of the members of L'Arche in the 1970s. I came in the 80s. So some of the people who welcomed me were very close to Jean. So though, for those ones who are still living, that this is a particularly devastating story because it's a betrayal by a friend.

MG: Do you think some of this was missed because of how, not just people in the community, but how we in the wider world saw Jean Vanier.

JOHN GUIDO: There's a commentary now that perhaps he was given this veneration, a cult like veneration, put on a pedestal. And because he was on that pedestal, people perhaps were blind to faults that might have been there down on the ground. Certainly, I think this his status, his charisma certainly created the some of the conditions on which he had this hold over these women, as it's described in the report, and also that people didn't question or see things that might have been, you know, people might be second guessing today.

MG: Part of the story and the way that people have reacted to the details in this story is that it shakes people's foundation and their belief in humanity, in the good, in humanity. This is somebody who is considered for sainthood. People looked at him as the best of us. And then these stories come out. Does that shake your faith in humanity when you hear this?

JOHN GUIDO: I have a deep sense, and I think L'Arche is really based on a deep sense of community rather than putting into the narrative that particularly the the white male of power is the force in the world that leads us forward is a narrative that's been debunked for a long time. And for us, our story is really about community. So we know that this individual was an inspiring person who helped called the community together. But our experience has been that it's many, many people who've been carrying this vision and making it real. Even when Vanier started L'Arche. There was a circle of external professionals who were not part of this. What happened there, as far as we know, who were competent and people with disabilities were co-founder's and in co-leaders in in developing what L'Arche is.

MG: Practically what happens with the organization now? I mean, will L'Arche disassociate itself from Jean Vanier?

JOHN GUIDO: We're very clear that we have no idea today where that road is going to be.

MG: And that's fair enough.

JOHN GUIDO: We need to take the time to first two to live through the traumatic experience of hearing this news together, take care of those who are more vulnerable to that news. And but also we want the truth to come out. And, you know, this is not a closed moment when we know that there will be more things that will come forward. We have to continuously bring the light of truth into this, the darkness of this secret world here. And that's going to take time. That's going to take the work of other people outside of L'Arche. We've always worked closely with professionals and academics, and we'll we need their support more than ever to understand and to move forward.

MG: Stacy, it's great to meet you. Thank you for coming.

STACY GILCHRIST: Thank you.

MG: And John, thank you so much.

JOHN GUIDO: Thank you, Matt.

MG: John Guido is the outreach coordinator for L'Arche Toronto, also a volunteer. Stacy Gilchrist is a member of L'Arche. Nancy Mayer has spent 43 years working with people who experience abuse. She's a social worker and executive member of the Advocates for Clergy Trauma Survivors in Canada. Nancy, good morning to you.

NANCY MAYER: Good morning.

MG: When you heard the revelations about John Vanua in this report, what was your immediate reaction?

NANCY MAYER: Well, I think my immediate reaction is somebody who did admire Jea's work for years was again shock and deep, deep disappointment.

MG: Prior to this report, as we were talking about with John, Jean Vanier was was somebody who was widely venerated, was adored, was considered for sainthood. How does that complicate things for the people he abused?

NANCY MAYER: Well, I think it complicates things so much because Jean was so deeply connected to people's sense of spirituality. And so it calls into question the way people have viewed the world. That becomes shattered. Who do you trust? Who do you believe? What can you hold sacred?

MG: The questions that faith that we were talking about, that faith in humanity in some ways.

NANCY MAYER: Absolutely. And I think that we have had such a history of people covering this up. I mean, this was not my understanding the first allegation against Jean Vanier. It that got processed while Jean Vanier was still alive. And then there was the second wave of people coming forward, when L'Arche hired a third party to investigate and became very transparent about the accusations that were being made about Jean Vanier. And so this is I mean, this is a new wave where we have stopped hopefully covering up that people in positions of power, in fact, have more frequently than we would like to believe abused those positions of power. And so largest to be commended for, it's, I think it's it's new roads that it is taken with these most recent allegations.

MG: You look at something called institutional trauma. What is that?

NANCY MAYER: Well, I mean, most of us through life, Matt, have to deal with institutions, religious institutions, educational institutions, medical institutions in order to be able to navigate our needs. And within the context of those institutions, we have found that people have abused their power institutions often rather than believing victims and supporting victims, have supported the institution and covered up what's happened. Because of that, I mean, people are left not only not being able to trust themselves and their own ability to evaluate what safe. But they can't trust any of our major institutions, like churches, when they have engaged in this kind of cover up.

MG: How could that play out in a case like this when we're talking about L'Arche?

NANCY MAYER: Well, I think what we see playing out now is something that I have to tell you, is unique. I haven't seen this where an institution has hired a third party, independent group to investigate it and has been at this moment so transparent with the results of that investigation. They are being crystal clear that what Jean Vanier did was abused his power and it was wrong. And what they've also been clear about is that they have compassion for the suffering of those who were victimized by Jean Vanier.

MG: That sounds obvious in some ways. But to your point, it's not something that happens all the time.

NANCY MAYER: Well, we've seen huge cover ups within the Catholic Church, within the Boy Scouts with in educational institutions where we put the needs of the institution first and the people who had been victimized and tricked are left in the dust. And that compounds the harm to the people who were already betrayed.

MG: As we heard from John Guido, there is a lot of really, really important, really good work that happens within the large community. How do you think that community will be able to continue on with that work and disassociate itself from Jean Vanier? Is that possible?

NANCY MAYER: Well, I think what they're modelling is something, as I say, that is rare that we rarely see, which is they are staying true to their moral compass. They are staying true to the very basic tenets of L'Arche, which is everyone deserves dignity and respect. And so as if they continue to navigate in this way where they are respectful and supportive of those that have been victimized, where they are supportive of those people in their community who were tricked by Jean Vanier, I think that they will be able to survive and continue to do their good work.

MG: Or that work will be able to continue because of the larger mission.

NANCY MAYER: That's right. That's right, Matt.

MG: Nancy, it's great to speak with you about this. I appreciate it. Thank you.

NANCY MAYER: Thank you very much for having me on.

MG: Nancy Mayer is a social worker and executive member of the Advocates for Clergy Trauma Survivors in Canada. The CBC News is next. Coming up after that.

SOUNDCLIP

As soon as we find out that there's a vaccine to counteract the Corona virus, you're going to see a market that could have a thousand point plus day in the Dow.

MG: The pressure for a vaccine for coronavirus is mounting from all different corners can be a long process. Take a year or more, antivirals could be developed more quickly to help people who are already sick. And there is ground breaking work that's happening here in Canada. We'll tell you all about it coming up in six minutes time. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current on CBC Radio One. Stay with us.

As coronavirus spread speeds up, Montreal resear

Guests: Majambu Mbikay, Michel Chretien

MG: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, London's Heathrow, one of the world's busiest airports and a proposal to make it even busier was quashed by the British courts this week. It wasn't an opposition from residents or politicians that swayed the judges, though it was the Paris Climate Accord. That's coming up in half an hour. But first, chasing a cure for COVID-19.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Based on the expert medical advice we've received, there is every indication that the world will soon into a pandemic phase of the Coronavirus.

VOICE 2: So as we learn more, as they learn more, we're sharing those experience with each other so that we can protect them.

VOICE 3: Were coordinating, for example, with the Centre for Disease Control in the U.S. We are talking to the Canadian Public Health Agency.

VOICE 4: We've stopped non-U.S. citizens from coming into America, from China. We're screening people coming into the country from infected areas.

VOICE 5: There are not many cases in Canada, but that could change at any time, given that there is such a transmission globally.

MG: Containing the spread of COVID-19 is still the top priority for most health officials. But in labs around the world, researchers are working on drugs to prevent and treat this disease as part of our series The Fix. A look now at work happening here in Canada. Yesterday, Quebec confirmed its first presumptive case of COVI-9. There are currently at least nine, 13. Part of me confirmed cases across this country. Michel Chretien and Majambu Mbikay are researchers at the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal. They've been working on antivirals since the aftermath of the SARS epidemic. Gentlemen, good morning.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Good morning.

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: Good morning.

MG: Michel Chretien, how alarmed are you by the Corona virus and the way that it's spreading right now?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Well, it seems to be major. It has all the elements to become pandemic. But on the other hand, studies said that some of these pandemics that can fall down by themselves and then disappear but come back later on. That's the story of the 2003 SARS, which kind of came out of the blue. And now we have the similar things in 2020 with a similar virus, which seems to be more and more infectious but less deadly. So it's a combination of two factors, but because of the numbers of people that are affected, the number of dead of over are over the dead ones in SARS. So what will be the future? We hope it will diminish by itself, but in the meantime, it's our duty to try to control it.

MG: Do you see, I mean, people have talked about similarities to SARS and people have talked about what we've learned from SARS as well. And I'll start with you, Michel, do you do you see a real comparison to what society went through with SARS?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Yes, indeed. I still have my mask from those days in my in my office. So there is a lot of similarity because it's pneumonia in most patients. It's a disease that attack the lung mainly. The one difference, however, is that the SARS was attacking more the heart because the people in the SARS has heart failure, which doesn't seem to be the case this time, although I'm not there to verify it. But the major difference is that they are less heart failure.

MG: Majambu Mbikay, in the aftermath of SARS, as Michel Chretien was talking about, what were you and he working on?

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: Since the SARS epidemic ended, there has been a lot of studies that have been done on the SARS itself and its protein and trying to find a new way of neutralizing because of what just Dr. Chretien just said that we expected it to reappear again. And it is a war where we are now. We have a different type of viruses but they are the same family as SARS virus.

MG: Tell me about this new drug. What is this new drug that you're working on?

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: This is an anti-viral with a broad spectrum. We come to stumble on it. just by chance, actually, and based on some other hypotheses that we're working on. And we tested the drug against the Ebola virus, which is a very, very deadly virus and it seemed to work very well. And since then, we've been trying to understand the mechanism of action. And I think we have an idea why it's so broad spectrum that it can fight influenza, Dengue virus, and hepatitis virus. And we think in this particular case, of the COVID-19, it might be useful.

MG: And it's called Quercetin. Is that right?

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: It's called Quercetin, it is a chemical that is found in plants. It has been tested in many, many diseases. Some of these diseases include the infectious disease and viruses in particular.

MG: Michel Chretien, tell me a little bit about the tests that it was done with diseases like Ebola, for example.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: At the time of the Ebola crisis in Western Africa, Winnipeg was very much involved in national microbiology. They was very much involved. They had been working on the vaccine against Ebola and they were about to ready to use it. They made sure, some of these vaccines to be tested, but then the Ebola crisis disappeared and it was reused in the present crisis. But what happened in the meantime for us is this. At the time of the crisis in 2014, I met a scientist by the name of Kew who was working on the vaccine, and I was stricken by the model she was working. And I told her can we try Quercetin in Winnipeg because Winnipeg is only lab in Canada that can manipulate the Ebola virus. So Majambu and I prepare a protocol according to our knowledge of the Quercetin. We proposed the protocol to Dr, Kew. She adapted it for her model. And we did the experiment. We tested that it was not toxic, that at high doses of the animal had no symptoms. So we were sure at that time that the dose used, which were quite big compared to what people are using in the [unintelligible] and Bingo - sorry about the word - But it worked. And all the mice survived. We went out to test it in a second virus, which is Zika virus, and it worked again.

MG: So it was working in Ebola. It was working in Zika virus. How could it work then to fight coronavirus, do you think?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Because we think it's a wide spectrum that it acts against certain common elements of viruses. What do you do now in China, they test all of them with the hope that one may recognise more than one virus. But we have to wait and see the results. We have to be careful not to give false hope because we have to test it. And we are about to start the clinical trials with the Chinese medical group and scientists of the best in the world because they are extremely well equipped, they are extremely competent. And the study will be done with all the elements of a highly scientific venture so that we make all the changes on our side, that the answer we will get to be the right one.

MG: And so these clinical trials could start, you're expecting them, to start in China very soon.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Very slow because we are prepared. My team has been put together here and our partner call Quercegen in Switzerland, they told us on Monday that they have all the pills ready to be shipped in over overnight and in China. The protocol that we put together have been written. They've been now adapted to the Chinese situation.

MG: So the green light is there? Ready to go.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Green light is about ready to be. We met just before you, the Chinese consul in Montreal. We had contact with his colleagues in China. They are at the very end of accepting the last level of acception, is gone over the last two or three weeks [unintelligible] levels. Now it's the last level of acceptance by the Chinese authority and already the [unintelligible]the medical in Beijing will be the scientist in charge that will be in constant contact with Majambu MBikay here. And on the clinical side, the president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Medical Sciences, is in charge of the clinical aspects and I'll be in contact on a daily basis with him. So as soon as we receive the okay from China, we are ready to move.

MG: Majambu Mbikay, how this sounds really promising given the scale of the spread of coronavirus right now, how exciting to you is this breakthrough?

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: It is very exciting. But I want to come back to what Dr. Chretien Explained about the broad spectrum of these particular drug. Most viruses have used similar mechanism of penetration into the cells, and these are one of the first point of attack for this particular drug, is that it interrupts the entry of the virus. So you can use so many viruses and they also use similar method of entering into cells. And I think we believe that this particular drug interrupts the entry of viruses and so that you can attack several viruses at the same time.

MG: How important is it, given how rapidly the coronavirus is spreading, that you see positive results from these trials?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Is it difficult to say because it's a clinical trial. So we start today, for example, and within a week maybe we will have entered into protocol, maybe 20, 20, 30 patients. Then we see how they react. The second week we have 30 more and then it's progressive. And then you collect all the data, the clinical data, and then you make evaluation on a weekly basis, if not daily basis, to see how it goes. You adapted the protocol. So I would say that it's a disease that has a 14 days incubation, a disease that seemed to last for about two or three weeks. So our protocol goes for 30 days [unintelligible]. So before the first 30 days, I don't think we can conclude anything. But after the first 30 day, the second month, probably, possibly, hopefully there will be results coming in. Is it going on the right side or not. So if things go well, maybe in a couple of months, we'll have some indication and then the world will progressively improve and amplify our data and prove our analysis to make some partial conclusion. Then maybe a final conclusion later on. But the timing is very difficult to see ahead of time.

MG: Majambu, if somebody were to be prescribed this drug and they had Corona virus, do we have a sense as to what kind of treatment they would be receiving it? Is this going to be a lengthy treatment? Is it going to be an expensive treatment?

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: It is not expensive. It's a natural product. It's found in nature and purified from plants. Compared to what is available now, and that is being tried in China right now, it doesn't compare in terms of price.

MG: What are what are people getting now if you have coronavirus? What are you treated with?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: One of them is Brincidofovir from Gilead in the U.S. Brincidofovir is a drug that had been produced against Ebola and it's given intravenously. I have not bought any, but I guess that if you look at the price of newer new anti-viral, it costs $1,000 or more per shot.

MG: And how much would this cost? By comparison.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Two dollars a day.

MG: Two dollars a day versus 1000 dollars per shot.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: And it would be oral. So it's another advantage. So but the starting line is the same for both and all the other 78 that are not on the protocols. So the starting line is similar because it's a new virus. So let's hope that some of them will make it and everybody's equal at the beginning and we hope that ours will work. But we have to be very careful not to give false hope.

MG: Majambu Mbikay, we're seeing that coronavirus is appearing in parts of Africa through the Middle East as well, and that it could spread even quicker because it could be moving into countries that have weaker health care infrastructure. How important to you is it that there is a universal protocol of treatment available, but this drug is widely available?

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: That's why I guess the press comes in. If we can show that this Quercetin works, it would be made available to African countries, countries that do not have the infrastructure, nor the means to combat it effectively. Compared to the other drugs like Dr. Chretien mentioned, Brincidofovir, which basically would cost a lot to produce and without the help African countries. So we really hope for that works because the price is very, very low and it can to be made available to large populations at very low cost. So that's where our hope is.

MG: Michel Chretien and these trials are taking place in China. Have you spoken with anyone in the Canadian government about funding for trials here in Canada?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Well, the first thing I did was early in January, it was to get in touch with the Canadian authorities those being the Public Health Canada and tell them that's an area in which we are very much interested. But they knew already that we were in contact with Congo for the Ebola. So we've been contacted by the Congolese government 18 months ago to prepare ourselves to provide them Quercetin for the Ebola crisis, which is not tapering down, but so [unintelligible] knew about that. So they knew us. So I told them if you have any questions or if you need anything from us, let us know.

MG: How much money would you need from the Canadian government to do trials here?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Yes. And then I asked him that exact question because we are used to ask money to governments. So we said to we think it would cost between five and six million dollars for the trial. And they know that figure form the beginning. Now what [unintelligible] told us we are taking care of the Canadians so that I knew. What I told them if they are Canadian sick, we can provide tmaybe Quecetin for them.

MG: And do you have any answer as to whether the Canadian government will give that money for the trials?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Yes, well, then I moved to other department, which is the foreign affairs and the global affairs. Then we're waiting for that. We asked them last week, five or six millions over a year and we're still waiting.

MG: How important is it for you to get an answer as soon as possible, given how quickly this virus is spreading?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: The sooner the better. Because we [unintelligible].

MG: You know a little bit about how government works. Your brother, of course, Jean Chretien, was our prime minister for a decade. You have been in and around government for a while. What message would you give to the current government about the need to move quickly in the need to find a cure?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Well sure enough, I know a little bit. Our government works. I had a good teacher for that, my brother. My feeling is that with such a emergency that you don't go around sending the followed to different ministries, asking one another. To me, I think it's possible, but I may be completely wrong. It's a other in council and then to find a way to distribute the money. I think we are pretty sure that we cannot say no one more to the Chinese people. So we need some government support on that. And we all hope that they will find a way to do that. But it's you to ask them the question.

MG: Majambu Mbikay, again, timelines are tricky and it's always difficult to predict the future. But if these trials are successful, how soon do you think the drug could be used to treat people with the Coronavirus?

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: Well, there is a company in Switzerland which has specialized in the production of this drug. They will, they are, ready to provide what is necessary for the clinical trials in China. And I think they told us that they're going to boost the production once the trial is convincingly positive, that they probably will boost the production system in order to meet the demand.

MG: So are we talking weeks? Are we talking or months? Are we talking years until this drug would be available?

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Well, a large amount of it will- They say that within weeks they can double and triple. But for the total demand, if it works, that we cannot answer, because if it works, the demand will be tremendous. But depending on the result, they may go further, depending on the on the demand. And we sincerely hope that they will be able to respond to that demand for the sake of the people.

MG: This news constantly is grim when it comes to the coronavirus. We keep hearing about it spreading and spreading and spreading. Michel Chretien, this sounds like an optimistic turn.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Yes. We've been working in the research for the last 60 years, so I stumble on many things in my life and someone with good results. And sometimes there's a lot of negative, but you never give up. And when it was negative, we went back to the bench and start again. And finally, we stumble on a lot of things that are good. And this time is to be suddenly for me after six years of career, they are lights .

MG: It's great to speak with you both. Good luck. And we'll follow this along.

MAJAMBU MBIKAY: Thank you very much.

MICHEL CHRETIEN: Bye bye.

MG: Michel Chretien and Majambu Mbikay, researchers at the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. It's been a busy week. Lots to talk about on the program. Lots of your feedback as well. And current producer Joanna Dragici is here to sort through The Current mailbag. Joanna, hi.

JOANA DRAGICI: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Let's get into a yesterday on the program. We were talking about Canada's medical assistance in dying legislation. The Liberals introduced amendments to the 2015 law that they say will make it more accessible and humane. Canadians with mental illnesses, though, will still be excluded from that.

SOUNDCLIP

We're trying to better understand mental illness and then we're trying to, we will try to frame the policy response. I have to go back to the consultations that we had. You know, the Canadian Medical Health Association, others, are all very happy that we have not included mental illness as the sole criterion for made in this particular step.

JOANA DRAGICI: [/sc].

That's Justice Minister David Lamarre. That exclusion split our listeners. Rosemary Kohr writes: I have watched many people try all the available treatments and still suffer from years without success. Many attempt suicide. That has a far more devastating effect than MAID, which ensures the person and their family are supportive throughout the process. Segregating this group, the mentally ill, from the same opportunity afforded to those with a physical illness is not only cruel, but displays a real lack of understanding of constant, profound mental illness.

MG: Bill Henry wrote: From personal experience, as a person who has suffered from severe recurring depression, I strongly disagree with medical assistance in dying being an option for the mentally ill. At the depth of my depression. I was not in my right mind by my own admission and professional diagnosis. I did not want to go on living. How could I be considered competent to consent to assisted suicide? Fortunately, I'm a stubborn person. I vowed to do everything I could to beat the odds and with care, good treatment and some lifestyle changes. I have been reasonably healthy for the last year or so.

JOANA DRAGICI: Alexander Duncan comes at it from a different angle. He writes The whole discussion surrounding made is wrongheaded. The individual should not require anyone's permission to die. Suicide is legal. The only relevant considerations are the legal capacity to make such a decision, excluding minors, and many but not all forms of mental illness and the absence of external coercion and duress. Anything else is a violation of my fundamental and essential freedoms.

MG: There's another story that's got a lot of attention from you. Wednesday on the program, I spoke with Mark Bittman. He's the author of 30 books. We're talking about the rise of plant based meats.

[sc].

By tricking us into thinking that protein is meat and meat is protein and therefore meat substitutes are protein. That's a marketing ploy. Beans, legumes are the highest, the most valuable source of protein on the planet. And that's a fact. So if you're going to legumes into fake meat and then label that protein. That to me is misleading.

MG: Have you had much of the fake meat, Joanna?

JOANA DRAGICI: I've tried it, but now that, you know, I have that it's processed in my head, it kind of screws at me.

MG: The audience had some thoughts on this.

JOANA DRAGICI: Yes, the audience had a lot to say about the surprisingly tasty but heavily processed phenomenon. Stacy Hagerty of Vancouver writes: I worry very much about the health of the general population and thinking that fake meat is a good choice. I am not a proponent of cheap, real meat either. This debate is another example of how big food is cashing in at the expense of the health of people, animals and the environment. While the largest systemic change that needs to happen for real healthy choices is put onto the consumer.

MG: Douglas Olson wrote your guests dismissal of all of pro beef arguments misses at least one important point. Many ecosystems and landscapes would have been profoundly degraded if not for the wise stewardship of ranchers. Had it not been for ranching, native grasslands currently managed for beef production would have been converted to arable agriculture with the loss of many collateral benefits that effective management of grasslands can bring. Petri dishes and legume processing plants don't protect watersheds and wildlife habitat.

JOANA DRAGICI: Jim Mitchell writes: I saw a meme a couple weeks ago with a picture of a factory with huge silos in the background. The text said, if you think plant based meat means it comes from plants. You are correct. It came from huge plants like this one. Now, whenever I hear a plant based meat, that's what comes to mind.

MG: If there is anything food related or otherwise that you hear in this program that you want to get in touch about, do reach out. You can reach us through email. thecurrent@cbc.ca. You can find us on social media. Just search for The Current on Facebook or Twitter or go to the website cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link. Joanna, thank you.

JOANA DRAGICI: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Johanna Dragici is a producer here at The Current. Coming up in our next half hour.

SOUNDCLIP

Mark is very emotionally available to me. It's a bit of a red flag because no guy is that emotionally available. I've never seen it. Never experienced it. It's like watching an experiment on Discovery Channel.

MG: It might not be an experiment on the Discovery Channel, but the hit Netflix dating show, Love is Blind, is an experiment of some kind social experiment for sure. Turns out, though, there's a bit of science in there as well. More on that coming up in the next half hour. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The C urrent. Stick around.

Heathrow Airport and climate change

Guests: Tim Crosland, Margaretha Wewerinke

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

[Dispatcher speaking]

London Heathrow. Europe's biggest and busiest airport. Transporting more than 73 million passengers every year.

MG: 73 million passengers a year. It's hard to imagine even more people travelling through Heathrow. But the airport wanted to build a third runway, making room for as many as 700 more flights every single day. Not surprisingly, this was a controversial proposal opposed by politicians, environmentalists and people who live in the area. But in the end, it was an international climate agreement that signalled the end of this project. Tim Crosland is one of the lawyers who challenged the expansion. Tim, good morning.

TIM CROSLAND: Good morning, Matt.

MG: At the heart of it. Why did you want to stop a third runway at Heathrow?

TIM CROSLAND: So this was much more than the third runway at Heathrow. For us, Heathrow was the iconic battleground against the climate crisis, not just in London, not just in the U.K. or Europe, but across the world. And this was the moment when we felt we must show that the Paris agreement means something, that it must be taken seriously, that our leaders can't keep telling us they're committed to the Paris agreement while doing the exact opposite.

MG: Tell me more about that. How did what's in the Paris agreement shape the decisions around this expansion?

MG: So it was completely clear that you couldn't reconcile the expansion of Heathrow Airport with the 1.5 degree temperature limit that set out in the Paris agreement. The IPCC has told us that for any chance of meeting that target, the whole world is going to have to decarbonise by 2050. Heathrow expansion is clearly inconsistent with that and no one would pretend otherwise. The government had claimed to have taken the Paris agreement into account as part of the consultation process. What the judicial process, the legal process allowed us to do was to expose that, to put that under scrutiny until the government was forced to admit in court that it hadn't taken account of the Paris agreement at all, that it had considered it not relevant.

MG: What do you mean that it considered it not relevant?

TIM CROSLAND: Once we got to their figures and their analysis of the climate targets, it was plain that this was inconsistent with the 1.5 degree target set out in Paris, and they hadn't used that because they knew that if they'd use that target, their plans would have been exposed as inconsistent. So while presenting their plans to the public and to parliament, they'd given us every indication that thought about Paris. But that just turns out not to be true. And in open court, the government's lawyers ended up saying we considered it not relevant.

MG: How did the judges react when they heard that?

TIM CROSLAND: You could feel an intake of breath across the court and you could see judicial eyebrows being raised. And that was the moment. That was the moment we won this case.

MG: What would have happened to those targets had the expansion gone forward? I mentioned 700 more flights every single day. Heathrow is a very, very busy place already. What would have happened to those targets had this move forward?

TIM CROSLAND: So it's not just what Heathrow would have done, which was already on its own, enough to make those targets impossible to meet, because if you have an expanded Heathrow, you would not be having net zero carbon by 2050. Still less than 2030 that we really need. But more important is the signal that that would send to governments around the world. The UK government claims to be a leader in climate change. It's going to be hosting the COP talks in November. And if what people see is a government that claims to be a leader just expanding its carbon economy according to business as usual, then nobody is going to take it seriously. People won't trust it. It will have no influence. So it's that global message that made this such an important target for us.

MG: People have been talking about expanding Heathrow Airport for decades, it seems. Like this has been a big push to increase the capacity of that airport. Did you think you had a chance in going up against that expansion through the environmental lens?

TIM CROSLAND: Should people have been campaigning about this, as you say, for a long, long time, but the conventional wisdom was you had a better chance by working with local issues noise pollution, air pollution, disruption to people's homes. So this was quite a bold gambit to go for the climate change targets in the Paris agreement. It was bold because it hasn't been done before. But once .

MG: The desegregation of schools.

TIM CROSLAND: It seems obviously true, something that society has kind of suppressed for decades, that the segregation of schools is inconsistent with the Constitution, inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment of equal protection before the law. Once it's sent, it's never going to go back because it's obviously and profoundly true. And in the same way, once you say the government must take account of its own policy commitment to keeping its citizens safe, that can never be undone, because it's obviously true. So that's what we were banking on, that obvious profound truth would resonate enough for us to win the case.

MG: Resonate now, especially I mean, if you take a look at the context, there's a lot of news about severe weather being brought on by climate change. We hear these stories around the world. What impact do you think that had on the judge's decision?

TIM CROSLAND: I think it's had a huge impact. I think the global wave of protests has had a huge impact. I think JP Morgan coming out and talking about the extreme risks for humanity if we don't change the system has had an impact. Suddenly people are starting to unite in this adversity of the planetary emergency. Businesses are realizing there's no business, there's no investment. If we don't preserve the conditions that make the planet habitable. So all of that has meant even with a very conservative institution like the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, suddenly that message is starting to get through. What we're hearing is the bell tolling on the carbon economy.

MG: This is not a universally accepted and cheered decision, having listened to the chief executive for Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye.

SOUNDCLIP

Heathrow expansion is vital to the future of our country. Let's be clear. No Heathrow expansion, no global Britain. There is no contradiction between growing aviation and tackling climate change. We can do both. We've shown through our...

MG: Vital to the future of the country. Do you worry that you may have destabilized in this decision the British economy, Tim?

TIM CROSLAND: Well, no, because you might expect John Holland-Kaye, who has a duty to his shareholders to say that, because clearly this is going to affect the profits of Heathrow Airport Ltd. But when we talk about global Britain and we ask ourselves, is our vision of global Britain, a country that abandons all its citizens who are suffering from floods? Is it a country that trashes our international commitments and ignores the science? Is it a country that in the face of the planetary emergency hides behind the sofa and pretends it's not happening? I don't think that's the vision of global Britain that any of us want. Global Britain means leadership in the face of global threats. The leadership we're going to need at COP 26, whether that's in Glasgow or London. That's what global Britain means. And we're delighted to see that the government has decided not to appeal this decision and to embrace the opportunity to show real climate leadership. Tim Crosland, good to speak with you. Thank you.

TIM CROSLAND: Thank you so much, Matt. Cheers.

MG: Tim Crossland is a lawyer and director of Plan B at a climate litigation charity. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh is an international public law expert at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Margareta, good morning to you.

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: Good morning.

MG: What do you make of this decision?

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: Well, it's really a breakthrough from a global perspective as well as from the perspective of the UK. In a way, it was as early as in 1992 that world leaders resolve to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. That phrase was literally incorporated in the climate change convention. And yet it's been ignored all this while. 2015 marked the adoption of the Paris agreement with a more concrete temperature goal of keeping global global warming well below two degrees and pursuing efforts to keep them below 1.5. And again, you are seeing that really government saying one thing and doing the offices. And now here is the judiciary saying that ignoring these goals is no longer an option. They must be taken into account.

MG: The climate agreements that were signed in Paris was a voluntary pact. I mean, it was ambitious to some people, perhaps not ambitious enough to others, but it was voluntary. It was legally non-binding. How does a ruling like this affect that?

MG: Hmm, yes, that's really, that's by this judgment is so interesting because it hasn't indeed been perceived as not legally binding and indeed the United States in particular lobbied hard to make sure that the treaty would not contain legally binding emission reduction commitments. And these such commitments are not contained in the agreement as opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which did have them. But it does have this long term temperature goal. And the legal nature of that goal is ambiguous. And it's now a little less ambiguous, thanks to the UK Supreme Court decision, which shows that it does have some teeth, at least it cannot be ignored at will by government.

MG: This is decision specific to the Heathrow expansion. But how do you think it might affect other large scale infrastructure projects? And we'll start with those projects in the UK.

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: So one really interesting aspect of the decision is that's the implication of the reasoning of the court is really does the requirement to take account of the UK government's commitment to the Paris greengold applies across the board. The judges considers the Paris agreement to be put a government policy. And there are arguments about the legal nature of the Paris agreement and it not being incorporated or not in a straightforward way in domestic law. And the Court of Appeal said that the question of government policy must be interpreted as based on the plain, ordinary meaning of policy.

MG: So, in the UK. Now, does that mean that every major infrastructure project is going to need to be seen through the environmental lens, through the lens of climate change?

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: Almost certainly does the implication. Anywhere in any area where a minister has to take account of government policy in approving projects, this requirement will come in insofar as the Paris agreement is relevant. And it's obviously relevant to any decision that has contributed to global emissions.

MG: Here in Canada, we've been having this conversation about huge oil sands mine, the Tech Frontier mine and Alberta, which people believe was bumping up against the Paris agreement. I spoke with an environmentalist named Julia Levin. Tech ended up pulling the plug on this project. But have a listen to what Julia Levin said, that the federal government here in Canada still needs to do.

SOUNDCLIP

What we do really need now is a climate test. We look at our climate targets, which are Canada's fair share of what we have to do to tackle the climate emergency the world finds itself in. And we map out that pathway. And then when we have project decisions, we know from the onset whether these are compatible with our climate goals.

MG: Margaretha, what do you make of that? How could this decision in the UK affect the climate test that she's calling for in Canada? Would infrastructure projects here have to go through that same lens?

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: Absolutely. But I agree to make much more sense to legislate an ambitious targets that makes it clear that the government considers itself to be bound by these coal goals and that avoid is ad hoc, an uncertain approach of dealing with the project on an ad hoc basis. It should be a holistic planning that takes account of both the declared goals, and in case of Canada, Canada's historical responsibility for carbon emissions and so that the world as a whole gets on track for meeting this 1.5 degree goal.

MG: How do you square those different ambitions? We heard from the chief executive of Heathrow that the expansion of that airport is economically vital. People have made the same argument to expanding the oil sands in this Tech Frontier mine here. How do you square that with the commitments that Canada and the U.K. have made to the Paris agreement to try and balance those big infrastructure projects with your climate change targets?

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: I think that the idea that we can really balance business as usual with or even expansion of food or economic growth based on high carbon projects with these Paris goals is an illusion. There is nothing better than balancing. There should be transformation to a clean and green economy. And it's just transition that make sure that people don't lose their jobs and if they do that there are alternatives available to them. So that's especially of workers and more vulnerable segments of society are not adversely affected.

MG: You see this ruling as certainly, if not a precedent, then laying down a marker for further development around the world.

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: Absolutely. It's not even such a radical judgment. It's just the core thing the government must comply with its own policy. But it's more than we had so far and certainly a useful basis for further litigation in other countries.

MG: It's great to speak with you about this. Thank you very much.

MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH: My pleasure.

MG: Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh is an assistant professor of public international law at Leiden University and the author of State Responsibility, Climate Change and Human Rights.

Why people are fascinated by Love is Blind

Guest: Helen Fisher

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name's Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I've met the person I want to spend the rest of my life with. I've never seen her before.

VOICE 2: Here you will choose someone to marry. Nice to hear from you. Just say see ya without ever seeing.

MG: The most watched show on Netflix in Canada right now is something called Love is Blind. You just heard a little taste of it. Basically, it is kind of complicated to explain, but strangers meet without seeing each other. And then within days they're engaged. People are glued to this thing. And the show follows a pretty familiar formula, one that's been on TV, it turns out, for decades.

SOUNDCLIP

FEMALE VOICE: Kissing is my hobby and guys I date have to be good at it. I want to hear your sexiest kiss. Come on.

VOICE: Mmmm.

FEMALE VOICE: Oh.

VOICE: I'm just getting warmed up.

FEMALE VOICE: Oh, boy. Okay, that's number three. Let me hear yours.

VOICE 1: [Kissing sound].

FEMALE VOICE: God. The whole neighbourhood would hear it.

[Laughter]

MG: A classic TV from the 1970s shows like The Dating Game turned courtship into entertainment, and that's something our brains apparently enjoy, as evidenced by the game like experience of using dating apps. Helen Fisher is a biological anthropologist and chief scientific advisor to the dating site Match.com. Helen, good morning.

HELEN FISHER: Good morning, Matt. Nice to be here.

MG: Great to have you. You have been watching Lover is Blind. What do you make of the show?

HELEN FISHER: You know, mankind has been watching what everybody around them has been doing for probably four million years. There's nothing new about watching reality television. You're basically sitting around the campfire comparing ideas about how to court and what is courtship. And you're trying to find life's greatest prize, which is a mating partner. And so we're glued to it because it's the future of our DNA, really.

MG: They call this a love experiment. I mean, there have been, yes, a lot of different dating shows, we can talk about some of them. This is different in that these people don't actually see each other and then they become engaged and then they're hurtle toward the altar. What does that do to complicate how we think about love?

HELEN FISHER: Well, I study the brain, I and my colleagues are the first in the world to put people in brain scanners who are madly in love and study this brain circuitry for romantic love. You know, this brain system for romantic love can be triggered instantly. I mean, it's like the sphere's system or the anger system or the surprise system. It can be triggered instantly and it doesn't have to be triggered first by somebody's looks.

MG: Explain that to me, because without explaining that to me, because we'll often hear about the idea of love at first sight, that's seeing somebody. If you aren't in the same room, if you don't actually see the person, they're separated as they are in the show by some sort of weird screen. How can that non visual connection actually lead to true love?

HELEN FISHER: As you grow up, you develop what I call a love map, an unconscious and conscious list of what you're looking for in a partner. And sure, we want somebody who looks good, but we also really want somebody who's got a sense of humour. We have the same values, the same religious beliefs, the same political beliefs. There's many, many things that go into mate choice. And actually looks become less and less important as you get to know somebody. But courtship goes along sort of a trajectory and all the way through, there's escalation points and there's breaking points. And so very often you get to know somebody on the phone. You write a lot of emails, you really like them. And then the first time you actually meet the person that can be a real de-escalation point or a real escalation points. So looks do count. But it's by far not everything. What's very interested in one of the I was watching it last night, there was a black girl and she said, you know, it was the first time that I was ever able to get to know somebody without putting in the issue of colour. And when certain aspects of a person are simply removed, you can focus on other ones. And in this case, we're actually they're enabling them to focus on actually much more important things than looks.

MG: You could imagine, though, that there are a lot of people who are hearing about this thing. Come on. This is not going to work, though. To your point, once you actually meet, there might be this come down. You may have, you think, some sort of connection between the screen and that might lead you somewhere, but once you actually come face to face, this is not actually going to work out.

HELEN FISHER: Well, what's interesting about it, though, is, you know, once you fall in love with somebody, I mean, as I say, we study what happens in the brain when you're madly in love, and one of the main things that happens is a brain region linked with negativity bias, remembering the negative, reduces activity. You begin to be able to overlook what you don't like about somebody and focus on what you do. So and along with that, there's a lot of dopamine going through their brains, their brain regions linked with decision making and begin to reduce. So suddenly they walk towards you. You didn't expect them to look like that. I mean, the human imagination is absolutely remarkable. But very quickly, if you're madly in love with somebody, you overlook those differences, at least while you're still in love. As a matter of fact, when we put people in the scanner, we had some of them look at a picture of somebody who was really very good looking and much better looking than the picture of their partner and brain regions linked with aesthetically pleasing became active when you look at a pretty face. But when you look at somebody you're in love with, a whole different part of the brain becomes active, pumps out that dopamine. You're able to overlook what you don't like and focus on what you do. And that's what's going on here. They have actually gotten to know these people in a very intimate way. And one thing that's really important is that both sexes know that the person they're talking to wants to get married. I mean, that's a really good start.

MG: Why do you think these shows, and it's not just this, what do you think of The Bachelor? The Bachelor has been wildly popular and people they might not admit that they're watching it. They're watching it. Why are these shows been so popular, do you think?

HELEN FISHER: Because you pick up tips. You know, I've watched all of them at least once. And you pick up a lot of tips about, well, I wouldn't do that. I mean, you get to call your girlfriends and say, geez, did you hear that girls say that? I never would have thought of that. That's a pretty good idea. Maybe I'll do that, too. Or, oh, boy, wasn't that guy an idiot or wasn't that girl an idiot? I'm not going to do that the next time I'm on a date. So you're picking up tips. You're learning about this incredible aspect of life called love.

MG: Is there something about. I mean, the show is not called respect is blind or friendship is blind or compatibility. This is about love. Is there something in this era about love, about that true romantic, deep notion of love that is leading us somewhere different?

HELEN FISHER: No, I mean, love is universal. You know, the brain hasn't changed in three hundred thousand years. So bottom line is that the brain system, the basic pathways for romantic love, aren't going to change whether you swipe left or right on Tinder. And they're not going to change whether you meet somebody behind a wall for four days before you ever see them. But courtship is changing. Courtship always changes in culture. I mean, courtship really changed in the early 50s when suddenly we had automobiles. I mean, suddenly everybody was going parking and motels began to pop up. Some courtship is changing right now, and it's changing so rapidly that we don't know how to handle it. A lot of these people are just overcome. They've got cognitive overload and they just want to simplify this process. And so that's well, they'll go on these shows.

MG: How how do apps like Tinder change how we approach the idea of love?

HELEN FISHER: They make it more accessible. You know, I mean, for millions of years, you didn't have very many choices. One of the big problems with these dating sites is that we've got too many choices. There's nothing wrong with these dating apps. We just don't know how to use them. But first of all, these, you know, Tinder match. These are not dating sites. They are introducing sites. That's all they do is introduce you to somebody else. The only real algorithm is your own brain. And of course, you watch these people on Love is Blind. They're using their own heads to assess these people who are very well built to to think, oh, is he funny? Is he kind? Is he is he sexy? You can't tell whether somebody sexy by looking at him by the way, you've got to get in bed with them to do that.

MG: Duly noted. Thank you. [Laughs].

HELEN FISHER: [Laughs].

MG: Well, you talked about tips. You talked about how people watch these things, in part because they're looking for tips. But it seems as though in some ways people might be looking for shortcuts. The New York Times had this wildly popular thing. It was like the 36 questions that if you ask somebody sitting across the table from you, they can lead to love. And one of the reasons why it was popular was because people were wondering whether this would be the key. And maybe they're looking at shows like this thinking, well, maybe I can find - to your point - I can find the tips or I can find the key in that. Are people looking for shortcuts and they're not doing the work to actually get to love?

HELEN FISHER: I think the human-animal is always looking for shortcuts. I mean, you know, dating is expensive. It's very time consuming. You can get really hurt. It's not new, by the way. I mean, all you gotta do is read Jane Austen or War and Peace or any of the great novels and you're going to see people who are desperately looking for love. I would guess I don't know the background of most of these people on this show, but my guess is they've looked around for quite a while and they'd like to get on with other parts of their life and they want to have this under control.

MG: Would you ever sign up for a show like this?

HELEN FISHER: To be on it?

MG: Yes.

HELEN FISHER: You mean to find people at the other side?

MG: Yes.

HELEN FISHER: Well, first of all, I've got a sweetheart. So that's out. But if I didn't have a sweetheart, yes, sure. Why not? Would you do it?

MG: Absolutely not.

HELEN FISHER: Because?

MG: At the risk of sounding old fashioned in a thousand years old, to me, it's the kind of thing that I'm almost embarrassed even watching, let alone saying that I would sign up for.

HELEN FISHER: I'm a little embarrassed watching it. As I said to my boyfriend, we were watching it, Boy, these are the questions I would ask somebody. I'd like to know what they read. Certainly what they do in their spare time. I hope these men and women are asking the more important questions. They probably are.

MG: But you never know because it's reality TV.

HELEN FISHER: That's right.

MG: Helen, thank you.

HELEN FISHER: Thank you.

MG: Helen Fisher is a biological anthropologist and chief scientific adviser for the dating site Match.com. That'll do it for The Current for this week. Would suggest to get caught up on the many things we talked about this week that you subscribe to our new podcast. It's called The Current Weekly. You can find it wherever you get your podcasts. We were just talking about finding love in kind of unusual places. Although I guess it's not even that unusual anymore. It is at times like this when we need Rihanna to make sense of it all. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Found Love by Rihanna]

Friday February 28, 2020 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode