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 2022

The Current Transcript for June 27, 2022

Host: Nahlah Ayed

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

We will work together to ensure that all women, all folks with a uterus, are protected, They'll stay and live their life in this world.

NAHLAH AYED: Protests erupted Friday and spilt over into the weekend throughout the United States and in parts of Canada. This in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to overturn the landmark abortion decision, Roe v Wade. In just a moment, we'll hear from some of the people who for years have been involved in the debate over abortion. Plus, we'll come to Canada, where advocates here are vigilant against erosion of access in this country. And also.

SOUNDCLIP

We looked at centenarians and we asked, do they live healthier as much as they live longer? And the answer is absolutely. And centenarians live 30 years healthier than people who are younger than them.

NA: We explore what it takes to not just grow older, but to age healthily. In the CBC podcast Unlocking the Fountain. That's in an hour. Plus, what's behind an invasion of jellyfish in some lakes in Canada? But we begin with a historic ruling in the U.S. I'm Nahlah Ayed, sitting in for Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

Guests: Anna Visser, Robin Marty, Carolyn Shapiro

SOUNDCLIP

[Protesters chanting]

NA: The sounds of protests on the streets across the United States. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 decision on abortion. Roe v Wade gave women the right to decide if they wanted to go through with a pregnancy. Now each state is left to choose if and when abortions are available. 13 states had so-called trigger laws that will ban the procedure in the next month. Several more states are expected to take similar action. Anna Visser is one of the people welcoming this decision. She is the communications director for The Right to Life, Michigan. Hello, Anna.

ANNA VISSER: Hi. Thank you for having me.

NA: Thanks for being here, Anna. You were relieved, as we said at the decision on Friday. But you heard those chants that we had there at the beginning of the programme there saying, My body, my choice. Why don't you think it should be a woman's choice?

ANNA VISSER: We believe in human right for all humans. We're excited to see that restored, hopefully in Michigan. And we just believe that human life begins at fertilisation and that they, these unborn children should have their own individual human rights as they are human.

NA: What about the concern from advocates that given this decision, more women will die seeking illegal abortions?

ANNA VISSER: We hope that women won't seek abortions. We hope that, you know, we have a lot of pregnancy research centres and especially in Michigan, we have over 150 pregnancy resource centres and adoption agencies. And so we're hoping that women can feel empowered and supported through these centres, through different organisations that we have in Michigan that, you know, help with resources, help them help make them feel strong and know that they are supported in carrying their pregnancy and whatever they decide to do once the baby come.

NA: The argument is amongst people, I guess, who point out that the typical patient is more likely to be already a mother, already poor and unmarried. What would you say to these women who find themselves in an untenable position with no way out?

ANNA VISSER: We say that we see you and we hear you and that we are here for you. Like I said, we have this summer. I've been preparing for this and are so willing and ready to help these women. They just want to see them succeed and they want to see them be happy. And they want to be there for their children and for their families and for them. And so I these centres just have the best interests in mind for these women. I think they're the best people to serve them.

NA: This weekend, Anna, we've seen many people saying that in a country with, quote, no universal health care, no universal child care, no paid family and medical leave, and also one of the highest rates of maternal mortality amongst rich nations, that this decision on Friday isn't about life, it's about control. How do you respond to that?

ANNA VISSER: You know, I think it's interesting that a lot of women are told that their problems go away once they have an abortion or we're told in society that abortion will fix all these problems that we are facing. And yet 50 years later, we're still having these problems. And so clearly, abortion is not the answer to all of these problems. And, you know, we may have these problems for a while, but but taking the life of an innocent person, killing them is not ever going to be the answer. And it never was the answer to any of these problems.

NA: And yet I'm curious what you think of this, because even a recent Gallup poll showed that 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice. So why should this decision restrict access to abortion when that goes against the beliefs of most Americans?

ANNA VISSER: Well, I think we can take a look back in U.S. history and see that we have made some choices as a country that the majority of people supported at the time. And, you know, we look back today and we say those decisions were awful and we should have never considered them, supported them. And so I believe that this is another one of those moments in history where we are just trying to give human rights to a whole group of humans that have been have no rights for the last 50 years.

NA: So what do you say to people who are arguing that this decision actually takes women's rights back decades?

ANNA VISSER: I think that women have had their reproductive rights for a while. They have the right to to birth control, to whatever reproductive rights they want. And we don't believe that abortion is a reproductive right. We don't believe that it's health care. We don't believe that it's their right to. That their rights are more important than the human [unintelligible], the unborn rights.

NA: Just in the last few seconds here, a number of states have already started the process of banning abortion altogether, as we mentioned. Others have said it will still be available. What do you think should happen now?

ANNA VISSER: Well, in Michigan, we are lucky enough to have a law from 1931. Right now there is an injunction on it, but we are working on that because it is a temporary injunction. So once that law can be restored, then we can grant all human rights back in Michigan from fertilisation until natural death.

NA: Anna, I thank you for your time.

ANNA VISSER: Yeah. Thank you for having me.

NA: Anna Visser is the communications director for Right to Life, Michigan. Robin Marty is the operations director for the West Alabama Women's Centre, a clinic that now has had to stop providing abortions. She's also author of the book Handbook for a Post-Racial America. Robin, good morning.

ROBIN MARTY: Good morning. Thanks for having.

NA: Me. Thanks for being here. Robin, what do you thinking after hearing what an officer had to say?

ROBIN MARTY: I honestly wish I had not just sat in and listened to that interview because I am so furious at this moment for the complete disregard for the patients that we have seen, the patients that we can't see, the way that she completely and utterly ignored your question about lack of health care and our maternal mortality rates. I live in Alabama where the maternal mortality rate is actually twice of that in Michigan and is also predominantly black women. I see these people every day come into our clinic terrified about the idea of being forced to give birth again because they nearly lose their lives. The last time that they had tried to give birth to a child, that they would say that this is just a reproductive rights and it's harming other human is unconscionable to me because I live in a state that hasn't even expanded Medicaid. I live in a state where more than almost 50% of the pregnancies that happen are unplanned, and they are unplanned because our state is refusing to provide any sort of resources to get people birth control if they are uninsured or low income. This is not what they are portraying. They are portraying that there are all these people who are going to help them, that they're going to help them give birth, that they're going to help them live healthy lives. And that is not what anybody on the right, anybody in the anti-abortion movement has been doing, because they have had 50 years to provide that, and they could have done that. And if they are holding it as a cudgel in order to get illegal abortion across this entire United States, then they don't care about babies. They only care about themselves.

NA: Take me back to Friday, Robin, and just tell me what you had to do when the news came down.

ROBIN MARTY: On Friday, I was actually in the middle of doing a live interview when my son went off and told me that that the ruling had come down. We prepared for this moment. So it was known that the second that the Supreme Court said that Roe v Wade was overturned, our previous law was immediately in effect. And that law wouldn't just criminalise having provided an abortion, but could also endanger any person who was receiving an abortion. On that Friday, we had 21 patients that were in the clinic trying to get what we call first day appointments. First day appointments are appointment where a person comes in, has an ultrasound, receives counselling from our staff, and is given state mandated information about where they can go if they don't want to have an abortion, how they can get support, whether or not they wish to continue their pregnancy. We had to tell every one of them to go home.

NA: So what did you hear from the women who were patients at your clinic?

ROBIN MARTY: They were devastated. Many were crying and some were resigned because they knew that this was going to happen at some point. We've spent the last few days both helping those 21 patients and the close to 100 patients that we had scheduled for abortions this upcoming week. In order to try and help them figure out where to go and get an appointment, how to leave the state, and how they can now find the extra resources that they need in order. Some of them are coming all the way from Texas, and now they're being forced to travel over to Georgia.

NA: So as we you and I mentioned earlier, the typical patient is more likely to be already a mother, poor and unmarried, with few resources. So what options do women have now in states like Alabama?

ROBIN MARTY: In a state like Alabama, they can still come to us and we are going to keep our clinic open as long as possible in order to help them understand, first of all, how pregnant they are, whether they can get to other states and still get in gestation early. That's going to change day by day. We are also going to offer prenatal care to those who need it because as I said, Alabama has not expanded Medicaid. Very few people can qualify for it. And so many people will come in pregnant, uninsured and unable to get doctors until they are possibly able to get onto Medicaid. We will help them with that prenatal care as well. But most importantly, we know that a lot of Alabamians are going to be pregnant. And whether they want that child or it's an unwanted pregnancy. Alabama does not have good health care and those people are going to have their health in risk. We know that those pregnancies are going to be concerning pregnancies that could involve bleeding, that could involve any sort of health issues. And so we are going to operate as a safe place for people to come in and have those pregnancies checked on so that they don't have to go to hospitals where they could be surveilled and possibly investigated for trying to start their own miscarriage.

NA: Robin, you're now going to be essentially on the front line of this renewed debate over this issue. What do you think can be done now about the decision, practically speaking?

ROBIN MARTY: Practically speaking, there are two things that are going to be extraordinarily important right now. One is that we push, especially in states that have not expanded health care, for expanded Medicaid, for more birth control options and the ability for people to be able to prevent pregnancies. But also, we can work on the local level in every area to state that we do not believe that pregnant people should be investigated if they have a pregnancy that does not come to term. Your guest that was on before is the National Right to Life. They have been saying repeatedly and for decades that they never want to punish the person who is carrying that child. If they truly mean it, then they will pass the legislation that says that no pregnancy will ever be investigated. And if they do that, that will protect not just people who end up trying to find their own abortions on their own, usually through medication. But it will also protect any person who has a miscarriage, because we are going to have so many pregnancies that do not have prenatal care and do not have good health care prior to the pregnancy.

NA: How worried are you that this translates into yet more issues for women like what might be next in terms of the rights of women in the United States?

ROBIN MARTY: I'm terrified. I know full well that the next thing that happens is that they are coming for birth control. We've already seen in Alabama that they are surveying Republicans in legislature to ask them whether they think that emergency contraception should be banned. Emergency contraception is not any sort of form of abortion. It works only before an egg is released. And yet, because our legislators know so little about reproductive health, yet they still make laws on it. They're already looking at whether they should ban that as well. I expect contraception to go next. We already in Alabama, they made it illegal for a while to be able to offer hormonal care to youth who are trying to transition. Alabama is intent on making sure that any person who is not a white, Christian, straight person is and is not able to have the same sort of rights. And I expect that what happens in Alabama will keep spreading across the country.

NA: Robyn, thank you so much for your time.

ROBIN MARTY: Thank you for having me.

NA: Robin Marty is the operations director for the West Alabama Women's Centre and the author of the book Handbook for a Post-Roe America. She was in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Carolyn Shapiro is professor of law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law and founder and co-director of Chicago Cancer Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States. She's also a former solicitor general of Illinois. Good morning.

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: Good morning.

NA: What is this decision of the Supreme Court say in your estimate about the power of the court at this point in U.S. history?

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: That's a great question. It means the court can really dramatically and overturn the the way in which people have imagined and their lives for the past 50 years. It can be do something that is incredibly disruptive and incredibly dramatic with which really we had a little warning because of the threat of the leak, but without any transition time, without any opportunity for people to generally to prepare the way we might be able to prepare if laws were passed in other ways. And I would say when you put the abortion opinion together with the gun opinion that came down the day before, the opinion that struck down a New York law restricting who can carry a gun outside the home. It is a really remarkable disregard for the consequences. Those opinions said, essentially, is that the consequences aren't the court's concern. When that is, there are many reasons why that is not the way that most most jurisprudence has operated in the past.

NA: Now, as as we've heard, this decision will will move abortion and reproductive health into the hands of states to decide what is and isn't allowed. What will that mean for women legally?

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: Well, I want to just say before I answer that, that it it moves it into the process of legislation. There's. Already talk of on the on the anti-abortion side of trying to pass nationwide abortion restrictions, nationwide abortion bans.

NA: Is that possible?

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: That's an interesting question. And there's going to be lots of litigation about whether the Congress can ban abortion and or sort of, on the other hand, protect abortion. We know some of those questions have yet to be fully answered. But we have a court that's extremely hostile to abortion rights. As a practical matter right now, though, what you said is correct. It is a state by state question and some states prepared by doing what your first guest described by by have it, or some states prepared by actually having laws on the books that would go into effect the moment that Roe was overruled, which is what happened in Alabama. Some states, as your first guest described, had old laws on the books that are being litigated now. Yes. And some states like where I live in Illinois, have robust protections for reproductive rights. So what we're going to see is people who need abortions are going to be travelling all over the country. We already began to see that after the Texas law allowing for individual bounties to be to be sought when somebody again, just to people to to people who help others obtain abortions. We already saw when Texas basically stopped allowing abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. There was a huge effect throughout the country. Women from Texas were going to surrounding states and women from those states were going to other states. And we'll just see that at a much higher level. And of course, women without means won't be able to obtain abortion at all.

NA: So it's going to be a patchwork system as it stands. But let me ask you this. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for the impeachment of two of the justices yesterday, saying that they lied under oath about their views on Roe v Wade. What do you think of that?

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: Well, I would be reluctant to say that they lied. What they said is that they thought that Roe was settled law, which is true. But the law is only settled law as long as the justices want to keep it that way. On the other hand, I heard that statement. As a lawyer, I suspect that many people heard what they said and understood it very differently and that that was not unintentional on their part. So. Well, I don't see it as perjury. I don't see it as a lie under oath. It was certainly intended to reassure people and and without justification at this point.

NA: We have less than a minute left. I'm wondering what you think of this. Just as Justice Clarence Thomas has said that he would like to see contraceptive rights or gay rights also overturned. How concerned are you that other rights might be next?

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: I'm very concerned. I think, as your last guest said, that there are forms of contraception that are on the chopping block and there are Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito have written about, well, recently about why they think that gay marriage is. Should should be subject to the democratic process, a process that they have systematically undermined and other opinions that they've written. So, yeah, I'm quite concerned.

NA: In a nutshell, what do you think President Biden can or should, should do next?

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: There are a variety of things that the federal government can do and have already done some of those things. For example, they can say that aboard the Plan B or excuse me, the medication abortions must be allowed in the states. So enforcing those laws, those federal laws that do exist.

NA: Thank you so much, Carolyn, for your time.

CAROLYN SHAPIRO: Thank you.

NA: Carolyn Shapiro is professor of law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law and founder and co-director of Chicago Cancer Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States. She's also former solicitor general of Illinois, and she was in Chicago. The CBC News is next. Then we turn to Canada. What impact Roe v Wade overturning may have here? I'm Nahlah Ayed and you're listening to The Current.

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade — what does it mean for Canada?

Guests: Carolyn Egan

NA: Hello. I'm Nahla Ayed. And you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

NA: Still to come, unlocking the secrets of the fountain of youth. Plus, the jellyfish invading Canadian lakes. But first, the impact of the U.S. abortion decision here in Canada.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Unidentified: [Protesters cheering]

NA: The chance were taken up here in Canada, too. Protesters were gathered outside the U.S. consulate in Toronto. But the decision south of the border has abortion rights advocates highlighting a lack of access in Canada as well. Carolyn Egan is a spokesperson with Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Good morning.

CAROLYN EGAN: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

NA: Thank you for being here. First of all, of course, all eyes are on the U.S. And so I'm wondering, how can Canadian groups like yours support Americans who are in need of abortion care?

CAROLYN EGAN: Well, there's always been a very strong relationship between the movements in the United States and then in Canada. And if I may say, prior to 1988, people may or may not know this. Many thousands of Canadians went to the United States to access abortion in a timely manner when they couldn't do so here. And they were very graciously received. Clinics and physicians had services that were set up specifically for those for those seeking abortions in the United States. So we appreciate what had been done for us in those days when things were hard here. And we want to do everything we can to support the movement in the United States. I mean, you just showed the or I had a clip from the demonstration. It was a large demonstration at the U.S. consulate here on the weekend in Toronto, all over Quebec. There were there were demonstrations showing solidarity. So we will do everything we can. And we appreciate also that what does happen in the United States can have an effect. But what happens in Canada.

NA: And we will talk about that. Absolutely. But before we get there, I'm curious what how realistic you think, given as we've talked about, that the typical patient is is under-resourced and poor often? How realistic is it, do you think, that women in the U.S. who require abortion care will actually be able to come to Canada for that care?

CAROLYN EGAN: Well, I think that's a very real question. And we have spoken to people in the U.S. and when Canadian women went down in the 1980s, there was no need for a passport, for example. And many people in the United States do not have have passports to travel. And also, as you say, it is the most vulnerable who are going to be affected in the U.S. if from black community, Hispanic community, indigenous communities, low income communities all across the country. And I think in speaking to people, I think most probably they will try to access the services in other states that still allow for abortion. That is the most realistic thing to do. I mean, for example, in Detroit, talking to people in Michigan, it's just across the border, you know, the river there to Windsor. But there is no clinic facility in Windsor and I think their first priority would probably be try to get the procedures done for people in the U.S.

NA: Yeah. What about here in Canada? Let's talk about that. What are the major issues or what's the most pressing issue with access to abortion here?

CAROLYN EGAN: Well, I think when the Morgan Heller decision took place in 88, it was a huge victory. But it didn't bring us all the way to full access to free abortion for everyone who chooses it. And I think you can look at the province of New Brunswick, for example, where the provincial health plan does not cover abortions in the one clinic in Fredericton. And that is a real, real problem where people have to pay out of pocket. Of course, there's a sliding scale, but it's a real financial burden. And I think in other areas of of the country, northern Ontario, for example, or the interior of British Columbia, there's there's real access problems of rural Quebec, different areas of provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. So there is there are real access issues. And these are things that we have been working on for years to try and try and find solutions for them. And we put a lot of pressure on the federal government, of course, to use the tools that it has through the Canada Health Act and others to try to push the province into Brunswick, for example, to provide to provide that funding.

NA: So what specific policies could be implemented, do you think, by federal or provincial governments right now that could immediately improve access in those places?

CAROLYN EGAN: Well, there's a whole range of things that that could could be put in place. There could be travel grants, there could be, you know, assessing where the need is. And if it meant that physicians could travel even once a week or something like that to particular areas that are underserved, meeting the needs that are there. I think that the training of more physicians is something and this is beginning to beginning to move forward. But there's a whole range travel grants, as I say, a whole range of. Things that could. Could allow for much greater access than there is now. But we need a sustained, you know, sustained attention put to these issues. And I think on one hand, one thing that has come out during this whole process and all the attention that's been going on around Roe v Wade and the overturning there is what exactly are the issues in Canada? And how can we how can we address them? Because we know that the pro-choice sentiment is very strong in this country. And but we also know that it is still difficult for for many to to get the procedure if they so choose.

NA: I wonder if you worry that considering what's happened in the United States, you know, that a similar move towards restriction could happen here, even as you say, as the majority of people support pro-choice.

CAROLYN EGAN: There's always the possibility because we know there are forces that are very well funded in this country that want to ban all abortions here. They are very, very straightforward. They say that it's not a it's not a hidden agenda in any sense. So, yes, there's real concern. And I think if you look at what happened in the United States, Roe v Wade, you know, almost 50 years ago, it was a product of the movements of the 1960s, the women's liberation movement, the civil rights of all of those things. And real reforms were were put in place. But since that time, there was a concerted strategy to try and undermine and overturn that and the taking over of legislatures, the appointment of justices to all levels of courts. And so we know that there's a long term goal here in this country to do the same. Again, it's a different system. We have a different tradition. I think the the percentage of pro-choice support is larger. But when we see, you know, private members bills coming forward regularly in the House of Commons, trying to create barriers, restrict access, when we see amalgamations of hospitals that we've seen in the past, that would reduce the possibility of abortions because of the centralisation of services. So there's a whole range of things that, you know, step by step may be taking place are taking place that we have to be really vigilant about because nothing is safe. I mean, right one and then they can be rolled back. So we're very aware of this. And I think that's something that we're trying to as we make very clear, as we build our solidarity with the movements in the United States are trying very hard to to also highlight what the issues are for people here in Canada, because the issues are very, very real.

NA: So you talk about how the decision in the U.S. could galvanise those who are anti-abortion in this country, but how could it unfold differently? I'm curious whether you think what's happened in the U.S. over the past few months could actually serve as an opportunity to address the holes in our own system here?

CAROLYN EGAN: I do think that I do think that and I you know, in speaking to an awful lot of people and we, you know, in our organisation, all kinds of donations have been coming in. All kinds of people are asking to get involved. What can they do? And I think that's absolutely correct because, you know, if you live in a city like Vancouver or Montreal or Toronto, generally, people who are not concentrated on this issue feel, oh, the access is there. But what has happened? And with all the the the media attention and all the speaking out by activists in this country, I think there's a real, real realisation that the situation is not perfect by a long shot. And I do believe that the the the horror of what happened in the United States and the anger and the upset that is caused, of course, there but also here really has has made people feel we've got to be on guard and we've got to push further so that every person who wants to access an abortion has the right. And we have to be so sure that we're not going to allow any of the chipping away that has been the strategy in so many countries to happen here. And so I think that is one thing that's really making a big difference here.

NA: We have less than a minute left. Carolyn, I'm curious you, as you point out, there's such a long history to this debate and you heard the workers and advocates early in the programme. What would you say to them as they're facing this new world on this matter?

CAROLYN EGAN: I think that when we a we started the clinic here in 83, it took five years to get to the Supreme Court where we had our victory. And I think one has to really dig in and build that broad movement. Just go to every trade union, every faith group, every student organisations. Build that broad movement politically as you do all you can, as we did, helping women to go to the buffalo, etc. from Toronto do all you can to help people access the the, the, the procedures they need through the, the funds. You're setting up through through networking and allowing people to go to other states, etc., and doing all you can to help, but at the same time build that broad political movement to show that the vast majority will not stand for this taking away of such a fundamental right.

NA: Carolyn, thank you so much for your time.

CAROLYN EGAN: Delighted. Thank you.

NA: Carolyn Egan is a spokesperson with Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. She was in Toronto.

[Music]

NA: I'm Nayla Ayed and you're listening to The Current. Tomorrow on The Current, a look at what's happening in Canada's hospital emergency rooms. Many have long wait times and staffing shortages. Some are being forced to close for periods and patients are experiencing it, experiencing it all firsthand.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: When one hears these stories of long waits in the E.R. it does, of course, make you nervous. I went one morning at 7:00, hoping to be seen relatively soon. And for the next 6 hours, I waited and waited. And, you know, when I first arrived, there were maybe 40 people there and there were some empty chairs. After three or 4 hours the place was overwhelmed. I mean, there were no empty chairs. There must've been 100. 150 people waiting.

VOICE 2: There was a digital board that said how many patients were waiting. There was in excess of 100 patients waiting with one doctor. We were 13 hours in emergency and then another four hours in a waiting room. It was 12 hours before a doctor even saw. That's unacceptable.

VOICE 3: So I went to the emergency room and then they asked me the COVID screening test questions and I said yes, actually, I diagnosed a week ago and, you know, these are some symptoms. I'm having post-COVID. They said, you go wait in your car. So I ended up waiting in my car alone for a total of 9 hours. As a 52 year old man with a history of heart disease complaining of massive chest pain.

VOICE 4: I can take my cat to the vet and it gets better attention. It's just... It makes no sense to me. These are human beings. These are sick human beings.

NA: We'll try to make sense of it and also talk about solutions to the crisis in Canadian ears. That's coming up on tomorrow's programme.

These invasive jellyfish are the size of a thumbnail — and they're making a new home in B.C.

Guests: Florian Luskow

NA: The heat is on. It's officially summer and Canadians will be heading in droves to pools, rivers, lakes and even frigid oceans in every attempt to cool off. But there is something you might want to watch out for, particularly in B.C. Lakes, the invasive jellyfish. I can't even say the name properly. They've been popping up in more places than previously known. Florian Luskow is researching the creatures. He's a zoologist and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of British Columbia. Hello.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Hello. How are you?

NA: Great. Could you tell me about this jellyfish? Can you give us kind of a character profile? What are they?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Yes. So I guess we all know jellyfish from the ocean. And similar to those, they are just transparent, gelatinous soft bodied creatures, invertebrates, literally, that are swimming and drifting in the water column in contrast to their ocean brothers and sisters. They are relatively small, never grow much bigger than the size of a thumbnail, but otherwise they represent ocean jellyfish pretty much. They have plentiful tentacles. They have an umbrella and that do the typical pulsation movement which god like or hate.

NA: Yeah. Exactly how many people hate you make them sound really kind of innocuous. But tell me more about those tentacles. There's a lot of them.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Mm hmm. There's a lot of them. That's right. Jellyfish, as we know them from the ocean, have a few dozen of them, maybe a little bit over a hundred. But these jellyfish have literally several hundreds, maybe close to a thousand. Wow. And the reason for that is still a little bit that debate. It's a matter of prey capture. And obviously, these tentacles are the instrument for this prey capture. So they are spiked with nematode cysts, which is I tried to put it in brief English. It's a certain cell which contains a harpoon and moment of a prey contact. This harpoon is able to watch the prey and basically injects the skin and the toxin with it. And this toxin eventually leads to paralysis of the prey and eventually to its death.

NA: But we're talking about fairly, fairly small prey here because it isn't a very big organism.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: You're absolutely right. So the jellyfish itself is never bigger than, let's say, the size of a coin, maybe a thumbnail. So its prey is usually tiny. We're talking about plankton organisms.

NA: So where do they come from? How did they get here?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: That's a very good question. So the general belief is that they are coming from southeast China, actually the young sucking river catchment area. So this is a subtropical area. So the species appreciates the higher temperatures. So that's why we usually see it in the second half of the year. Only the the question of how they actually arrived here.

NA: All the way from China.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Yes. That's a huge distance. Right. And there are so many hypotheses around this, but we have no definite answers at the moment. We have the feeling that they are on shorter distance, transported with waterbirds or with boats, basically being attached to the feet of the birds or attached to the house of the boat and then transported from one lake to another. But this is barely possible over a distance of several thousand kilometres. So yes, questions about this. That's for sure.

NA: So we don't know exactly how they got here. But tell me about the time that you first encountered these jellyfish in 2020.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: I was called by an observer on Vancouver Island who used to swim in a lake. Year after year. And she basically said she got the feeling that there's something that reminds her to a jellyfish. But everybody knows there is no jellyfish at lakes. So she worried a little bit and reached out to me because she knew that I'm working with gelatinous [unintelligible] in the ocean. So I basically went over to Vancouver Island and inspected that lake and actually confirmed her observation that it's a jellyfish. And at that time, I know myself very little about freshwater jellyfish, so I needed to read up about it. And it's a very surprising moment because in a very peaceful environment, such a small lake, you would never expect to find a jellyfish. And to be honest, in the beginning, I had a hard time identifying where they are. But once I realised what I am looking for, the size, the movement, especially the the light reflections, then I realised, okay, that's, that's an object of interest. And then I realised they are literally everywhere and that like.

NA: So an object of interest but also possibly an object for a reason for alarm.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Potentially. Yes, we know very little at the moment about the species, so we should be careful of putting out any big risks like talking about concerns. We know they are there. We know they are potentially widespread. But before we go a step further, we need to know what they do and then we can talk about that.

NA: So where are you finding them now? How widespread are they?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: So at the moment we see them in many lakes and southern British Columbia and also on Vancouver Island, and these are by friends of the areas where you have in the summer the most temperatures. So it's never getting extremely warm. Also in the winter, it's getting never extremely cold, but it's also the areas where you have the highest population densities, so where you have the most observers too, so to say. And our observations are of course very much biased towards these population centres Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, just to name a few, and it's very likely that there's also jellyfish further in the interior and further to the north. It's just a matter of observing them and eventually reporting them back to us.

NA: And so I'm curious, are you is it is the trend up? Are the numbers higher as time goes on?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Well, I only started two years ago. Right. So my time to use is very, very short and it's heavily biased towards some areas of British Columbia. And unfortunately, we don't have a long term record of this. The government hasn't included any monitoring systems on a broader scale. So at the moment I don't dare to say anything about long term trends, but looking at the global picture, we believe there will be increasingly good conditions for the species. So it is also likely that it's getting more prominent in British Columbia, elsewhere in Canada.

NA: I guess what you might be hinting at there is is is a role for climate change in all of this. What's your sense? What role does climate change play in? Yeah, in the numbers here.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: The jellyfish only occurs at the end of the summer into early fall and then dies off later on when the temperatures go down again. But there's another part of the lifecycle called polyp. And these polyps are sitting along the seafloor at the lake floor, long branches, submerged stones, stuff like that, and basically around all year. And once the temperature becomes like feasible for the protection of jellyfish, they're just invest energy and start producing those jellyfish. And this is certainly triggered by a higher temperature. Usually it's something like above 20 degrees. So if we follow the current predictions about climate change and like water warming in our area, we might expect that the lake's becoming warmer earlier in the year and also stay warmer for a longer period within the year. And on the contrary, this would also mean that the jellyfish and the polyps will be just more early and also longer within the present. And what that means, it's at the moment only speculation.

NA: Here's the question that everybody's probably wondering is can they be dangerous to people?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Luckily I can say mostly not. So as I mentioned earlier, the tentacles are spiked with these animated cysts, which are basically the best stinging cells for prey capture. But luckily our skin is too thick so that the tentacles and the matter cysts can penetrate our skin, so they are harmless to us. The only add on for this, I should say our eyes, because obviously we don't have a very well protection over our eyes in case there would be a tentacle getting in touch with our eyes. This could cause some inflammation.

NA: So how do you prevent that?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Well, first of all, looking out for them and trying to avoid swimming directly into them. But otherwise, goggles. Yeah.

NA: So, do you know that's how they might affect human beings. What about the environment that they're in? What kind of effect do they have could they have on the environment that they are growing in, numbers in?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Mm hmm. Yeah. So they are carnivorous, so preying on tiny little animals, these plankton organisms, which are basically an intermediate step between the algae to the fish. So they are highly important in their function in the food web. And as we know from the oceans, these jellyfish come in a like a very dynamic population scheme so that the boom in numbers and then disappear the next day basically. And at the times when they are very abundant, one would expect to have also a huge impact on the entire food web, causing the fish basically to run out of prey, maybe to to starve. They could also feed directly on the fish larvae or fish eggs. But this has been tested a little bit in the past, not to a very satisfying level at the moment, at least not for us. And so, again, we should be careful of overstating the function in the ecosystem, but it might be tremendous.

NA: And you're continuing your investigation. And I'm wondering, just as a final thought, how can people help contribute to your research? Is there a way?

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Yes, there's a way. At the moment, there's no government controlled monitoring in any way in November, nor in other provinces and territories of Canada. So basically, we rely on the contribution of the public, basically reporting what they saw. As I mentioned, these jellyfish are tiny, so it's sometimes difficult to make basically a firm statement. But if you basically see jellyfish in B.C. on other provinces, it's much appreciated. If you report basically what you saw, you can either reach out to a researcher at UBC or to a local facilities biologist who are also interested and become more aware.

NA: Florian, thank you so much for telling us about this.

FLORIAN LUSKOW: Yes. You're welcome. Thank you.

NA: Florian Luskow is a zoologist and PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia. We reached him in Vancouver. Coming up after your regional update, unlocking the mysteries of the fountain of youth or at the very least, living longer and healthier lives. I'm Nahlah Ayed and you're listening to The Current.

Episode one of Unlocking the Fountain

NA: I'm Nahlah Ayed and you're listening to The Current. Over the summer we'll be bringing you a few of CBC's best podcasts. We're starting today with Unlocking the Fountain. Here is Keith McArthur with episode one of 150 Candles.

SOUNDCLIP

KEITH MCARTHUR: In the year 2000, two scientists made what could be the largest bet in history. The wager began with a provocative statement from zoologist Steve Austin in Scientific American magazine. Austin had studied animals in order to better understand the ageing process. And based on this research, he made a bold prediction about human longevity.

STEVE AUSTIN: It was in response to a question by a journalist who said, this was at a small conference, who asked people, Well, when do you think we're going to have the first 150 year old? And everybody looked at each other and nobody said anything. And finally, I just blurted out, I think that person's already alive.

KEITH MCARTHUR: To Jay Olshansky, a demographer known for calculating the upper limits of human longevity. It sounded bonkers.

JAY OLSHANSKY: I called them up. I said, Steve, you can't be serious.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Olshansky was a professor of public health at the University of Illinois. He knew instead from ageing conferences and considered him a friend.

JAY OLSHANSKY: So the world record is 122. You're talking about breaking that record by 28 years.

STEVE AUSTIN: They said, you don't really believe that, do you? And I said, Yeah, actually, I do. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it.

JAY OLSHANSKY: I said, Well, maybe we should place a wager on this. You know, we each put $150 down in an account.

KEITH MCARTHUR: The pair would later double the bet, each depositing $300. Now, $600 might not sound like a lot. But remember, the bet wouldn't be paid out for 150 years through good investments in compound interest. Olshansky says the payout could be considerable.

JAY OLSHANSKY: It's now called the billion dollar bet, but it may very well be the $2 billion bet.

KEITH MCARTHUR: So would you still put money on that same bet today?

JAY OLSHANSKY: Oh, yeah. Hands down. There's no question. There isn't anybody that's going to make it 250.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Assad is still a believer and not because he thinks we're going to get better at treating or curing diseases, but because he believes we're on the cusp of radical new medicines that will allow us to treat and slow the ageing process itself.

ASSAD: Getting better at diagnosing and treating cancer or heart disease or kidney disease. None of these things are going to get us 250. Only way to get to 150 is to actually be able to change the rate at which we fall apart with age.

KEITH MCARTHUR: So you're basically saying that someone who's at least 20 years old today, maybe someone listening to the podcast, is going to make it to 150?

ASSAD: Yeah, well, I would say that at least half of the listeners have that opportunity.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Now, Austin's prediction was considered outlandish two decades ago, but today an increasing number of experts say it could prove true. Some even predict that in the not too distant future, life expectancy at birth will be in the range of hundreds or even a thousand years. I'm Keith McArthur. In the first season of unlocking, I investigated the cutting edge science that might lead to cures for people living with rare diseases. People like my son Bryson. This season I'm going broader, exploring a condition that affects everyone on the planet. Ageing. Scientists have known for decades that they can prolong lifespan in animals like worms and mice by altering the rate at which they age. But so far, efforts to slow human ageing have been more fantasy than reality.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Every night I dreamed as you dream of immortality.

VOICE 2: Drink that potion and you'll never grow even one day older. I.

VOICE 3: How can a man live 500 years or a thousand.

KEITH MCARTHUR: New scientific discoveries could change that. And the repercussions are profound. This is Unlocking the fountain. Episode one 150 Candles. I've always been curious about ageing. Why do some of my high school friends look decades older than others in the pictures they post on Facebook? Why do some seniors live without serious disease for a century while others suffer one ailment after another? And what can we do to prevent the toll of ageing on our bodies and minds? I find these questions scientifically fascinating, but this exploration is also personal for me. My son Bryson has a rare genetic disease called Green Disorder. He's a happy, social loving 14 year old. He also has profound physical and cognitive disabilities. He can't walk or talk. And most of the time we don't know what's going on in his mind when he's unhappy or in pain. He's not able to tell us why. My biggest worry in life is who's going to take care of Bryson. When my wife, Laura and I are no longer able. Onepath. The one I explored in Unlocking Bryson's brain is to find him a cure. Another is for Laura and me to live as long and strong as possible. To be there for Bryson as long as we can. And then there's my own medical challenges. I was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease in my twenties, but it didn't seem real. I was young. I felt strong. 15 years later, my kidneys failed. While I waited for my transplant, I felt sick and tired and old. I remember sitting at a coffee shop window and being people who were walking by me with the kind of vigour I'd had not long before. When a man at least 30 years older than me power walked by the window, it seemed impossible. It was as though this disease had caused me to age older than him. Then within days of getting a kidney transplant, thanks always to my sister Stephanie, I felt decades younger. I've seen this in other people, too. When my dad was dying of cancer, my mom became his caregiver. Although she'd worked as a nurse for decades, this 24/7 job seemed to add years to her life. But today, six years after his death, she seems younger than she did then. It seems your age is about much more than the number of candles on your cake. The Guinness Book of World Records lists Jeanne Calment of France as the oldest person ever. Here's come on being interviewed in 1994 at age 119.

INTERVIEWER: [French speech]

JEANNE CALMENT: [French speech]

KEITH MCARTHUR: The interviewer asks, Did you know Vincent Van Gogh? Yes. Calment, says. I knew him right at the end of his life. He was ugly. Ruined by alcohol. Calment died three years later at 122. Her son had already passed. So had her grandson. Kamal hadn't lived a particularly healthy life. Well, after her 110th birthday, she continued to drink port, smoke cigarettes and eat £2 of chocolate a week. There's a bit of a debate about Calment's longevity, with some researchers speculating her daughter may have assumed her identity after she died. But she's generally accepted to be the longest lived person whose age can be verified using modern techniques. When Camel was born in 1875, life expectancy in France was only about 40 years. So you might say she lived more than three lifetimes. Today, worldwide life expectancy is about 71 years, according to United Nations data. But there are huge discrepancies around the world from a life expectancy of 84. In Japan, too, barely 50. In the Central African Republic. Canada is near the top of the list with a life expectancy of about 82 years. The United States stands at 79. So how did global life expectancy double overcome man's lifetime goals? Olshansky explains.

JAY OLSHANSKY: So the first major wave that occurred in public health was the early 20th century. There was, you know, basic public health, indoor living in working environments. What did that do? That dramatically brought down early age mortality. It allowed people to live into their thirties, forties, fifties and sixties. Then you had the middle part of the 20th century, the latter part of the 20th century focussed on medicine. You know, antibiotics and whatnot. That allowed us to live longer into our seventies and eighties.

KEITH MCARTHUR: But the game historians and scientists agree that even in ancient times there was a small percentage of the population that lived to 80 or 90 or even 100 years of age. So the two waves described by Olshansky, they allowed a far greater percentage of people to get closer to this maximum potential age. The big question for this century is whether we can boost the maximum potential age itself from Marx 122 years to 150 years or more. Assad thinks we can, and though Olshansky doesn't. He does believe that an important third wave of ageing benefits is imminent. That's because researchers don't just think about ageing in chronological terms. It's also the underlying condition for many diseases that lead to sickness, pain and death. Cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, Alzheimer's, we become exponentially more susceptible to all these diseases as we age. So the movement to slow, stop or even reverse ageing. It's not just about living longer, it's also about living younger.

JAY OLSHANSKY: Imagine it taking 80 years to be 60. I mean, if I could be like I am today in my late eighties, I would be delighted. And I think that's the mindset that we need to have going forward is really focussing in on what we can achieve in terms of health span, extension and compressing frailty and disability. But the third revolution which is here, which is on its way, isn't going to yield large increases in lifespan, but it has the potential to yield quite significant and powerful effects on health span.

KEITH MCARTHUR: The researchers agree on another key point, too. They say we won't see any significant increases to either healthspan or lifespan through our current approach of trying to find cures for one disease at a time. It's not the efforts to cure cancer or Alzheimer's aren't valid. It's just those aren't the most efficient ways to give us all more healthy years. Jay Olshansky.

JAY OLSHANSKY: Look, if we cure cancer today, life expectancy would rise by about three and a half years. I mean, in the literal sense so that nobody ever dies from cancer ever again. If we cure cardiovascular disease, I think we would gain about four to four and a half years in life expectancy. I think what will happen if we continue with this one disease at a time approaches we could increase the levels of frailty and disability amongst future cohorts of older people. Remember, death is a zero sum game. So if you reduce the risk of death from one disease, something else comes up. It's a big epidemiological game of whack a mole.

KEITH MCARTHUR: But here's something else I learnt. There are people who've been able to escape life's giant game of whack a mole. People who have lived past 100 without getting any of these AIDS related diseases. So what's their secret? My wife, Laura, suggests I talk to her friend's mom.

ELEANOR: My name is Eleanor. As in, as in Roosevelt and Eleanor Ruth. It was Fisher.

KEITH MCARTHUR: And how old are you, Eleanor?

ELEANOR: Well, on 102, they tell me and I feel every minute of it some days.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Do you?

ELEANOR: Well, and then the way I'm not too bad it's physically that I'm over 102.

KEITH MCARTHUR: So what year were you born?

ELEANOR: In 1918. The last big one. Not the last one was really when the flu epidemic apparently was very bad.

[Song]

KEITH MCARTHUR: With the flu spreading around the world. 1918 was a deadly year for babies, but Eleanor was unscathed. She grew up strong and active, playing sports, teaching sports and going on to have a career as a physiotherapist where she was on her feet for most of the day. Eleanor was an occasional drinker but never smoked. Did you live a very healthy life compared with other people?

ELEANOR: Well, I just so I, I don't think that well, I used to get little things wrong with everybody else was mostly chicken pox.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Have you ever had any serious illnesses?

ELEANOR: No, no, no, no.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Wow. And so what's your secret to living so long?

ELEANOR: No, I don't know. I just can't figure that out myself. I just have no idea. Both my parents live, too, into their nineties, but. Wow. But that's about all I can say. My siblings. None of them reached 90.

KEITH MCARTHUR: It's only since she turned 100 that life has become more challenging for Eleanor. Now she needs a walker to get around and her eyesight is fading. Things got even harder during the pandemic when residents at Eleanor's long term care facility were confined to their rooms. So more lonely than ever, I guess.

ELEANOR: Oh, very, very. Being stuck at a room and not seeing or you're able to talk to the people that I was friendly with is kind of a hardship.

KEITH MCARTHUR: I tell Eleanor about Jeanne Calment on and wonder what she thinks about the possibility of new science that could prolong life for decades. The oldest person on record lived to 122 years.

ELEANOR: Oh, my gosh.

KEITH MCARTHUR: How long do you think you'll live?

ELEANOR: I don't want to. I'm ready. They can come any time now.

KEITH MCARTHUR: I want to learn more about how people like Eleanor lived such long and healthy lives. I seek out Nir Barzilai.

NIR BARZILAI: Okay, terrific. Can you hear me?

KEITH MCARTHUR: I can hear you. Yes, thanks. A physician and ageing researcher at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. When Barzilai started to study ageing, most scientists in the field were focussed on diseases that result in early ageing. Kids with progeria, for example. They typically go bald and get wrinkles as toddlers and die of heart disease before they've reached adulthood. But Barzilai took a different approach. Instead of studying people who age too quickly, he began researching people who age more slowly. Centenarians. He wanted to know if they were getting extra years of help or extra years of sickness.

NIR BARZILAI: We looked at centenarians and we asked, do they live healthier as much as they live longer? And the answer is absolutely. And centenarians live 30 years healthier than people who are younger than them. They already exceeded lifespan for their cohort by 40 years. But that's not really that wasn't really the striking thing. The striking thing is that they have contraction of morbidity. In other words, the time that they're sick at the end of life is shorter. And it's interesting that the Centre for Disease Control has been looking at the medical expense of last two years of life of many people, but amongst them the medical expense of last two years of centenarians and the medical expense of centenarians are third, the cost of those who die before.

KEITH MCARTHUR: One third, the cost. Wow.

NIR BARZILAI: So we have, we have this example of population that live healthier, they live longer. And their medical cost, if you calculate, is a cost saving. In fact, I would argue economically you cannot afford not to target ageing.

KEITH MCARTHUR: The other thing Barzilai wanted to know is what were the secrets that allowed his centenarians to live dramatically, longer, healthier lives? He and his team asked hundreds of centenarians about their lifestyle.

NIR BARZILAI: Did you exercise? Where are you vegan? Did you smoke or didn't you smoke? And that's where it's interesting. I have 750 centenarians like that and there's nothing special about them. Half of them smoked and less than half even walked as an exercise or or did housework and vegetarians, only 2%. And they were not behaving in what we view as a healthy way. And still they got there.

KEITH MCARTHUR: One example, Barzilai had a group of four siblings in his study. The youngest died at 100, the eldest at 110.

NIR BARZILAI: And the person who died in 110, I met her when she was 100 years old. She opened the door in a New York apartment and she was smoking. And I said, Just a minute, none of your doctor told you to stop smoking? And she said, You know, all four doctors, they told me to stop smoking. They died.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Lifespan is a product of two main factors. First, environment and lifestyle. Diet. Exercise. Sleep. Stress. The other factor is the genes you're born with, people like John Coleman and Eleanor Gibson. They seem to have something special in their DNA gene variants that make them age more slowly than everyone else. Here's zoologist Steve Austin.

STEVE AUSTIN: What I tell people is if you if you want to live to be a healthy 85 year old, you need to eat right. You need to have a bright diet. You have to do all these things. If you want to be a healthy hundred year old or 120 year old, you need to have the right parents.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Now, this could all change as researchers develop drugs that can mirror the effects of these anti-aging genes. One example Barzilai team found a gene variant that helps with cholesterol and protects against age related diseases like heart disease and type two diabetes. Today, you need to have won the genetic lottery to get these benefits. But Barzilai, his discovery has led to the development of drugs that target the gene and could give anyone similar protection. I'm sitting on the couch watching TV. Laura is beside me. Scrolling through Facebook, she gasps. Oh, no. What is it? I ask. She tells me Eleanor has died. It's less than a month since our chat and I've been thinking about her a lot. About how the loneliness of outliving her friends and siblings was exacerbated by the loneliness of pandemic life during COVID 19, about how all this loneliness affects the rate of ageing. Eleanor took her last breath on what would have been her 79th wedding anniversary. I text Eleanor's daughter, Judy, to give my condolences, and I ask how she died. Her poor old heart just stopped, she replies. She died very peacefully and without any suffering. She was vibrant right until the end. I'm curious about what Laura and my son Connor think about science that might allow any of us to live as healthy as Eleanor, but for decades longer. Would you want to live to 150 years.

CONNOR: As a 17 year old? Sure. 150 years a thousand. Let's go.

KEITH MCARTHUR: I want to make you laugh. Right. If it were 1000.

LAURA: I think so. I mean, I like life. I enjoy it. And if I found that my body was still young, there's a lot that I would want to do now, even. Right.

KEITH MCARTHUR: So could you be married to me for a thousand years?

LAURA: Yes.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Why are we even talking about living to a thousand? Well, that's at the far end of what researchers on the fringes believe is possible. Some of the most aggressive predictions have come from an organisation called the Sens Research Foundation, which has raised tens of millions of dollars for research into extending lifespan. One of the founders of science has predicted that someone alive today, someone in her forties, will make it to a thousand years. It sounds like science fiction, but believers say it could happen through a phenomenon they call escape velocity. We're technologies to reverse human ageing are developed faster than the ageing process itself. So by the time someone reaches 100, there will be technologies to keep her alive until 250. And on and on. All the way to a thousand. So if Jay Olshansky is sceptical of asteroids 150 years. Guess how he feels about a thousand?

JAY OLSHANSKY: Well, I mean, that's a nice made up number. The first person to live to 1000 today is a catch phrase designed to attract attention from the media. There's no science in it at all. To me, it doesn't matter if you're talking about a thousand 805,000. They're all made up numbers. They're not going to happen.

KEITH MCARTHUR: I'm 49. I don't have any illusion that I'm going to live for a thousand years. But I want to believe that the new science of ageing will permit me to live into my nineties without losing my mind or body, without going through rounds of toxic cancer treatments. Without the pain of osteoarthritis. That I can stick around strong and healthy as long as possible for Bryson. And I'd love to believe that my kids or grandkids might live as healthy as Eleanor for even more decades or centuries. Is any of this possible? Maybe. There are a lot of brilliant minds working on this challenge and a lot of money backing it up. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and PayPal founder Peter Thiel have invested in the space. And in 2013, Google launched Calico, a life sciences company targeting ageing and age related diseases. Calico and its biotech partners have already spent billions towards these goals. Over the coming weeks, I'm going to speak with scientists at the leading edge of this research.

LAURA: Every species study to date life span is extended.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Explore why our pets could be the first to get extra years from this new technology. Oh yeah.

VOICE 4: I heard about you. You're trying to make dogs live longer.

KEITH MCARTHUR: Learn what you and I can do today to add a decade or more to our lives.

STEVE AUSTIN: Those are powerful factors that are all within our realm of control.

KEITH MCARTHUR: And imagine how the world would be different if we did all live for a thousand years.

JAY OLSHANSKY: You're talking about a several fold increase in the world's population.

LAURA: Does everybody want to live till they're completely broken down?

KEITH MCARTHUR: And like Jay Olshansky, I'll try to balance hope with scepticism because these promises of radical life extension, they aren't new. For centuries, charlatans have peddled elixirs and false hope to people desperate to live beyond their years. So before we get to the real science, we'll take a look at the quackery. Next time on Unlocking the fountain.

NA: And that's coming up here tomorrow. That's our programme for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for cue. Today, the multi-platinum recording artist Josh Groban speaks with Tom Power about his new tour, the time his voice teacher sent a tape to the star producer David Foster, and how Joshua landed on stage in a duet with Celine Dion when he was just in his teens. That's coming up after the news. I'm Nahlah Ayed thanks for listening to The Current.

Monday 27 June, 2022 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode