Former Republican Senator Bill Frist on How Climate Is a Health Issue

Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Senator Bill Frist wants everyone to know that the climate crisis is a health crisis. 'After decades in medicine, in that operating room as a surgeon, and then 12 years in the United States Senate, and then a lot of time as a healthcare entrepreneur, I came to see something fundamental, that the health of our planet and our globe…and the health of the human being himself, we've regarded those as separate, when in truth, they are inseparable,' Frist said at the TIME Earth Awards in Manhattan on April 23.
Frist began his career as a physician and surgeon before joining the Senate in 1995. Since retiring, he's turned his focus to the climate crisis.
Now, he believes that to get people to connect with the climate crisis it has to be made personal. 'No one wants their child to develop asthma from polluted air, no one wants to watch a loved one suffer from a heatwave,' Frist said. 'When we view the Earth's health… through the lens of human health—we touch those individual hearts and minds and move people with that common language.'
Frist said his experience advocating—and seeing meaningful change—on big issues like reducing smoking, controlling HIV, and slashing childhood traffic fatalities, has shown him that climate action is possible—as long as people come together with a shared goal. And the will is there: 70% of Americans recognize climate change as a serious concern.
He urged doctors and nurses to 'be the messengers' of the climate crisis. 'It's those healers and doctors and nurses who are on the front lines. It's them responding to the health impacts of the natural disasters that we know are occurring more frequently and with greater intensity, the spreading of diseases from deforestation and the changing climates that we know all are occurring, and the repercussions of polluted water and soil on health.'
He closed out his speech with a message to 'lead with health.' 'Because in the end, it isn't just about saving the planet.' Frist said. 'It is about saving lives and saving people.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

5 hours ago

• The Hill

Thanks to imported drugs, America has lost control of its medicine cabinet

America is facing a growing crisis in its medical system — not from a lack of talent or innovation, but from a breakdown in the control, safety and supply of essential medicines. Our growing reliance on imports is now driving serious drug shortages, destabilizing supply chains and increasingly making medications unsafe. At the root of it is a hard truth: We no longer have control of the medicines we depend on every day. In 2002, America manufactured 83.7 percent of the pharmaceuticals it consumed. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 37.1 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. pharmaceutical trade deficit has soared, reaching a record $118.3 billion in 2024. We didn't just outsource manufacturing — we outsourced the sovereignty and safety of our health care system. This means that nearly two-thirds of America's pharmaceutical supplies are now imported. Most critical medications, such as generic drugs, now come from China and India. China controls 80 to 90 percent of the global supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the chemical building blocks of modern medicine. Even drugs labeled 'Made in the USA' often chemically originate in China. And India, which produces about half of America's finished generic drugs, relies on China for up to 80 percent of its active pharmaceutical not a supply chain — it's a ticking time something goes wrong, American patients suffer. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration shut down a single Indian plant responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. supply of cisplatin, a critical chemotherapy drug, after uncovering a 'cascade of failure' in safety practices and shredded documents soaked in acid. With no domestic backup, patients nationwide had their treatments delayed. That wasn't a fluke. 40 percent of U.S. generic drugs have only one FDA-approved manufacturer. Because of that single chokepoint, when one factory fails, the whole system can crack. We are now seeing widespread drug shortages across the medical system. Hospital pharmacists report an average of 301 critical drug shortages at any given time. And 85 percent say these shortages are moderately or critically affecting care. Doctors often lack crucial medicines such as antibiotics, sedatives and cancer drugs. These aren't obscure drugs. They're foundational medicines. But America no longer makes them. Even when imported drugs do arrive, they're not always safe. A 2025 study found that Indian generics are 54 percent more likely to cause serious side effects than their U.S.-made counterparts. Indian factory violations have also been tied to at least eight U.S. patient deaths. China's record is equally disturbing. In 2008, dozens of Americans died after receiving contaminated heparin from Chinese suppliers. This isn't what the American people want. In a national survey, 85 percent of hospital pharmacists said they would pay more for safer generics. But under today's rules, price overshadows quality. Hospitals have little oversight of drug quality — and foreign producers face few consequences for cutting corners. Even the federal government is flying blind. A 2023 Department of Defense review found that 22 percent of essential military-use drugs had unknown ingredient sourcing. That's a national security April, the Trump administration took a necessary step by launching an investigation into generic pharmaceutical imports that correctly frames the issue as a national security threat. But that recognition alone isn't enough. To address this crisis, Washington should impose targeted tariffs on generic drugs from adversarial nations. It must also rebuild domestic pharmaceutical production through tax credits and long-term contracts. America urgently needs full transparency in drug labeling to disclose where drugs and their ingredients are made. The FDA must step up — with stronger enforcement abroad and a ban on imports from repeat safety violators. And to secure critical ingredients during market disruptions, Washington must pursue a long-term vision that includes a 'strategic pharmaceutical reserve.' This isn't just protectionism. It's a restoration of America's medical security. No nation can call itself sovereign if it can't produce its own medicines, and no patient is safe if their health care depends on quality control in a factory 8,000 miles decades, we were told that offshoring production would make things cheaper, smoother and more efficient. But America can no longer depend on unstable foreign suppliers. It's time to restore our pharmaceutical independence and take back control of our medicine cabinet. Andrew Rechenberg is an economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

Yahoo

6 hours ago

• Yahoo

If You're Struggling With Constipation, These 5 Foods And Drinks May Be To Blame

Constipation is the most common gastrointestinal complaint, affecting millions of Americans of all ages. Prevalent as it may be, it's an unpleasant issue that you'd probably prefer to avoid. And what you eat can either help or hinder things in the poop department. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, you're typically considered constipated when you're passing 'small amounts of hard, dry stool, usually fewer than three times a week.' But when it comes to poop frequency, the normal range is pretty wide: anywhere from three times a day to three times a week. So consider what's a deviation from your usual pattern. Constipation is about more than just frequency of bowel movements, though. Other symptoms include pain or difficulty pooping, feeling like you haven't fully emptied your bowels, bloating, sluggishness and stomach discomfort. Most people deal with short-term constipation at one point or another. Chronic constipation, however, is an ongoing issue that can negatively affect your quality of life and lead to complications, like hemorrhoids or fecal impaction, if left untreated. When you're constipated, you might also experience bloating, sluggishness and stomach discomfort. You may become constipated due to dehydration, lack of exercise, changes to your routine (such as travel), stress, certain medications and health conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome. But below, we'll focus on some of the ways your diet could be contributing to your constipation woes. The main takeaway: Foods that are high in fat but low in fiber tend to be the worst offenders. No one specific food or drink is likely to cause constipation on its own for most individuals — however, your daily eating habits can worsen an existing issue, according to Medical News Today. We asked experts — including gastro doctors and dietitians — to explain which foods and drinks you might want to consider cutting back on when you're backed up and why. Refined grains 'Refined grains like white bread, white pasta and white rice are known to be binding and can contribute to constipation,' registered dietitian Stefani Sassos, nutrition and fitness director for the Good Housekeeping Institute, told HuffPost. 'This is due to the fact that they are lower in fiber than whole grains.' Baked goods such as pastries, cookies and cakes, as well as crackers and flour tortillas fall under this umbrella, as well. With refined grains, the fiber our bodies need to facilitate digestion is stripped away during the milling process. 'Fiber promotes regularity by helping food move through your digestive system,' gastroenterologist Dr. Supriya Rao previously told HuffPost. 'This is because fiber absorbs water and bulks up stools, making them easier to pass.' Cheese and dairy products Related: Invent The Next Big Soda Flavor — Will It Be Delicious Or The Next Big Disaster? Cheese is low in fiber and high in fat, which can worsen constipation. Dairy products like cheese tend to be high in fat, yet low in fiber, which can make constipation worse, gastroenterologist Dr. Rabia A. De Latour told HuffPost. For those with a lactose intolerance, consuming dairy products typically leads to diarrhea and gas. But according to a 2022 literature review, about 30% of lactose-intolerant individuals experience constipation after eating dairy. Red meat Related: Warning: This Ice Cream Generator Is Highly Addictive — What Delicious Or Disastrous Flavor Will You Create? Red meat, such as beef and pork, these kinds It is also rich in protein, the most satiating macronutrient. This means you might feel full after eating that steak or burger, making you less likely to reach for high-fiber foods like fruits and veggies. Fried foods French fries, fried chicken, mozzarella sticks and other fried fare can make you more backed up. 'Fried, greasy foods are very high in fat and can be hard for the body to digest, contributing to constipation,' Sassos explained. 'Plus, they often are void of fiber.' For other folks, these kinds of foods may lead to more urgent and looser stools — it really depends on the individual and the other components of their diet. Alcohol Booze is another one that causes different GI symptoms for different people. For many individuals, a night of drinking leads to soft stool or diarrhea. In other cases, it can have a constipating effect. If you're backed up, Dr. Kenneth Josovitz — a Virginia gastroenterologist with Gastro Health — recommends avoiding alcohol, 'which can cause dehydration and worsen constipation.' So why does alcohol have this effect? Alcohol suppresses the release of vasopressin, a hormone which helps your body hold onto fluids by telling the kidneys to reabsorb water, rather than excrete it. 'That [suppression] is why people will pee more when they drink,' gastroenterologist Dr. Sunana Sohi previously told HuffPost. 'The alcohol is making them pee out all the water in their body, and so they get dehydrated and then constipated because of it.' How To Alleviate Constipation In addition to cutting back on the aforementioned foods and drinks, try to incorporate more high-fiber foods into your diet to help you stay regular. Women should aim to consume at least 25 grams of fiber a day, De LaTour said. For men, that number is about 38 grams per day. Sassos recommends foods like raspberries, apples and pears with the skin on, lentils, beans, broccoli, leafy greens and nuts. Prunes, known for their laxative properties, can also be a good at-home remedy to try, she said. 'If you're not used to eating prunes and fiber-rich foods, start with one to two prunes per day,' Sassos said. 'You can work your way up to five or six as tolerated. Prune juice can be effective too, especially warm prune juice since warm liquids in general can speed up digestive motility.' When increasing your fiber intake, go about it slowly and be sure to drink enough water, she advised. 'We need adequate hydration to help fiber digest properly in the body,' Sassos said. 'If you don't drink enough water, high-fiber foods may actually constipate you even more.' Incorporating more high-fiber foods like leafy greens can help relieve constipation. To ease constipation, you can also try drinking a cup of tea as 'the hot temperature speeds up the motility and the caffeine stimulates the bowels,' Josovitz suggested. Reducing stress and exercising can help get things moving as well, he added. Sassos also emphasized the importance of physical activity in keeping you regular. 'Even a short 10-to 15-minute walk after a meal can help,' she said. The occasional bout of constipation typically resolves on its own with minor lifestyle adjustments. But in other cases, constipation may warrant a visit to your doctor — especially if it's coupled with significant abdominal pain. 'You should seek medical attention if the constipation is new, severe, lasts more than a few weeks, or comes with bleeding, weight loss or weakness,' Josovitz advised. This post originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in Food: "Over Time, It Starves The Brain": Neurologists Shared The Foods They Would Never, Ever Eat And Why Also in Food: People Are Sharing Their Go-To Food Hacks They're Shocked More Home Cooks Don't Already Know Also in Food: People Are Revealing The Homemade Food Items That Cost Less And Taste Better Than Store-Bought, And I'm Taking Copious Notes

Gizmodo

8 hours ago

• Gizmodo

When Will Genetically Modifying Our Children Go Mainstream?

In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined practical steps that countries and research institutions could take to discourage this sort of experimentation, such as strengthening regulations tied to gene editing. 'Germline editing has very serious safety concerns that could have irreversible consequences,' said Bruce Levine, a cancer gene therapy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of the ISCT, in a statement. 'We simply lack the tools to make it safe now and for at least the next 10 years.' Newer technologies such as CRISPR have made gene editing easier, cheaper, and more practical to carry out in a variety of species, humans included. That reality has made heritable germline editing—altering egg, sperm, and embryos such that they can be passed down to offspring—more feasible than ever. In November 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui thrust this issue into the limelight when he announced that his team modified the genes of several human embryos using CRISPR, then implanted them successfully in women volunteers. Eventually three children were born with the modifications, intended to confer natural immunity to HIV infection. He deliberately flouted ethical guidelines and the law in his research, such as doctoring lab results so that HIV-positive men could father the children (according to He, the children were born without HIV and appeared to have avoided any related health issues). He's experiments were roundly condemned by the scientific community and he ultimately served a three-year prison term for his actions, which ended in 2022. Upon release, He went back to working in the gene-editing field, though he promised to abide by domestic and international rules. The episode showed that human heritable germline editing is already clearly possible today, but not necessarily ethical to carry out. Indeed, many scientists and bioethicists believe we're not ready to go down that path just yet. For this Giz Asks, we reached out to several bioethicists to get their take on the moratorium, and more broadly, on the question of when we should be able to genetically modify children, if ever. Founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine's Department of Population Health. I've been thinking about that question for well over 40 years. We didn't always have the technology to go in and modify genes in an egg, sperm, embryo, or fetus for that matter. But it's certainly the case that people have been thinking hard about trying to genetically alter and improve children, probably back to the Greeks. We know that in modern times, Nazi Germany was home to race hygiene theory and a form of eugenics; they would have been very interested in creating better babies. They did have the Lebensborn Program where they tried to force women and men that they deemed especially genetically fit to breed and have kids. It's not really clear whatever happened to those kids. But it's a form, if you will, of trying to get the right genes into your offspring and get them passed along into the future. They practiced that. And we had versions of that in the U.S., believe it or not. We actually had awards given at state fairs to families that were seen as eugenically the best and trying to encourage those families to have bigger families. That's an idea that's still rattling around today, by the way, in the mouths of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, etc. Many in the current Trump administration are very concerned about minorities becoming the majority in the U.S. In any event, these are old fashioned ideas, often fueled by dreams of eugenics, shifting the population in the future toward healthier, more competent, more physically able people, trying to get people of the right race or ethnicity so that the society's makeup is proper. They don't rely on engineering a gene. There's no CRISPR. There's nobody going in there and trying to penetrate the cell wall to insert genetic information. But those are just new ways to think about ideas that have been around for a long time. So if you ask me, will we see genetic engineering of children aimed at their improvement? I say yes, undoubtedly. Now when? I'm not sure what the answer to that is. Right now, we have some crude tools. We are seeing some efforts to use gene therapy in kids to repair diseases of their bodies, not things that would be inherited. They work a bit, but I wouldn't say we're really at the sort of utopia of being able to reliably get rid of in a person or a child, sickle cell or other major diseases. The tools, despite a lot of hype and a lot of maybe press release journalism, are not quite there yet to really say we can even do a good job repairing disease in an existing kid. So when it comes to trying to use tools to modify an embryo, I'm going to say flat out we're at least 10 years away from that in any serious way that could be considered safe, targeted, and likely to produce the outcome you want. So the big restriction now is safety. I think we'll get past safety, but it is a reason right now not to do anything. Now, what else might become an objection if we did have accurate, sophisticated tools? I think the first is access. If you make better kids, but only some people can afford it, that wouldn't be fair. And that in itself would be unjust. And you might wind up creating two classes or more of humans on Earth, the genetically engineered superior people and others. And this obviously is a theme all over science fiction. Old-timers will remember the Wrath of Khan from Star Trek for their take on what happens when you get a super genetically engineered race. There's Gattaca, another movie that explored this. But I'm going to say this somewhat controversially. Fairness in access never stopped a technology from going forward. When the rich and the middle class want it, they're not stopped by the fact that the poor can't get it. I would like to see provisions made to say we shouldn't move forward unless those technologies are available to those who want them regardless of cost. But I don't think that's going to happen. It's just never happened. So access is an issue, but I don't think it's a game-breaker for improving your kids. People also say, well, how will we improve? I mean, what's the best state? We can't agree on that. So will we really improve kids? There may be things we disagree about as to whether they're really improvements. Would it be an improvement to diminish pigment in black people? Try and make them less dark. We can certainly see that argued. There are plenty in the deaf community who say, well, deafness is not really something you have to get rid of or try to improve by genetically engineering hearing to make it better. They can get around the world deaf using a different language and different institutions. But there are clearly things that it would be nice to genetically improve in kids. Immunity would be great. We do it now with vaccines. It would be great to find the right genes, tweak them, and build stronger immune systems. It would be great to make sure that we try our best to diminish the extreme pain, that some of us suffer not just as disease, but with respect to certain stimuli. I'm not saying we should genetically eliminate all pain. That would probably put us in danger, but we don't quite have to suffer the way we do. My point being, the fact that we don't agree on everything as to what would be an improvement doesn't mean that we can't agree on anything. The last thing I'll say is this. When you try to make better kids, I think one last concern is: Are you going to make the children have less options rather than more? So if I considered it an improvement in a child to make them a giant, or to make them a tennis player, or to try and figure out perhaps some weird appearance that would make them a celebrity, I'm condemning the child to my choice. They don't have the freedom to run their own life. They don't have the ability to choose what they want to do. I tighten down their future by narrowing the kinds of traits they have. That, I think, is a legitimate objection. We have to think hard about that. Many of the things we do environmentally, learn to read better, learn to do exercise, learn to play games, these are skills that expand capacities in our children, and may in fact be values that are then passed on to future generations. But they don't wind up creating kids who are less capable because of those interventions. That's where genetic change has to be watched very closely. So the bottom line of this gigantic speech is yes, we will see genetic modification of our children. It will come. There are traits that people will eagerly try to put into their kids in the future. They will try to design out genetic diseases, get rid of them. They will try to build in capacities and abilities that they agree are really wonderful. Will we hang up these interventions on ethical grounds? For the most part, no, would be my prediction, But not within the next 10 years. The tools are still too crude. Associate professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine There are children with genetic modifications walking around today, children like KJ, who was treated with personalized CRISPR gene editing at just six months old. There are now kids who are free of sickle cell disease symptoms through CRISPR therapy, the first one ever approved by the FDA. All of these children are 'genetically modified,' and they and their parents couldn't be happier about it. What other conditions could and should be treated through genetic modifications? That's a question that scientists are actively working on, and that social scientists like me are talking about with patients, parents, and communities—because we and they think it's really important for them to be part of those decisions. These 'somatic' gene editing treatments that are already being used aren't the kind that is passed down through our reproductive cells, the germline. Heritable gene modification would involve embryos, eggs, or sperm, or even possibly other cells that could be turned into these kinds of cells. A technology currently being researched, called in vitro gametogenesis, could use gene editing to turn skin cells into reproductive cells, allowing families with infertility to have their own genetically related children. And of course, there are scientists looking at the possibility of editing reproductive cells to allow couples who carry the genes for severe diseases to conceive children without those conditions. Many ethicists and scientists have drawn a hard line between heritable and non-heritable gene editing, but in practice it's not nearly so clear-cut. Off-target effects of gene editing are difficult to predict or control, so there is a chance that reproductive cells could be changed by treatments aimed at other organ systems. Fetal gene editing, which could help babies with some conditions be born with few or no symptoms, will also involve the pregnant bodies of their mothers; those adults could host edited cells even after the pregnancy ends, possibly affecting their future children too. Families dealing with genetic conditions that cause great suffering for their children don't necessarily see a problem with eliminating those conditions forever with heritable gene editing. On the other hand, some people living with genetic conditions, such as deafness or autism, see no reason for treating their condition with gene editing, heritable or not, because their biggest problems come not from the condition itself but from the way society treats them. So there are many questions to be asked about all forms of genetic modification, and how they will be developed and implemented. All the gene editing treatments that exist now or are being imagined over the next decade, heritable or not, involve exorbitant cost and will be inaccessible to most people worldwide. It will be crucial to balance the excitement of these novel technologies with attention to questions of justice, developing new treatments with an eye toward both accessibility and the priorities of those most affected. The only way to do this is to bring more voices into conversation with one another: people living with genetic conditions, scientists and doctors, policymakers of all kinds, and members of the public. Although gene editing is an amazing tool to add to our kit, the work of building more robust healthcare and support for families carrying or living with genetic conditions doesn't begin or end with genetic modification. Bioethicist, sociologist, and executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Yes we should, when it's safe, effective, and voluntary. Calls to permanently ban the creation of genetically modified children often rest on fear, not facts. They mirror past moral panics over interracial marriage, in vitro fertilization, and birth control—all technologies or choices once deemed unnatural or dangerous, and now widely accepted. We should be wary of arguments dressed up as ethics but rooted in anxiety about change. That doesn't mean anything goes. Like any powerful technology, gene editing must be tightly regulated for safety and efficacy. But the agencies we already trust to regulate medicine—the FDA, NIH, and institutional review boards—are largely capable of doing that. We don't need a bioethics priesthood or a new bureaucracy to police reproductive decisions. We need science-based oversight, individual consent, and protection from coercion. One of the loudest objections to genetic editing is the specter of 'eugenics.' But if eugenics means state control over reproduction, then the lesson of the 20th century is to defend reproductive freedom, not curtail it. Governments should not tell parents what kinds of kids to have. Preventing parents from using safe, approved gene therapies to reduce suffering or enhance their children's lives is a strange way to honor that lesson. They should give parents access to all the information and technology for the choices they make. True reproductive liberty includes the right to use the best science available to ensure a child's health. Another objection is that genetic modification could harm people who would rather not participate. But this 'perfection anxiety' ignores how all medical advances shift social norms. We didn't stop improving dental care because it made bad teeth less acceptable. And a healthier society has not led to less compassion for those who remain sick or disabled—if anything, it's strengthened the case for inclusion and support. The goal should be equitable access, not frozen norms. We do need to ensure that parents can access all the gene therapies that actually provide potential benefits for children. Governments with universal healthcare will need to make tough choices about what to cover and what not to cover. For instance, the National Health Service should make gene therapy to remove lethal, painful conditions available for all Britons, but parents may need to pay for medical tourism to some offshore clinic if they want to tweak their embryo's eye color. What about risks we can't foresee? Of course there will be some. All new medical therapies come with uncertainties. That's why we have trials, regulation, and post-market surveillance. There's no reason genetic therapies should be held to an impossibly higher standard. We should start with animal models, and proceed to the most morally defensible gene tweaks, lethal and painful conditions. Over time, as the safety of the techniques are better understood, we can expand the scope of therapeutic choices. Some worry that genetically modified children could disrupt our ideas of family or humanity. But those concepts have already been revolutionized—by urbanization, feminism, economic precarity, and social movements. The family of today would be unrecognizable to most people in 1800. If genetic technologies change our values again, it won't be the first time. Liberal democracies don't freeze culture in place—they ensure people have the freedom to shape it. Ultimately, the question isn't whether we should allow genetically modified children. It's whether we trust parents to make mostly good choices under the oversight of regulators and doctors. We should, because most parents have their children's best interests in mind, as they perceive them. That's why we allow parents to raise their own children in the first place. And we should ensure those choices are equitably available to all, not outlawed out of fear. If we ever find genetic tweaks to reduce suffering, enhance capability, or prevent devastating disease—and we can do so safely and ethically—the real moral failure would be to prohibit it. A Canadian bioethicist and environmentalist currently teaching at the University of Toronto. Well, there's a big difference between genetic enhancement and treatment. And with enhancement, I think we're nowhere near a point where we should be even considering that. But with treatment, the large ethical issue right now is something like single gene mutation. So something like Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy, or similar diseases, could it be justified to edit the gene for that? The challenge is we don't fully understand all the things. We don't know what we don't know, to put it bluntly. And with germline editing, the changes we would be making are permanent and they run through many generations ahead. So, yes, being able to prevent deadly or debilitating illnesses is absolutely something wonderful. But having said that, you obviously don't have consent of the person who will be born, but you also don't have consent of the generations that come after that. And if there is complications or unexpected problems, you can have an inheritance that just keeps running through generations. But here's the thing with this moratorium; to what end? You can call for a moratorium, but if no one's focusing on anything, if there's no research, no planning, no social discourse, there's just a lot of people with different opinions, and everything gets shelved for 10 years. I'm not sure that's going to be particularly useful. It sounds great if it's going to be 10 concentrated years on building consensus and public engagement and those types of things, but I don't think that's what would actually happen. And also, I'm sure you've noticed, the world's not in good shape, and Western culture is not of one mind these days. And with the ruptures, particularly in the United States, there's a lot of division in Western culture of how people see things. And I'm just not convinced that a moratorium, that people would make use of it in a constructive way. It really needs a coordinated plan, and I'm not sure there is one. So I do see that as quite a problem. The other thing is, we're dealing with high-income countries. So when we look at potential for CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing, we're dealing with a very small percentage of the world's population. I'm going to guess that it's maybe 15% to 20% of the world's population, because most of the population of the world has no access to things like this and never will. Not never will, but in the foreseeable future, they won't. And I think that's something we miss a lot of the time. And the biggest ethical problem in the world today is not gene editing. It's just access to healthcare. And this doesn't do anything in those domains whatsoever. So from a justice point of view, that is a concern. And I'm going to sound cynical here. Emerging medical technologies are not motivated largely by the social sector. They're motivated by marketing and market forces. So if people can make money on this, somehow, someway, people will proceed. And if gene editing is illegal in Canada and the U.S. and Western Europe and Australia, there's a lot of countries that don't fall into that. And you can set up shop anywhere. Equatorial Guinea or other places are not going to be worried about things like this. They've got enough problems on their hands. And there's a lot of countries out there where this would not be easily called. So I support the essence of it. And I can see why people want to do it. I'm just not convinced it's all that feasible. I think what makes more sense is just not having any germline editing until we have a larger consensus about this technology.