Hockey Canada comes under fire after for its handling of alleged sexual assault

Guests: Rick Westhead, Julie MacFarlane

DUNCAN MCCUE: That's the rare Spix's Macaw. The bright blue parrot species went extinct in the wild in Brazil over 20 years ago. Since then, scientists have been breeding captive birds with hopes of eventually letting them come back home. Now that moment has finally come. In 30 minutes, will this pixies macaws survive in its natural habitat again? And how can we save other species on the brink of extinction. Then:

SOUNDCLIP

To me, it's exactly like seeing. So I'll be able to navigate my world with this new type of sight.

DM: Aurelie Shamir was the first Canadian to get a retinal implant, also known as a bionic eye, while the technology helped others. In the end, it didn't do much for Orly than the campaign that made her the company that made her implant abandoned the project. My conversation with a journalist looking into this story in an hour. But we begin with a growing scandal in Canada's national game. I'm Duncan McCue, sitting in for Matt Galloway. And this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I think right now it's hard for anyone in Canada to have faith or trust in anyone at Hockey Canada. What we're learning today is absolutely unacceptable.

DM: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned Hockey Canada earlier this week after another bombshell hit the national governing body. A Globe and Mail report revealed how one of the country's largest sports organisations has quietly settled alleged abuse claims out of court and out of the public eye, using a multimillion dollar fund partly financed by player registration fees.

SOUNDCLIP

Their behaviour over these past years and indeed over these past months has been not worthy of an organisation that embodies so many hopes and dreams for young Canadians. We need to see Hockey Canada demonstrating a level of transparency, accountability, understanding of the situation they're faced with. There needs to be a real reckoning with the kind of behaviour that we saw from that organisation and the wilful blindness to something that other organisations have been faced with, struggled with but made good decisions around as opposed to what Hockey Canada has been doing. So I think there's a lot more that Hockey Canada is going to have to do before Canadian parents like me start trusting them.

DM: Last month, the federal government froze $7.8 million in funding to Hockey Canada over its response to an alleged sexual assault, an out-of-court settlement. A woman, now 24, alleged she was assaulted in a London, Ontario hotel room in June 2018 by members of the Canadian junior team. She launched a lawsuit against Hockey Canada, the Canadian Hockey League and the unnamed players. Hockey Canada settled that lawsuit in May. The House of Commons has asked for an independent investigation into how Hockey Canada handled that allegation and others. Officials from the organisation will be back in Parliament next week to face further questioning. In the meantime, Hockey Canada is reopening its own investigation and the NHL has launched a probe. To Rick Westhead is TSN senior correspondent. He first broke the story. Rick, good.

RICK WESTHEAD: Morning. Good morning, Duncan.

DM: Rick, this has turned into a lot to keep track of, so I'm glad you're here. Can you take us back to April when a woman filed this lawsuit in London? What can you tell us about the alleged incident involving some of the members of the national junior team?

RICK WESTHEAD: Well, the details are extremely disturbing. This was a statement of claim that was filed in London, Ontario. The woman is not identified in the court record. She is identified only by the initials M. The eight players who she says were complicit and involved with her alleged assault were referred to in the papers as John Doe's, and the claim was against Hockey Canada and the Canadian Hockey League and these these players. So the woman alleged that following a Hockey Canada event in London, Ontario, in June 2018, she returned to a hotel room with a player on one of these players and they had consensual sex. And after that, the player allowed seven other players to come into the hotel room and she was assaulted repeatedly for hours. And I won't get into the graphic details of what's in the claim. People who want to find the reporting can go and re ad it for themselves. But she says that after the assault, the players directed her to shower and to be on a video recording saying that she was sober and threatened her and said, Do not cooperate with any potential police investigation into this and don't report it to police. So that lawsuit was filed in April, and I got a tip about it and and started making phone calls. And it wasn't long after that I got calls returned saying, actually, this case has been settled. And that's sort of what brought us to our first story on.

DM: And so how was the lawsuit settled?

RICK WESTHEAD: Well, we don't know exactly we don't know yet how much the lawsuit was settled for. The woman had asked for just over three and a half million dollars in her statement of claim. And the terms of the settlement were were not released. And Hockey Canada hasn't said much more about it than that. The only other detail on the actual lawsuit in settlement we have was from Canadian Sports Minister Pascal Santos, who told a standing committee in Ottawa in June that she'd been informed by Hockey Canada that there was a nondisclosure agreement attached to a settlement.

DM: And I'm going to get into the nondisclosure agreement with our next guest. But Hockey Canada investigated the allegation itself. Back in 2019, what did it conclude?

RICK WESTHEAD: Well, Hockey Canada hired a law firm in Toronto, Heenan Hutcheson, to do an independent third party investigation. And what we found out when Hockey Canada officials were summoned to testify in Ottawa last month, again, this was before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We learnt a couple important and interesting facts. First, the players on that team who were interviewed did so voluntarily. There was no mandate from Hockey Canada that they had to participate and cooperate in any investigation, which will probably would have included being interviewed, turning over any text message communications or social media communications or videos taken, you know, between players. And so even when they testified, Hockey Canada officials contradicted one another over how many players actually co-operated with the investigation. At first the estimate was between four and six, and then it was more than a dozen. And so, in other words, there was a real the reaction that I heard from employees was one of a of upset and surprise that. Officials from Hockey Canada weren't more prepared for that testimony. And since that testimony in June, we now have two more dates of hearings that are set. The Senate committee will reconvene July 26 and 27th in Ottawa. And who knows, there could be more hearings, dates on this as well.

DM: And now we're hearing that Hockey Canada is going to be reopening the investigation. Also, there's a possibility that London Police Service may be re-examining the allegations of sexual assault. Why is that happening now?

RICK WESTHEAD: Well, unknown police has said definitively that the that the police chief has said that it will investigate to see what other kind of investigative avenues might be there to to look into this. I don't know what that means, to be honest. Hockey Canada's investigation. It's unclear whether he and Hutcheson, the same firm that worked for the Federation back in 2019, is going to be hired again or continue its work or whether someone else will come in. We also don't know much about the scope or terms of the National Hockey League investigation. I've had a chance to talk with the lawyers for the four, four, seven players who were allegedly involved in this incident in 2018. And the lawyers tell me that they plan to cooperate fully with the NHL investigation. I got them so far as to say even text messages between the players amongst themselves would be turned over to the NHL if they asked.

DM: And the NHL can discipline regardless of any of these findings, correct? I mean, they have they have moral conduct codes.

RICK WESTHEAD: Yeah, that's right. You don't the NHL doesn't require a criminal conviction to discipline or sanction a player. They could they can they can do this if they do so, if the league decides that a player's conduct has detracted or hurt his team's image, the league's image, the game's image overall. There's a lot the NHL can do here, and the lawyers for these players are working very hard to try to make sure that that doesn't happen. They're they're fighting even the prospect that the players identities would be released, because they say that that would be literally career and life altering for them. It doesn't need to be said, of course, the impact of an alleged sexual assault on someone, of course.

DM: And then there's Hockey Canada, the organisation. I mean, they're in a pickle as well. I mean, they issued an open letter to Canadians last week acknowledging the public anger that's that's arisen from the handling of this allegation, saying that there hasn't been enough done to end the culture of, quote, toxic behaviour in our game. They've pledged a bunch of reforms, mandatory consent training. What do you think's going on at the top leadership levels of Hockey Canada right now?

RICK WESTHEAD: Now, that's a great question. And the answer is, I don't know. There's a lot about this we don't know. The the allegations that were made in the statement of claim were never proven. This did not go to trial. The London police closed a criminal investigation in February 2019 without laying charges. And I think it's important to to remember all that at the same time. Hockey Canada is is desperate right now. It has had, as you pointed out, its funding cut off from the federal government. Sponsors have paused their relationships with the federation, which is, you know, millions of dollars at stake. And no doubt officials with the organisation are trying to save their own jobs. So they're trying. It feels like almost on a daily basis to react to what the latest news is. You know, as you pointed out, again, we learnt only this week that the Federation has what it calls a national equity fund, which with very little oversight or transparency, has been maintained by Hockey Canada to pay off people who have made complaints related to sexual assault against the organisation or against coaches and players and whatnot who have ties to Hockey Canada.

DM: And what are they saying about that special fund that is a slush fund essentially to pay off abuse claims?

RICK WESTHEAD: Well, initially they said that the that a third party governance review would consider the future of that fund. And it became clear rather quickly that that wasn't enough, that they needed to take a more definitive and immediate stance. So Hockey Canada already has said that moving forward it will no longer use that fund to make any kind of settlements related to sexual assault. But the but the organisation, it's important to remember there's still a lot of details that have not been disclosed. We don't know historically how many abuse complaints have been filed against Hockey Canada, how many have been settled, how much money has changed hands in connexion with settlements like that, how many nondisclosure agreements have been signed? And, you know, not to get off too much off topic, but let's remember, it's not only hockey every day. As you know, reporters are digging into this and trying to uncover new details. We're being contacted by athletes from other sports. Saying, What about us? Athletes from gymnastics, athletes from water polo, athletes from rowing and wrestling and all saying, you know, you we need to have a broad discussion about the culture within all of these sports. It's not only hockey that's in trouble right now.

DM: Still lots of questions thanks to your reporting on this.

RICK WESTHEAD: My pleasure.

DM: Rick Westhead is a senior correspondent with TSN. As we mentioned, parliamentarians will examine this matter further next week when the Commons Heritage Committee holds hearings. Representatives from Hockey Canada are expected to answer questions. Liberal MP Anthony Housefather is a member of that committee. We asked him what he hopes will be learnt from the hearings.

SOUNDCLIP

What puzzled me the most was that Hockey Canada settled a lawsuit that it received only several weeks before without knowing the underlying facts in the claim. When I asked them pointed questions, they said they didn't know who was involved. If you don't know who's involved and you don't know whether something happened or didn't happen. Why would you settle a multimillion dollar lawsuit in a matter of weeks and no business would do that? It's not rational. And then they didn't make a claim to their insurer. They just settled expeditiously, a claim where they didn't know what actually happened. And that was bizarre. And I think Hockey Canada needs to come back and account for its actions and not only account for its actions in this case, but Hockey Canada needs to talk to us about their practises. Now we know they had is fined. That includes uninsured liabilities, including sexual assault allegation liabilities. When did it start? How many people have they settled with under that fund till now? Who knew about that fund? There's there's a lot of underlying questions that I would have said. They will no longer use this fund to deal with sexual assault allegations. That's well and good, but how will they then have a transparent process? What other steps will they take? This is the, I think, most important issue for me as a member of the committee.

DM: The CBC also reached out to the NHL. We got this statement: "We have no comment other than to say that the NHL intends to continue pursuing and conducting our investigation". This case is raising questions about how sexual assault allegations are handled by sports organisations. Julie MacFarlane is a Emerita Distinguished University Professor of Law at the University of Windsor and the co-founder of Can't Buy My Silence a campaign to End the Misuse of Non-disclosure Agreements. Julie MacFarlane, good morning.

JULIE MACFARLANE: Good morning.

DM: You have concerns about the way Hockey Canada has handled this allegation of sexual assault. Why?

JULIE MACFARLANE: Well, as well as the issues around transparency and the investigation process, which we can talk about as well. We know that the heart of this was a nondisclosure agreement, which means that effectively nobody was able to speak about the outcome or about the experiences that led up to the dispute in the first place. And unfortunately, we know from our campaign by my silence, that this is a very, very common feature of settlements in harassment and abuse and assault cases where an agreement is made that requires the victim to protect the perpetrators in order to have their own privacy and confidentiality in the settlement.

DM: How prevalent is an NDA, a nondisclosure agreement in cases like this?

JULIE MACFARLANE: Well, of course, the irony, Duncan, is that it's very difficult to get data that's reliable about a secret settlement. These are secret settlements. But what we have currently in research that's been done in the United States is a figure of one in three workers in any workplace in the US have signed some kind of a nondisclosure agreement and that might relate to their original purpose, which was to protect proprietary commercial information, what we sometimes call intellectual property, but now is being used to cover up all forms of complaint harassment, discrimination, bullying, assault complaints. So these are extremely pervasive. And you will find lawyers telling you that they are now a default in many civil settlement so that there is not just an agreement not to pursue the claim. But that agreement includes a clause that forbids anybody who has been part of the process from speaking about it, not just for the time being, but forever. These are forever gag orders. And as I said before, what's really important for I think Canadians to understand, but it is so incredibly unfair about them, is that they require a victim who wants confidentiality and privacy, as we can all understand, to only be able to get that if they agree to protect the people who abuse them.

DM: And so it's it's kind of leveraging compensation to get an NDA. Is is that correct?

JULIE MACFARLANE: Exactly. And I think that the other point that that is important for Canadians to understand is, although this is a large we're talking about the possibility of a large settlement amount in this case, and these have been associated historically. With Hollywood movie stars, Harvey Weinstein, etc., etc.. In fact, what we know is that non-disclosure agreements generally settle generally a part of extremely small settlements, for example, where somebody has raised a complaint in a workplace which may itself be a low income workplace, that's fairly precarious employment. These are rife, for example, in the hospitality industry and the accommodations industry and settlements are usually very, very small. So when we say can't by my silence, we're not talking about people's silence being bought for a large amount of money in most cases, but in fact for very small sums and then permanently gag for the rest of their lives from talking about what happened to them sometimes to family and friends and to therapists who might help them get through the trauma that they experienced as a result.

DM: This is a very high profile case because, of course, it's hockey.

RICK WESTHEAD: But yes, I mean.

DM: There you've made the case that that nondisclosure agreements should not be legal in Canada in sexual harassment cases. Why?

JULIE MACFARLANE: Well, we have we are campaigning and can't buy my silence for non-disclosure agreements to be returned to the original purpose, which was to protect intellectual property and, you know, misconduct and covering up misconduct is not intellectual property. And we've seen this gradual creep. And so we have worked with lawmakers now in Canada, in the United States, in England and Wales, in Ireland, and legislation is being brought forward that would take these off the table. DUNCAN Because we can ask organisations like Hockey Canada and I have certainly done this several times publicly in the last few weeks to commit to not using a nondisclosure agreement in their new investigation because quite frankly, if they do, we'll be right back to square one again. We still won't know what the outcome is.

DM: Let me ask you just about the details of this case. The police investigation in London concluded in 2019 without charges. This week, the London police announced they're now reviewing that investigation again because of the public interest in what might come of that.

JULIE MACFARLANE: Well, certainly, I'm glad to see that they're reopening it. But this does shine a light as well on the fact that police investigations often start when an organisation, certainly an organisation with the type of public status of Hockey Canada, says, no, no, no, don't worry, we'll look at it, you don't need to go any further. And we also have some evidence this week, Duncan, that this young woman was put under pressure to withdraw her complaint, which I believe her mother made initially on her behalf to the police. But, of course, when the police investigate, they don't see two people who are accused of crimes. Well, maybe you should go away now and investigate yourself and come back and tell us whether we should charge you. And effectively, that's what happens with these so-called third party investigations. I mean, this is being talked about as if it's some kind of independent investigation of Hockey Canada. But I want to point out, and I'm sure a lot of Canadians have noticed this, that the firm that was engaged to do the investigation was chosen, appointed and paid by Hockey Canada. That is not an independent investigation that is investigating yourself. And I don't think in 2022 we should be any longer allowing organisations to do that. There should be a fully independent investigation model with standards of practise. Because the other thing that we see all the time is somebody who's been trained as a lawyer and I'm speaking now as a law professor for the last 40 years.

DM: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to jump in there. But thank you so much for your analysis on this. Appreciate it.

JULIE MACFARLANE: You're very welcome, Duncan.

DM: Julie Macfarlane is a distinguished Professor Murata at the University of Windsor. She's also the co-founder of the advocacy group Can't Buy My Silence. CBC News is next. And then the.

SOUNDCLIP

Last Wild Bird was known to be alive in late 1999, early 2000. And after that, it disappeared.

DM: That's the Spix's macaw. He's talking about a bright blue parrot from Brazil declared extinct in the wild over 20 years ago. Now, scientists have been breeding the birds in captivity and reintroduced them back to their natural habitat in 6 minutes. The Process of de-extinction. I'm Duncan McCue and listening to the Current.

This beautiful blue parrot has returned to the wild 2 years after being declared extinct

Guest: Tori Herrdige

DM: Hi. I'm Duncan McCue and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

DM: People who have lost their sight or hearing are finding hope in innovative technologies. They're called narrow prosthetics, and they hook straight into your brain. But what if the device needs a fix or a software update? And the company that made it is no longer doing that? That's in 30 minutes. But first, making a flying comeback.

[Music: Theme]

Speaker 2: [sc]

VOICE 1: You know, Macaw is a very special bird. In fact, as far as we know, Blue is the last male of his kind.

VOICE 2: Really?

VOICE 1: Yes. And recently we found a female in our hopes to bring the two of them together to save their species.

VOICE 2: Oh, no. Yeah, sure. When can she come over?

VOICE 1: Oh, no, no, no. She's in Brazil. Blue must come to Rio de Janeiro.

DM: That's a scene from the animated film Rio. In the film and Blue, is Spix's macaw is the last known male of his kind. He's lived a comfy, safe life in captivity his whole life until he's brought to Brazil to mate with the last known female. And naturally, high jinks ensue. Now, in a strange and exciting case of art imitating life, a similar project is underway. A flock of once extinct specks macaws have been reintroduced into the wild. Tom White is a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and technical adviser to the Rescue Project. He's in Luquillo, Puerto Rico. Good morning.

TOM WHITE: Good morning.

DM: Tell us, what does a Spix's Macaw look like?

TOM WHITE: There are about a foot and a half long from the beak to the tip of their tail, and they have a very light greyish blue head. And the rest of the body is a beautiful light, medium blue colour. They're just practically completely blue, but various different shades of blue. It's a very, very beautiful bird.

DM: Sounds beautiful. How did it end up going extinct in the wild?

Tom White: Well, the spectre of has always occupied a very limited habitat in northeastern Brazil's catena, which is a tropical dry forest. And in the 19th and 20th century, a lot of the Katanga was cleared for ranching and also for farming. And that reduced the habitat. And then the birds became naturally became scarce because of that habitat loss. And then during the mid to late 20th century, as the bird became even more scarce, then unscrupulous collectors of exotic birds in other countries are then went in and and paid people to trap them and export them out of the country for their personal collections. And then that was just the that was the end, pretty much the end of the species in the wild.

DM: And so when was that, that there were basically went extinct in the wild?

Tom White: Well, the last wild bird was sighted, was known to be alive late 1999, early 2000. And after that, it disappeared and has never- No birds have been seen again. So the IUCN, which is the International Union for Conservation of Nature, declared it officially extinct in the wild in 2019.

DM: And I mean, it did take on this this kind of aura of mystery from what I've read. I mean, almost a mythical bird in some ways. How many were there in captivity?

Tom White: Well, back many years ago, when captive breeding first started, there were only a handful in captivity between supposedly between seven and 15 birds were all that were left and drowning slowly through captive breeding and through cooperative efforts. Then the captive population began to grow and new breeding techniques and new husbandry techniques were applied. And the species in captivity finally reached the numbers necessary to support a reintroduction effort.

DM: Lots of questions about that. I mean, what about the genetics of trying to resurrect the bird? If there is, does inbreeding become a problem?

Tom White: Oh, yeah, definitely. And that happens with any critically endangered species that has dwindled to just a few individuals. So that's why I was mentioning about some of the the advances in captive breeding, some of the new techniques for DNA testing and careful records to document the pedigree of birds allows some of the breeding programmes, such as the one that used to be used to exist in in Qatar. And now those birds are in Germany and there's another captive breeding programme also in Brazil. They're able to carefully pair birds together that are the least related. And also in recent years there's been some advances in the field of artificial insemination so that birds can be literally paired up in the laboratory and in the veterinary laboratory without actually having been in actual pairs. And that has opened the door to also maintaining as much of the genetic diversity as possible that currently exist.

DM: So it sounds like there's lots of heavy science going on there, but I wonder if the captive pairs are breeding, what does that mean for for their survival skills? Does that start to get bred out of the bird?

Tom White: No. Certain survival skills are what we call hardwired, and it takes many, many generations for those to be watered down or dulled. And the most powerful of all of the instinctive activities is, of course, reproduction. So the problem with inbreeding is not that the birds will not breed. A problem with inbreeding is that sometimes the eggs are infertile and that causes problems. But like I said, the captive breeding programme has greatly advanced and now that birds are being able to be produced and able to be released, and then we'll see if nature will all take its course in the future with these new release birds.

DM: Well, how? Tell me about the project to resurrect the wild speculation that started.

Tom White: Well, this started many years ago. There was some land was purchased in the city, in the region. Also, the Brazilian government declared a very large natural reserve in [unintelligible] specifically for the protection and the reintroduction of the space as Macaws. A breeding facility was set up a few years back. It is now producing birds and that's where the birds are currently being released. And on June the 11th, eight birds were released and 12 more are scheduled to be released in December, with releases occurring at least annually thereafter.

DM: It's been a few weeks now. How are they doing?

Tom White: They're doing absolutely wonderful. We so far this 100% survival. The birds are all staying together as a group. They're flying together. They're staying in around the release area. And they're also beginning to forage on natural occurrence foods, which is they're doing everything that we couldn't have written a script better for them to follow bird reintroductions.

DM: I mean, they're rare and then they often don't go well, why is that?

Tom White: Yeah, a lot of it depends on planning and also understanding the species ecology and also understanding some of the fundamentals about reintroduction biology. A lot of people expect, well, what happens with a lot of projects that fail? They fail because they they were not properly planned or they did not have long term support, which is critical, because once you start a reintroduction effort, it's not a matter of going out and just releasing a bunch of birds and then opening a bottle of champagne, calling it a day. It takes continual effort over several years, and that requires long term financial, logistic and biological support. And any programmes that fail, they underestimate the amount of resources that's necessary. And they also perhaps underestimate or not cognisant of some of the ecological factors that are associated with re-establishing, especially parents or macaws animals that are social in nature. And you have to have, of course, maximum survival, which is that's that goes without saying. But then when you're releasing them, you're starting with small numbers. So you need the animals to stay together as much as possible, maybe for them to stay at or near the release site, and gradually, slowly began to explore the surroundings. And you also need for them to start nesting and reproducing as soon as possible. Because with parents macaws or the citizen birds, they are very faithful to their nest sites and their nest territories. So once they begin nesting, then they are what we call spatially anchored to the site, and they will remain there and their offspring will settle in the area and so on and so on. And that's how the population becomes established. But it takes time and it takes patience and it takes a lot of support.

DM: You mentioned time right off the top that it was farming essentially that eroded their habitat in the first place. And, of course, critics have really called out Brazil's environmental policies for not being in line in 2020 to do with ending deforestation. So, how can you justify releasing birds that went extinct, in part because their habitat habitat was being destroyed, if that's still happening today?

Tom White: No indicating it's actually going the opposite way. The there is being protected forested areas are recovering tropical forest. Whether they're dry floors, whether the rainforest, whatever tropical forest will recover relatively quickly if they're left alone and if they're allowed to to regenerate. And a lot of the factors which contributed to the degradation of the habitat in particular, such as overgrazing by goats and sheep that has been controlled in the area where these birds are being released. Also, local landowners and the local population that live there, they want to see the bird come back. It's a symbol. It brings some notability to their area. They're proud of the fact that Bird exist only in that region and the local people who live there, they are really cheering for this bird and they're helping they're providing information and and everything and they're participating in the actual reintroduction. So and that's another factor that is critical for reintroducing any species. If the local the people who live in the region don't want the animal there, then it's not going to be successful. With this case of this species, everybody wants to see the bird come back.

DM: You mentioned how symbolic they are to that region. And over recent years, we've seen reintroduction of bison in parts of Canada and the United States. Beavers in parts of Europe. Now the spix's macaw. Why do you think it's so important and necessary to do this kind of work?

Tom White: Well, if there's there's several reasons, and one is a philosophical reason, and that is that these animals that become critically endangered, or in the case of the species, extinct in the wild, they they reach that point because of the actions of humans. So we broke it. We're obligated to fix it. I use the analogy if you go into an expensive shop and due to your carelessness or whatever, you break a very valuable item where the shop owners can expect you to pay for it and you would be irresponsible if you didn't do so. So we broke the system. So as a species, we're morally obligated to fix it. So humans are the only species in the world that can consciously and proactively repair the ecological damage that we that we do. Now, the other reason is that in the case of the spaces, for instance, and with many of these other species, they can service what's called flagship species. They attract attention to other issues that may be occurring in the environment and makes people interested in the conservation. And also they function as what's called an umbrella species. Again, in the case of the spaces, a vast area has been declared a reserve, a protected area specifically for the reintroduction of the Spexs. But all of these other animals, plants, reptiles, mammals that live in that area are also benefiting because of this area is being protected specifically for the spaces, but they're also along for the ride. So the benefits of the spaces reintroduction go far beyond just that species. So extensive the ecosystem.

DM: I'm sure you're keeping your your very close eye on this first group. Absolutely. What kind of threats or challenges are keeping you up at night right now?

Tom White: Well, as as long as we don't have any serious predation attempts, and thus far there hasn't been any predators are relatively few in that area.

DM: And who goes after the success?

Tom White: Well, that was the that's the only predator that would go after them. Adult birds would be perhaps raptors like a large hawk or something like that. And then when it began nesting, then some mammals might try to take eggs or chicks, but will, as they say, will cross that bridge when we get there. First, we have to get them nesting. There are several artificial cavities in the area where these birds are released and there are several natural occurring cavities that the these birds instinctively recognise and use. So it's we're taking it one step at a time. The first step is get the birds out there, have them survive, have them gradually adapt to the environment, and then hopefully next year we'll see some actual nesting and reproduction occur.

DM: Tom, thanks so much for for telling us about the Spix's.

Tom White: No problem. Anytime.

DM: Tom White is a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a technical adviser to the Spix's Macaw Rescue Project. The concept of de-extinction is something that's been building for some time. The idea of resurrecting wildlife, whether it'd be something like the spix'sMacaw or a woolly mammoth. But tinkering with this type of science can have consequences. Not necessarily Jurassic Park style consequences, but ethical considerations of artificially returning a lost species. Tori Herridge is an evolutionary biologist and a Daphne Jackson research fellow at the Natural History Museum in London. Hello.

TORI HERRIDGE: Hi. Hi, Duncan.

DM: What do you make of the specs as mikah being reintroduced to the wild after so many years. Surviving and only in captivity.

TORI HERRIDGE: Oh, he was pretty exciting, isn't it? I mean, it's a really interesting case study, I think, of exactly what was being described there of humans messing things up and then doing their best to fix it. And and we all know, actually, that it's so much harder to fix things once they've gone wrong.

DM: Well, yeah, I'm struck by what Tom said. I mean, we broke it. We're obligated to fix it. There have been other attempts, though. Northern white rhino, bison, beavers. How successful are these types of initiatives, in your view?

TORI HERRIDGE: Very variable. I mean, it depends. I'd say it all depends exactly as Tom said, about the willingness of the people living around the animals to have them there and also what you're trying to achieve and how you measure success. I mean, how truly wild is wild? Is, you know, the existence of these birds, you know, and the manage reserve, is that really is it returning something to its original state to artificially or not? I mean, these are kind of big, big questions. The bison question I think is fascinating. Wolves, of course, is often talked about in Europe, and this is a hot topic in the U.K. as to what should be rewarded and what is rewilding. I mean, we're even being some sort of writing to that to bring back to British Rivers. And then you mentioned the woolly mammoth. And I know in Canada, you maybe have to ask yourself, would you quite fancy a woolly mammoth walking around?

DM: So I'm having a hard time. I'm having a hard time imagining a mammoth walking around. That's is your primary work and maybe the most famous animal in the extin conversation. How close are we to that?

TORI HERRIDGE: To you ask again? Yeah. I think if you ask the people who are super keen on the idea of, in inverted commas, bringing back the mammoth, who of course, are not. They are genetically engineering an elephant is the end of the current zeitgeist about that question. And the people like the company Colossal, that has been recently founded by entrepreneur Ben LAMB and George Church, who is a scientist at MIT. He works a lot on biomedical questions. And this technique, CRISPR, which is a gene editing technique. They say five years, but there has been a kind of a five year deadline for the last 20 years.

DM: Other than the science experiment, I mean, what's the argument for bringing a mammoth back?

TORI HERRIDGE: Again, as you see, the argument is currently given is as follows The mammoth one should be there because humans caused it extinction. I would quibble about that. I'm not sure. We're 100% sure that humans were entirely responsible for the extinction of the mammoth at the end of the last ice age. As to the presence of the mammoth maintained the special ecosystem called the mammoth [unintelligible] that spread all the way across Siberia and across Canada and Alaska. That was unique in being this really, really high productivity grassland, kind of like an arctic savanna that could made huge amounts of metals and very different to the kind of [unintelligible] situation we have now, which is, you know, which can't really support that much large mammal biomass like near large herds aren't really possible in that situation. So the loss of that mammoth changed the ecosystem, made the ecosystem more vulnerable to climate change as well, say. And now we're in a situation where humans are further messing up the planet and causing it to warm increasingly quickly, particularly in places like the high Arctic. That permafrost not becomes critical. So the argument goes that given those three things, if you put back in something that is equivalent to woolly mammoth into the ecosystem, perhaps you can bring back stabilise that permafrost, bring back the mammoth step and reset things in a way that might help with the challenge that we're facing this kind of climate crisis right now.

DM: Okay. So that's the argument for bringing back the mammoth is climate change.

TORI HERRIDGE: That's the argument given, I go some issues against. But yeah, well.

DM: What are the issues? What's the argument against.

TORI HERRIDGE: What I touched o,. I touched on the fact that, you know, I think, first of all, is yet to be, yet to be certain that humans were responsible for the extinction of the mammoth to the degree that it caused the loss of the mammoth steppe. So I think, you know, the I would say the general consensus now amongst most people working on large mammals from the ice age period is the climate dealt the first blow because climate change is the climate change at that time. The change, when I say to a warmer stage was to do with the way the earth moves around the sun. It's a kind of fundamental aspect of the astronomy of the world. And humans weren't heating up about kind at that point. It's different now, but it was it was already under pressure. So we had populations that were seriously under pressure, possibly humans dealt the final blow to the last high population of mammoths on Wrangel Island off the coast. Siberia, possibly. Even then, that's up for discussion. But that wasn't the biggest cause to the mammoth problems. The ecosystem in which we have now, this warm sage ecosystem is tricky for mammoths. Previously, when mammoths passed through warm, safe periods, their populations shrunk right down and they were really vulnerable to extinction at that point. And so anything could have just knocked them off the face of the earth. It just so happens it's coincided with our species spreading throughout the globe because our species did quite well, I think, at the end of the last ice age as the planet warmed. So that's an interesting question. And then the next step is, will it actually change the ecosystem? Can you actually do that? I mean, come on. It is estimates that there was one mammoth per square kilometre of Siberia at the peak of the Ice Age paired with a woolly mammoth. Well, you know, it was like their height, their heyday. So yeah, that's like 23 million square kilometres of that land because Siberia and Canada. Yeah. So to make it kind of ecosystem level effect on this permafrost landscape, how many mammoths will you need and is that feasible as a way to tackle something as important and pressing as the climate crisis, if that's your reason for doing it, because you want to help fix the climate crisis, it may not necessarily be something that's going to produce results in the timeframe we need it.

DM: You've you've spent I mean, your career studying woolly mammoths. You're a woolly mammoth expert. I mean, you're not actually working to bring them back. But but you're an expert. I mean, wouldn't you love to be able to see and touch one?

TORI HERRIDGE: Yes, I would. I mean, I have seen and touched one, three, five permafrost mammoth. I mean, that dead. I mean, they're just you can't possibly have missed the news about that amazing permafrost baby mammoth that was found in the Yukon.

DM: But alive and in the flesh, though.

TORI HERRIDGE: Yeah. What was it? I was in the flesh. Alive? Yes, I would love to see elephants. We've got elephants. And that would have been mammoth. What they're proposing to do is genetically modify an Asian elephant so that it's able to survive at cold temperatures. Okay, maybe they won't need to bother at the rate where warming the planet. Even in Siberia, you might not get too chilly in winter, but yeah. So I can see elephant still. I'm lucky enough I still live in a world where we haven't quite messed that up. They're still there in the wild, right? You can still see an elephant, an Asian elephant or an African elephant. And that is something which is extremely precious. Now, the interesting question becomes maybe is like, you know, should we say should we be altering our world in a way that optimises or increases biodiversity across the board? Does it have to be a natural inverted commas, restoration of nature? I don't know. I mean, maybe there's a way we should have an argument and people have proposed this, that we make space in temperate areas for large animals like elephants. And they say elephants would be very happy in Europe. They'd be very happy in North America. They wouldn't be super happy at the high latitudes, but they could get quite a long ways up without being too miserable.

DM: And that and that is that is the very big question in terms of talking about bringing back extinct wildlife to thank you for your analysis on this.

TORI HERRIDGE: No problem.

DM: Tori Herridge is an evolutionary biologist and a Daphne Jackson research fellow at the Natural History Museum in London. Coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

It's very easy to get very excited about. Each new wave of technology is fundamentally changing who humans are. But there is something that seems really intimate and fundamental with technology that directly operates on your nervous system, especially your mental states.

DM: These devices are called neural prosthetics, and they stimulate your brain to bring back a certain functions. Think bionic eyes, for example. We'll discuss the good and the bad in 90 seconds. I'm Duncan McCue and you're listening to The Current.

What happens when the technology behind a ‘bionic eye’ becomes obsolete?

Guest: Eliza Strickland, Jennifer Chandler

DM: I'm Duncan McCue and you're listening to The Current. Back in 2015, it seemed like a bit of a miracle, when a Toronto woman was the first Canadian to get a retinal implant - or what some people called a bionic eye. Orly Shamir had serious visual impairment. She spoke to us on The Current when the device was new to her.

SOUNDCLIP

When I switch it on, I start immediately feeling a sensation of stimulation and depending, again, on what I'm looking at. If it's something that's brighter than I feel more stimulation and I'm getting some visual input that is coming from that stimulation on the retina. It's like learning a new language, so the visual that the camera is sending through the system is not exactly what you would say is what vision is supposed to be. So if I'm looking at a board or I'm looking at something that's bright; a window or a white object on a black or darker surface, I could see that it's there. But that object doesn't exactly look like the object visually that it would to everyone else who could see. But my brain will learn in time that that's what it looks like. So then to me, this new language is different. But then to me, it's exactly like seeing so be able to navigate my world with this new type of sight.

DM: That was the hope, a new type of sight, thanks to something called the Argus II retinal implant. For some users, the implants did make a big difference. And there are people who have been using their bionic implants for years. But for Orly Shamir, the implant never really made a big difference for her vision. And when she tried to talk to the company that made the implants, Second Sight, she says she didn’t get a whole lot of support. Now it seems the company has run into hard times - and has decided to stop supporting the technology altogether. Which has left some other users in the lurch, and in some cases, in the dark. Eliza Strickland is a senior editor with the tech publication IEEE Spectrum. She and her colleague Mark Harris have been digging into this story. I spoke with her in March - here is that conversation.

DM: Tell us more about the Argus two retinal implant. How exactly did it work?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Yeah. So Second Sight's artificial vision system starts with a fancy pair of sunglasses that have a little video camera embedded just above the bridge of the nose. That video camera captures everything in the user's field of vision and sends that video stream to a little processing unit they often wear in the belt. And that processing unit turns this rich video stream into very simple patterns of just 60 pixels each. And so thathat information then goes back to the glasses where there's a transmitter and the transmitter sends these patterns. Many times each seconds to an implant on the retina, which has 60 electrodes. So many times each second, the electrodes are stimulating the cells in the eye. With these very simple patterns, you can imagine a picture of 60 pixels at this very basic crude shapes. And that information goes up the optic nerve to the brain.

DM: So you mentioned an implant in the retina. Is that mean that they're actually putting wires in the retina of a patient?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Yeah, there's a little tiny device that's that's attached to the retina. Little electrodes and a little- it's a sort of strapped around the eyeball. And then most of the the rest of the equipment is external. That is the processing unit as outside on the belt and the, you know, the transmitters on the glasses.

DM: So not a small choice then to to sign up for this?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Right, it's a surgical intervention. And it's worth noting that Second Sight also later began working on a brain implant, so that's obviously even a bigger decision.

DM: You can hear Orly when she was describing what it was like when she got her implant. How much excitement was there back then in 2015 about this device?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: It really was seen as a revolution, a revolutionary device. When it came out, it was the first of its kind to be approved by regulators. There was really no other technological intervention like that for people who had completely lost their sight. It was a lot of doctors and patients who were really excited about the idea of getting something back, even though as early said, it was nothing like the vision that that I have. It was still something new.

DM: What could people see?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: They could see blacks and whites in shades of grey. So if there was like a crosswalk to the white stripes of the crosswalk and you can imagine that would be really helpful for somebody who's navigating the world. Some people described seeing the brightness of a face turned towards them, so they'd know if one of their loved ones was coming towards them. People talked about seeing like the bright lights of a Christmas tree, so it is mostly lights, but patterns of white and black.

DM: Which must have been remarkable for people who couldn't see. I mean, but I understand that the results were varied.

ELIZA STRICKLAND: They were varied, and it's not entirely clear why some people responded better than others. But it's very clear that everyone needed a lot of training on how to use this, this technology, it wasn't just like, turn it on and you're ready to go. It was months and months of visual rehab and learning how to use this technology.

DM: How much did they cost?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: The implant itself cost 150,000 dollars, and that was usually mostly covered with insurance. But then there were the months and months of rehab where an additional cost again mostly borne by insurance. But one patient added up all the cost and said that he thought overall it was probably about almost half a million dollars. All told.

DM: So how many people decided to sign up for this technology then?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: 350 people around the world or a bit more than that signed up. I think Second Sight had been hoping it would be a broader adoption and that was part of their financial problems. They couldn't get enough volume to make the money work. But it was only approved for a narrow, very narrow segment of people with vision problems, just people with a particular condition called retinitis pigmentosa, and even more specifically, people at the end stages of that of that disorder. So people who had really lost all their vision.

DM: So they're hoping that more people would sign up. But but clearly things have started to go wrong for the company. What happened?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Yeah, they started going wrong some years back. So in twenty nineteen, they sent all their users a letter saying that they would no longer be making the retinal implant because they were pivoting to the brain implant. But at that time, they promised users that they would be everyone would get full support to that second site would be there for them for years to come. But then in 2020, the company basically ran out of money. It announced it was going to wind down its operation that laid off most of its staff. It auctioned off almost all of its equipment. Not just technical and scientific equipment, but laptops and shelves like it really, it was reduced to almost nothing. And the real real issue was that it didn't tell patients at that time that it was going through these financial problems. So people found out second hand or by rumour. People found out by trying to contact the company to get help with something and not getting anyone to pick up the phone. And so that's when people realised they were kind of on their own with this technology.

DM: You've talked to a number of the users of the hundreds who have been affected by this. Barbara Campbell is was one that sticks out. Can you tell us her story?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Yes, she was a very early adopter. She actually signed up for a clinical trial before the technology was even approved. So she did go into it knowing that it was an experimental device, but she really enjoyed having a bit of vision. She's a New York City resident. She said it helped her navigate the subways and the streets more easily. And then one day she was actually changing subway trains. She was in a subway station and she heard a little beep beep beep like you might hear with your phone running out of batteries. But instead, it was her bionic vision system shutting down and with no warning, she was just in the dark again. And it was it had broken and she couldn't actually, a second sight wasn't able to get it working again.

DM: And that because there weren't parts available or because the system had changed.

ELIZA STRICKLAND: It seems that they still had parts at that time, the company was actually still a going concern when her is broke, but they there was something wrong with the implant itself, and it seemed like without actually doing another surgery, they weren't able to fix it.

DM: I mean, I can't imagine having some form of sight and then going back into the dark again. Now you interviewed a man in the Netherlands who's started to crowdsource the spare parts. Tell us about that.

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Yeah, Jerome Perke is quite an interesting guy. He was able to actually perform, do archery and go skiing with the help of this retinal implant system. And then one day he dropped the video processing unit. You know, like like, we all might drop our Fitbit or our phone, and it broke and he was again, he was in the dark. But this time that he had it was the external equipment that was damaged. He put out a call to everybody in Europe, basically that had used this device and all the doctors that he knew that were involved and was able to crowdsource some spare parts to to get the system up and running again. But with no help from the company at that time.

DM: Well, the company has been working on, you mentioned this, this kind of replacement technology. Can you tell us a bit more about that?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Yeah, the Orion brain implant system is really interesting. It uses the same external equipment, the same glasses and processing unit, but instead of sending the signal to the retina. It sends that directly to the to the visual cortex of the brain. So this could help a lot more people. It could help people who have damaged with the actual eye, damage with the optic nerve. It could help a much broader array of people with with vision problems. And Second Sight, it does have this this technology in a clinical trials that's got support from the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. to the tune of $6 million.

DM: Is this just a question of they're hoping that this is the next thing that's going to work or are there other problems that the company is facing?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Well, they had they declared that this was their their plan, they were going to pivot to this technology. Then they ran out of money. And even the people with brain implants who are involved in the clinical trial didn't know what was going to happen. They know they're walking around with technology in their head and not clear about the support they're going to get. So then it's been sort of a up and down tortured story. But eventually the company announced it was going to merge with a new company, this company, Nano Precision Medical. But that company works on a drug delivery device that has nothing to do with vision. So while the sort of proposed joint company says that it wants to do something with the Orion technology to continue work on thi brain implant, it's completely unclear what their next steps would be, if there was a real timeline towards commercialisation. And there's no talk of going back to reviving the retinal implant. Those people really just seem like they're out of luck.

DM: I'm struck by the picture you paint, Eliza. I mean of these people walking around with this, this tech in their head. I mean, it's a bit like a sci fi movie that there are people who are managing to successfully keep using the device. How likely is that going to be able that they'll be able to keep using it indefinitely?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: It's not clear. So the company, after we started out reporting the company, did contact users and said we have a small inventory of external spare parts. If you need replacement glasses or processing units, we might be able to help you, but there's no possibility of repair replacement with the actual implants. So it's really not clear how long these things will last, how long these people will have this visual information system for. Because it's a first of its kind technology, we don't really have the data yet. And I guess unfortunately, these people are kind of the guinea pigs that we'll go find out how long it lasts.

DM: But neural implant technology is growing industry, yes?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Definitely. Yeah.

DM: So what can we take away from this? I mean, abou the promise, but the promise and the pitfalls of this kind of technology?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Yeah, no one wants to shut down research on these kind of technologies, when second sight came out, there was a huge amount of enthusiasm for what they were doing. You don't want to stifle innovation, but at the same time, it feels like there needs to be some guarantee of longevity of service that people will have support for these for these devices. It's kind of interesting to look at the early history of pacemakers. When these things first came out, it was kind of the Wild West, and eventually medical regulators did start to say, You know, OK, all these devices from different companies have to work together. There has to be doctors have to know how to make them work together. So it may be that we're just so early and in the days of neural implants, but the regulations don't exist yet, and that may come about because of problems like these.

DM: And I'm struck by, I mean, Orly and Barbara, if they want to get those retinal implants out, can they do that?

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Well, they can, thanks to their doctors. You know, the these people all have good relationships with their eye surgeons and their medical teams. So I think those they'll be supported if they want to get their devices out, but they won't get any help from the company in that.

DM: Eliza, thanks very much for explaining all this to us.

ELIZA STRICKLAND: Oh my pleasure, Duncan. Thanks for having me.

DM: Eliza Strickland is a senior editor with the tech publication IEEE Spectrum. Retinal implants are not the only types of devices being developed that tap into a person’s brain to help them deal with a particular condition. The field of what’s called neural prosthetics is a growing one. And it raises a slew of ethical and legal issues. Jennifer Chandler is a professor of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa with the Brain and Mind Research Institute. Here is our conversation.

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Good morning.

DM: What's your reaction to what we've just heard, particularly what's been happening to people with this, with this eye implant technology?

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Yeah, it's really a fascinating area. I think raising, as you say, a host of really critical ethical and legal questions going forward and just to pick up on where you were concluding the last segment. It is amazing the numbers of different kinds of neural devices that are being developed in just a couple of additional ones beyond the retinal implant. We've had a cochlear implant which addresses hearing impairment, and sort of right in development right now are brain implants that go chips within the brain or electrodes within the brain to pick up signals over the motor part of the brain that that addresses the coding of movement to pick up signals there and translate that into speech into sound for people who have severe movement impairments and cannot communicate. So it's really quite amazing what's being done with brain computer interfaces. And there's also a whole host of devices such as deep brain stimulation, which themselves are implanted in the brain to stimulate parts of the brain. And some of these have been around for quite a while, such as DBS deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease, and they're being explored. This particular technology is being explored for a whole range of other kinds of conditions as well. So this is this is one example of many really.

DM: Well, so lots of cool innovation going on. And I mean, you get that gee whiz factor kind of when you when you hear about all the amazing stuff. But then on the other hand, what about the patients? What do you think the solution could be if if companies end up going bankrupt or stop providing support to patients who have these kinds of implants?

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Yeah, I think I think a couple of things could be said about this. I think we really need to take what might be called a full lifecycle approach to the device. And so lifecycle is not just, you know, you know, develop it, get it licence, get it marketed, get it out to people monitor to see if there's any side effects. What we need to understand is life cycle. In a bigger sense, we have to understand not just what happens if the company goes bankrupt, because that's only one stage at which these questions arise. But even if the company is still a going concern, there may be things that happen during the life of that person and with that device. What about, for example, the need to update software that goes along with these devices? Because many of them now are incorporating software and in fact, we've had pacemakers recalled due to cybersecurity concerns with respect to software that rides along with them. So you might have these issues around upgrading and what happens to the person if they don't want the upgrade or they don't get it in time or so forth. And also, what happens if the company doesn't go bankrupt, but decides to scale out one device and move up to another version and then no longer support the previous one? Is there some sort of issue there? I mean, we're all familiar with having to update operating systems and things like that, but having to update the operating system on a piece of equipment that's in your body that's critical to your functioning feels like a little different. Kind of. Well, I don't know what metaphor I'm looking for here, but a different situation, so the thinking about that relationship between the person and the implant over time and all the things that might happen as different technology comes on stream becomes obsolete, requires replacement. And it's not just the tech itself in the body, but also the software.

DM: What kind of legal liability could a company or would a company face? As it stands right now in this kind of situation?

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Well, I think. I don't think necessarily much. I mean, the typical kinds of rules that apply here are product liability. And we're looking at is there negligence in the design, manufacturing and description of of, you know, marketing of the device? And so I don't really think that's the way to go with this kind of problem because recall that if we the more difficult and more expensive, the more complicated you make it to bring a device to market, the less likely we're going to get the innovation. So one could imagine other kinds of solutions, for example, for the kinds of people that you were discussing just now who found themselves in the dark, literally and unable to get anybody on the phone to ask questions about the device. One thing one could do as part of the licencing process is to have certain forms of information put in secure storage in escrow, for example, with the regulator or someone else. So there's someone to talk to if a company disappears. You could also start to look at things like should the specs and the technical details go Open-Source. If a company goes completely bankrupt and the intellectual property itself is not transferred and works by someone else, a new company, a successor. So these are these are kinds of things one could think about. One could look also at rules around the right to repair or the obligation to repair or the right to fix or hack your own devices. Sometimes, when software is in play, there can be limitations on what a person's allowed to do to the device, so we could look at the the terms of licencing.

DM: That's terrifying, though. I mean, from a patient perspective, if you're getting to the point where you have to hack your device, that's that's implanted in your brain or in this case, you in your eyes. I mean, as the technology is, is becomes increasingly complex, how difficult is it to give informed consent?

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Yeah, and I think that I mean, this is a real question, I don't think, I'm thinking about the article that that you were just discussing in the report is describe in that case, the Dutch man whose regulator who's programmer or controller, whatever it is, the external device fell and he was able to kind of find spare parts and get it together. And there's also a description of a cohort of doctors who are continuing to try to work with this technology, even if the company has has abandoned it. So I don't think it's necessarily going to be always a patient who's left out there hanging on their own. There may be a community that forms around trying to take it forward. But I do certainly take your point. It is a little bit kind of strange to think that you're carrying around a piece of technology and you have to somehow figure out what to do with it or else have surgery to have it removed. It is. It is tricky. And if we think about devices that actually are being used to stimulate the brain, to address epilepsy or to address psychiatric conditions, there's something really weird about thinking about, you know, a licence to the software that maintains your mental state, someone has a licence to the software that has in some way been become part of your mind. So it is a little bit kind of a sci fi ish thought.

DM: Well, I mean, the technology is kind of transforming who you are in some ways and how you live in the world in a very intimate way. Are these are these are these neural implants or are they raising unique ethical issues?

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Oh, very much so. I think that, you know, it's very easy to get really, very excited about each new wave of technology is as fundamentally changing who humans are as as humans. And I think all of our tools and technologies do that in some way. But there is something that seems really intimate and fundamental with technology that directly operates on your nervous system, especially your mental states. But I mean, some would say, Well, I'm operating on your mental state right now, I'm changing your brain and talking to you and influencing your thoughts, but is still somehow having that, having it directly into your brain and having the input into your brain not immediately obvious to you feels different. It feels something going on.

DM: I'm very well aware that you can turn the radio off fairly easily as well. Are companies paying enough attention to these kinds of ethical issues that you're talking about around the technology?

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Well, it's interesting. You mentioned that I've had communication with several companies who've reached out to me saying, Hey, we need a kind of like a template for thinking through the neuro ethical issues from the beginning of the development of a product and just thinking it through and trying to anticipate the kinds of issues. And that's the kind of thing we need now. It's costly. It slows things down. It kind of is perceived as a harm. And what we do want to do is get stuff that works to help people. We definitely want to do that. But we do also have to think through all these things what happens to the person who joins the the trial? He puts himself forward, not even knowing if it's going to work. What are our obligations to them if it turns out it does work at the end of the trial to people, just say, Well, OK, give it it back, and that's the end. We have to think about patients who are are told clearly how this relationship with this device is going to work going forward and what the potential problem steps are going to be. And we also have to think from the regulatory perspective, are there certain things that we need to step in and mandate in terms of information provision, storage of information and so forth to make sure we try to make, you know, get the optimal benefits of these technologies for people while also making sure it's safe and fair and so forth.

DM: So those are some of the things that we should be thinking about. We've got about 30 seconds left, Jennifer. I'm just wondering, I mean, what would you say about, on the other hand, I mean, the the real promise of this technology to to transform people's lives?

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Well, it's tremendously exciting for people that have lost some, really, that they have some significant impairments and a lot can be done through technology. More can be done through changing society. It's not all a technological fix, but definitely this is part of it, and I think we'll have we'll watch this space. I think there's going to be a lot more to talk about going forward.

DM: Jennifer, thank you very much for filling us in on this. Sure.

JENNIFER CHANDLER: Thank you very much for having me.

DM: Jennifer Chandler is a professor of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa focusing on neuroethics, law and society. This segment first aired in March. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for q with guest host Angeline Tetteh-Wayoe. And a reminder that we'll have coverage of the Pope's visit all next week on The Current. We begin Monday morning, followed by a live network special starting at noon. Falen Johnson will be reporting for us on location. And Robyn Bresnahan will be in this chair Monday. Before we go -- earlier in the show we were talking about de-extinction and what it means to save a species from dying off.We'll leave you with Bon Iver's Second Nature. I'm Duncan McCue, in for Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current and have a good weekend.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

The Current Transcript for July 22, 2022

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

Hockey Canada comes under fire after for its handling of alleged sexual assault

This beautiful blue parrot has returned to the wild 2 years after being declared extinct

What happens when the technology behind a ‘bionic eye’ becomes obsolete?

Friday July 22, 2022 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode