Philip Bethge

Tag: technology

  • Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?

    Can Nuclear Power Offer a Way Out of the Climate Crisis?

    Billionaires and leading researchers in the United States are developing next-generation nuclear reactors that are small, reputedly safe and suitable to modern power grids. They could be part of the climate change solution.

    —> Continue reading at DER SPIEGEL

  • Selber töten

    Warum das vollautonome Auto gar nicht erst entwickelt werden sollte

    Ein Kommentar von Philip Bethge, DER SPIEGEL 26/2016

    Es könn­te bald Au­tos ge­ben, die un­ter be­stimm­ten Be­din­gun­gen voll­au­to­ma­tisch ent­schei­den, Fuß­gän­ger zu über­fah­ren. Möch­ten Sie in ei­nem sol­chen Auto sit­zen? Ich nicht.

    Das Sze­na­rio ist kei­nes­wegs so ab­surd, wie es klingt. For­scher der Uni­ver­si­tä­ten Tou­lou­se und Ore­gon so­wie des Mas­sa­chu­setts In­sti­tu­te of Tech­no­lo­gy ha­ben jetzt durch­ge­spielt, was ge­schä­he, wenn voll­au­to­no­me Au­tos durch die Stra­ßen roll­ten. Die gute Nach­richt: Die Zahl der Un­fäl­le näh­me um bis zu 90 Pro­zent ab. Die schlech­te: Bei den ver­blei­ben­den 10 Pro­zent stün­de das Auto häu­fig vor ei­nem ent­setz­li­chen Di­lem­ma. Wie soll es re­agie­ren, wenn fünf Pas­san­ten plötz­lich auf die Stra­ße stür­men und der Brems­weg nicht reicht? Die Fuß­gän­ger über­rol­len oder ge­gen die nächs­te Wand rau­schen und die In­sas­sen tö­ten?

    Die meis­ten Men­schen, so das Er­geb­nis der Stu­die, ent­schei­den sich da­für, die Pas­san­ten zu scho­nen, und wün­schen sich Au­tos, die im Zwei­fel die Pas­sa­gie­re op­fern. Wer­den sie dann je­doch ge­fragt, ob sie ein sol­ches Auto kau­fen wür­den, ver­nei­nen sie. Am Ende wür­den wir, so die For­scher, un­se­re Mo­ral eben doch über Bord wer­fen und uns für Ge­fähr­te ent­schei­den, die nicht uns selbst, son­dern die Fuß­gän­ger tö­ten.

    Aber das kann ja nicht die Lö­sung sein. Auch wenn er den Fort­schritts­a­po­lo­ge­ten und Tech­nik­t­räu­mern nicht in den Sinn kom­men mag – ein gänz­lich an­de­rer Aus­weg aus dem Di­lem­ma bie­tet sich an: Wir soll­ten ein­fach auf die Voll­au­to­ma­tik ver­zich­ten. Sie ist eine In­ge­nieurs­fan­ta­sie, die die Welt nicht braucht. Wenn halb­au­to­no­me Wa­gen uns da­bei hel­fen, die Ödnis der Au­to­bahn zu meis­tern, ist da­ge­gen nichts zu sa­gen. Dem Fah­rer je­doch noch das letz­te Stück sei­nes We­ges durch die Stadt oder die Dör­fer ab­neh­men zu wol­len pro­du­ziert Ma­schi­nen, die uns das Maß un­se­res Mit­ge­fühls dik­tie­ren.

    Die IT- und Au­to­fir­men soll­ten vom Kon­troll­wahn ab­las­sen und ih­ren In­tel­lekt dar­auf ver­wen­den, neue Ver­kehrs­kon­zep­te jen­seits des In­di­vi­du­al­ver­kehrs zu ent­wer­fen. Da­mit wäre der Welt tat­säch­lich ge­hol­fen.

     

  • Leise rieselt der Ruß

    Schiffsabgase gefährden die Gesundheit. Warum dürfen sie immer noch die Luft verpesten?

    Ein Kommentar von Philip Bethge

    Das Wasser glitzert. Die Möwen schreien. Das Dickschiff tutet. Schön ist’s am Hafen. Aber dann: Schwarze Wolken puffen in die Luft. Dieselruß rieselt auf die Kais. Und was nach großer, weiter Welt riecht, kann tödlich enden. Eine Studie der Universität Rostock und des Helmholtz-Zentrums München bestätigt jetzt, dass Schiffsabgase Lungenzellen schädigen. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation stuft Ruß als ebenso krebserregend ein wie Asbest. Trotzdem fährt fast die gesamte Handels-, Fähr- und Kreuzfahrtflotte der Erde immer noch mit dreckigem Schweröl. Effektive Abgasanlagen sind auf Schiffen so rar wie Kapitäninnen. Warum ist das so? Weil Schweröl billig ist. Weil in der Internationalen Seeschifffahrtsorganisation große Flaggenländer wie Liberia oder die Marshallinseln das Sagen haben, denen Umwelt und Gesundheit am Heck vorbeigehen. Weil nur in wenigen Meeresgebieten überhaupt Abgasgrenzwerte gelten, in der Nord- und Ostsee etwa. Und: weil dort viel zu selten kontrolliert wird. Zwar setzen einzelne Branchen wie zum Beispiel die Kreuzfahrtreeder sogenannte Schwefeloxid-Scrubber und Stickoxidfilter ein. Auch nutzen neuere Traumschiffe in manchen Gewässern inzwischen Schiffsdiesel, der sauberer als Schweröl ist. Doch konsequent wäre es, Schweröl komplett zu verbannen und die Schiffsantriebe ganz auf Diesel oder gleich auf Flüssiggas umzurüsten. Nur wenn der Treibstoff bereits schwefelarm aus der Raffinerie kommt, können die Abgase durch effektive Katalysatoren und Rußpartikelfilter geschickt werden. Bei Lastwagen ist das seit Jahren Standard. Warum nicht auf See?

    Der Naturschutzbund Deutschland hat am Hafen von Kiel gerade Feinststaubwerte gemessen, die rund 20-fach “über dem ortsüblichen Niveau” liegen. Auch über Hamburgs edler HafenCity wabert der Ruß aus den Schiffsschloten. Dort hat so mancher Reeder sein Büro. Vielleicht hilft ja: tief durchatmen?

  • Windige Windkraft

    Von Philip Bethge, DER SPIEGEL 18/2014

    Dürfen ein paar Wale und Wasservögel die Energiewende behindern? Der Naturschutzbund Deutschland (Nabu) klagt jetzt gegen den Offshore-Windpark Butendiek vor Sylt, weil Bau und Betrieb der Anlage Schweinswale und die extrem scheuen Seetaucher stören könnten. Ein Milliardenprojekt steht auf dem Spiel. Es geht um Haben oder Nichthaben von 288 Megawatt Ökostrom. Und die Naturschützer plagt ein schlechtes Gewissen, weil sie doch eigentlich für den Ausbau der Erneuerbaren sind.

    Dennoch ist die Klage des Nabu vor dem Verwaltungsgericht Köln richtig. Butendiek liegt inmitten von gleich zwei EU-Naturschutzgebieten. Nur weil der damalige grüne Bundesumweltminister Jürgen Trittin das Projekt protegierte, wurden dort schon 2002 80 Windräder genehmigt – gegen den Rat des Bundesamts für Naturschutz. Trittins Entscheidung war falsch. Auch die Windparks Dan Tysk, Amrumbank West und Borkum Riffgrund 2, deren Genehmigungen ähnlich windig sind, müssen auf den Prüfstand. Es gibt genügend alternative Offshore-Standorte, an denen kein Schweinswal kalbt und kein Prachttaucher fischt.

    Bereits heute sind in der Nordsee 28 Windparks mit etwa neun Gigawatt Leistung genehmigt. Über 50 weitere Parks sind in Planung. Gleichzeitig deckelt die Novelle des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes den Windstrom auf 6,5 Gigawatt bis 2020 und auf 15 Gigawatt bis 2030 – Zeit und Spielraum genug, um ökologisch verträgliche Offshore-Standorte auszuwählen. Das Bundesamt für Naturschutz muss die bereits begonnenen Rammarbeiten für Butendiek sofort stoppen. Sonst ist der Umweltschaden angerichtet, bevor über die Nabu-Klage vor Gericht entschieden wird. Und am Ende muss womöglich der Steuerzahler für den Rückbau eines halbfertigen Windparks geradestehen. Deutschland braucht Butendiek nicht – aber seltene Tiere brauchen ihre Rückzugsräume.

  • Fliegende Schiffe

    Beim diesjährigen America’s Cup treten alle Teams mit dem gleichen Segelboot an: mit einem Superkatamaran, der die Traditionsregatta wieder spannend machen soll.

    Von Philip Bethge

    Der Katamaran rauscht heran wie ein tieffliegender Raubvogel mit muskulösen Schwingen. Hoch über dem Wasser kauern sich die Segler auf dem einen Rumpf der Yacht zusammen. Ihren Kopf haben sie mit Helm geschützt. Kein Wunder: Die Höchstgeschwindigkeit des Zweirumpfboots liegt bei etwa 80 Kilometern pro Stunde.

    Das Schiff vom Typ AC72 ist die jüngste Rennmaschine des America’s Cup. Zum 34. Mal werden im Sommer die mutmaßlich besten Segler der Welt zur berühmtesten Regatta der Erde zusammenkommen. Austragungsort ist diesmal die Bucht von San Francisco, ein “spektakuläres Segel-Amphitheater”, wie es Larry Ellison ausdrückt. Der Chef der Software-Firma Oracle gewann den vorigen Cup und darf das diesjährige Rennen deshalb ausrichten. Erwartet wird ein Extremsportspektakel erster Güte.

    Mit TV-Bildern aus der Luft und Ton- und Bildübertragung direkt von den Booten soll die Regatta ähnlich wie die Formel 1 zum Zuschauersport werden.

    Vor allem aber wird der Cup diesmal nicht in erster Linie zum Wettstreit der Schiffsbauer werden. Zugelassen für das Rennen ist nämlich nur ein einziger Bootstyp, die neue, rund zehn Millionen Dollar teure AC72. Alle sieben Rennteams versuchen derzeit, den Segelboliden in den Griff zu bekommen.

    “Kein Boot ist schwerer zu segeln als die AC72”, sagt James Spithill, Skipper des Oracle-Teams, “wir brauchen bärenstarke Männer; und jeder Fehler kann katastrophale Folgen haben.”

    Der Superkatamaran ist ein Seglertraum aus pechschwarzer Kohlefaser und Epoxydharz, 22 Meter lang, 14 Meter breit und knapp 6 Tonnen schwer. In der Mitte thront ein 260 Quadratmeter großer, 40 Meter hoher Flügel. Bis zu viermal effizienter als ein normales Segel soll die Superschwinge sein. Klappen an der Hinterkante erlauben es, das Flügelprofil während der Fahrt den Windverhältnissen anzupassen.

    “Das Profil eines normalen Segels lässt sich nur durch Zug von unten verändern”, erläutert Ingenieur Kurt Jordan vom Oracle-Team. Bei Rennyachten würden leicht 20 Tonnen auf dem sogenannten Baumniederholer lasten. Ein Flügel dagegen braucht keinen Zug, sondern hält seine Form von selbst. Mit der Schwinge soll die AC72 mehr als die doppelte Windgeschwindigkeit erreichen können.

    –> Geschichte im Original auf SPIEGEL Online lesen

    In einer Lagerhalle an San Franciscos Pier 80 feilt Jordan zusammen mit seinen Kollegen derzeit an den Feinheiten des amerikanischen Katamarans. Die Experten werten dafür die Daten von über 150 Sensoren aus, die an Bord des Schiffs installiert sind. Dann wird optimiert. Mit Hingabe arbeitet das Oracle-Team zum Beispiel an den Schwertern der beiden Rümpfe. Sie verhindern, dass das Boot zur Seite abdriftet.

    Bei der AC72 jedoch haben sie eine weitere Funktion. Die Schwerter sind wie ein “L” geformt. Die Folge: Wenn es schnell genug vorangeht, hebt sich der Katamaran vollständig aus dem Wasser.

    “Foiling” nennen Segler diese Gleitphase. Der Anblick ist spektakulär. Gerade noch pflügte die AC72 wie ein normaler Katamaran durch die Wellen. Dann schweben urplötzlich beide Bootskörper gleichzeitig in der Luft. Wie ein Pferd, dessen Zügel gelockert werden, beschleunigt das Boot binnen wenigen Sekunden beinahe auf das Doppelte seiner Geschwindigkeit. Allein das Schwert auf der windabgewandten Seite und die beiden langen Steuerruder zerschneiden noch das Wasser und lassen einen feinen Nebel aus glitzernder Gischt zurück.

    In so einem Moment lasten auf dem Schwert an die 200 Tonnen. Dabei ist das Kohlefaserbrett nur etwa einen Meter breit und acht Meter lang. “Es ist ein Drahtseilakt”, sagt Jordan, “wir loten die Grenzen der Belastbarkeit aus.” Das gilt auch für die Besatzung. Einzig mit Menschenkraft darf die AC72 gefahren werden. Elf Muskelpakete mit wettergegerbtem Gesicht sind an Bord. “Sie verrichten die Arbeit von 17”, sagt Skipper Spithill. Paarweise malochen sie an den Winschen, um zum Beispiel die Hydraulik der Schwerter zu bedienen oder das Vorsegel dichtzuholen, das mit vier Tonnen am Boot zerrt.

    “Diesmal geht es beim America’s Cup wirklich um die seglerischen Fähigkeiten”, schwärmt Spithill, “der durchschnittliche Segler hätte keine Chance, dieses Boot über den Kurs zu bringen.”

    Sogar Spithill selbst ist schon an dem Superkatamaran gescheitert. Bei Windstärke sechs kachelte er im vergangenen Oktober direkt vor der Uferpromenade von San Francisco über das Wasser. Plötzlich geriet der Katamaran aus dem Gleichgewicht. Der Bug der Riesenyacht bohrte sich in die brodelnde See. Das Heck rauschte in die Höhe. Der Katamaran überschlug sich. Über drei Monate dauerte es, bis das Oracle-Team sein Boot wieder zusammengeflickt hatte.

    Für das Rennen gehen die Segler auf Nummer sicher: Seit vorvergangenem Dienstag dümpelt ein zweiter AC72 vor dem Dock in San Francisco.

  • SPIEGEL Blog: Surrogate Mother (Not Yet) Sought for Neanderthal

    An interview published last week by SPIEGEL with American genetic scientist George Church has sparked frenetic media speculation about a supposed plan to bring the Neanderthal back from the dead. Church feels his remarks were mistranslated, but it was other media outlets that twisted his words.

    “Wanted: Surrogate Mother For Neanderthal,” screamed an article in the Berliner Kurier tabloid in the German capital on Tuesday, complete with an image of a grinning, bearded caveman. Britain’s Independent seemed positively creeped out by a Harvard professor who wanted to bring such beings back to life as some kind of “Palaeolithic Park.” Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph implored: “Spare Neanderthals This Modern Freak Show.”

    Media and websites around the world — in Britain, Italy, Poland, Greece, Hungary, Russia, South Korea and Turkey — expressed interest in the idea of resurrecting the Neanderthal. By Wednesday morning, more than 600 sources on Google News had reported the story, with all citing SPIEGEL as their source. What happened?

    The source of the net furore was an interview SPIEGEL conducted with George Church. The Harvard University genetic researcher then provided an explanation to the Boston Herald for the sudden media fever. He blamed it on an error downstream of SPIEGEL. He said it had been incorrectly reported that he was looking for a surrogate mother to carry a Neanderthal clone.

    The sudden interest in the Neanderthal, our human cousin, may tell us a little bit about the diffuse fear of overly ambitious genetic researchers. But it tells us even more about the laws of tabloid journalism.

    In this case, the entire brouhaha arose in articles written outside of SPIEGEL’s domain. And it is important to us to communicate this because we make a significant effort to ensure that our stories are correctly translated when they appear on our English-language website. Occasionally mistakes slip through — as is inevitable with any site that relies heavily on translation — but when they do we are quick to correct them.

    In addition, we sent Church an English version of our interview the week before it went to print for authorization. This provided him with an opportunity to change any formulations that may have caused any room for misinterpretation. We did make some alterations later without checking, and have since apologized to him for introducing the word “hell,” which he did not say.

    A Storm of Coverage

    It should quickly be obvious to anyone following the hype over the Neanderthal surrogate mother closely that the storm of coverage didn’t break out until a week after the interview was published. Last Friday, we posted the interview, which we had requested from George Church because we had been fascinated by his latest book. The title alone, “Regenisis,” seemed promising.

    And Church didn’t disappoint in his interview. He laid out the great future he believes the still relatively young research field of “synthetic biology” will have. Regardless whether he was discussing the cloning of humans, the genetic optimization of Homo sapiens, the manipulation of the genetic code of all life forms or the re-creation of the Neanderthal, nothing was treated as taboo in his interview. In other words, it offered plenty of fodder for both controversy and thrilling entertainment.

    The interview first appeared in the German-language print edition of SPIEGEL on Monday, Jan. 14, and the raft of outraged reader letters reflected the intense interest the interview generated. Church has always presented himself as a bold and argumentative visionary who won’t hesitate to consider anything that might be scientifically feasible.

    Initially, few media outlets picked up the story. Nor did that change after we posted a short article focusing primarily on Church’s remarks on the potential for resurrecting the Neanderthal on SPIEGEL ONLINE in German. The hype machine got going shortly after that.

    It was only then that the story was given the decisive spin — by other media outlets. Early tweets on the interview, may have helped to set the tone, like one person who tweeted: “My life’s new ambition: Mate with a Neanderthal woman.” A short time later, the first journalist stumbled across the interview’s emotive word: “surrogate.” That’s when headlines like the one that appeared in the Daily Mail — “Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby” — were born. Subsequent tweets are already discussing the possibility of a film being made of the story.

    The question of whether a surrogate mother could be used for a possible future Neanderthal clone does in fact pop up in the interview. In the question, we cite a passage in Church’s book in which he writes that, “a whole Neanderthal creature itself could be cloned by a surrogate mother chimp — or by an extremely adventurous female human.”

    No Want Ad Implied

    It would have to be clear to anyone who gives that passage in the interview a critical read — and the same applies to both the German and English versions — that it is in no way intended as some kind of want or personal ad. Church didn’t mean it that way and we didn’t understand it to mean that either. Really, what Church was explaining is that he considers the rebirth of the Neanderthal to be technically possible. He also explains the steps that would be necessary to get there. The last step, someday, would be the search for a surrogate mother. He also says that he believes the chances are good that he might experience the birth of the first Neanderthal clone within his lifetime. We thought that statement alone was a bit of a reach, particularly given that Church is 58 years old today.

    We’re sorry that Church, who provided us with such fascinating insights into his research, has now become the victim of media hype. In the course of the past two decades, he told the Boston Herald, he has done perhaps 500 interviews about his research and this is the first one to spiral out of control quite like this.

    What’s perhaps most bizarre about the entire media hysteria over Church’s interview is that potential surrogate mothers are now contacting the geneticist. His concern — at least if things get to that stage — that he will have difficulty finding potential surrogate mothers appears to be unfounded.

    *Editor’s Note: At the request of George Church, five changes have been made to the above text. In particular, he wanted to avoid the impression that he had blamed a translation error on the part of DER SPIEGEL for the confusion that ensued following the interview’s publication.

     

  • Interview with George Church: Can Neanderthals Be Brought Back from the Dead?

    In a SPIEGEL interview, synthetic biology expert George Church of Harvard University explains how DNA will become the building material of the future — one that can help create virus-resistant human beings and possibly bring back lost species like the Neanderthal.

    –> Update: The Interview has sparked frenetic media speculation about a supposed plan to bring the Neanderthal back from the dead. Church feels his remarks were mistranslated, but it was other media outlets that twisted his words.

    George Church, 58, is a pioneer in synthetic biology, a field whose aim is to create synthetic DNA and organisms in the laboratory. During the 1980s, the Harvard University professor of genetics helped initiate the Human Genome Project that created a map of the human genome. In addition to his current work in developing accelerated procedures for sequencing and synthesizing DNA, he has also been involved in the establishing of around two dozen biotech firms. In his new book, “Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves,” which he has also encoded as strands of DNA and distributed on small DNA chips, Church sketches out a story of a second, man-made Creation.

    SPIEGEL recently sat down with Church to discuss his new tome and the prospects for using synthetic biology to bring the Neanderthal back from exctinction as well as the idea of making humans resistant to all viruses.

    SPIEGEL: Mr. Church, you predict that it will soon be possible to clone Neanderthals. What do you mean by “soon”? Will you witness the birth of a Neanderthal baby in your lifetime?

    Church: I think so, but boy there are a lot of parts to that. The reason I would consider it a possibility is that a bunch of technologies are developing faster than ever before. In particular, reading and writing DNA is now about a million times faster than seven or eight years ago. Another technology that the de-extinction of a Neanderthal would require is human cloning. We can clone all kinds of mammals, so it’s very likely that we could clone a human. Why shouldn’t we be able to do so?

    SPIEGEL: Perhaps because it is banned?

    Church: That may be true in Germany, but it’s not banned all over the world. And laws can change, by the way.

    SPIEGEL: Would cloning a Neanderthal be a desirable thing to do?

    Church: Well, that’s another thing. I tend to decide on what is desirable based on societal consensus. My role is to determine what’s technologically feasible. All I can do is reduce the risk and increase the benefits.

    SPIEGEL: So let’s talk about possible benefits of a Neanderthal in this world.

    Church: Well, Neanderthals might think differently than we do. We know that they had a larger cranial size. They could even be more intelligent than us. When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet or whatever, it’s conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial.

    SPIEGEL: How do we have to imagine this: You raise Neanderthals in a lab, ask them to solve problems and thereby study how they think?

    Church: No, you would certainly have to create a cohort, so they would have some sense of identity. They could maybe even create a new neo-Neanderthal culture and become a political force.

    SPIEGEL: Wouldn’t it be ethically problematic to create a Neanderthal just for the sake of scientific curiosity?

    Church: Well, curiosity may be part of it, but it’s not the most important driving force. The main goal is to increase diversity. The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity. This is true for culture or evolution, for species and also for whole societies. If you become a monoculture, you are at great risk of perishing. Therefore the recreation of Neanderthals would be mainly a question of societal risk avoidance.

    SPIEGEL: Setting aside all ethical doubts, do you believe it is technically possible to reproduce the Neanderthal?

    Church: The first thing you have to do is to sequence the Neanderthal genome, and that has actually been done. The next step would be to chop this genome up into, say, 10,000 chunks and then synthesize these. Finally, you would introduce these chunks into a human stem cell. If we do that often enough, then we would generate a stem cell line that would get closer and closer to the corresponding sequence of the Neanderthal. We developed the semi-automated procedure required to do that in my lab. Finally, we assemble all the chunks in a human stem cell, which would enable you to finally create a Neanderthal clone.

    SPIEGEL: And the surrogates would be human, right? In your book you write that an “extremely adventurous female human” could serve as the surrogate mother.

    Church: Yes. However, the prerequisite would, of course, be that human cloning is acceptable to society.

    SPIEGEL: Could you also stop the procedure halfway through and build a 50-percent Neanderthal using this technology.

    Church: You could and you might. It could even be that you want just a few mutations from the Neanderthal genome. Suppose you were to realize: Wow, these five mutations might change the neuronal pathways, the skull size, a few key things. They could give us what we want in terms of neural diversity. I doubt that we are going to particularly care about their facial morphology, though (laughs).

    SPIEGEL: Might it one day be possible to descend even deeper into evolutionary history and recreate even older ancestors like Australopithecus or Homo erectus?

    Church: Well, you have got a shot at anything where you have the DNA. The limit for finding DNA fragments is probably around a million years.

    SPIEGEL: So we won’t be seeing the return of the caveman or dinosaurs?

    Church: Probably not. But even if you don’t have the DNA, you can still make something that looks like it. For example, if you wanted to make a dinosaur, you would first consider the ostrich, one of its closest living relatives. You would take an ostrich, which is a large bird, and you would ask: “What’s the difference between birds and dinosaurs? How did the birds lose their hands?” And you would try to identify the mutations and try to back engineer the dinosaur. I think this will be feasible.

    SPIEGEL: Is it also conceivable to create lifeforms that never existed before? What about, for example, rabbits with wings?

    Church: So that’s a further possibility. However, things have to be plausible from an engineering standpoint. There is a bunch of things in birds that make flying possible, not just the wings. They have very lightweight bones, feathers, strong breast muscles, and the list goes on.

    SPIEGEL: Flying rabbits and recreated dinosaurs are pure science fiction today. But on the microbe level, researchers are already creating synthetic life. New bacteria detect arsenic in drinking water. They create synthetic vaccines and diesel fuel. You call these organisms “novel machines”. How do they relate to the machines we know?

    Church: Well, all organisms are mechanical in the sense that they’re made up of moving parts that inter-digitate like gears. The only difference is that they are incredibly intricate. They are atomically precise machines.

    SPIEGEL: And what will these machines be used for?

    Church: Oh, life science will co-opt almost every other field of manufacturing. It’s not limited to agriculture and medicine. We can even use biology in ways that biology never has evolved to be used. DNA molecules for example could be used as three-dimensional scaffolding for inorganic materials, and this with atomic precision. You can design almost any structure you want with a computer, then you push a button — and there it is, built-in DNA.

    SPIEGEL: DNA as the building material of the future?

    Church: Exactly. And it’s amazing. Biology is good at making things that are really precise. Take trees for example. Trees are extremely complicated, at least on a molecular basis. However, they are so cheap, that we burn them or convert them into tables. Trees cost about $50 a ton. This means that you can make things that are nearly atomically precise for five cents a kilo.

    SPIEGEL: You are seriously proposing to build all kinds of machines — cars, computers or coffee machines — out of DNA?

    Church: I think it is very likely that this is possible. In fact, computers made of DNA will be better than the current computers, because they will have even smaller processors and be more energy efficient.

    SPIEGEL: Let’s go through a couple of different applications of synthetic biology. How long will it take, for example, until we can fill our tanks with fuel that has been produced using synthentic microbes?

    Church: The fact is that we already have organisms that can produce fuel compatible with current car engines. These organisms convert carbon dioxide and light into fuels by basically using photosynthesis.

    SPIEGEL: And they do so in an economically acceptable way?

    Church: If you consider $1.30 a gallon for fuel a good number, then yeah. And the price will go down. Most of these systems are at least a factor of five away from theoretical limits, maybe even a factor of 10.

    SPIEGEL: So we should urgently include synthetic life in our road map for the future energy supply in Germany?

    Church: Well, I don’t necessarily think it’s a mistake to go slowly. It is not like Germany is losing out to lots of other nations right now, but there should be some sort of engineering and policy planning.

    –> Read original interview at SPIEGEL Online International

    Is Church Playing God?

    SPIEGEL: Germans are traditionally scared of genetically modified organisms.

    Church: But don’t forget: The ones we are talking about won’t be farm GMOs. These will be in containers, and so if there’s a careful planning process, I would predict that Germany would be as good as any country at doing this.

    SPIEGEL: There has been a lot of fierce public opposition to genetic engineering in Germany. How do you experience this? Do you find it annoying?

    Church: Quite to the contrary. I personally think it has been fruitful. And I think there are relatively few examples in which such a debate has slowed down technology. I think we should be quite cautious, but that doesn’t mean that we should put moratoriums on new technologies. It means licensing, surveillance, doing tests. And we actually must make sure the public is educated about them. It would be great if all the politicians in the world were as technologically savvy as the average citizen is politically savvy.

    SPIEGEL: Acceptance is highest for such technology when it is first applied in the medical industry …

    Church: … yes, and the potential of synthetic life is particularly large in pharmaceuticals. The days of classic, small molecule drugs may be numbered. Actually, it is a miracle that they work in the first place. They kind of dose your whole body. They cross-react with other molecules. Now, we are getting better and better at programming cells. So I think cell therapies are going to be the next big thing. If you engineer genomes and cells, you have an incredible amount of sophistication. If you take AIDS virus as an example …

    SPIEGEL: … a disease you also want to beat with cell therapy?

    Church: Yes. All you have to do is take your blood cell precursors out of your body, reengineer them using gene therapy to knock out both copies of your CCR5 gene, which is the AIDS receptor, and then put them back in your body. Then you can’t get AIDS any more, because the virus can’t enter your cells.

    SPIEGEL: Are we correct in assuming you wouldn’t hesitate to use germ cell therapy, as well, if you could improve humans genetically in this way?

    Church: Well, there are stem cell therapies already. There are hematopoietic stem cell transplants that are widely practiced, and skin stem cell transplants. Once you have enough experience with these techniques you can start talking about human cloning. One of the things to do is to engineer our cells so that they have a lower probability of cancer. And then once we have a lower probability of cancer, you can crank up their self-renewal properties, so that they have a lower probability of senescence. We have people who live to be 120 years old. What if we could all live 120 years? That might be considered desirable.

    SPIEGEL: But you haven’t got any idea which genes to change in order to achieve that goal.

    Church: In order to find out, we are now involved in sequencing as many people as possible who have lived for over 110 years. There are only 60 of those people in the world that we know of.

    SPIEGEL: Do you have any results already?

    Church: It’s too early to say. But we collected the DNA of about 20 of them, and the analysis is just beginning.

    SPIEGEL: You expect them all to have the same mutation that guarantees longevity?

    Church: That is one possibility. The other possibility is that they each have their own little advantage over everybody else. What we are looking for is protective alleles. If they each have their own answer, we can look at all of them and ask, what happens if you put them all in one person? Do they cancel each other out, or do they synergize?

    SPIEGEL: You seriously envisage a new era, in which genes are used as anti-aging-cures?

    Church: Why not? A lot of things that were once left to luck no longer have to be if we add synthetic biology into the equation. Let’s take an example: virus resistance …

    SPIEGEL: … which is also achievable using synthetic biology?

    Church: Yes, it turns out there are certain ways to make organisms of any kind resistent to any viruses. If you change the genetic code …

    SPIEGEL: … you are talking about the code that all life forms on Earth use to code their genetic information?

    Church: Exactly. You can change that code. We’re testing that out in bacteria and it might well be possible to create completely virus-resistant E. coli, for example. But we won’t know until we get there. And I am not promising anything. I am just laying out a path, so that people can see what possible futures we have.

    SPIEGEL: And if it works in bacteria, you presumably could then move on to plants, animals and even humans? Which means: no more measles, no more rabies, no more influenza?

    Church: Sure. And that would be another argument for cloning, by the way, since cloning is probably going to be recognized as the best way of building such virus resistance into humans. As long as it is safe and tested slowly, it might gain acceptance. And I’m not advocating. I’m just saying, this is the pathway that might happen.

    SPIEGEL: It all sounds so easy and straightforward. Aren’t biological processes far more complicated than you would like to lead us to believe?

    Church: Yes, biology is complicated, but it’s actually simpler than most other technologies we are dealing with. The reason is that we have received a great gift that biology has given to us. We can just take a little bit of DNA and stick it into a human stem cell, and all the rest of it is self-assembled. It just happens. It’s as if a master engineer parked a spacecraft in our back yard with not so many manuals, but lots of goodies in it that are kind of self-explanatory. You pick up something and you pretty much know what it does after a little study.

    SPIEGEL: Do you understand that there will be people who feel rather uncomfortable with the notion of changing the genome of the human species?

    Church: I think the definition of species is about to change anyway. So far, the definition of different species has been that they can’t exchange DNA. But more and more, this species barrier is falling. Humans will probably share genes with all sorts of organisms.

    SPIEGEL: First you propose to change the 3-billion-year-old genetic code. Then you explain how you want to create a new and better man. Is it any wonder to you when people accuse you of playing God?

    Church: I certainly respect other people’s faith. But, in general, in religion you wouldn’t want people to starve. We have 7 billion people living on this planet. If part of the solution to feed those people is to make their crops resistant to viruses, then you have to ask: Is there really anything in the Bible that says you shouldn’t make virus-resistant crops? I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally more religiously problematic about engineering a dog or a cow or a horse the way we have been doing it for 10,000 years versus making a virus-resistant crop.

    SPIEGEL: Virus-resistant crops is one thing. Virus-resistant humans is something altogether different.

    Church: Why? In technology, we generally don’t take leaps. It’s this very slow crawl. We are not going to be making a virus-resistant human before we make a virus-resistant cow. I don’t understand why people should be so deeply hurt by that kind of technology.

    SPIEGEL: Apart from religious opposition, biotechnology also generates very real fears. Artificial lifeforms which might turn out to be dangerous killer-bugs. Don’t we need special precautions?

    Church: We have to be very cautious, I absolutely agree. I almost never vote against caution or regulations. In fact, I requested them for licensing and surveillance of synthetic biology. Yes, I think the risks are high. The risks of doing nothing are also high, if you consider that there are 7 billion people who need food and are polluting the environment.

    SPIEGEL: Mr. Church, do you believe in God?

    Church: I would be blind, if I didn’t see that faith in an overall plan resulted in where we are today. Faith is a very powerful force in the history of humanity. So I greatly respect different kinds of faith. Just as I think diversity is a really good thing genetically, it’s also a good thing societally.

    SPIEGEL: But you’re talking about other people’s faith. What about your own faith?

    Church: I have faith that science is a good thing. Seriously, I’d say that I am very much in awe of nature. In fact, I think to some extent, “awe” was a word that was almost invented for scientists. Not all scientists are in awe, but scientists are in a better position to be in awe than just about anybody else on the planet, because they actually can imagine all the different scales and all the complexity. A poet sees a flower and can go on and on about how beautiful the colors are. But what the poet doesn’t see is the xylem and the phloem and the pollen and the thousands of generations of breeding and the billions of years before that. All of that is only available to the scientists.

    SPIEGEL: Mr. Church, we thank you for this conversation.

    Interview conducted by Philip Bethge and Johann Grolle.

    –> Read original interview at SPIEGEL Online International

  • Microsofts Craig Mundie: “Microsoft can be cool!”

    In a SPIEGEL interview, Craig Mundie, 63, Chief Research and Strategy Officer at Microsoft, discusses the companies future, the mistakes of the past, computing in the 21st century, the upcoming Windows 8 Software and the Surface tablet.

    This is an extended version of an interview published at SPIEGEL Online International.

    SPIEGEL: Microsoft will presents a whole array of new products at the end of this week. Is this the beginning of a comeback to former glory?

    Mundie: I believe that Microsoft never lost it’s relevance. I always tell people we’re almost 40 years old now, fighting against every venture-funded good idea on the planet  in the world’s most competitive industry, and we’re still here, okay? So I say, „Do you think that’s just an accident?“. I don’t think so.

    SPIEGEL: Microsofts track record at anticipating technological trends hasn’t been the best in the past. With the tablet Surface and the new Windows 8 software you are now targeting in particular the mobile market. Again ten years too late?

    Mundie: My response is that we had a music player before the iPod. We had a touch device before the iPad. And we were leading in the mobile phone space. So, it wasn’t for a lack of vision or technology foresight that we lost our leadership position. The problem was that we just didn’t give enough reinforcement to those products at the time that we were leading. Unfortunately, the company had some executional missteps, which occured right at the time when Apple launched the iPhone. With that, we appeared to drop a generation behind.

    SPIEGEL: What happened?

    Mundie: During that time, Windows went through a difficult period where we had to shift a huge amount of our focus to security engineering. The criminal activity in cyberspace was growing dramatically ten years ago, and Microsoft was basically the only company that had enough volume for it to be a target. In part because of that, Windows Vista took a long time to be born.

    SPIEGEL: Have you learned your lessons?

    Mundie: Steve (Ballmer) made many changes, starting even at the top management level of the company. For example, there’s not a single product group president here today who was here five years ago. These changes are a reflection of the fact that we gave up leadership in some categories that turned out to be very important. Today our execution is not hampered by the same errors. We have learned our lessons. That doesn’t mean we won’t make some errors someday, but we’re at least not making the same ones again.

    SPIEGEL: Which role will Microsoft play in the coming decade as an IT company?

    Mundie: I think it’s going to be an interesting next decade. This is my 20th year at Microsoft. Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold hired me to develop the company’s capability in non-PC computing. In 1992, that seemed very avant-garde, but, of course, today we all live with computing everywhere around us.

    SPIEGEL: How will the computer of the future look like and how will we interact with those devices?

    Mundie: What we’re trying to do is to make the computer more like us and as helpful as an expert. To do that, we have to teach the computer to emulate more and more of the human senses, seeing, listening, speaking, as well as the tactile senses. We believe that our motion sensor Kinect will be a big part of that. The computers and the back-end cloud services are powerful enough now that we will see more of this type of technology very soon.

    SPIEGEL: What would that mean, for example, for peoples homes or offices?

    Mundie: For example, you’ll be able to directly ask the computer to help you. In the past, to work a computer program, you had to learn how to use the tool, and the tool had rigidity. In the future, it should be more like going to an assistant and saying, „Here is a document, make it look good,“ rather than saying „well, make this paragraph this point size and fit this font.“ A big emphasis at Microsoft is machine learning. The computer should not only be able to emulate your senses, but to appear to understand things based on learning or history. For example, for Office 365 that is in testing right now, we built a machine-learning-based assistant for your Inbox. The program looks at all your historical mail handling. From that, it makes judgments about what’s most important to you and groups those things together. How does it know? Because it has observed your behavior over some period of time.

    SPIEGEL: Don’t people want to define themselves what’s important to them and what isn’t?

    Mundie: That would require that people could actually describe their own behaviors, which we’ve learned they can’t do. They can’t tell you how they think enough to be able to put it into rules. The computer on the other hand is very well capable to observe your actions and deduce from that a set of behaviors or rules.

    SPIEGEL: If you look ten years ahead, which role will the PC play?

    Mundie: I think it will be about almost like it is today. However, it will be supplemented for example with intelligent whiteboards and displays for group discussions. Eventually, you will come into a room and the whole room will be the computer. In fact, people will be thinking more about computing and not computers. So for example, when you go into a space, you might have your phone in your pocket and your tablet in your briefcase. And if you set them down, they will all work together.

    SPIEGEL: Right now, the whole industry seems to have made it the user’s problem to migrate what they care about from one device to the next.

    Mundie: Yes, and I think that Microsoft may in fact be the company best positioned to help with this cacophonous situation, simply because we have a viable position in every product category, including a robust cloud service to connect all the different devices.

    SPIEGEL: Still, the world doesn’t seem to pay too much attention to your innovations.

    Mundie: I disagree. For example, if you look at the reviews, people who have a Windows phone actually prefer it over an Apple phone or an Android phone at this point. And Surface, I think, has met very strong, positive reviews and is really resonating with people.

    SPIEGEL: Surface will be on online-sale in Germany from Friday onwards. Again, Microsoft seems to be very late with such a device. The iPad is on the market for years. Why should people care?

    Mundie: Our experience is, despite some rhetoric, that most people who want to do any serious computing don’t want to do it trying to type on a glass screen. As a consequence, they always end up having two computers, a laptop and a tablet. Our dream was that you could have a no-compromises tablet experience and a click-on, high-quality keyboard, so that you don’t really need two computers. Surface fuses two worlds, and I think when people look at the engineering and design of the device, they will have an epiphany.

    SPIEGEL: Besides the X-Box, Surface is Microsofts first in-house computer hardware. Why did you decide to go this way?

    Mundie: Our marketing for many, many years was always through our partners. You never really bought a product directly from Microsoft, but from HP, Dell, Lenovo and alike. So, in a way, Microsoft always depended on its indirect representation through those companies. Now it became clear to us that we have to speak for ourselves. We have to tell the complete Microsoft story.

    SPIEGEL: How much is industrial design part of this story? Apple for example puts a lot of emphasis on design. Does design become more important for Microsoft?

    Mundie: I think it does. Surface for example is a product that gave us an opportunity to establish a new bar in this respect. Many people had said, „Oh, Microsoft technology is too bloated, it’s too fat, you guys don’t pay attention to these things.“ We think that Surface is a place where we can prove to people that this mythology is wrong. It’s a place where we get to speak to the public with our own voice about what’s possible, at an aspirational level. In part, the reason to do Surface was also to create a benchmark for our partners, saying, „look, there’s nothing intrinsic in our technology that won’t support products that operate at the upper tier; you just have to design them“.

    SPIEGEL: By building your own computer hardware you effectively become a competitor of your own partners. Are you going to go it alone in the future, like Apple does?

    Mundie: Apple has always had the luxury of being a software and a hardware company. I do describe that as a luxury, because you only have to think about yourself. But at least in the past, when you start to fan out and want to provide products for the whole world in every country, it’s very hard to do that on your own. We still think that it’s better to have a symbiotic relationship with our worldwide community of partners. And we are not alone with this model. Googles Android for example has gotten a big share fairly quickly by allowing several companies to participate.

    SPIEGEL: There are other device categories in the making. Google presented its Google Glass-project lately. Is Microsoft interested in glasses with augmented reality?

    Mundie: None of these things are particularly new or unanticipated. At a research level, we look at everything.

    SPIEGEL: Microsoft Research has 850 Ph.D.-level researchers. The company invests hundreds of millions of dollars per year in research alone. Isn‘t there just enough innvoation for the money spent?

    Mundie: And those people just don’t know what they’re talking about. I keep score every year how many things come out of research into the product group, and these transfers are counting in the hundreds. Microsoft Research is the world’s largest computer science research operation. I have seven labs, and each of them compares well to the faculty of a pretty good-size university computer science department. What this research provides to Microsoft is long-term nourishment. We think that, unless you have the ability to play with big ideas and to do fundamental research, you eventually run out of gas.

    SPIEGEL: When Windows 95 was launched, in 1995, computer geeks lined up to buy the first copies. Bill Gates paid three million dollars to the Rolling Stones for rights to use their classic „Start Me Up“ as the softwares’ theme song. Nothing like that happens now. Has Microsoft losts its cool?

    Mundie: It’s hard to keep your cool against young companies. But I do think it’s important to be cool. And the thing that always shows me that Microsoft can be cool is the whole Xbox business. We are worldwide number one in game consoles. This shows that when we package and present ourselves right, there is no stigma associated with being Microsoft.

    SPIEGEL: The stigma seems to be more prevalent in the PC business right now. The package hasn’t been right in the past?

    Mundie: I think we are able to learn. The phones and now the Surface are showing that our ability to sprinkle the fairy dust and have the coolness is growing. However, people have to understand that we are in a dilemma. A huge part of Microsoft’s revenue is to businesses, and if you’re a business, the last thing you want is us to be cool, because we’re providing you with your mission-critical infrastructure. Guys who buy infrastructure don’t buy cool, okay? Because they want you to be reliable like a rock. It is a lot easier to have the cool part emerge when you don’t have the enterprise part. But that’s a very critical part of our business.

    SPIEGEL: Still, some industry experts predict that Microsoft will become the next big technology giant to slip into obscurity if the company can’t reinvent itself.

    Mundie: I’ve been telling people to think about it like being in the Olympics. From the very beginning, the Olympics not only had the individual events, but they had the decathlon. Why? Well, they not only wanted to not know who could win each race in track and field, but they wanted to know who was the best overall athlete. I like to think that Microsoft will come to be recognized as the best athlete in computing.

    Interview conducted by Philip Bethge

    –> Read edited interview at SPIEGEL Online International