Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

130KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Yossi Sheffi

Subject: Unsafe at MIT
Bio: Professor of Engineering at MIT, leading scholar in supply chain management and Author of Unsafe at MIT: A Chronicle of a Campus War on the Jews

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and culture. This episode is Unsafe at MIT.

Our speaker is Yossi Sheffi who is a Professor of Engineering at MIT and is a leading scholar in supply chain management. He is the author of a new book entitled Unsafe at MIT: A Chronicle of a Campus War on the Jews.

I want to hear from Yossi about MIT’s failure to protect its Jewish and Israeli students from violence. I want to learn why MIT’s Administration managed the situation so poorly, and why MIT’s disregard for its own rules and regulations resulted in chaos.

Yossi, please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Yossi Sheffi:

I’m Yossi Sheffi a Professor of Engineering at MIT. Unsafe at MIT is my tenth book. My first nine were professional books in supply chain management, manufacturing, and logistics. This is a very different book. After witnessing what happened after October 7th and that people are now saying it wasn’t that bad at MIT? The book was to record a chronicle of events.

It was actually bad. There were threats, harassment, violence, doxing, swastikas on dorm doors, death threats, terror group symbols, and disrupting classes and research labs.

The other thing is the lack of MIT administration response protecting Jews. One can only imagine if I would have walked in the corridor of MIT wearing a white hood. I would have been arrested. When I interviewed students for the book, they were PTSDs. It was very hard for me to get them to open up.

We had to organize and fight for the truth, insisting on basic factual reality in an academic setting. That civilians were massacred, that women were raped, children abducted, the hostages taken and murdered. Those were not fabrication or Zionist propaganda, as some activists claim while tearing down hostage posters along the main MIT corridor.

Second, Israel was no longer criticized for specific policy. It was redefined as uniquely illegitimate, a settler/apartheid state with only guilty colonizers. The logic erased the moral category of innocent and made violence not only permissible, but righteous.

Third, we also had to fight against the total breakdown of law and order on campus. This was where MIT failed most clearly. Rules governing demonstrations, access to buildings, harassment, disruption of education and research were broken repeatedly. Enforcement was nonexistent. Administrators privately acknowledged the violation while publicly insisting that their hands were tied. It was not more apparent than during the MIT President’s appearance in Congress, talking about genocide as depending on the context. She’s the only college president who survived.

Finally, we had to fight the BDS campaign, the boycott divestment sanction campaign on academics. It was presented as a non-violent tactic of conscience. In practice, it was insidious. It aimed to sever research collaboration to isolate Israeli scholars and pressure MIT to treat Israel as a pariah state. To isolate Israeli scholars, to make collaboration with them costly and eventually render their presence on American campuses untenable.

We have two responses. First we organized faculty, Jewish students and staff in lunches twice a week, where we exchange information and give advice how to fight. This continues every Monday with 100 participants. Now the other response became what’s called Kalaniot, an Israeli red flower, an organization to counter the academic BDS strategy. We raised a few million dollars to bring Israeli scholars into MIT. There are 12 of them on campus coming for postdoc or academic visits. They have to work in somebody’s lab. There’s a connection with some MIT researchers, and this connection will stay after they go back. There are now similar organizations in Dartmouth, Harvard Medical School, and Penn. We have now a national Kalaniot organization.

Larry Bernstein:

What you did in writing this book was a sociological analysis, talking to people in the truth-seeking process. What’s also interesting is that we haven’t seen works by other sociologists on this topic. It took someone from the engineering school in supply chain management to act as a sociologist.

Yossi Sheffi:

Sociology is a part of MIT’s School of Humanities and Social Science. This is one of the centers of anti-Semitism at MIT. It’s usually the social sciences more left-leaning, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. The faculty get swept in this New York Times, CNN, media description of Israel. I

Students most of them are just idiots. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Why did they join all this? Because it’s the same reason that certain youth join gangs. Because you join a gang, you feel belonging. You are in a community. You buy on this and you just don’t want to listen to anything else. And some faculty absolutely were swept away in this. I didn’t expect sociologists to do much.

Larry Bernstein:

What was extraordinary was the campaign that began against the Jews at MIT and other campuses beginning on October 8th. It only took a day.

The Jews were backfooted, but the anti-Semites were ready to go. How does a group get organized within twenty-four hours to be prepared to go with anti-Semitic demonstrations? Some say that it related to money coming from the Middle East, but it doesn’t feel right to me.

Yossi Sheffi:

We don’t know. But as you say, the money side is one assumption. But the amazing thing to me is there were posters ready on October 7th in the evening at MIT. They were ready with talking points, posters, and organized demonstration. October 8th, IDF soldiers were still fighting in Sderot, in the kibbutzim, in the Negev. Nothing happened in Gaza and there were still demonstrations against Israel. There was clearly a lot of bubbling up of hatred towards Israel.

This hatred was against Jews and Israel, same thing.

Larry Bernstein:

In the book, in one of your interviews of a French Jewish student, he said that in France, those that hate Israel also hate Jews and they’re open about it. But here, you ask Americans, they say, “No, I love Jews, I just hate Israel” — creating this distinction between anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism.

Yossi Sheffi:

It’s just a cover. I don’t believe it. To me, anybody who understands Judaism and the role that Israel plays in Jewish life, understand that Zionism and Jewishness are coupled together. Look,

If I were in Israel, I would not vote for Netanyahu. But this does not mean that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. This does not mean that Hamas is not a bloodthirsty terrorist organization. They’re trying to attack Israel in different ways. Attacking Jews, attacking content, attacking academics.

Larry Bernstein:

In your book you want to create a historical document as to what happened. You hear now what happened is it was a nothing burger; there was never any threats. This has been hyperbolic in its description. Jews were never at risk; Jews were never harassed. This was a very peaceful and loving demonstration against genocide. Tell us about what happened.

Yossi Sheffi:

The technical engineering term for this point of view is bullshit. That’s why I wrote the book, because I felt that it has to be documented by people who were there. There were about dozen students who left MIT because their parents were afraid for their life. They didn’t finish their PhD, their studies, they had to leave. Another way that was infuriating was the comparing of anti-Semitism to Islamophobia. There was no Islamophobia, it’s nonsense.

But what happened to Jews — one example. There was this demonstration on what’s called Lobby Seven, the main entrance to MIT. There were a demonstration and counter demonstration, and one of the Jewish students fell down, he just stumbled, and fell on a leg of one of the Palestinian supporter women and she fell down too. This was then caught on camera. Everybody was videoing everything, and they said, this is an example of Jewish violence. His name was all over the campus. There were death threats against him. This type of violence, threats and harassment went totally out of control.

There were faculty calling a student by name, an example of a Zionist mind infection. Things like this happening for a year and a half over and over again.

Another example, this big demonstration, — the administration closed the main entrance to MIT. The administration said whoever doesn’t get out of here by noon is going to be expelled. The Jews left. The demonstrators stayed the whole day there. Then the MIT did nothing. Despite written warning, you’re going to be expelled if you don’t leave, they didn’t leave.

Larry Bernstein:

The book paints a picture that what we had was a failure by the administration to follow its own rules and regulations.

Yossi Sheffi:

They were weak, afraid, and not equal to the task. Sally Kornbluth, the President, talking about calling for genocide of Jews — it’s depending on the context, it’s not against the MIT rules. And the chairman of the board issued a letter of support. Really?

Larry Bernstein:

The Chairman of the Board of Penn also gave a letter of support for Liz Magill, who was the President of Penn, but the trustees voted against her and had her removed. What is special about MIT that when someone says something so out of bounds that they’re parodied on Saturday Night Live, the Chairman and the President withstand a vote of confidence?

Yossi Sheffi:

The trustees of MIT are not interested. It’s a group that likes to have on the resume that they are trustees of MIT. The group is not doing its job. They go with the president and there’s no accountability. It was a very weak board.

Larry Bernstein:

MIT is a very unusual American university. It has meritocracy-based admissions. It is probably the world’s leading engineering school in STEM. Why is this a problem at MIT?

Yossi Sheffi:

You’re describing MIT of 30 or 40 years ago. You are describing MIT before identity politics, before woke, before the idea that we hire by merit. I wish. To apply for a faculty position at MIT, you had to write a DEI statement. What does it have to do with your engineering qualification? There are still unbelievably good researchers at MIT — in mathematics, in physics, in chemistry, world-class engineering department. However, there is also a School of Humanity and Social Science, the School of Urban Planning and Architecture. These are different people.

Now talk about the students a whole generation of people who are uneducated. I should tell you that MIT is now offering remedial physics course for first-year freshmen. Unbelievable. They don’t know history. Many of these people were burning American flags in these demonstrations.

Larry Bernstein:

And what kind of people were doing that?

Yossi Sheffi:

Students, some staff joined them. But the people who were desecrating Israeli, American flags look like MIT students.

Larry Bernstein:

I’ve had a couple of podcasts with Daniel Diermeier of Vanderbilt, and he is a big believer that you establish rules and regulations to create an environment for scholarship and education. When people act in violent ways or violate the rules, there are consequences, and the rules are enforced promptly and effectively. At Vanderbilt the Jews felt safe, and at MIT they exited. Tell us about a proper way to handle the situation.

Yossi Sheffi:

At the beginning, I was talking to the Provost at MIT. She was a PhD student of mine, just to tell you how long I’ve been at MIT. And said, “What do I do? How should we respond?”

I said, “It’s simple actually. You take one, two of the leading demonstrators who disrupt classes and go into research lab and do graffiti and ruin the place. You expel them. The rest will get the message.”

It’s not only Vanderbilt. When the encampment started in Dartmouth, the President called the police — not the campus police, she called the police. Suddenly it was gone. Acting decisively and quickly is the key to this.

The students after the event that I described in the entrance to MIT, when the students didn’t leave, they started shouting, we control the campus. And they were right. They did whatever they wanted with no repercussions. You don’t deal with it; it just gets worse and worse.

Larry Bernstein:

I live in Miami Beach. The head of the COVID ward is Dr. Ari Ciment. He’s on the Board of Trustees of the Hebrew Academy, which is a Jewish day school about a block from my house. Alan Dershowitz was invited to speak about anti-Semitism on campus.

The first question came from Ari’s daughter in the audience. And she said, “I’m a very good student. Should I apply to Harvard and other Ivy League schools? Because I just want to learn. I’m not really interested in fighting and defending myself. These universities are not interested in protecting me from danger. Should I limit my application process to schools like Dartmouth, Vanderbilt and the University of Florida, where Jews are welcome, or should I apply to places like Harvard?”

And Alan Dershowitz said she should definitely apply to places like Harvard, because someone has to fight for the Jews. How should Jewish children who are in the application process think about applying to schools like MIT, Harvard or Columbia, knowing that these administrations have been unwilling in protecting their Jewish students?

Yossi Sheffi:

I know personally children of MIT faculty professors who are not applying to MIT, even though they can go for free to MIT if they get in. There’s a big difference between American Jews and Israelis. What I did going against my own university is an Israeli act. And by the way, the university is fighting back. They are harassing me, they are trying to limit the distribution of my book. But screw them. I’m not changing.

I understand an 18 year old who says, I just want to learn. One of the most insidious things that happened to Jews is they were thrown out of study groups. Why is it bad? Because developing the new thing for Meta, for Google, is not something that an engineer does on his or her own. It’s always a team. When almost every MIT group was throwing out the Jews, then Jews have no opportunity to work in teams. You might say, so why don’t the Jews work together? There’s not enough of them.

Larry Bernstein:

My grandfather was a tenured Professor at the University of Vienna. His faculty appointment was in the medical school and in the Freud Institute. Immediately after the Anschluss, all the Jews were fired from the University of Vienna. In my grandfather’s memoirs, he paid the 90% wealth tax to get an exit visa and left. Many of his friends didn’t leave right away, and many ended up committing suicide or getting sent to death camps.

You have choices. There’s a book by Albert Hirschman called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. When you have policies like you described in MIT, what Hirschman said is that you can scream and yell to change. But at some point, you realize you have only one choice left. You can exit. You can leave MIT.

My grandfather wasn’t given a forced exit. Yossi, you are incredibly talented in your field. There are dozens of universities who would embrace you. Why did you choose voice? Why didn’t you choose exit?

Yossi Sheffi:

Because I’ve been at MIT 51 years. I have friends who are the best in their field and enjoy their company. Look, if I would have been 30 years younger, I maybe would have left. I’m 78 years old. I like where I live in Boston. MIT is my home. I grew up here professionally. At several points in your life, you realize that if you don’t do it, nobody else will. I chose voice and resistance.

There are lots of faculty who are reading it for the first time and realizing what was going on. So maybe things will get better, I don’t know.

Larry Bernstein:

The Trump administration, when it came in, fifteen months after October 7, immediately went to work in opposition to the policies of institutions like MIT and demanded change. I have close friends and relatives who said that what the administration was doing was wrong. That there was never a problem with the Jews, this was a lie, and that the administration was against academia . Jews did not need to be protected by the Trump administration. Jews could take care of themselves. Did the federal government need to get involved to protect the Jews, and what they did, was it appropriate?

Yossi Sheffi:

First of all, the situation is not better; it’s less in your face. The big demonstrations and the encampments don’t exist anymore. Not because of anything that MIT did — because all these agitators started seeing people snatched off the street by ICE. It’s not Sally Kornbluth, the President of MIT, with the bland announcement that there are consequences now. They were doing exactly what MIT should have been done: take one or two of the agitators and take them off the table.

The fact that some Jewish people say it didn’t happen — well, that’s why I wrote the book. One of the most frustrating things is watching Jews listening to this propaganda and believing it.

Jews have a huge problem because the Jews were always leftist. I grew up leftist in a very liberal, progressive environment. Now the progressives came against us.

Larry Bernstein:

In the Trump administration’s consent decrees with Columbia and Harvard, they had a number of points that they demanded of the university, and I want you to comment. The first is that the university must enforce all their existing disciplinary rules consistently.

Yossi Sheffi:

MIT failed completely. Classes were disrupted. MIT allows demonstration of students, but in certain places, certain times. They just did whatever they wanted: Disrupted classes, disrupted research labs. This was absolutely against MIT rules, yet there was no response. Enforce your own rule? MIT did none of the above.

Larry Bernstein:

The second was they had to discipline against violence, assault, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, destruction of property, disruption of classes, occupation of buildings, and interference with university operations. Is this something that the federal government is making up, or does it reflect a meaningful breakdown?

Yossi Sheffi:

It’s absolutely true that MIT was not doing and being forced to do it would be a very good step forward.

Larry Bernstein:

MIT said that the reason they couldn’t discipline misconduct is that many of the individuals were not US citizens, but they could then be in violation of their visa and would be expelled, and therefore they could not apply discipline. Is that a legitimate reason to not enforce illegal conduct?

Yossi Sheffi:

Among many of the stupid things that MIT did, this takes the cake. Because yes, there were some foreign students who were the main agitators. Why do you want them in the United States to begin with? They were burning American flags. It was a cop out.

You gave them a warning; you told them what’s going to happen, they did it, they laugh in your face, and you just say, “Now I cannot do it because they lose their visa!” I hope they lose their visa. We were just aghast.

Larry Bernstein:

The next Trump consent decree requirement is to enforce protest regulations, enforce time, place and manner restrictions, ban the wearing of masks used to conceal identity during a demonstration, and prevent encampments and unauthorized building occupations. Is this something of a problem at MIT?

Yossi Sheffi:

Yes, categorically yes. This was total breakdown. The MIT has written rules for this. Nothing was enforced.

Larry Bernstein:

Finally, the last argument was to centralize disciplinary authority into the office of a president rather than allowing individual schools or faculty committees to control discipline.

Yossi Sheffi:

That’s exactly what happened. Even after the board suggested that the disciplinary process doesn’t work, MIT put together, as they always do, a committee with faculty that they knew where they stand, and the faculty committee said, “No, we are fine.”

Larry Bernstein:

The Trump administration pressured the university by cutting off funds. It’s a blunt instrument. There aren’t a lot of federal funds going to linguistics, but there are to experiments in the science departments. The science department never left the labs to participate in the demonstrations that gets hurt.

Yossi Sheffi:

It is unfortunate. I wish there was another tool. But to get MIT’s attention — and MIT is not handling very well, not at all. To first degree they’re cutting everybody the same. They should cut the School of Humanities. And the funny thing is that I told the president this at the time, when she still talked to me. That was before the book. But now she doesn’t return my email. When she goes to talk about MIT to Congress, to the administration, I said, “When did you talk about history of philosophy or linguistics?” You talk about science and medicine and engineering and AI, that’s what you talk about. So why don’t we go back to the time before we decide to be a general university and cut out some of these things.

They are caught up in the equity mindset that everybody has to be cut the same, which is absolute nonsense.

Larry Bernstein:

Do you have any suggestions on how to be philanthropic to universities but do it in ways that are supportive of the Jewish people?

Yossi Sheffi:

The best way I can tell you is support something like Kalaniot, because the strength of Israel is not natural resources, it’s science. It’s academia. The most effective way is to create contacts, just like Kalaniot at MIT and other institutions, that bring Israeli scientists for postdoc and visits, but putting them together in research labs with existing scientists so the connection between them stays after they go back.

Larry Bernstein:

I end each podcast on a note of optimism. Yossi, what are you optimistic about as it relates to Jewish life at MIT?

Yossi Sheffi:

The Jews are now organized as a result of this. New students, new postdocs, new PhD students come to MIT, find a home immediately. All this organization came up after October 7th. There is a student MIT organization, and there’s help. It’s better than it used to be that has nothing to do with the administration. It may be better, but it has nothing to do with them. They were not doing any substantial changes. Nothing.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Yossi for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast was Appreciating George Orwell. Our speaker was Robert Colls who is the author of the Orwell biography entitled George Orwell: Life and Legacy.

You know his novels 1984 and Animal Farm but there is so much more to enjoy. Robert discussed Orwell’s important essays like Shooting an Elephant and a Hanging. And most importantly why Orwell is increasingly relevant.

Previous episodes and transcripts are available on our website as well as at Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Appreciating George Orwell, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

131KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Robert Colls

Subject: Appreciating George Orwell
Bio: Author of George Orwell: Life and Legacy

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and culture. This episode is Appreciating George Orwell.

Our speaker is Robert Colls who is the author of the Orwell biography entitled George Orwell: Life and Legacy.

You know his novels 1984 and Animal Farm but there is so much more to enjoy. I look forward to discussing with Robert about Orwell’s other major novels as well as his essays like Shooting an Elephant and a Hanging.

Robert, please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Robert Colls:

Why are we always getting Orwell wrong? Who said, in a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act? It wasn’t George Orwell, although many people, including UNESCO, seemed to think so. It was the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.

Who said, it’s not a matter of whether the war is real; it’s not meant to be won; it’s meant to be continuous? It was Michael Moore in 2004, trying to sound like George Orwell. Raoul Peck’s recent movie Two + Two = Five, has quotes from Orwell hanging everywhere, but most are not in context.

No one is more quoted than George Orwell. We get the Orwell quotes we deserve. Looking for a snappy start? Read Orwell on Charles Dickens. Looking for a decisive knockout blow? Read Orwell on Tolstoy. Looking for a lazy endorsement? Go to Google and have anything you like. Orwell never had a better advocate than Christopher Hitchens, but even Hitch got him wrong. His central argument, that Orwell was essentially right about the three great issues of the 20th century is flawed. It’s true that Orwell hated the British Empire, but he hated other empires more, and to do that was to hate British imperialism less. Hitchens was right to say Orwell was anti-fascist to the core, but he hardly said a word about fascism other than to say the term was meaningless. And it’s true that anti-communism was Orwell’s driving force, but he defended the Soviet alliance for the duration of the war.

Orwell didn’t always get Orwell right. Sometimes he made things up. At other times he simply misremembered. He said he’d spent months living with mining families in the north of England when in fact he was only a fortnight living with a working miner family.

We get him wrong because don’t look hard enough. He often pleaded poverty, and his first book, Down and Out in London and Paris, was about sleeping rough. But how down was he? He left the Imperial Police in 1927 after five years on a good salary. While he was tramping in England, the family home was only a train ride away. His books were getting published one a year with good reviews and decent advances. He wasn’t broke, but he did give lectures on being broke. With Animal Farm in 1945, he was in the money.

Probably the most common way of getting Orwell wrong is to rip him out of context. Playing What Would Orwell Say is a dangerous game with such an original and contrarian writer.

Finally, we get Orwell wrong when we look to him for comfort. Will Lloyd in the Times called him England’s most celebrated performance artist. But allowing that to take us to a 1930s England that doesn’t endure is not a good idea. Poverty, useless governments, royal scandals and upcoming wars are not new in the 1930s, and they’re not new now. Dead these 76 years, he is part of our everyday life, we might reckon he has become memeified by the media he warned against.

Larry Bernstein:

Why do you think people get him so wrong? He changes his mind about the Spanish Civil War, how socialism would work, about the Tories, about the working class. One of the joys of reading Orwell is to watch him progress in his thinking.

Robert Colls:

He’s a work in progress. I see him as a human being, evolving. He’s not a philosopher trying to come up with eternal truths. He’s a journalist. He wants to see what’s in front of his nose. Such things change.

Larry Bernstein:

Why did you dedicate such a large portion of your life to writing biographies of a novelist?

Robert Colls:

I first bought The Road to Wigan Pier in 1969, when I was 19, at the University of Sussex. I spent the price of 10 cigarettes, a rash act. He was writing about the north of England and coal mining communities, which I come from. I took to Orwell, who was praising my people.

After that I bought four volumes of essays, and I can remember lying in bed with my girlfriend in wintry London in 1972, reading these essays out to each other. We made a friend for life. He was on my side, and I loved his clarity. I was doing history in the 70s and 80s when there was a lot of capital-T theory going around, unreadable and unintelligible, and there was Orwell writing profound things in the clearest way. In 2012 I wrote George Orwell: English Rebel, and it came easily. This little book I’ve written now, he might have written it himself. It’s dead cheeky. It’s a lifetime friendship.

Larry Bernstein:

In Politics and the English Language, Orwell blasts the political class for speaking gibberish, disguising intent, and being lazy with language. You complained about academic theory. If Orwell were here today; he would rewrite that essay as a condemnation of the academy. Tell us about Orwell’s use of language.

Robert Colls:

My God, if he was around now writing about academic speak. Mind you, it’s on the way out, because professors have woken up to the fact that students have got to understand them. Otherwise. there’s no bloody point. In Politics and the English Language, Orwell’s range of enemies was narrow. He’s firing his gun at the Communist Party and its fellow travelers. He says their language is like a hen house - all bits and pieces nailed together from other pieces of writing. This is in 1946. he would make a very easy slip over to the theory of the 70s and 80s.

I remember going to conferences and listening to these guys, and their favorite phrase was, “it is necessary that.” None of us had the nerve to say, “Why is it necessary?” We’re academics. We can be free.

Larry Bernstein:

Orwell feels out of place wherever he is. He wrote an essay about his time as a boarding school student at St Cyprian’s, as a small child before Eton. He feels alone, beaten up, harassed, and misunderstood. I looked the boarding school up on Wikipedia, and its famous graduates went on and on, like 25 people, of which Orwell was just one, with comments about how much they loved the school. In every situation there are some people who don’t fit and are unhappy, and others who think it’s the greatest thing of all time. He’s the guy who’s alone and thinks everything is terrible. Is that true of Orwell, and why does being an outcast make him a better observer?

Robert Colls:

There are two Orwells. There’s Eric Arthur Blair, who’s a man, and a decent chap: confident, probably with an Old Etonian drawl, probably good fun. There’s lots of pictures of Orwell having a good time, particularly when he’s got a rifle over his shoulder in the Spanish militia and in the British Home Guard. His friends at the BBC said he was good company and would enjoy an evening with him.

Then there was George Orwell, who was somebody else -- a writer and an observer who wanted to write politics as art. He takes a subject and it’s dramatized. Take his time at school. He went there from 8 to 14 years old, writing letters back to his mother saying what awful fun, played football, dancing, and had great jokes.

Larry Bernstein:

Inconsistent with the essay that he writes later.

Robert Colls:

He writes the essay where he’s lonely, sad, nobody likes me. He says at the end, I smelt. Between the two we have a gap of about 30 years. He’s dramatizing that he grew up to hate boarding school. After St Cyprian’s, he won a scholarship to the greatest public school in the empire, Eton College. Once he was there, unlike a tight little prep school full of anxieties. At Eton he was a gentlemen with freedom that he relished.

Larry Bernstein:

Orwell is a very bright young man with serious academic interests even as a child. He makes the decision not to go to university, but instead join the Indian Imperial Police. Tell us about that decision and how it shapes his life.

Robert Colls:

He left Eton, went to live with his parents in a little seaside town in Suffolk called Southwold, and there he crammed for the Indian Imperial Police exam. He came seventh in languages and 28th in horse riding. He got in and he went to Burma. His girlfriend said his parents wanted him to go to university; others say they couldn’t afford it on £600 a year without a scholarship. But I don’t think he wanted to go because he was fed up with school. He wanted to see some real life. There were connections: his mother’s father was a teak exporter in Burma, and Orwell’s father had worked in India all his life.

Larry Bernstein:

He writes a very important essay called Shooting an Elephant about his time in Burma.

Robert Colls:

We don’t even know he did shoot the elephant. He was dramatizing experiences. He wrote it in England in retrospect. For me, Orwell is a better essayist than novelist, and his best essays are A Hanging in 1931 and Shooting an Elephant in 1936.

He’s on station, an officer of the Raj, and he gets called to the marketplace to deal with an elephant that had gone musth (in heat) and flattened an Indian man. When he got there, the elephant was passively eating. Orwell didn’t quite know what to do, because an elephant was not just an animal, it was a piece of capital. He did what he had to do. Orwell sent for an elephant gun, lay flat on the ground, huge crowd egging him on, and took the elephant down in three rounds.

We have a masterpiece of choreography. A huge animal is dying before our eyes. The animal starts to tremble once the shot goes home. The elephant climbs up with its trunk in the air and comes down with a great crash. It tries to get up again. Orwell shoots again. Another great climb, down with a crash, and he finishes it off. It’s an exercise in death, and Orwell performed that which the empire is meant to perform - the white man doing what the white man should do, even if he doesn’t want to do it. Sometimes empires are not so strong as they make out.

Larry Bernstein:

I felt this was a reflection on the British Empire. It wasn’t about the elephant at all. Millions of Indians and a few hundred British policemen doing what the locals want. He self-admits that if he were in charge, he would let the elephant go home to its owner because that is the right answer. A crowd develops with demands to kill the elephant, and he feels an expectation to do the right Burmese thing. That is the reflection of the British Empire that distinguishes it from other empires. He’s doing the locals’ bidding.

Robert Colls:

It wasn’t an empire that believed the state should change things. It wanted to leave the system as it was, as long as it paid fealty to the overriding masters. It wanted to let Burmese be Burmese.

He was against it. He didn’t like what it did to him personally, and when he went through the marketplace in his uniform, people would spit all over his back. It was a complicated experience for Orwell. And it is true that the British Empire had notions of rights and liberties.

Larry Bernstein:

Orwell gets tuberculosis before antibiotics, so it’s a death sentence, and to feel better he goes to Marrakesh for fresh air. On the way, he sees a troop of Senegalese soldiers, very tall African men walking with one white officer, and he says, I just don’t understand how long it will take before they’ll turn their guns on the white man and end this.

As an aside, my own family, just a few years later, in June of 1940, my grandmother was an emigre hiding in France. When France fell, she talked her way onto an army-only train to find my grandfather, and it was filled with Senegalese troops. My grandmother thought these men were giants. She described it to me exactly the way that Orwell described it in Marrakesh four years prior. But the French had already lost the war, and the Senegalese were sad, not revolutionary in anyway.

Robert Colls:

He goes to Marrakesh seriously ill, just out of six months in hospital. He and Eileen, his tremendous wife, go courtesy of an anonymous Old Etonian sponsor, L.H. Myers. They’re broke; he’s writing and coughing up blood. It’s a really bad time.

The Senegalese soldiers, and your story adds to it, are another lovely example of the layered nature of Orwell. The essay is provocative, but it’s also telling a fundamental truth -- when it came to a battle of the empires, most colonial peoples weren’t fooled by ideology stuck with those rickety despotisms in Paris and London rather than Berlin and Tokyo. The British Army was seriously supported by the Indian Army - hundreds of thousands of volunteers that were never conscripted. Orwell knew change was coming, and he wanted to fire a shot across the bows of the British and French empires.

The journalist in him when that young Senegalese six-footer marching past, he caught his eye, and from that Orwell riffs on what he thought he saw.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to stick with Marrakesh. In 1941, my family were interned in Casablanca, and my great aunt Greta told me what the Jewish ghetto there was like: unbelievably poor, beggars everywhere, a dense population confined to a few blocks, the saddest thing she’d ever seen. Orwell’s descriptions, unlike the Senegalese and the Burmese, are more caustic towards the Jews, and reflect some latent antisemitism, which he doesn’t deny. Tell us about the Jewish ghetto and how it reflects his views on the Jews.

Robert Colls:

He says they’re incredibly poor and separate. He’s looking at Jews in Africa, and he has said jaw-dropping things about Jews before that. He doesn’t flinch from telling you what he sees. If he sees a Jewish man in Paris looking dangerous or criminal or unpleasant, he’ll just tell you. Nowadays people would say Jewish, whereas Orwell just calls someone a Jew that was common at the time, and I don’t think there’s any way around it. It’s part of the man. But later on, he becomes seriously interested in the subject of antisemitism. Not many antisemites write long articles for the Contemporary Jewish Record on antisemitism. And he doesn’t like left-wing intellectuals very much, but most of his best friends are Jewish left-wing intellectuals. Complex.

Israel had just been founded in 1948 but he did make it clear to his Jewish friends that he was not in favor.

Larry Bernstein:

Homage to Catalonia, his book about the Spanish Civil War, there’s a scene right at the beginning where he meets an Italian soldier representing the Republic. There were many different leftist organizations fighting, and Orwell was a member of the Trotskyist group. Even though they can’t communicate with words, they look each other in the eyes, he feels an immediate kinship, and they embrace as brothers in arms. It’s an important opening - at the beginning he is emotionally involved and becomes disillusioned as the story progresses. Tell us about Homage to Catalonia.

Robert Colls:

He just goes. It’s very typical of him. He’s recently married, but he just declares he’s going to Spain, to fight or to report or both. He visits Henry Miller in Paris. Miller says, you’re mad, you won’t make any difference, but gives him a nice warm jacket. He goes south on the train, and in southern France the peasants know that the train is, straight into Spain on the Republican side, and they look up from the fields with their hands as a fist. He loves that.

He arrives in Barcelona on Boxing Day, the 26th of December 1936, and joins the POUM, the Trotskyite anarchist breakaway, who were not Stalinist. Welcome to the Spanish Revolution -- an alphabet soup of acronyms. You can always tell it’s him in photographs because he’s a foot taller than anyone else. They march west into Aragon, high in the mountains, facing the Francoist forces, and he does four or five months there. There are a few scraps, but it’s what a lot of soldiers say about war: boring, unhealthy and unpleasant. His wife comes out to work in Barcelona and saves his life in Spain.

In May they’re on rest back in Barcelona, but fighting breaks out between the POUM Trotskyists and the Stalinist-supported main government, who reasonably enough want their telephone exchange back. I don’t know how many serious governments could have an anarchist switchboard.

He goes back to the front, and days into the fighting, he’s hit from 175 yards by a Mauser bullet, high velocity, through the neck, in one end and out the other. It doesn’t hit any arteries, so he survives.

A couple of field hospitals, back to Barcelona where his wife Eileen is staying. She catches him in the foyer and whispers loudly, “Get out, they’re after us.” She had been visited in the night by government secret police, probably Soviet-backed. Orwell and Eileen and a couple of English friends from the POUM make it out of Spain posing as tourists. He goes in as a red revolutionary brother and goes out as a bourgeois war tourist.

Back to London, he is absolutely furious at how wrong the British left-wing press are getting the Spanish Civil War. He doesn’t expect anything else from the right-wing press; he never addresses the right and never says a word about Franco or fascists. He assumes the only side to be on is the left, and they’re getting it wrong. He spends that summer writing furiously against his own side saying, “if you want a revolution in Spain, don’t back the Soviet Union, because they are putting all revolutionaries to the sword.” Spain is the great moment of his life. It’s when he becomes political.

Larry Bernstein:

It was hugely important in his philosophy. When I look at Animal Farm and 1984, Spain is the defining experience that shapes his views. One example, he’s involved in some minor skirmish, and he reads about it in the newspaper, and it is not what happened. Not even close. He realizes that truth isn’t what’s important to the Stalinist writers at all. He views that as a great potential horror of totalitarian regimes, and it becomes central in the Ministry of Truth in 1984.

Robert Colls:

This is pretty much his view. It’s a deliberate manipulation. Orwell was telling you always from his personal experience. He was against people sitting at their typewriters in the posh parts of London, opining about what the Spanish should do, while there were young boys being killed who couldn’t even put their politics into words.

Larry Bernstein:

One of my favorite scenes from Homage to Catalonia is when he has an opportunity to take a shot at an individual who is going to the bathroom. The guy hears them, panics, and gets up holding his pants at his knees, exposing his butt as he runs. And Orwell concludes that he’s not going to shoot a man in that position. It expresses not only the humanity of the situation but his own.

Robert Colls:

I agree. Orwell is on the side of what is right. But if it’s a question of what is human against what is right, he’s on the side of what is human. Not shooting a guy in the backside shows you that. In his wonderful essay A Hanging, the little man who’s about to be hanged is marched down a corridor to the gallows by Indian warders, with Orwell in charge. They’re marching quickly, because they all want it done fast; they’re all upset about it. But suddenly the little man to be hanged takes a little left jump and back again. He was avoiding a puddle. And Orwell said, only then did I realize I was about to hang a perfectly healthy and conscious human being who didn’t want his feet wet. Same thing.

Larry Bernstein:

This moment before an execution has a significant place in Western literature, picked up by the existentialists like Sartre’s The Wall, Camus in The Stranger. There were two major takeaways from A Hanging for me. One was how even in the last moments of life that you’ll dodge the puddle. It’s a reflex. The second was the tremendous indifference of the British officers. They didn’t know him or what crime he had committed. They had a job to do, and they couldn’t wait to finish up and go for a drink. We see this later with British working-class people, what he loves is that they’ve done their job and they go to the pub. Orwell doesn’t oppose the post-work drink. We shouldn’t be in the job of killing people.

Robert Colls:

That little drink scene is superb. They’re all upset, embarrassed, and having a drink. They’re back as brothers - Indian soldiers and British officers together, brothers in empire. Orwell does say one of the good things about the British Empire is it could get things done.

Larry Bernstein:

Orwell was familiar with the leading dystopian works: Brave New World and Zamyatin’s We. 1984 doesn’t come out of nowhere. Tell us about 1984 as the culmination of Orwell’s ideas. He wrote that he was working on some book he thinks is going to be another failure. And here it is, one of the great monuments of Western literature of the 20th century.

Robert Colls:

He wasn’t happy with it or any of his books. His health was in a terrible condition. He couldn’t even get anyone to come up and type it for him; it was too far to the Hebrides. So, he did it himself. At the end he could hardly walk more than a few yards without breaking into sweat. He thinks the book’s an awful, terrible mess. But it isn’t. Maybe that’s a sign of hope for anyone who’s a writer - you might think it’s bad, but it doesn’t say others do. He sends it to Warburg, whose senior editor says, if we can’t sell 20,000, we ought to be shot. It’s a big success from the word go. And all the tropes of his life are blended into this book, from gangsters in the park to sex in the bushes. It’s all there.

Larry Bernstein:

When my kids were growing up, we had book time -- I’d read a sentence, then my daughter, then my son. We read 1984. We get to the last page, where Winston Smith is enjoying his Victory Gin at the bar, and in a moment of absolute joy when the global war is won, he says, “I love Big Brother,” and he means it. And in that moment, a bullet goes through his head, because O’Brien had foreshadowed, we don’t want to kill you now; we want to persuade you to love Big Brother, and then we’ll kill you. And that’s how 1984 ends. And I turn to my very young Jonathan who says, “Dad, it is a masterpiece.”

Robert Colls:

It is a masterpiece. It’s so good you don’t even have to explain it. Animal Farm is the other masterpiece. Sandra Newman’s book Julia is a really good feminist version of 1984. It’s Julia’s story, and for me, Julia is the hero of 1984. She’s much smarter than Winston and more formidable. It carries the story forward in a useful way.

Larry Bernstein:

The literature curriculum in American schools is radically different for my children than when I was a student. Dickens, Camus, Sartre, Dostoevsky, Emerson and Thoreau are out. But Orwell is in. What’s so unusual about Animal Farm is that it is perfectly age appropriate at the junior high level, and there aren’t many great works in English literature that are. It opens up political theory. Tell us why it stands the test of time.

Robert Colls:

Anyone can read it and love it. It’s just perfect; it’s like the cap that fits all round the head. I don’t think there’s a word in it that’s wrong. You don’t have to know anything about the Russian Revolution to enjoy it, though it helps if you do. The animals are so English: gentle, slow, stupid, but loyal. It’s the perfect fable. He said it was inspired by Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, which he loved. It’s his best, because it is so perfect.

Larry Bernstein:

I had a previous podcast on Orwell with Patrick Allitt, a historian at Emory, who asked why both conservatives and liberals embrace Orwell as one of their own. When I was reading his essays, it was clear to me that he was a true socialist. He wanted government to own the means of production. The right embraces him because he talked the truth about Stalin and totalitarianism. Tell us why the right and the left both embrace Orwell.

Robert Colls:

It goes back to where we started - why we get him wrong all the time. There’s an Orwell for everybody. Yes, he’s a socialist who’s not interested in class consciousness, the means of production or dialectics. He’s interested in brotherhood and in defending the things and the people you love.

When somebody’s threatening those things, like Hitler, he stands with the state. When he was writing The Lion and the Unicorn, his wife Eileen writes to a friend saying, George is writing a little book on how to be a socialist though Tory.

He’s a socialist with a capital S, but he doesn’t know that much about the working class. He visits them, but he doesn’t know them. He likes the idea of brotherhood. And when it comes to what you eat, what you wear, and who you choose as your friends, he’s a conservative, small c. He loves the things he loves, and that’s it. He’s both. Liberals can take from him the progressive aspects: the anti-racism and anti-colonialism. Conservatives can take from him the man who in the end defends the things that matter. In 1945 he’s Labor through and through, and he never wavers.

Larry Bernstein:

Our audience has read Animal Farm and 1984. If they get inspired by this discussion, what should they read next?

Robert Colls:

Go to the essays. There are various versions and editions of his essays: A Hanging, The Spike, Shooting an Elephant, Charles Dickens, Tolstoy and Shakespeare, and Politics and the English Language, still used in newsrooms across the world as a guide to good writing.

Larry Bernstein:

I agree. I thought they were fabulous. What are you optimistic about as it relates to Orwell?

Robert Colls:

As long as there’s good writers, good conversations and lots of readers, there’s room for optimism.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Robert for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast was -- Is Nolan’s Movie The Odyssey a Masterpiece?

Our speakers were Scott Turow the author of Presumed Innocent and Darren Schwartz the What Happens Next Culture Critic. We had a total blast reviewing all aspects of the new film and we discussed Nolan’s decisions about changing Odysseus’s character.

Previous episodes and transcripts are available on our website as well as at Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Is Nolan’s Odyssey a Masterpiece?, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

143KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Scott Turow and Darren Schwartz

Subject: Is Nolan’s Odyssey a Masterpiece?
Bio: Scott: Author of Presumed Innocent, Darren: What Happens Next Culture Critic

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and culture. This episode is -- Is Nolan’s Odyssey a Masterpiece?

Our speakers are Scott Turow the author of Presumed Innocent and Darren Schwartz the What Happens Next Culture Critic.

Darren, please begin.

Darren Schwartz:

We’re here to discuss The Odyssey. It’s Christopher Nolan’s film on Homer’s Epic. Stars an incredible cast: Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, Zedaya, Charlize Theron, Himesh Patel, John Leguizamo, Samantha Morton, Lupita Nyong’o, Jon Bernthal. It’s the first feature film shot entirely in 70-millimeter.

Gross $800mm so far, budget of $250mm, marketing of $125mm. They need to make $700mm to break even, which they’ve just passed. IMAX showings, which we did not see, are sold out for as much as three weeks in advance. It’s a cultural phenomenon and I loved it.

Larry Bernstein:

Scott, you saw the movie. What’d you think?

Scott Turow:

I liked it a lot. I thought it was a fabulous spectacle, outstanding movie making. but for all that said, I didn’t think it was a great movie because it lacked coherence, but I was still delighted to see this icon of Western literature celebrated.

Larry Bernstein:

The Odyssey was the first book assigned in New Trier High School’s freshman English class.

Scott Turow:

Me too.

Larry Bernstein:

Why is that?

Scott Turow:

It was the first book that I was assigned at the same high school. and this is one of the source documents for Western literature. There are all literary tropes we still have, like the Trojan horse or Penelope weaving, that remain part of our literary culture. Odysseus is one of those Heroes with No Face that Joseph Campbell talked about. He spends twenty years trying to get home. He encounters unimaginable obstacles and yet persists and succeeds at his quest. And that that is the myth that’s being celebrated.

Darren Schwartz:

Are you saying we’ve gotten soft as a society compared to what Odysseus had to go through?

Scott Turow:

The classic hero that Odysseus embodies, every society is soft compared to that figure. and the question is whether the ideal embodied by that hero satisfies us and the question you’re asking your high school freshman. It’s still worth asking today, “Are we satisfied by this image of a hero, or do we think it’s lacking something?”

Larry Bernstein:

The movie uses some of the plot lines but diverges in others. You have had several books turned into films.

Scott Turow:

I have.

Larry Bernstein:

Often, they diverge from your script.

Larry Bernstein:

And in the past, you mentioned to me that this as a different art form. How do you feel about Christopher Nolan diverging in the Odyssey?

Scott Turow:

I have no problem with diverging from the book, which has been my own experience several times. My philosophy is that every narrative work that survives that retains its original power in the retelling has got to be adjusted to meet contemporary tastes and needs, so that the contemporary audience can experience the core force of the story.

Transforming a literary work for those purposes seems to me perfectly appropriate, but you’ve got to get the core power of the story in the translation. I think the Nolan adaptation goes slightly awry in that regard.

Larry Bernstein:

I thought some plot changes were necessary and others were foolhardy. A necessary change was introducing the story of the Trojan horse and the sacking of Troy. It wasn’t described in detail in the Odyssey. A modern audience needs that background information.

Scott Turow:

Adding the Trojan horse, which is the way the Nolan movie opens, is it’s part of the same story and credited to the same author, if we can believe that Homer was just one author. I don’t have any problem with reminding the audience about the sacking of Troy, in Nolan’s version. This is the experience that Odysseus is carrying with him in his 20-year odyssey.

Darren Schwartz:

Odysseus’s strategic decision making is considered one of the great warfare decisions in the ancient world.

Larry Bernstein:

What bothers me is when they systematically change the character. Before he goes to Troy, Odysseus lies down with his wife where she says, “Don’t go to war. Maybe we can just take off, head to the sun.”

Scott Turow:

Agamemnon will come kill our son if I don’t go.

Larry Bernstein:

That’s not how it goes in the poem. That is an idea that neither party had seriously considered. This is his duty. We have a war to fight. I’m the king. I’m going to lead my troops into battle. It was obligatory to him. And then the last scene, which is perfectly foreshadowed in that first scene, is that they then run away to leave the island after the killing of the suitors.

Nolan makes Odysseus into a caring, torn individual as it relates to his struggle with the death that he’s caused.

Scott Turow:

It was a great achievement in the original text. The ideal of masculinity three millennia ago included the glory of vanquishing your enemies, sacking, pillaging and even raping. Nolan’s problem is that’s not going to sit well with a contemporary audience. So, he decides to make Odysseus a more ambivalent, self-conscious hero who sees himself, because of the experience in Troy, as something of an anti-hero. He regrets this. But then at the end of the movie he turns around and slays a hundred suitors who are camped out in his house pursuing his wife.

That piece of the story has been difficult to handle in in other contemporary adaptations. My friend Mary Zimmerman, who stages narrative works. She staged the Odyssey and she too was deeply troubled about Odysseus coming home and killing all the suitors. She felt that the audience would literally walk out of the theater holding their nose. Mary represented the suitors as six figures on stage with sandbags over the heads of all of them. And the sandbags are opened and sand then rains down gently on the suitors. They’re made to figuratively disappear rather than the bloody climax where Odysseus literally spears one hundred people.

Larry Bernstein:

One of the core issues of morality of the Odyssey is that there is a duty when a stranger comes to the door to treat him with love and respect. It is to offer food, shelter, whatever they need to go on their way.

Then if you are welcomed into the home, treat it with respect. Don’t overstay your welcome. Be kind and generous in return and leave on good terms without harming the host in any way. And it’s the suitors who abuse this who have for years eaten everything, sleeping with their slaves. It’s nonstop. And it’s that abuse of that moral code that is why Odysseus feels compelled to kill them.

Scott Turow:

One of the things that Nolan does, which I have to admire him for, is that he explains the law of Zeus that you must treat a stranger who comes to your home with kindness because that stranger may be a god in disguise. The gods were always testing us. and so sometimes they’d show up in human form. But strangers got to act with the courtesy you’d expect of a visiting God.

They’re called suitors because they’re all trying to marry his wife. The reason that the suitors are there is because Odysseus took his time getting home and experienced the charms of many other ladies along the way, including Circe and Calypso.

Larry Bernstein:

I’d like to to go over my favorite scene in the epic poem. It’s when Odysseus returns to Ithaca in disguise, and Penelope sees Odysseus in disguise and orders the older nurse to give his feet a good washing. And this is the same nurse that bathed Odysseus as a baby who had first cleaned a boar’s wound on his leg that she now recognizes as his scar.

She screams out, “It’s you Odysseus, my master.” And in the poem, he grabs her by the neck and says, “If you open your mouth, I will kill you. I’m here to kill the suitors. You cannot tell Penelope.”

He releases her neck and she says, “I understand my role. I’m so happy to have you are home. Later, after you kill all the suitors, can I tell you which of the slaves you should kill who’ve been sleeping with the enemy?” And he says, “I don’t need your help.” And then he tosses her to the ground.

In the Nolan movie, Odysseus’ treatment of the nurse is kind. He’s not beating up slave women. And she is not offering up to kill her colleagues. Both Odysseus and the nurse are taking on completely different characters.

Scott Turow:

The incident with the slave nurse would not suit contemporary tastes to see Odysseus behaving like a slave master, free to torture his slaves and even to kill them if they got in the way that has to be softened.

Larry Bernstein:

Darren, we saw another Odysseus film called The Return. This is the 2024 Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche movie. And in that scene with the old nurse when she discovers the scar, how would you describe that scene in contrast?

Darren Schwartz:

Different than the book and much different than the Nolan movie.

Larry Bernstein:

It was sexually charged.

Darren Schwartz:

It was passionate. It was bizarre.

Larry Bernstein:

You screamed out.

Darren Schwartz:

Multiple times, I screamed, “Please stop this horror.” The movie focused only on when Odysseus returned to Ithaca. I thought it was too slow. Then he started making out with this nurse, rolling around to the ground. I had a problem with that.

Larry Bernstein:

It was an incredible scene. She’s extremely glad to see him. Darren and I were flabbergasted.

Darren Schwartz:

It started with the recognition of who he was, then a hug where in the book it was more violent. In the Nolan movie, it was somewhere in between.

Scott Turow:

I have to say I was a little baffled by why that scene got included. We already know because dogs are heroes, in our contemporary world. We know that it’s Odysseus because Argus, his all but dead dog, wags his tail at Odysseus. Telemachus, Odysseus’s son, immediately realizes what the significance of that is and says, “Hey, you’re my father. and what are we going to do about all these guys who are camped out in the living room eating all our food?” And Odysseus is like, “Stand back, son, I got this.”

I don’t think we really need the scene with the nurse.

Darren Schwartz:

Agamemnon came home and his wife and lover killed him, stabbed him. It’s a tough homecoming.

Scott Turow:

Odysseus when Odysseus makes a brief stop in hell. Agamemnon says, “You go home in disguise because it may not be the way you left it. It might be that Penelope has taken up with one of these lovers and doesn’t want to see you return. Make sure that your wife actually wants you back.”

Darren Schwartz:

I mean, he’s like, “Well, let’s go see some things. I don’t want to follow Agamemnon. We’re going to go our own way.” He was on the beach. Everyone’s leaving. He’s like, “You know what? Let’s go left. We’re going to take I-294, not I-90. We want to avoid the city.” And you know what? Sometimes it’s good. A lot of times it’s not.

Larry Bernstein:

They didn’t have WAZE.

Scott Turow:

Odysseus, starting with the Trojan horse, is a master of deceit.

Larry Bernstein:

That is a core part of his character. It is appreciated by Homer as a key aspect of warfare. Even today, we look at deception and war as something to support. The Trojan horse reminded me of the Israelis using beepers to blow up their enemies.

Scott Turow:

We want to think of our heroes as larger than life actors. Odysseus’s deceitfulness is disconcerting. Not only does he kill the Trojans by deceiving them with the Trojan horse, saying, “This is a gift.”

Odysseus continues that deceit. He lies to his men at more than one moment, by the way, losing their trust in in the Nolan version. The most interesting episode is when Odysseus, understanding the fact that they’ve lost trust in him, tells them when they face the famous twin dilemmas of Scylla and Charybdis.

Scylla being a voracious whirlpool. He tells him, let’s go toward the whirlpool, knowing that they no longer trust him and will therefore go through the Strait of Charybdis, where there is an awful monster waiting but where they have a chance to survive.

Larry Bernstein:

But knowing that six of his crew will be killed in the process.

Scott Turow:

Odysseus by doing that sparing some of his crew, or is he in fact just saving his own life? Because he certainly ends up living, which had they gone into the whirlpool was far, far from certain. and that he chooses to manipulate rather than win their trust by his valiant leadership is unsettling, but I will say something I really liked, because it is an antihero aspect of Odysseus that’s congenial to a modern sensibility that nobody’s perfect.

Larry Bernstein:

Odysseus arrives back home in Ithaca disguised as a beggar. When he is introduced to Penelope, he says he’s a former soldier who fought at Troy.

Scott Turow:

He’s even deceitful when he returns to his wife and his son. He’s described as this homeless beggar in rags. He can’t keep come clean with Penelope or Telemachus because of the example of Clytemnestra. He’s afraid he may no longer be welcome in his own home. and so. I’ll just trick them. It’s a piece of ugliness in Odysseus’s character. Interesting that it’s part of the anti-hero nature of the contemporary Odysseus that Nolan is inventing.

Larry Bernstein:

I read Emily Wilson’s translation of The Odyssey. She is Professor of Classics at Penn. Her translation uses language and style that is straightforward. Her translation is a poem, not prose, with the same number of lines as the original. She uses meter and alliteration and all that. So, in many ways, she’s taken a traditionalist approach to The Odyssey.

Nolan has publicly said that he used Wilson’s translation as inspiration for the movie. Recently, Wilson wrote a scathing review of the movie in the London Review of Books. She said, “I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script.” Emily Wilson has trouble with this film’s treatment of Odysseus. He’s passive, sexless, and regretful. He’s “an action hero who feels bad about being an action hero.”

Scott Turow:

Emily Wilson, the translator of the Odyssey displays typical academic narrowness. She reminded me a periodontist who thinks that all of the problems with American health care are the way root canals are handled. and she cannot see beyond the borders of her own version of the Odyssey. She’s trapped in the Homeric vision and can’t recognize the many brilliant aspects of Nolan’s

contemporary translation of this epic.

Credit where credit is due, Nolan knows how to wring fabulous emotion out of these classic scenes, starting with the Trojan horse. Those are literally epical. The Odyssey partakes of the same elements that cause audiences to pack the theaters for superhero movies. It is an action epic and Nolan is very smart about recognizing that he’s dealing with the same materials that are so pleasing to contemporary audiences. Emily Wilson can’t see that. She’s blind to what makes this movie succeed.

Emily Wilson’s got her feet set in concrete because of her own approach to Homer and literally can’t move on to appreciate Nolan’s.

Larry Bernstein:

What do you think of Circe as a character?

Scott Turow:

She’s a raggedy witch in Nolan’s presentation who perhaps has been abused by men throughout her lifetime, who lures Odysseus’s crew in and turns them all into swine. Now that is a far cry from the version of Circe in the Odyssey where she is a fabulous, gorgeous goddess. Odysseus is eventually happily seduced by her.

Instead, Nolan portrays her as this slattern. The scene did not appeal to me for that reason because, she was inherently distrustful of men. Circe has been interpreted as a classic figure of great fascination, including by Madeline Miller, whose recent novel Circe saw her as a feminist hero like way Homer originally portrayed her. I think what scared Nolan about that version, is that he can’t have Odysseus stopping everywhere, and screwing all these women because it is it’s guaranteed to displease a large part of the female audience. So, he changes Circe. It is an amazing scene because of the movie making involved in the transformation of the crew into pigs. But it just didn’t sit well with me as a moviegoer. and you can say that’s because you knew the original story and liked it better.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s go to Cyclops.

Scott Turow:

I thought that was Nolan’s brilliance as a movie maker, very much at the height of his powers. Cyclops looks like a Claymation figure, grotesquely distorted, and looks like the victim of those misbegotten pharmaceuticals that created grotesque birth defects. I love the scene.

Darren Schwartz:

He seemed very childlike. These guys came in and they’re going to eat his sheep. He walks in, sees a few people. He eats them, doesn’t pay attention to the rest of them, and he’s going to take a nap.

Scott Turow:

He is the discarded child. Maybe his dad has set him up here on this island where he’s got a herd of sheep and can survive well with those circumstances.

Cyclops possesses moral ambiguity, because Odysseus and his crew invade this figure’s house, and certainly are not good guests. Because they put out Cyclops’ one eye, they’re worse guests than even the suitors are in Odysseus’s House. You actually feel sympathy for the Cyclops.

Larry Bernstein:

One thing that was not in the movie but was in the book was that Cyclops had a chat with Odysseus where as part of his deception says that his name is “no man.” And so, when the Cyclops is blinded, he yells out to his neighbors, “I’ve been hurt!” “Who hurt you?” “No man.” And so, the neighbors don’t come to his aid and the Greeks flee.

Darren Schwartz:

But doesn’t Odysseus then still yell at the end his own name?

Larry Bernstein:

Yes, and there’s Odysseus’ pride. He fires a couple more arrows and yells out his real name. Cyclops tells his father the God Poseidon to curse Odysseus’ journey home. This conversation with the Cyclops is a huge, plot-driving moment in the poem, and Nolan cuts it. He doesn’t even have Odysseus talk to him.

Scott Turow:

As they’re leaving and finally back on their ship, one of the crew members speaks up and goes, “That Cyclops, he’s Poseidon’s son. We are going to have a very rough voyage now on Poseidon’s seas.” And that proves to be prophetic.

Larry Bernstein:

In the poem, the gods play a much larger role. I like the fact that there’s disagreement among the gods with different agendas and perspectives, you can see how things can quickly get out of control.

Athena is a huge fan of Odysseus. Always looking out for him, helping out with guidance. Calypso is a God played by Charlize Theron who wants to marry Odysseus and keeps him stranded on an island for seven years.

Athena speaks to her father Zeus and afterwards Zeus intervenes and has Calypso let Odysseus return to his wife. Human agency is core to the story. Odysseus makes good and bad decisions but ultimately it is his agency that causes the ongoing tragedy.

Scott Turow:

Athena tells him a siren would drive everybody mad and says, no, I’m going to put wax in their ears.

Larry Bernstein:

But Odysseus has got to hear the Sirens. His decision puts his crew at risk. If he had put wax in his ears, the ship would have passed without incident. But here they strap Odysseus to the mast, he’s going crazy and some of his workmates remove their wax because they see how he is responding and then they swim to their deaths. I mean, that’s on him.

Scott Turow:

Absolutely. So much that goes wrong, it’s on him. Odysseus disobeys the gods or disregards Athena’s warnings to the detriment of his crew. Odysseus ties himself to the mast so he can hear the siren’s song but not succumb to it. The crew members see him living this larger-than-life experience and a couple of them take the wax out of their ears. As happens with these gorgeous women with this alluring song, they go off to pursue the sirens and die on the way.

Darren Schwartz:

Well, personally, I do believe in free will but sometimes the cards are stacked against you.

Larry Bernstein:

In ancient times, there’s so much going on around you that you can’t explain. Where did this storm come from? It must be because Poseidon’s pissed off. They’re looking for causality for what’s going on.

Scott Turow:

Most of us want to believe in free will, to make choices and not be subject to God’s will. The Greek notion of fate, that the gods decide every moment of your life undermines that Odysseus is a hero in our modern sense, that he can make choices, impose his own will, and triumph over obstacles to return home.

Darren Schwartz:

Scott, I saw parallels between Presumed Innocent and the Kindle County characters with The Odyssey, including the theme of temptation. Rusty’s journey, you could say mirrors Odysseus, is that his character is rooted in good but makes a lot of bad decisions.

Scott Turow:

Odysseus and Rusty Savage in Presumed Innocent are both deeply flawed characters who create their own troubles and then have to surmount enormous obstacles because of their ill-advised choices in order to return to their homes.

Larry Bernstein:

The Odyssey is an 11-hour story, people need to go to the bathroom. In the Odyssey, there’s repetition. Characters tell other characters what’s going on.

You do that in your Kindle County book series. You give background information. You don’t tell them the whole story, but you provide key prior character attributes and historical facts so that the new audience can understand what’s going on.

Scott Turow:

In writing these eleven novels, I’ve tried to make sure that each one is freestanding. But that means that there has to be a certain explanation of the background story of the character when it is consequential to what they’re doing in the present. And it’s always a challenge. But despite having to deliver what happened in the past, the present storyline still works.

Darren Schwartz:

Another question. When you’re writing, when do you know how it’s going to end?

Scott Turow:

The challenge always has been is novels end but life goes on. and I’ve always been conscious that whatever the ending is, it’s got to be meaningful in the context of the story.

If it’s the classic whodunit format, it’s who did do it, and that it be surprising, because we want to maintain suspense, and add something to the story. Is it for example an instance of misbegotten love? is it love gone awry so that there’s poignance to the killer’s appetite to kill? That’s a process of discovery. You don’t write the ending till you get to the end. but you’ve got to know where you’re going, otherwise the story won’t make any sense.

Larry Bernstein:

Darren, should the audience run out and see the new Odyssey film?

Darren Schwartz:

Yes. If you’re like someone like you or Scott who read and knew it, then you’ll appreciate it from that level. If you’re like me and don’t have any recollection of reading it, it’s a great movie, but it also has given me the opportunity to go back and learn it. And it’s a visual masterpiece. If you can see it in one of the true IMAX theaters, that is an even more powerful experience.

Larry Bernstein:

What Happens Next with the Odyssey?

Darren Schwartz:

I think what happens next is The Iliad.

Larry Bernstein:

It’s a billion-dollar project. Do you think Christopher Nolan will take the bait?

Darren Schwartz:

Yeah. I’m sure. It’d be interesting to see the growth of the 70-millimeter IMEX theaters, right now there’s 25. In a couple of years, it could be 50.

Larry Bernstein:

Will Matt Damon play Odysseus?

Darren Schwartz:

He’ll be offered.

Larry Bernstein:

If they don’t get Matt Damon, who do you think they will take?

Darren Schwartz:

Ralph Fiennes is probably under consideration.

Larry Bernstein:

Can you think of other films where the objective is “I just want to go home?”

Darren Schwartz:

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.

Steve Martin in this case would be Odysseus. He just wants to get back to Thanksgiving. Beautiful wife and family. And he gets bumped from his plane. John Candy’s there. And we all know the journey that they went on. Very similar.

Larry Bernstein:

One key distinction is that John Candy doesn’t have a family to go back to. One of the really awkward moments is when Steve Martin recognizes that.

Darren Schwartz:

At the end he revealed himself as a sad, lonely character that throughout receives Steve Martin’s empathy.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s try a different movie. Castaway.

Darren Schwartz:

Castaway is a great film. Remember the tooth. Could you hit yourself in the face hard enough to take out the tooth.

Larry Bernstein:

I think if you’re in enough pain, you’d be amazed what you could accomplish.

Darren Schwartz:

How about the loss of weight?

Larry Bernstein:

I could lose the weight if I were on the shot.

Darren Schwartz:

He had Wilson.

Larry Bernstein:

Well, maybe Calypso was a figure of imagination as well. Maybe Calypso was a basketball.

What do you think of the ending of the Odyssey?

Darren Schwartz:

Why does he have to kill everybody? Why couldn’t he be like, “Hey guys, I’m back. My wife is taken. Let’s have one more meal. Everyone goes your separate ways.”

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Scott and Darren for joining us.

If you missed our previous 2 podcasts, they have been about the American Revolution. Why George Washington was the Unanimous Choice for President and Would you have been a Loyalist or a Patriot?

Our speaker was H.W. Brands, a Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of the biography American Patriarch: The Life of George Washington.

Professor Brands explained why Washington was appointed commander in chief of the revolutionary forces, the head of the constitutional congress, and our first president.

Patrick Allitt who is a Professor of History at Emory. He discussed why the British government demanded that American colonies pay their fair for their own defense, and why the Crown chose war instead of reconciliation. Americans learn in school why the patriots fought against taxation without representation, but we didn’t consider why many American colonialists preferred King George’s rule.

Previous episodes and transcripts are available on our website as well as at Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Would You Have Been a Loyalist or a Patriot?, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

167KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Patrick Allitt

Subject: Would You Have Been a Loyalist or a Patriot?
Bio: Professor of History at Emory and Lecturer for the Teaching Company with the Great Courses

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein.  What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and culture. This episode is Would You Have Been a Loyalist or a Patriot?

Our speaker to day is Patrick Allitt who is a Professor of History at Emory where he teaches courses in the American Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Patrick also lectures for the Teaching Company with the Great Courses. I have taken six of Patrick’s courses and they are absolutely fabulous that are available on their website.

I want to learn from Patrick about why the British government demanded that American colonies pay their fair for their own defense, and why the Crown chose war instead of reconciliation. Americans learn in school why the patriots fought against taxation without representation, but we didn’t consider why many American colonialists preferred King George’s rule.

Patrick can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Patrick Allitt:

The history of the American Revolution has changed greatly in the last 50 years because the historians’ new attention to issues of race, gender, ethnicity, and class have caused the event to look different. In particular, it’s now easy to make the case that the revolution was catastrophic from the point of view of African Americans and that it was entirely sensible for them to ally with the British against the patriots.

That in turn makes it more difficult for historians to have an uncritically pro-patriot view of what happened. Some very talented historians have written the history of the revolution from the slaves’ point of view. It’s also true that in the last 50 years, historians have become much more attentive to the loyalists. The traditional historical writing about the revolution paid nearly all its attention to the patriots, under the assumption that they were right and justified.

But now a generation of historians has grown up saying, “Here’s what the loyalists said. Here’s why it was reasonable. Here’s what they did. And here are the severe implications of the decisions they made so that it’s appropriate for us to look at the revolution as much as a civil war within the colonies as merely a battle between right and wrong in which Britain was wrong, the patriots were right, and the loyalists were a bizarre leftover who hadn’t made the appropriate mental adjustments at the right time.”

The last 50 years have been a golden age in the writing about the revolution because so many wonderful books have come out about it giving us a clearer picture than previously.

Larry Bernstein:

Patrick, if you had been living in Boston in 1775, which side would you have joined?

Patrick Allitt:

I would almost certainly have joined the Patriot side because the coercive measures undertaken by the revolutionaries were frightening and draconian. They tarred and feathered people who spoke up for the British. The last Royal Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Hutchinson had his house burned down and all his property smashed. He lived his whole life in Massachusetts, loved it, and he’d written a history of it. Nevertheless, the Patriots’ attack upon him was severe and brutal. So, I’d have been cowardly enough to stay safely on the Patriot side.

Larry Bernstein:

Patrick, one of your great qualities is that you’re very diplomatic. Why couldn’t you employ diplomatic language to survive and prosper in 1775 Boston while leaning towards the loyalists?

Patrick Allitt:

The nature of a revolution is that it forces people to take sides even when they really don’t want to. The majority of people just want to lead a quiet life. Revolutionaries prevent them from doing so because it’s critical to catalyze public opinion and to force everybody into one side or the other.

Larry Bernstein:

After the war, the loyalists left the country. Many went to Canada, the UK, and the West Indies. But during the war, they didn’t do that. How did they survive during the revolution, which lasted for years?

Patrick Allitt:

The fighting went on from 1775 to 1783, although most of it was over by ‘81 after the Battle of Yorktown. But there were areas in which the majority of the people were loyalists. This is certainly true of New York City, which was occupied by the British after the Battle of Brooklyn in ‘76 and remained a loyalist stronghold from then on. Similarly, when the British occupied Philadelphia in ‘77, a large part of the Philadelphia population was quite content to go over to the loyalist side.

Large parts of the American South were loyalist, so much so that the fighting in the interior of the South was entirely a civil war in which the vast majority of people fighting on both sides were American colonists fighting against each other. So, it wasn’t clear until the fighting was finished and the treaty was made that independence had been achieved. And then, although, as you say, some people did go abroad to England, Nova Scotia or the West Indies, far more people who had been loyalists did in fact stay. Many of them had to pay fines, but they were able to eventually get back into the good graces of their society and remain. Only about 5% or 6% of the loyalists left, and they tended to be the most prominent and wealthy.

Larry Bernstein:

Families were split during the revolutionary war with some siding with the loyalists and others with the patriots. Ben Franklin’s son, William, was a diehard loyalist and the former Governor of New Jersey.

Patrick Allitt:

The Franklin example is the most conspicuous one. Benjamin Franklin spent most of the years leading up to the revolution in Britain and was a bit slow to foresee that the split would come. Although when it did come, he made a decisive choice for the revolution. Whereas his son had enjoyed honors and privileges with his father’s full approval right up to that point, and therefore wasn’t willing to jump away from the society which rewarded him for his good conduct, which suddenly made him a loyalist.

That must have been so strange for people who became loyalists was that conduct that they’d always regarded as good suddenly became bad. George Washington’s military experience was as a British officer in the French and Indian Wars. He thought of himself as an English gentleman, and suddenly the British are the enemy.

If you look at it from the grassroots level, the continuities must have been striking. The vast majority of Americans were farmers. Something like 95% of people lived in the countryside and only about 5% in town. If you were a farmer beforehand; you carry on being a farmer and judge the revolution’s success if your taxes went down. But one of the great shocks of the mid 1780s was Shay’s Rebellion, when a group of Massachusetts farmers said, we’re being taxed higher than we were before.

The people who were most affected were the revolutionary elites. The Americans who became a new political class like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Adams. They suddenly become national leaders, having previously been minor provincial figures. We focus most of our attention on them because the change in their way of life is so dramatic.

Larry Bernstein:

Why did the British government alienate the Americans and encourage revolution, and what lessons did they learn for their other dominions?

Patrick Allitt:

The British Lord North’s government was unimaginative. Rather than making prudent concessions, it took up arms, which was clearly a foolish thing to do because the sheer physical extent of America made it unlikely that even a big British army was ever going to bring it back under British control once blood had been spilled.

The two obvious comparisons are with Canada and Australia. In both cases large numbers of British people settled there and never did have revolutionary wars. The British learned a lesson from the American Revolutionary War. And when in the 1830s, the Canadians began to make the argument for self-government, the British sent out a blue-ribbon commission. They wrote what’s called the Durham Report that recommended the devolution of power to the Canadian provinces. Canada evolved into a self-governing nation within the British Empire, peaceably. The same thing happened with Australia. If only the British government of the 1760s and ‘70s had been more sensible, it probably could have avoided the rift and could have led to one more big self-governing colony. I don’t think that’s unreasonable to think of at all.

Larry Bernstein:

The Americans looked to King George as a savior against Parliament. They viewed Parliament’s jurisdiction over the colonies as an overreach who didn’t represent their needs, but they didn’t deny initially that the king was their rightful overseer. They looked to the king to step in against this unruly parliament. But King George III decided that he would rather side with Parliament than the colonial legislatures. Why did King George III make that decision?

Patrick Allitt:

He thought that on the merits of the case, his prime minister was right. He liked Lord North very much and trusted him. The king was aware that Parliament was full of people who despised him. So, he was loyal to the North Ministry. A reasonable case can be made for what Lord North and the King were trying to do. Once the French and Indian War finished back in 1763, the American colonies were far safer than they ever had been before. Until then, they’d lived under the constant dread of French incursions. But now that dread was lifted. At the very same time that they felt less of that fear, they were asked to pay for the war. That’s something that the British politicians should have been more alert to.

As the American population grew, they could have found ways to put more trust in the Americans and also to honor the democratic traditions in many of the colonies. There was a fairly high measure of self-government and self-taxation. But the King’s view was that when a handful of rebellious subjects in Massachusetts defied him, with the Boston Tea Party, taking stern measures would have the effect of bringing this rebellion to an end and reconciling an otherwise loyal continent. Ever since the early 1600s, this arrangement had worked. The colonies had been willing to subject themselves to British governance. Most of the people living there were of British descent.

Quite often, Americans talked about England as home, even those who’d never been there. What’s remarkable about the revolution, particularly this moment between April ‘75, the Battle of Lexington and Concord, and then July of ‘76, 15 months later when the Declaration of Independence was written, is that it’s the period in which a cultural shift takes place. Large numbers of people start thinking of themselves as independent of Britain.

That’s why Thomas Payne’s pamphlet Common Sense is so important, because it ridicules the concept of monarchy. It says to the Americans, “Don’t revere the king. The king is a ruffian. He’s descended from brutal warriors who seized the kingdom by force. There’s nothing sacred or venerable about it and we’re better off without it.” The combination that the king was making war against them and that Payne was providing them with theoretical justification for rebellion were the two things which led to the Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, most of it after the preamble is an item-by-item indictment of the King himself, who’s depicted as wicked without parallel in history.

Larry Bernstein:

The desire for the British that the colonies pay their fair share of the expense is a legitimate argument. It is the same argument that the Americans currently have in NATO that the Europeans should pay for their own defense. We’re saying in an alliance pay your fair share and be responsible for defending your homeland. In this example, the Indians were still of concern. There are global naval powers enemies in the French and the Spanish. And so, Parliament enacted taxes trying to collect a sufficient amount of money to pay for the defense of this continent and were willing to use the proceeds of the tax to buy American goods. How is there such a breakdown that the Americans found the defense of their colonies so offensive and basic administration so problematic?

Patrick Allitt:

That’s one of the questions which a generation of very talented historians worked on. Gordon Wood, who died recently, was the preeminent historian to ask that question. In his famous book, The Creation of the American Republic, Gordon Wood says, “If ever there was a group of people in the 18th century who lived an easy life, it was the American colonists.” They weren’t subject to oppressive government or taxes. They paid 1/20th as much in taxation as the British and like 1/40th as much as the poor old French peasants.

The British government felt it was entirely reasonable to ask them to pay a little bit more since they were the beneficiaries of British victory in the French and Indian War. But Wood and his cohort of historians go on to say that Americans had been reading oppositional literature written in Britain. A sophisticated form of conspiracy theorizing coming out of prominent British intellectuals who were afraid that the king was going to stamp out their traditional liberties.

Everyone in England had memories of the Glorious Revolution by which the old British tyrant represented by King James II had been expelled. Instead, a constitutional monarchy in the persons of William and Mary had been brought in. Now the claim among these oppositional intellectuals in the early 18th century was that the Hanoverians, Kings George I, II, and III were trying to seize back the absolute power that the wicked old Stuart monarchs had had in the 1600s.

It wasn’t really true, but if you were receiving a constant diet of believable essays alleging this conspiracy, you start to believe them. The Woods generation came up with the idea that it is based on a giant misunderstanding -- the fear that the king was going to make himself an absolute monarch and that America would be put in the position that England had been in before the Glorious Revolution.

Larry Bernstein:

George III decides that his longevity as sovereign of England depends on him siding with parliament.

Patrick Allitt:

George III was extremely accepting of the principles of constitutional monarchy. He was king for 60 years. And in that time, he never vetoed a piece of parliamentary legislation. No one was less vulnerable to the charge of absolutism than George III. We’ve even got essays he wrote as a teenager in which he lays out with great sincerity a theory of constitutional monarchy, which he aspires to uphold. And he always did uphold it. He never was the tyrant who’s described in the Declaration of Independence. That series of claims that he’s tyrannical is completely false. The claims might be made against the British government and the ministry, but they certainly can’t be made against the king himself.

Larry Bernstein:

The French and Indian Wars, to call it a war seems like a joke. They’re minor skirmishes in the woods. The number of Brits and French is trivial. I’ve been in paintball battles that are almost on the same scale as the French and Indian War. A typical battle might have under a hundred Brits and colonialists and 450 Indians. How can we call this a war?

Patrick Allitt:

The most important battle of the French and Indian War was the Battle of Quebec, in which a fairly big British army met and defeated a fairly big French army. And in doing so, seized Quebec, the strategic points on the entire St. Lawrence River, which was the heart of the French Empire in Canada. But you’re right, the parts of the French and Indian War, which took place in the back country of Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The battles around Fort Duquesne, the place that’s now Pittsburgh, were very small. On the other hand, victory goes to whichever side can command a monopoly of force and can physically defeat its enemies. And if both sides have small forces, then the small army of the winner lords it over the small army of the loser.

The important point is that it was principally a war in Canada. The eventual success of the British in capturing Fort Duquesne and turning it into Fort Pitt, was a decisive military event after which the French recognized that they couldn’t contest it anymore. On the point of demographics, the population of New England and the population of upstate New York had grown very rapidly in the course of the colonial period. There’d been continuous internal population growth with high birth rates and high survival rates. Whereas by comparison, the number of French settlers in the St. Lawrence Valley was always very low. The French were massively outnumbered in colonists, which meant that the only way the French were going to be able to hold onto their American possessions was by importing armies and they weren’t able to import an army which could win.

Larry Bernstein:

The United States’ population surges over time. There wasn’t really enough land in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales where they had substantial birth rates. They also started getting immigrants from everywhere else in Europe as well. There was no chance that the most dynamic economy in the world was going to remain under the tutelage of a constitutional monarch who did whatever the English parliament wanted. This was not a sustainable outcome in a large continent that would later have five times the population of the UK.

Ben Franklin said that even at the time, it’s just a matter of time before there are more Englishmen here in the colonies than in the UK.

Patrick Allitt:

That’s right. Between 1607 when Jamestown was founded, and 1783 when the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolutionary War, the line of settlement only went inland about 100 miles. Nearly all the whites, lived within a hundred miles of the coast. All the cities of any significance were coastal ports. You could go a hundred miles up the Connecticut River or up the Hudson River and find settlements. Movement into the West was still extremely limited at that point.

People like Daniel Boone, who was already in Kentucky by the 1770s, were on the distant frontier, and he was fighting for his life against the Shawnees. What happened next wasn’t foreseeable at the time--Americans spread over the entire continent. Jefferson looked at this and said, “What we need is a nation of yeoman farmers.” he thought, “It’s taken us 200 years to get a hundred miles inland. It takes another 200 years to get another hundred miles inland. And therefore, we’ve got thousands of years’ worth of land into which to gradually increase.” But in the 19th century, the invention of railroads, the California Gold Rush and the Mexican War led to this sudden increase in westward movement, which it was an appreciable force at the time of the revolution, but not a major one.

Larry Bernstein:

It gets to the heart of how you run an agricultural-based economy. You can export agriculture to the extent it’s on a waterway. There was no railroad. You could put the goods on a boat and send it out using a river system and an ocean. Another alternative is you could plant corn, feed the corn to a pig, and then walk the pig to market. But that was the extent of it. Otherwise, that’s why they’re a hundred miles from the shoreline.

Jefferson realized the nature of the American River system and the requirement that America had to not only control the Mississippi, but also to control the port when the Mississippi meets the Gulf. He said, “We got to own New Orleans.”

Patrick Allitt:

That’s right. There’s a passage in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia, where he talks about the Mississippi and the Ohio Rivers as though they’re parts of Virginia. At the time, they were because the borders extended westward on the map as far as the Mississippi. He had a shrewd understanding of the centrality of the Mississippi to American development and trade.

Larry Bernstein:

You’ve mentioned that it was a predominantly agricultural country. The towns of New York, Boston, Philadelphia are like 15,000 people. My high school is in a town of 15,000 people. I don’t think of it as being important in the context of the world in a time when London was 750,000. England was the big global sea power. They focused on the West Indies sugar islands that were incredibly valuable in terms of taxes and wealth. Tell us about the centrality of the West Indies and how that interrelates with this competition with the French.

Patrick Allitt:

That’s a very good point. When we talk about the revolution, straightaway, we start thinking about the 13 colonies. But the British were thinking about the 26 colonies, if you add in their possessions in what’s now Canada and the West Indies. The revolutionaries themselves also had this in mind, and they sent an expeditionary force to try to capture Canada in the winter of ‘75 and it failed. They sent delegates down to the West Indies to persuade the West Indies to join our side. The Canadians refused because they were convinced that British protection was better. And similarly, the West Indies declined because they were terrified of slave rebellions.

That’s why in the end, only the 13 mainland colonists decided to go with the revolution. It’s also striking that in one of the wars between Britain and France earlier in the century, the British had more or less successfully seized Canada militarily. But when it came time to the treaty, they exchanged Canada for a couple of the little sugar islands, which are microscopic dots on the map because at the time they said, these are more lucrative. And they were right to say so, at the time. The West Indies are one of the places where, because they’re not politically or economically very important today, it’s easier for us to underestimate how economically important they were then and how much of a role they played in British and French strategic thinking.

Once the Americans won the Battle of Saratoga and the French came in on the American side, from then on, the British had to think, now that we’re fighting against France, the thing we must do above all else is hold onto the sugar islands. So, they diverted their military and naval power into the Caribbean to fight against the French. And when Britain thought about what it had done right and wrong in the 1770s and ‘80s, the things it focused on were the Battle of the Saintes in 1782, a naval battle against the French, which enabled the British to hold onto these islands. And the great siege of Gibraltar from 1779 to ‘83 in which a Spanish attempted to seize Gibraltar from the British failed after the British heroic resistance to the siege. In other words, a totally different view of what really matters. If you talk about the island of Dominica and the peninsula of Gibraltar to an American and say, why were these places so vital in the 1770s and ‘80s? Chances are they’ll give you a blank look because it just never comes up in the American textbooks.

Another of the fascinating follow-up stories from the American Revolution is the coexistence of a nation which claimed to be dedicated to liberty and the enslavement of large numbers of people. And the number of slaves increased very rapidly after the Revolution. In 1833, Britain abolished slavery in its empire and they did it peacefully. They did it without a great civil war. Whereas the Americans in the end were only able to get rid of slavery through this horrendous fratricidal civil war.

Larry Bernstein:

In our high school textbook, there’s a graph of the slaves coming to the New World. What it shows is this tiny arrow heading to the United States, this wide arrow heading to the West Indies, and this massive arrow heading for Brazil. It reflects the economics of the slave trade in areas of the world where the returns on hard labor were greater.

Patrick Allitt:

Bad as American slavery was, it was even worse in the Caribbean and Brazil. The death rate was much higher. That meant that far more of the slaves in Brazil and the Caribbean were first-generation slaves who’d got a memory of their lives in Africa and were correspondingly more rebellious. The extraordinary rebellious character of slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil is striking in contrast to the relatively low number of slave rebellions in the United States. By the 1820s, the majority of enslaved people in the United States had no memory of Africa at all. One interesting aspect of the Constitution written in 1787 is that one of the provisos it had was that for 20 years there’d be a moratorium on discussing abolition of the Atlantic slave trade.

In that period from 1788 to 1808, very large numbers of slaves were imported. And because they were, it was much more difficult to abolish slavery subsequently than it would have been at the time of the revolution. Obviously the most prominent person whose conscience we study in this respect is that of Thomas Jefferson. In his book, Notes on the State of Virginia and in quite a lot of his letters, he voiced to his knowledge that slavery was a dreadful wrong. And at one point he said, “I tremble when I think that God is just and that we’re going to be punished for our sins, of which slavery is the most obvious example.” In 1780, it did sound as though he was quite serious about the possibility of abolishing slavery. And around him, some of the New England states were abolishing slavery. Massachusetts in 1781. But then he wrote the slave code for Virginia.

And by the time he was president, the number of slaves in America had risen very sharply and he completely lost the belief that it was even a feasible project to abolish. So, with the increase in the number of enslaved people, the viability of abolishing slavery diminished commensurately.

Larry Bernstein:

The French wanted to see if the Americans had a chance to win before they would join up. The winning battle that pushed the French into the war was the Battle of Saratoga. Tell us about the role of the French, why they may have had initial misgivings about making this a world war and whether their involvement tipped the balance in the American war of independence.

Patrick Allitt:

To be French in the 18th century was to experience repeated defeats at the hands of the British. Time after time after time in the six or seven big wars of the 18th century, the French came out on the losing side, and clearly the entire balance of power is shifting in the direction of the British. By 1777, the year of the Battle of Saratoga, the French were absolutely salivating at the possibility of restoring some of that lost honor and lost colonies. They were eager to intervene on the American side so long as the Americans showed that they might be able to win. Horatio Gates was the American general whose army won the Battle of Saratoga. It was an incredible surprise that a big British force under the leadership of General Burgoyne was forced to surrender.

It suddenly seemed possible that the Americans would win. Then the French joined in. They’d already been sending covert aid, but now they’re sending explicit aid, including some very effective generals and admirals who joined Washington’s force and who at the decisive moment of the Battle of Yorktown outnumbered Americans involved in the battle and won a decisive victory. French aid was absolutely essential. They transformed its prospects completely.

One of the things that’s so fascinating and astonishing about George Washington is that he was an unsuccessful battlefield general. Every time he went into a pitch battle with the British, he lost famously at New York at the Battle of Brooklyn in ’76 and again at Brandywine and Germantown in ‘77. He drew the conclusion that fighting the British regulars, he was going to lose if he adopted the style of European style battles.

But once he’d got lots of French support, he was able to win the siege of Yorktown. And once French ships were patrolling in the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay so that the British ships couldn’t get in to relieve Yorktown, they were finally able to win a victory. But Yorktown is Washington’s only unequivocal battlefield victory and it’s done with a great deal of French help. The French were then delighted to discover that they’d finally pitched up on the winning side in these colonial wars.

But isn’t it interesting that British defeat didn’t lead to an end to the British empire? Quite the opposite. The British Empire continued to grow. And even with the 20-years war against Napoleon, Britain came out on top.

Larry Bernstein:

The reason for that is the Industrial Revolution kickstarts in England. It becomes incredibly wealthy place in industrial might, ideas and technology. And it brings that technology to the world. And maybe one of the lessons you were mentioning that it took from the American experience was it would have to govern with a felt glove and that it would have to engage with local communities and have them feel like they’re running the show and they needed to be a benign empire.

Patrick Allitt:

Well, certainly a benign empire when it came to governing settler colonies: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. But her hand, they still ruled with a rod of iron when it came to things like the Chinese opium wars or British governance in India where they were a tiny minority and where there weren’t many settlers. The East India Company for the first 150 years of its existence was just a trading company with a handful of trading stations on the Indian coast. But starting in the 1750s, the army of the East India company got involved in politics. And particularly in 1757, also during the French and Indian Wars, they won the Battle of Plassey, which gave the East India Company effective governance of Bengal, an incredibly wealthy Indian province. And the British plundering of Bengal went forward from that point onwards. And then between then and the end of the century, Britain was extending its grip on India and enriching itself enormously.

But as you say, it’s mainly officers of the British East India Company and sometimes a handful of enlisted men and sergeants with large numbers of Indians from one Indian state with British officers fighting against Indian armies from other Indian states because the concept of Indian unity hadn’t yet developed. If ever there was a beautiful illustration of the concept of divide and conquer, the British and India has to be it.

The British general who lost the battle of Yorktown, General Cornwallis, was not disgraced by that defeat. The British government recognized that he’d been put in an impossible position and that all he could reasonably do was surrender. But when he got back to Britain, he was completely rehabilitated. And then he went off to become the Governor General of India where he won a series of victories against Indian princes and contributed in a big measure to extending British power in India.

Larry Bernstein:

What’s interesting is the role of parliament and their willingness to investigate and evaluate mistakes. And this is such an important part of business and life is you don’t win every battle. What can we do better next time? Throughout the Revolutionary War, the generals are brought back to Parliament to explain their behavior. Howe was brought back to discuss the Battle of Brooklyn, and he argued that hat he didn’t have enough guys. It was a bad risk/reward to pursue. He gave his excuses. He wasn’t rewarded with additional responsibilities, but Cornwallis was.

A different example, Captain Bligh was called in front of Parliament to explain why there was a Mutiny on the Bounty. He explained that Fletcher fell in love with a girl in Tahiti, and it’s not his fault. But that said, he was no longer given additional responsibility. And then the British sent a man of war to the Pitcairn Islands to go find Fletcher. I got to give credit to Parliament to do its full investigative work and come to conclusions on a rational basis.

Patrick Allitt:

There were some very gifted people in Parliament in the late 18th century and obviously they’re wonderful to read about. One of them is Edmund Burke, who was himself a critic of British policy towards America. And now he’s regarded as one of the great founding fathers of Anglo-American conservatism. And one of the arguments he made was, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. He admitted that Britain was far from being a perfect democracy. But on the other hand, he said, look at the way in which it’s grown up organically. It’s clearly effective, does learn from its mistakes, does find ways to reward exceptionally talented people rising up from the lower classes. Let’s not substitute universal democracy, for which there’s no indigenous tradition. Let’s be cautious in the way in which we do it. The history of the development of British institutions is one of a long, gradual, organic development as opposed to the sharp break that the Americans made where they did one white man, one vote democracy.

Even though the American revolutionaries used harsh measures, what they never did was undertake mass exterminations. And if you look at France, Russia and China, in every case, millions had to die for the revolution to take place. And it’s a huge tribute to the American revolutionaries that they did so relatively bloodlessly.

Larry Bernstein:

You mentioned that one of the aspects of Britain was the ability of very talented young men to rise up and be successful. Alexander Hamilton is the quintessential example of that. Tell us about the role of Hamilton as an orphan from the Leeward Islands being a member of leadership from a very young age.

Patrick Allitt:

As a teenager, he was recognized as being very intellectually precocious. A group of businessmen on the islands sent him to Columbia University. While he was doing his studies, the Revolutionary War broke out and he left college and volunteered for the army where as a 19 year old, his organizational ability drew the favorable attention of George Washington who made him one of his aides.

At Valley Forge in the winter of 1777, Hamilton had become the voice of Washington. When Washington said, “Okay, we’ve got to get more supplies out of the Continental Congress.” Hamilton would draft the letter and Washington would read it and say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I think. “

Then he played a very prominent role in the politics of New York State. He married extremely well. His wife brought him social cache, which his birth denied him. And then, when it came time to evaluate the failure of the Articles of Confederation, he and Madison were probably the two leading voices in the Annapolis Convention and then the next year, the Philadelphia Convention, persuading George Washington to reside over it and give it his prestige, persuading Benjamin Franklin and various other luminaries to get themselves elected as delegates to it.

He was only in his early 30s, his brilliant work as the first Secretary of the Treasury and his writing of three very influential reports. The tragedy of Hamilton is that he’d got this extraordinary prickly pride which made him willing to challenge other men to duels. And it cost him his life. And his own son had been killed in a duel a year previously. The folly of the duel stands in utterly bizarre contrast to the incredible, good sense he showed in almost every other realm of his life and conduct.

Larry Bernstein:

Hamilton the musical was sold out and I had to buy tickets on StubHub at an egregious price. I got the last row. And behind me was the standing room only. The curtain goes up. And as the characters begin to sing, so does the woman behind me in standing room only. Wait, you’re not in the show. I want to listen to them, not to you. But what I think is incredible is that this musical made such an impression that many people memorized the words and it educated an entire generation.

Patrick Allitt:

Miranda is an absolute genius. The show is brilliant. It’s comparable in its impact to Gone with the Wind. It’s surprising that Miranda chose Hamilton. The genius of the show is to make Hamilton seem like a man of action when in fact he was an astonishing administrator. Has there ever been a great movie about a bureaucrat? He found a way to put together a sequence of events which emphasize Hamilton as the man of action, the romantic hero.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to move back to military and war plans and the Revolutionary War. Washington reminds me of the Viet Cong. You have a lot of territory and the British’s prime advantage is naval. The United States is a big place and the local people are supportive of the Patriots. Tell us about the fact that Washington could blend into the forest. The Brits were unwilling to do a surge and the limitations of naval power against a continent.

Patrick Allitt:

Your analogy with Vietnam is a good one. One of the American historians who was studying the revolution in the 1970s when the Vietnam War was going on was a John Shy who wrote a terrific book called A People Numerous and Armed in which he makes this exact comparison. He says, think about Washington by analogy with Ho Chi Minh, at the time, an astonishing claim to make. Just as the Americans had to ship their stuff halfway around the world and didn’t have a good enough local base of support. The British had to ship their stuff across the Atlantic. It took months. Shy does some very ingenious comparisons and then exactly shows Washington realized that the most important thing was simply to keep the revolution going.

It isn’t so much that his army blended into the woods as that he kept them together in places where it was going to be difficult for the British to force them into a pitched battle. That’s why Valley Forge plays an outsized role in the American iconography of the revolution. Normally, no one ever remembers the winter quarters of an army, but Valley Forge is vital because he was able to keep the army together.

The most important element of the French alliance was naval power. Think just about the proximity of France to Britain. As soon as France declared war, the British promptly withdrew most of their fleet into home waters. And there was a terrific invasion scare in 1779 where Britain was convinced that the French were going to invade them. Once France was in the war America becomes a secondary consideration, which can’t even rival concern over the Caribbean because of the lucrative character of the sugar islands.

It’s a naval war, which the Americans win by proxy with French help. One of the sources of tension between France and America after that was that the Americans negotiated their own treaty in 1783. Franklin, Adams and Jay weren’t willing to wait for French input into the treaty. Their view was we’ve got to get the British government to concede American independence, which the French might have dragged their feet. The American negotiators achieved independence. It’s a wonderful example of the lack of gratitude in politics.

Larry Bernstein:

The French wanted to make sure that the Americans had a chance to win before they made a world war. But King Louis XVI didn’t like the idea of ending the relationship a king. I’m a monarch. Why do I want to encourage republics? There is that delicate balance between republics make sense there but not here.

Patrick Allitt:

That’s right. The history of foreign policy is that you make ugly relationships for practical reasons. The irony of all this is that the French went into such debt in fighting the American war that it is one of the precipitating factors of the French Revolution, which came along in 1789. The French monarchy was bankrupt which made it weaker and vulnerable to a popular uprising.

Larry Bernstein:

Tell us about the French Revolution in the context of the American Revolution.

Patrick Allitt:

The French intellectuals of the enlightenment, people like Diderot and Voltaire had been talking about the rights of man and the universal equality of humanity. What they wanted was to achieve within France the same kind of society as they had witnessed being born on the other side of the Atlantic. But the social structure of France and its different traditions and lack of human equality made it difficult to bring that about in a humane way, which caused the French Revolution to veer off.

The Estates-General in August of ‘89 made a universal declaration of human rights. When you read it side by side with the American Constitution and the Declaration, they’re all drawing from the same intellectual inspiration.

Larry Bernstein:

Global wars are expensive. They got to raise taxes. That’s the spark.

Patrick Allitt:

The history of revolutions in the world since the 18th century, we have to be struck by how reasonable they make the anti-revolutionary intellectuals seem. Revolutions generate bloodshed on a horrifying scale. They involve the obliteration of human rights even when they’re taking place with claims that they’re the fulfillment of human rights.

People are instinctively and naturally conservative in most of what they do, and they don’t cope with drastic novelties launched upon them in the name of an ideology.

With the American Revolution leaving aside the slave areas, certainly in New England and the middle colonies, there was a fairly high degree of ordinary citizens participation in politics. There was a reasonable degree of widespread property owning. There wasn’t a massive difference between the richest and the poorest so that they were able to institutionalize what they’d already achieved in practice.

Larry Bernstein:

You keep referring to this as an American revolution. I don’t think it is. The people who were running the country before the war are the same people running the country after the war.

Patrick Allitt:

As a kid in English schools, we didn’t call it the American Revolution. We called it the loss of the American colonies. But it did carry with it the idea that places which had been self-governing under British supervision now became self-governing without British supervision. Implicitly we were minimizing the revolutionary character of it. The new elite were all property owners’ intent upon the protection of their property, and fighting to uphold the laws which maintained their property. So that is what makes it a very conservative revolution.

Larry Bernstein:

What is the importance of dates and geography as it relates to learning about the American Revolution?

Patrick Allitt:

They’re absolutely vital. The geography because people were so much less mobile then than they are now so that the distance between even New York and Philadelphia was a matter of a couple of days. The distance between Charleston and Boston was a matter of weeks. If a British general sends a letter about the Battle of Lexington and Concord, which took place in April of 1775, it takes two months to get to England. Then the ministers have to respond to it and it takes another two for the reply to get back and by that time, the entire situation has changed so that the slowness of transatlantic communications made it very difficult for the British to keep up with what was happening on the ground in America. That’s a geographical constraint.

The most important chronological constraint is the fighting started in April 1775. The declaration didn’t come until July of 1776. For 15 months, British and American soldiers were fighting each other and they both claimed they were doing it in the name of the English king. The study of that 15-month period is vital because that’s the period during which more American rebels came to say, “We’re no longer the subjects of the King of England. We’re repudiating his leadership and we’re declaring our independence and it’s right for us to do that.” You can’t grasp that without paying attention to exactly when it took place.

Larry Bernstein:

What are you optimistic about as it relates to celebrating the 250^th anniversary of the American Revolution?

Patrick Allitt:

With the exception of the war of 1812, the British and the Americans have been on very good terms with each other. Normally when one empire rises and another declines, as happened to the Americans and the British in the 20th century, they fight each other. But that didn’t happen in the case of the British and the Americans. Our institutions that we share: the rule of law, our principles of moderation and the Anglo-American tradition, which includes the American Revolution as one of its central parts, is a force for good in the world.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Patrick for joining us.

This is the second podcast in a series on the American revolution. If you missed our previous podcast, it was Why George Washington was the Unanimous Choice for President.

Our speaker was H.W. Brands who is a Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of the biography American Patriarch: The Life of George Washington.

Hal explained why Washington was appointed commander in chief of the revolutionary forces, the head of the constitutional congress, and our first president.

Hal praised Washington’s leadership style and why it was appropriate for his times. We also detailed what happened in the Room Where it Happened.

Previous episodes and transcripts are available on our website as well as at Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Why George Washington was the Unanimous Choice, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

117KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

H.W. Brands

Subject: Why George Washington was the Unanimous Choice
Bio: Professor of History at University of Texas at Austin and Author of American Patriarch: The Life of George Washington

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and culture. This episode is Why George Washington was the Unanimous Choice.

Our speaker is H.W. Brands who is a Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of the biography American Patriarch: The Life of George Washington.

I want to learn from Hal about why Washington was chosen to be commander in chief of the revolutionary forces, the head of the constitutional congress, and our first president.

I want to hear about Washington’s leadership style and why it was appropriate for his times. I also want to learn about what happened in the Room Where it Happened.

Hal, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

H.W. Brands:

I decided to write about Washington in the context of the 250th anniversary of American independence. I’m a biographer, and biographers are supposed to be able to explain their subjects. I never could figure Washington out, but I decided it was time to take a shot at it. He was Commanding General of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States. His reputation hovered over the entire founding period, from 1775 until his death in 1799. He was eulogized by Henry Lee as first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, and his fame has remained remarkably steady since, unlike Andrew Jackson or Ulysses Grant, who each had long stretches of being seen as disasters. The secret to his success was the simplest and most enduring thing -- the ability to make good decisions. Presidents can be great speakers or charismatic, but if they make lousy decisions, they become lousy presidents.

The harder question is why he got it right so often. He thought carefully and calmly, and never rushed to judgment, the farthest thing from impulsive. But the real key, and this is almost unique among presidents, is that he was able to separate his personal interest from the interest of the country. Most people who rise to the level of considering the presidency conflate the two. They think the country needs them, and that if the country doesn’t elect them, the country is doomed. Washington could tell the difference, partly because of the man he was, and partly because of the moment in history he occupied.

That points to something that also undercuts the tidy version of the story. Washington made good decisions because he was a very good fit for his particular moment, and he’d be a terrible fit for the presidency today. In the first place, he didn’t need the job. By the time Grant or Eisenhower became president, the office was already a really big deal. Eisenhower was succeeding Franklin Roosevelt, the most important figure of the century. For Washington, the presidency wasn’t a big prize at all. Nobody knew what it was going to become. The men who’d held the office before him, as President of the Continental Congress, were inconsequential, both because of the weak structure of the Articles of Confederation and because nobody knew if the new republic would last. It really wasn’t until the 20th century that the presidency became the center of gravity of the American system, the 19th century belonged to Congress.

Washington was the first president, and the last one who didn’t have to compete for the job, everyone after him, starting with Adams and Jefferson had to. Washington already had his reputation; he assumed his fame would rest on having been the victorious General of the Revolution. Whatever came after that was secondary. The presidency was a victory lap, not the prize he’d been aiming for. For everyone who came after him, the presidency would be the first line of their obituary. For Washington, it wasn’t that big a deal.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to start with Washington as a young man, something that struck me in the book was how young he was at every stage. He takes on huge responsibility in the French and Indian War at age 23. And the scale of the battles were only two hundred British and French troops with 500 Indians on each side, it’s less a serious battlefield than a skirmish, a bunch of kids playing in the woods.

H.W. Brands:

It’s a little bit like that. Remember, this was a frontier community. Even Virginia had no real cities, and the frontier was contested land just a day and a half’s ride from Mount Vernon. Frontier communities create opportunity because the layers of institutions and expectations haven’t congealed yet, it’s why Benjamin Franklin was able to rise so far in the British Empire at the same time Washington was exploring the wilds of what became Ohio and Western Pennsylvania.

Washington accidentally stumbled into the conflict that made his name and made him enemy number one to the French, who believed he’d assassinated an envoy under a flag of truce. After the first skirmish, he wrote to his brother that he’d heard the bullets whistle and there was something charming in the sound, which tells you a lot about his temperament. He’d already been a frontiersman before he was a soldier, going on a surveying trip at 17 and loving the hardship of it. He was born into the Virginia gentry, but as a younger son in a mid-level family, comfortable, but not at the top, so he had to worry about where his reputation was coming from. His life’s goal was to win the respect of his contemporaries, not money. In Virginia, unlike Philadelphia or Boston, money wasn’t really the arbiter of reputation. These were planters, managers of large enterprises at a time when a big American business might have fifteen employees.

Washington had hundreds of people who took orders from him, which built an executive habit early. He also turned out to be a genuinely good soldier who liked being under fire, which most people don’t. He had an air of command, and it helped that he was a big, impressive-looking man and the best horseman of his generation, the equivalent of being a star quarterback, and a more practical skill, since everyone had to ride. He impressed people partly by how he looked, but he cared that people respect him for the right reasons, and he spent much of his life trying to earn that.

Larry Bernstein:

He tried to earn respect from the Fairfax family. Who were they, and why did it matter that Washington endeared himself to them?

H.W. Brands:

Lord Fairfax had received a huge land grant from the Crown, that’s how you got large land holdings back then. Lord Fairfax was not a senior member of England’s aristocracy, but they were a big deal in Virginia, a big fish in a small pond. Washington’s father died when he was eleven, so he didn’t have a father figure beyond his older brothers. He was in the gentry, but at a level where he could use a boost, and when Lord Fairfax put in a good word for him with the Virginia governor, that’s how Washington got his start, first as an envoy to the French in the Ohio country, then as commander of the small force whose skirmish started the French and Indian War.

Larry Bernstein:

You mentioned his father died young and his older brothers were educated in England.

H.W. Brands:

That was fairly common, but once his father died, the money for that wasn’t available, and his guardians weren’t inclined to provide it. Washington had surprisingly little formal education. Biographers have been frustrated trying to pin down exactly what he knew. He was tutored in mathematics and geometry for surveying, and he was clearly a wide reader who knew more than his formal schooling would explain.

There’s an apt comparison to other self-educated people of the era, Franklin, and later Lincoln. Formally educated people learn what they don’t have to know, because they know what won’t be on the test. People without that formal education don’t know what they don’t need to know, so Franklin, thinking he had to know everything, learned everything. Washington wasn’t that polymathic; he focused on what interested him. Nobody knew more about scientific farming than George Washington, he considered himself a farmer when he wasn’t a soldier, always trying some new crop or technique at Mount Vernon. And when he became a soldier, there was no West Point, so he taught himself from books and experience.

Larry Bernstein:

You describe him getting a position in the Virginia legislature and being unable to get a sentence out, which is remarkable, compared to Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison, who could make an argument. He preferred being a general, where he could make decisions rather than speeches.

H.W. Brands:

Less unusual in those days than you’d think. In the Virginia Washington was born into, being a man of weight in the community mattered more for a seat in the House of Burgesses than being able to give a speech. He was expected to serve simply because he was a wealthy landowner, especially after marrying Martha Custis, though he never owned her land; he simply managed it, and it would pass to her children, not his. Unlike Massachusetts, a Burgesses seat in Virginia wasn’t a stepping stone to anything, you weren’t going to become governor, since that was a royal appointment. Washington had no political ambitions there. It was only with independence that Washington rose to the very top of his field, as commander of the Continental Army, with nothing higher to aspire to.

There’s a wonderful example of Washington’s other strength -- recognizing that in a room full of talkers, silence can be your friend. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was immediately elected president of the convention, and interpreted that role, on the model of the British House of Commons speaker, as simply presiding, never joining the debates. You’d think that would diminish his influence. It did the opposite. While Madison, Hamilton and everyone else argued and neutralized each other, Washington sat in silence at the front, and everyone wondered what General Washington thought. Because he never said, many assumed he knew more than they did, like a Supreme Court justice reserving judgment while the lawyers argue. That silence effectively won him the presidency. When the convention debated the powers of the office, delegates could project onto Washington whatever they wanted the presidency to be. If he’d spoken up about term lengths or specific powers, he’d have won some support and lost other people’s confidence. His silence was strategically an advantage.

Larry Bernstein:

Someone putting together a team needs to be a good judge of talent, and Alexander Hamilton was a prodigy.

H.W. Brands:

A wunderkind, a precocious child. Hamilton had been Washington’s aide during the war, so Washington knew him well personally and unlike Jefferson or Adams, whom he knew mostly by reputation. Adams is a special case. As vice president, he wasn’t a member of the cabinet or considered part of the administration at all. He was President of the Senate, and that was essentially his only real job.

Washington’s cabinet consisted of four people, Secretary of State, Treasury, War, and the Attorney General, and he’d solicit their opinions, sometimes in writing, without betraying his own position. It became clear quickly that Hamilton and Jefferson were on opposite sides of nearly everything, dividing over how powerful the new government should be. Hamilton wanted as much power as possible; Jefferson wanted to keep it as small as necessary. Washington wasn’t dismayed that they disagreed, what dismayed him was that even after a decision was made, they’d carry the dispute into public, lining up allies. But this was probably inevitable. Any system where people can express opinions and vote on them is going to produce factions, since most votes come down to yes or no.

What made Washington different was that, by the time he became president, he knew this was his last office. He wasn’t angling for anything else, unlike Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison, who all had further ambitions. That let him rise above the fray in a way that wasn’t available to the others.

By 1791, Madison, who in Federalist 10 had argued factions were dangerous and that the new Constitution would neutralize them, was already conceding in Congress that factions weren’t going away and had to be managed instead. Hamilton was leading the Federalists, Jefferson the Republicans. Washington disdained to be associated with either, even though on ninety percent of issues he came down with Hamilton. When Congress passed Hamilton’s bill for a national bank, Washington had Madison write him the best argument for signing it and the best argument for vetoing it, and Madison came away with no idea which way Washington would go. He signed it.

Washington had a soft spot for Hamilton, who drove everyone else crazy with his ambition and sharp elbows. The reason Hamilton was never seriously considered for president wasn’t the duel, and it wasn’t that he was born in the West Indies, Washington wasn’t born in “the United States” either, since it didn’t exist yet. It’s that nobody liked him enough to nominate him, even though everyone respected his gifts.

Larry Bernstein:

The musical Hamilton has a number called “The Room Where It Happens,” about the negotiation over whether the federal government should assume state debts. Washington wasn’t in that room.

H.W. Brands:

He wasn’t, because he didn’t see himself as a horse-trader, and he didn’t interfere with Congress’s business, that preserved deniability if the deal fell apart. The two stuck issues were whether the federal government should assume the states’ Revolutionary War debts, and where the national capital would be. Hamilton wanted assumption because it would make the country’s creditors answerable to the national government rather than the states, but that outraged states that had already paid off their own debts through taxation. Meanwhile New York merchants backed Hamilton’s assumption plan, and Southerners, mostly farmers who’d end up paying for it, wanted the capital in exchange. Madison brought Jefferson, representing the South, and Hamilton, representing the Northern merchants, together for a dinner, without Washington, who may not even have known it was happening. Nobody kept notes, which is exactly why there’s room for Lin-Manuel Miranda to write about it. But the outcome was clear -- the South got the capital, the North got assumption, and each side delivered its votes.

Larry Bernstein:

What’s beautiful about that story is that it’s compromise, each side loses something, each side wins something, and it happened entirely within the legislative branch. Washington’s role was secondary.

H.W. Brands:

All the great 19th-century compromises: Missouri, the nullification crisis, 1850, were congressional affairs; the president often didn’t even say where he stood. In his first inaugural, Washington said outright he wasn’t going to send Congress a list of bills to pass, that was their job. By the 20th century, Congress waits for the president to set the agenda. We’ve got it backwards from where we started.

Larry Bernstein:

You keep calling it the American Revolution. Was it really one? The colonists seem to have loved the British system in theory, parliament, the king, and only resented not having seats in Parliament. It looks more like a dispute than a revolution on the scale of France or Russia.

H.W. Brands:

There’s real truth to that. The Americans made their case on the basis of their rights as Englishmen going back to Magna Carta, the British still call it the War of American Independence rather than a revolution. If you look at who ruled America before and after, it’s mostly the same people minus the very top stratum of royal appointees: Washington was a leader in Virginia before the war and after it; Adams became the second president. Nothing like the wholesale overturning you see in real revolutions, except that in making the case for independence, Jefferson summoned into being ideas, like “all men are created equal,” that went well beyond the practical question of separation, and that we’ve been arguing about ever since.

It helped that Americans had effectively been governing themselves for a century, since the Crown and Parliament mostly ignored them, until the 1760s, when Britain decided it needed to monetize the colonies better. Once people started getting hurt, tarred and feathered, shot in the Boston Massacre, tensions and emotions took over, and Jefferson’s language about equality entered the picture.

Not every American backed independence, which is why there was a real fight for hearts and minds. But there’s one more reason the American Revolution wasn’t like the others: the losers had somewhere to go. About 100,000 loyalists left for Canada, the West Indies, England, or West Africa, so the winners never had to figure out what to do with them.

In France, the emigres who didn’t escape lost their heads. As revolutions go, ours was tame, and it created a replica of the English model, unlike the wholesale reinvention of Russia.

Larry Bernstein:

After the Boston Massacre, John Adams defended the British soldiers who’d fired on civilians and won an acquittal on the more serious charges, without paying much of a political price. How do we square that with Adams seeing himself as a revolutionary?

H.W. Brands:

Adams was self-righteous, but he was often right, which is its own kind of insufferable. We know a great deal about him because Abigail saved his letters and he kept a diary. He argued that everyone deserved a fair trial and legal representation under English common law, and that willingness to see justice done actually showed the strength of the American position. That’s part of why the American Revolution never turned as ideological or violent as the French one, the English mode of thinking was pragmatic rather than theoretical, there was no entrenched, generations-old aristocracy to topple, and the questions around religion and the church had already been fought out in England’s own civil wars. It was also simply a much smaller world of people involved than London or Paris.

The most bitter fighting during the war, in fact, was between Americans and Americans, loyalists against patriots, not Americans against British troops. But it was a small enough elite that even bitter opponents often knew each other personally, which took some of the edge off compared to a true civil war.

Larry Bernstein:

There’s a song in the musical 1776, “Sit Down, John,” about how opinionated and insufferable Adams could be to the whole room. It’s interesting that the same qualities that disqualify Hamilton from the presidency in people’s minds, the sharp elbows, being a little full of himself, don’t seem to disqualify Adams.

H.W. Brands:

Hamilton always came across as a climber, when he talked to you, you felt he wanted something from you. Adams had a different profile: more religious, and he had Abigail to confide in, which Hamilton lacked. Benjamin Rush, who corresponded with everyone in that generation, received a letter from Adams that’s very revealing. Adams wrote that the history of their generation would be told as a “tie of lies,” and that the story would be that Dr. Franklin struck the ground with his lightning rod and up jumped General Washington, and between the two of them they conducted all the great affairs of war and peace, leaving unsaid that nobody would give Adams the credit he deserved. He knew he wasn’t Washington and knew he wasn’t Jefferson; he didn’t have their charisma. He won the presidency on Washington’s coattails, beat Jefferson narrowly, then lost the rematch in 1800.

Larry Bernstein:

Another example: in the Paris negotiations, Adams was the diligent one, up at dawn, while Franklin was out carousing late into the night, and yet Franklin was the one who actually got the diplomatic results.

H.W. Brands:

Exactly right. Adams had that Puritan streak and resented Franklin’s late nights, but couldn’t quite acknowledge that Franklin was doing serious diplomatic business at three in the morning in those same salons, that’s how you actually reached the people who made decisions. Adams thought he was the one doing all the work. Maybe he was doing all the detail work, but Franklin was the rainmaker.

Larry Bernstein:

You’ve spent your career writing biographies of major American leaders, and telling the story of the United States through them. Why biography, as opposed to straight history?

H.W. Brands:

I grew up in Portland, and every kid in Oregon learns about Lewis and Clark, so I was attuned early to things that happened before my own generation. I became a historian, but I chose to write biographies because people will buy biographies who won’t buy history books, history sounds like names and dates, but biography is the nonfiction genre closest to the novel, and people like novels about individuals.

I had in mind a series of biographies that would add up to a history of the United States, though I didn’t tell my publisher that at the time. Benjamin Franklin covers the 18th century; Andrew Jackson picks up the story of emerging democracy; Ulysses Grant carries it through the Civil War and Reconstruction; the two Roosevelts get us to the mid-20th century; Reagan is the last one. I hadn’t written about Washington because I thought Franklin was the more interesting, many-faceted story.

Eventually I moved to writing smaller ensemble books, Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, and Henry Clay; Truman and MacArthur; and, most recently, Franklin Roosevelt against Charles Lindbergh over whether America should enter World War II. The isolationist side gets short shrift from history because they lost, but they weren’t dupes or fools, they had a real case to make, and I wanted to recapture a time when the outcome wasn’t foreordained. That’s what I think history and biography are for: making the past understandable to the present, and giving readers the chance to put themselves in the shoes of people who didn’t yet know how things would turn out.

Before Pearl Harbor, it was entirely possible America would stay out of the war, and Charles Lindbergh led that argument. The fact that the Trump campaign adopted “America First,” the old slogan of that movement, was a sign that the debate was no longer so old.

Larry Bernstein:

You don’t mention the Washington myths in the book, the cherry tree, and so on. Why skip debunking them?

H.W. Brands:

Even my students, much younger than the book’s typical reader, have mostly heard about the cherry tree, it’s ancient history to them, but they know it. I could have added a paragraph, but I think most readers are already better informed about these myths than I’d be giving them credit for; setting up that straw man just to knock it down felt unnecessary. The real vogue for a heroic, mythologized Washington comes after the Civil War, when a divided North and South go looking for something they still have in common, and land on the Revolution, and on Washington, a Southerner who became president of the whole country. That’s when you get the multi-volume hagiographies. The early Parson Weems stuff, the cherry tree included, was always understood as material for children; no serious adult took it as history.

Larry Bernstein:

One thing we now reflect on is Washington’s decision not to seek a third term, that idea that an executive should serve his time and go home, the way Truman went back to Independence, Missouri. You quote King George III, who was reportedly astonished that Washington resigned his commission and went home after the war, supposedly calling him the greatest man in the world for it.

H.W. Brands:

He did say that, “if this report is true, Washington is the greatest man in the world.” But I’d point to a quote I like better: John Adams wrote to Abigail after his own inauguration that he looked over at Washington and thought he saw a twinkle in his eye, nobody else ever saw Washington’s eyes twinkle, and imagined Washington thinking, “I am fairly out, and you are fairly in; let us see which of us will be happier.” That gets at the real truth. Washington never wanted to be president in the first place; he had to be talked into a second term by Hamilton and Jefferson after intending to leave following the first. By his second term, he was so disgusted with the direction of politics that he couldn’t wait to get out. This wasn’t selfless restraint; it was someone who couldn’t leave fast enough.

Even the King George anecdote reflects a misunderstanding: George III was judging Washington by an English context, where a general who didn’t seize power after a civil war was remarkable. But there was no real government for Washington to seize. The Articles of Confederation had no taxing power and no authority over the states, if Washington had marched on Philadelphia to take over the Confederation Congress, he’d have found nothing there, the way a NATO commander who marched on Brussels today would find nothing worth taking. If Washington had actually wanted power, he’d have been better off marching on Virginia, which at least had something to seize. It just wasn’t a live possibility in the 1780s the way marching on Washington would have been by the Civil War.

Larry Bernstein:

There’s an old and recurring argument about how much authority the federal government has to send in force against domestic unrest, it came up again recently with the dispute over the National Guard in Minnesota. Washington faced his own version with the Whiskey Rebellion.

H.W. Brands:

He put his old uniform back on, got on his horse, and led militia from several states toward Western Pennsylvania, though he never really intended to fight and never got close to the front. His presence, and the fact that militia were already on the way, was meant to intimidate the rebels into standing down, and it worked. They sent negotiators; Washington made clear the government would fight if it had to, and the rebels melted back into the countryside.

Andrew Jackson later made a similar threat during the nullification crisis, though he arranged a tariff compromise before it came to that. Grant might have done something similar during Reconstruction, sending troops against the Klan in South Carolina.

The earlier parallel that got Washington behind rewriting the Constitution in the first place was Shays’ Rebellion, in western Massachusetts in 1786. Washington became convinced these uprisings could be the end of the republic, since state governments and their militias, often riddled with sympathizers, couldn’t be counted on to put them down, and only a stronger federal government could reliably intimidate a local uprising. Once that principle was established, though, it mostly didn’t have to be exercised again until secession, and that one had to be settled by war.

Larry Bernstein:

We saw versions of that same tension in Reconstruction, when Grant sent troops to protect Black voters in the Carolinas, only for the Hayes administration to curtail federal power over internal state affairs almost immediately after. How should we think about that recurring argument between state and federal authority?

H.W. Brands:

It’s been going on for 250 years, so it’s probably not going away. States preexisted the national government, Madison actually wanted to wipe the slate clean and eliminate the states as sovereign entities entirely, but that didn’t fly, so the Constitution was built with that tension baked in. There’s no intrinsic answer to how much power belongs to the states versus the federal government; people will argue whichever side benefits their politics at the moment. It’s really the fundamental question of politics. How do individual people live together in community? Every political system has to work that out, and every country does it differently at different times. We’ll be arguing about it forever.

Larry Bernstein:

What are you optimistic about, for America at 250?

H.W. Brands:

We’ve made it this far, and there’s every reason to think we’ll keep making it. Every generation has thought the country was falling apart, and it never has, except for one enormous hiccup during the Civil War, which we got past. I tell my students of my year-long American history course: you’re now part of this 250-year experiment in self-government. Don’t screw it up.

Larry Bernstein:

Last question, do you teach that year-long course through biography, or more standard readings?

H.W. Brands:

Not through biography exactly, but I do hang moments in history on individuals, because people are interested in people. When I teach the Revolutionary War, I introduce students to Temple Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, who had to choose between his rebel grandfather, sailing to Paris to negotiate the alliance with France, and his loyalist father, William Franklin, then under indictment in New Jersey. Temple was about my students’ age, and I ask them: what would you have done? Because everyone has to make decisions on incomplete information, without knowing how things will turn out, and Temple Franklin had no way of knowing the rebels would win.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Hal for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was about Rocky’s 50^th anniversary.

Our speakers were the What Happens Next Culture Critic Darren Schwartz and a special guest Scott Holstein my friend since kindergarten.

Rocky won best picture in 1976 and now is the time to rewatch it. This franchise is a Stallone production: He wrote it, directed several of the films, and acted in it. We talked about why Sly is the real hero who made these films successful.

Previous episodes and transcripts are available on our website as well as at Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Rocky at 50, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

159KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Darren Schwartz and Scott Holstein

Subject: Rocky at 50

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and culture. This episode is Rocky at 50.

The original Rocky film was released 50 years ago, and today we are going to review the entire Rocky series. Our discussion will be led by the What Happens Next Culture Critic Darren Schwartz with us is a special guest Scott Holstein who is one of my oldest friends.

My objective of this podcast is to discuss why Rocky won best picture and why you need to rewatch it. This series is a Stallone production: He wrote it, directed several of the films, and acted in it. He is the real hero that made this franchise successful, and my plan is to talk about how he did it.

Let’s get started.

Scott, tell our audience about how we met.

Scott Holstein:

First day of kindergarten. I am five-year-old, and I find two kids rolling on the ground fighting, wrestling. One is Larry and the other is Jeff Bloom.

Larry Bernstein:

I am not violent, so Jeff must have started this.

Scott Holstein:

Absolutely, Larry looks up from underneath Jeff and says, “Hey, new kid. Help me.”

Larry Bernstein:

Did you help me?

Scott Holstein:

Not a chance. I wasn’t going to take on Jeff Bloom.

Larry Bernstein:

Come on, if there’s two of us, we got a shot.

Scott Holstein:

He was a future football star. It was a great meeting. And we are still friends.

Larry Bernstein:

Darren, start us off.

Darren Schwartz:

Well, the project was the 50th anniversary of Rocky and we watched Rocky 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and Rocky Balboa.

Larry Bernstein:

Rocky Balboa is effectively Rocky 6.

Darren Schwartz:

And then we watched two documentaries on Sylvester Stallone.

Larry Bernstein:

The first documentary was called Sly and the other was the 40 Years of Rocky: The Birth of a Classic that was made 10 years ago. Did you love Rocky 1?

Darren Schwartz:

I was inspired. It reminded me of when I saw it in the theater with my father in 1976, great memories. It’s a movie about a down on his luck boxer who is a local thug, gets a chance to fight in the championship, but ultimately, it’s a story about a guy looking for respect and love. It was great to connect with it again.

Larry Bernstein:

I have not seen Rocky in 50 years. I was awestruck at how good it was. It felt fresh. The dialogue was much better than I expected. Stallone was superb. I had grossly underestimated his ability as an actor. It was excellent. Scott?

Scott Holstein:

His love for Adrian was raw. Fantastic. I saw it at the Edens Theater on Skokie Boulevard.

Larry Bernstein:

Me too.

Scott Holstein:

Which no longer exists. The movie for me was inspirational, absolutely.

Larry Bernstein:

Darren, the music plays an enormous role in all the Rocky films. What do you think of the Rocky Theme song?

Darren Schwartz:

It is central. Bill Conti was nominated for the Academy Award.

Larry Bernstein:

Nominated but did not win, lost to Evergreen which was the theme from A Star is Born.

Darren Schwartz:

I remember listening to it on the radio driving on Cranbrook Road. I have a vision when I was nine years old and it stays with you.

The melody builds to a crescendo. I think of him making it up the stairs and jumping at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Larry Bernstein:

The music is core to the entire series. In the original Rocky, it’s slow going. 1970s cinema is not like current films in terms of its pacing of dialogue or action. Kids will think it is ridiculously slow. But then when the Rocky theme starts, there is a spark.

Rocky is jogging and then because of his training he can accelerate into a sprint and with that the music changes with his speed. He runs up those stairs and starts jumping. I may have never mentioned this on the show before, but I went to Penn beginning in 1984.

Darren Schwartz:

Did you run the stairs?

Larry Bernstein:

Everyone ran up the stairs and jumped around. Most people run up the stairs but never go into the Art Museum.

Darren Schwartz:

They should charge for that.

Larry Bernstein:

The Rocky statue was installed at the top of the stairs.

The statue was created for Rocky 3 and was donated to the city. There was controversy as it was not considered to be fine art. The statue was moved from the art museum to the Spectrum which is where the Flyers and the Sixers used to play. But by popular demand, the statue was brought back to the art museum in 2005, and this year there was a major exhibit at the art museum called Rising Up: Rocky and the Making of Monuments.

Philadelphia was not safe when I lived there. The year before I arrived Mayor Wilson Goode fire bombed the MOVE Building that accidentally burned down an entire square block.

My dad came to visit me over Columbus Day weekend during my freshman year. My college roommate was out of town, so my dad slept in my dorm room. It was hot, so I left the window open and early in the morning a squirrel came into the room and was running around.

Scott Holstein:

It sounds like Rocky chasing the chicken.

Larry Bernstein:

It’s similar.

Dad said that I needed to get a screen. I found in the Yellow Pages a hardware store 8 blocks away. I called them up and I told them that I would walk over and pick it up.

“Walk. Are you out of your mind?”

“What do you mean?”

“It’s not safe here. The screen costs $16. Come with exact change. I have a half door. Take a cab, tell the driver to wait, run over. I’ll hand you the screen in exchange for the cash, get back in that cab and get out of here.”

Scott Holstein:

What happened to the squirrel?

Larry Bernstein:

Squirrel didn’t come back thanks to the screen.

In the Rocky movies we get a visual tour of Philadelphia. The Italian working-class neighborhood where he lives and trains. We see him running on paths next to the Schuylkill River, and sprint on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway to the art museum steps.

Darren Schwartz:

One of my favorite lines was during the press conference. They ask Rocky, “What do you think about the fight being at the Spectrum?”

“I like it. It’s near my house.”

Larry Bernstein:

That goes to Rocky’s use of language. Most athletes, especially boxers resemble Apollo Creed with their use of hyperbole and antagonism towards their opponent. It’s nasty.

Rocky is understated, self-deprecating, kind, and direct with his language.

Darren Schwartz:

Rocky was a reluctant challenger. At the press conference, he’s a fan of Apollo. He’s sitting next to him. Apollo’s doing his Ali version of, I’m going to destroy this man.

And they ask, “Rocky, what do you think about that?”

He goes, “He seems kind of mad.” He does not have the challenger mentality. He’s happy to be there, the reluctant challenger, and develops that killer instinct once he trains. The inspiration for that is Adrian who gives him the confidence that he can win.

Larry Bernstein:

The fights are only like 20 percent of the movie, most of it is his preparation.

Scott Holstein:

The training begins this transformation from a troubled guy into a fighting machine. And it’s an internal struggle as much as it is a physical struggle.

Larry Bernstein:

Rocky is a series of six films. Darren how did Stallone make the sequels interesting?

Darren Schwartz:

Each Rocky movie follows the hero’s journey, which is a call to action, finding a mentor, training, trials, growth, death, rebirth, revelation, and ultimately success. You see that in every film.

They started each movie with the previous film’s ending fight. I’ve never seen that before. Stallone gets a lot of credit. In Rocky 1, Rocky ends with his fight against Apollo Creed that he loses. Split decision, this judge for Stallone, this judge for Creed. And Adrian comes to him. He’s yelling, “Yo, Adrian! In the background you vaguely hear winner and still champion.” So that’s minimized because what he’s really won is Adrian and self-respect.

That’s the end of the film. Rocky Two, opens with the fight ending and Rocky and Creed going to the hospital.

Larry Bernstein:

In each following Rocky, the film starts with a minute or two from the previous movie.

Darren Schwartz:

An inter-lacing effect where you are in the end of the previous movie to begin the next. It is an example of how Stallone brought a creative force that hasn’t been done in other films.

Larry Bernstein:

What are some of the motifs that Stallone uses in the series? What is the equivalent to the martini shaken not stirred?

Darren Schwartz:

He’s got the hat that he wore in the original film. Which was interesting because he picked it up on set. The director, John Avildsen was like, “You can’t wear that. You look ridiculous.” Because it was done similarly by Popeye Doyle in French Connection.

Stallone said “I’m doing it. “ So that stayed in.

Larry Bernstein:

In Rocky 5, Paulie gave Rocky’s power of attorney to his accountant who stole all his money. Rocky is bankrupt. They auction off all his stuff and he has to move back to his old neighborhood in South Philadelphia.

Darren Schwartz:

It’s a two bedroom.

Scott Holstein:

And Adrian goes back to the pet shop.

Larry Bernstein:

When Rocky clears out his attic, he finds the old hat and we’ve come full circle. He puts the hat back on and goes back to his old neighborhood.

Darren Schwartz:

The turtles went away for a couple movies, and they came back.

Larry Bernstein:

Adrian worked at the pet shop and sold turtles to Rocky in the original movie.

Darren Schwartz:

A turtle is a disgusting animal. Bad things happen with turtles. One of my two spirit animals, but I don’t want to touch them.

Scott Holstein:

My dad’s former law partner died of getting E. Coli from a turtle. He kept pet turtles in his basement.

Darren Schwartz:

There you go. What’s he thinking?

Scott Holstein:

He’s deceased. He created a cement terrarium in his basement that had ten turtles.

In the summer, he would let them out into his backyard. Our son had a baby turtle, and we ended up giving it to him to take care of.

Darren Schwartz:

Did your son’s turtle kill the guy?

Scott Holstein:

Possibly. I don’t think they ever figured out which particular turtle.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s talk about Rocky’s body as an integral part of his character.

Scott Holstein:

It was used to define where he’s at in his journey. He starts out bulky, 10% body fat in Rocky 1. In Rocky 2, he’s muscular but not cut. In Rocky 3, he hires Arnold Schwarzenegger’s trainer buddy. There is a rivalry between Arnold and Stallone. They argue about who’s got the lowest body fat. Rocky’s got to 2.8% body fat in Rocky 3.

Larry Bernstein:

Some of members our audience may not know what that percentage means, Scott your lean, where do you personally stand?

Scott Holstein:

I appreciate that. I don’t know what my body fat is. When you drop your body fat from 10% to 2.8%, that’s like what a bodybuilder does.

Darren Schwartz:

He said it was too low. He was not eating enough carbs so he couldn’t focus and was dizzy.

Scott Holstein:

His breakfast was raw tuna fish.

Darren Schwartz:

I don’t know if it was the iron or the mercury, but he was losing his mind.

Scott Holstein:

Rocky 3 starts and Rocky is totally cut; you look at him differently. He’s an assassin. He’s a polished sculpted specimen. He’s at his peak physical specimen.

Larry Bernstein:

In the documentary Sly, they interviewed Schwarzenegger and he said that they were hypercompetitive in every aspect of their lives besides the body fat.

Darren, you and I have never had that kind of rivalry.

Darren Schwartz:

No.

Larry Bernstein:

Why don’t we have weigh ins. I know you weigh yourself twice a day.

Scott Holstein:

Twice a day. Is this true?

Darren Schwartz:

Yeah.

Scott Holstein:

I don’t mean to laugh at you, but morning and evening?

Darren Schwartz:

Twice in the morning.

Scott Holstein:

Is it a water issue?

Darren Schwartz:

Before and after.

Scott Holstein:

Well, I think it’s like looking at sales on a monthly basis. You should look at yourself quarterly.

Darren Schwartz:

I disagree with that.

Scott Holstein:

Between Schwarzenegger and Stallone, the movie gross was also a big competition. One guy would do a sequel, and then it would make X, and then the next guy would do another sequel and makes X plus, and they would fight back and forth.

Darren Schwartz:

And body count in terms of how many people died in their movies.

Larry Bernstein:

Stallone’s father was incredibly abusive to him throughout his life. After he achieves fame and fortune from the Rocky series, Stallone organizes his own Polo team, and he invites his father to play, and in the opening minutes of the game, his father knocks him off his horse and badly hurts him.

Scott Holstein:

Worse than that, his dad writes a movie called Sonny.

Darren Schwartz:

A boxing movie.

Scott Holstein:

Essentially the exact same story. He puts himself in as the lead character.

Darren Schwartz:

And he went to some film producer, “What do you think about making this boxing movie?” And the guy’s like, “Your son just made an Oscar winning movie about a boxer. What are you thinking?”

Scott Holstein:

Who the hell does that?

That’s insane.

Darren Schwartz:

Stallone’s personal life was an uphill battle from the beginning. He was pulled out by his head with forceps that caused permanent nerve damage that makes his face to droop and effects his speech that makes him sound like a thug appears like a form of paralysis.

Scott Holstein:

I thought that was put on by the actor to make him appear stupid. But his face is paralyzed.

Darren Schwartz:

His parents, until he was five, dropped him off at different foster homes. They divorced at 11 and he lived with his dad who was abusive and he got kicked out of 13 schools. He was voted most likely to wind up in an electric chair by teachers, that’s serious. But he still retained a relationship with his father. In the polo incident, his father ran him down. Afterward, during the press conference his father said, “That was a great match. I really enjoyed playing my son.” And Stallone’s like... “I don’t know if you saw that, but my dad knocked me off,” and then Stallone never played polo again. But he still retained a relationship and love for his dad.

Larry Bernstein:

Back to Rocky, the original film budget was $1 million and it grossed $225 million. It is an excellent return on capital. That will be like buying Bitcoin in

Scott Holstein:

2011

Larry Bernstein:

And then having the gumption not to sell and take profits.

Stallone wrote the screenplay for Rocky 1 in three days, he was the lead actor, directed many of the Rocky movies in the series. Remember that Barbara Streisand did a similar accomplishment with Yentl. Darren, how to think about the similarities between Stallone and Streisand?

Darren Schwartz:

There’s not many, but Stallone was nominated for an Academy Award for writing solo, not with a partner, an original screenplay and then acting in the movie.

At the time, Stallone can’t get any roles. He says, “I’m going to write my own screenplay” and stars in it and gets nominated for both. It’s an amazing feat. Orson Welles did it, but it was an adapted screenplay. Other people have done it, remember Goodwill Hunting, Damon and Affleck. He was on his own. He wrote that thing in three days. Incredible.

Larry Bernstein:

Darren, I have observed you over a three-day period and get absolutely nothing done.

Darren Schwartz:

He also adjusted it over time as they were shooting. In the original ending Rocky throws the fight. Stallone said, “this needs to be a story that people can champion.” Just like, in the original ending of Rambo, they kill him off, but he said, “I’m doing this as an homage to Vietnam vets who’ve been treated poorly. Rambo can’t die.”

Scott Holstein:

Bringing in Mr. T, he got chastised by the producers for doing that and Hulk Hogan who was great. It’s crazy, but people are going to love it.

Larry Bernstein:

And he’s right. In Rocky 3, he has an exhibition fight with Hulk Hogan who in comparison is a giant.

Stallone is not very tall in real life.

Scott Holstein:

5’9”.

Darren Schwartz:

He’s listed as 5’9”. He’s got to be 5’7”.

Scott Holstein:

That’s our size. I’m 5’ 8”.

Larry Bernstein:

Mick says, “Call this thing off. Hogan’s going to kill you.”

In the exhibition fight, Hogan picks up Rocky and throws him out of the ring.

Scott Holstein:

That’s a great moment in the movie.

Adding Mr. T is a perfect choice.

Larry Bernstein:

I went to Mexico City on vacation with my wife and kids. We drove by a wrestling match similar to Nacho Libre where the bad guys wear masks.

My son was immediately on board but my wife Julie hesitated, “I’m not sure this is the right thing to do.” But once Julie’s in, she’s 100% in, and we got front row seats.

They open the event with a dwarf throw. They pick up the little guy and throw him into the audience and somebody out there was ready to grab him.

Scott Holstein:

It’s a dwarf. It’s a person.

Larry Bernstein:

People can get hurt. Julie got so excited that she left her seat and entered into what is called no man’s land, an area around the ring. It’s empty because wrestlers get thrown out of the ring all the time.

Julie entered no man’s land and security runs over and says, “Lady, what are you doing? This is dangerous. Get out of there.” “Oh, sorry.” And she retreated back. But you should know that Lucha Libre is something you need to see in Mexico City.

Scott Holstein:

I want to say one more thing too about Stallone’s choices. He is really good at taking the temperature of the culture like what he did with Dolph Lundgren.

Larry Bernstein:

That is the Russian boxer Ivan Drago that Rocky fights in Rocky 4.

Scott Holstein:

What year did that come out?

Darren Schwartz:

’85

Scott Holstein:

We’re talking about the Russian Olympians on steroids. Dolph Lundgren is a science project.

Darren Schwartz:

Totally juiced.

Scott Holstein:

Drago is juiced. He’s built by the Russians.

Larry Bernstein:

He towers over Stallone.

Scott Holstein:

Drago’s training is computer driven.

Larry Bernstein:

And what does Rocky do?

Scott Holstein:

Rocky goes in the middle of the winter to Siberia.

Larry Bernstein:

Across his back, he carries an enormous log.

Scott Holstein:

And it was breaking him.

Larry Bernstein:

Running up a mountain with the Rocky theme song playing in the background.

Darren Schwartz:

Helping villagers.

Larry Bernstein:

Supposedly it’s Siberia but it is actually filmed in Jackson Hole, he would return later that evening to a fine resort with a steak dinner.

Scott Holstein:

That movie puts Stallone in the hospital. Drago apparently hit him so hard. It moved his heart in real life.

Two weeks in the hospital. He tells the actor Lundgren to hit him as if it’s real and it puts him in the hospital. Amazing. And Drago kills Apollo in the beginning of the movie.

Larry Bernstein:

That’s in the movie script; that’s not real life. I don’t think we can compare a fictional death with Stallone’s heart injury.

Scott Holstein:

It’s all mixed up in my head.

Larry Bernstein:

A Gorbachev look alike is in the audience for the Drago fight.

Scott Holstein:

Think that I’m going too far by suggesting that it helped bring the Berlin Wall come down?

Larry Bernstein:

The Wall comes down four years later. No, I don’t think people remembered that scene from Rocky 4.

Scott Holstein:

Because at the end of the movie, all the Russians are screaming, Rocky, Rocky.

Larry Bernstein:

But not knock down that wall.

Darren Schwartz:

The speech at the end of Rocky 4 is one of the low points of the entire series and possibly one of the low points in all cinema.

Larry Bernstein:

Another interesting aspect about Stallone is that he is also the boxing choreographer of the movie. Tell us about that.

Darren Schwartz:

He was not a boxer in his younger days. He learned to box and worked with Joe Frazier and some other contemporaries. And he took to it.

He came up with the idea for Rocky after watching Muhammad Ali beat a guy named Chuck Wepner. He was inspired by Chuck Wepner’s background, gritty guy.

Chuck Wepner said, “Hey man, you’re making a movie about me.” Wepner sues; they settled for an undisclosed amount. You could argue that he inspired the movie, maybe it was based on Rocky Graziano’s story.

But to me that goes to the heart of that, Stallone dives into everything, he wants it to be realistic.

Larry Bernstein:

In Rocky 3, Apollo Creed trains Rocky for the fight against Mr. T.

Mick’s dead and Rocky desperately needs a new coach to teach him better footwork.

Darren Schwartz:

Creed said, “We’re going to an LA gritty gym with a different crowd, look, and feel. The whole idea was I’m going to teach you how to dance because you need to be a real fighter not a brawler. Carl Weathers played Apollo Creed. Stallone said that he was one of the best natural gifted athletes he’s ever been around. Even though he hadn’t been a boxer, he was the most realistic boxer in the movies.

What stood out to me was how fast Carl Weathers was running backwards? I mean, can you imagine running full speed and then turning around? Athletes do it. I couldn’t do it. You couldn’t do it. I don’t think Scott could do it. Of the three of us, Scott possibly could do that.

Scott Holstein:

I could do it.

The best moment of their relationship is the ending of Rocky 3, where the film ends with them in the ring in a rematch. And it ends with the fists going up. It turns into a painting.

Darren Schwartz:

That’s one of the most iconic visuals in the Rocky franchise. You got him on the steps of the museum, arms in the air, and you’ve that LeRoy Neiman painting where they’re both about to hit each other.

Scott Holstein:

It’s the mentor and the mentee as equal. It’s a beautiful moment. You thought they hated each other. Then in the movie Creed, you find out who won.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s go back to Rocky 1. The big event, the championship fight goes the distance. We think were watching a boxing film and then suddenly the plot line flips to Adrian. This is a love story disguising itself as a boxing film.

Rocky is beaten to a pulp; he may lose an eye. His face was used as a punching bag. Rocky screams out to Adrian who starts running.

Darren Schwartz:

She wore a red beret, which I think inspired Curtis Sliwa of the Guardian Angels in New York. That’s just part of her look, and she gets jostled going through the crowd. Paulie lifts up the ropes so she can sneak in. She runs up to him at this amazing moment, but Rocky only cares about her.

She runs up to him and he goes, “What happened to your hat?” Stallone’s always throwing these funny little lines in, which ties into the fact that he was the writer.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to move to Sly the documentary. In Sly is when I realized that I had totally underestimated Stallone as an artist. Tell us about your response to this fabulous documentary.

Darren Schwartz:

There’s an appreciation for how badly he wanted to be successful, and at the root of it is his abandonment by his father and the bullying.

I was bullied when I was younger.

Larry Bernstein:

No one talks about that.

Darren Schwartz:

I call it beauty bullying.

Larry Bernstein:

Because you were so good looking?

Darren Schwartz:

Well, not just that.

Larry Bernstein:

The hair?

Darren Schwartz:

Yeah. My hair was thick, luscious, and long. And these kids were bullying, but you turn it inward.

Larry Bernstein:

Tell us about the documentary Sly.

Scott Holstein:

It’s imperative to watch. It’s amazing. Go to Netflix. His upbringing explains a lot about him. One of the things he brings to his movies is his ability to understand what will please the viewer. He’s a very emotional guy. You realize how deep of a person he is.

Larry Bernstein:

Stallone has a deep appreciation for art. In the movies, there’s the Rocky statue. His restaurant in Rocky Balboa is filled with artwork and memorabilia. In Sly, Stallone is filmed in his Florida home, there’s art everywhere. I turned to Darren and I said, “That’s a painting by George Condo.”

I paused the film, took a picture of it, and download it to ChatGPT. AI said there is an 85% probability that it was painted by George Condo. Later, I asked my wife and she said, “Of course it is Condo. Everyone knows that Stallone has a fabulous George Condo collection.”

Stallone’s films include excellence in art, music, and technology. There’s a scene in one of the Rocky films where he’s running towards the Philadelphia Art Museum and the camera is steady with him without jostling about.

Darren Schwartz:

It’s reported that it was an early successful use of the Steadicam. He was using new technology. He wasn’t afraid to break the mold.

Larry Bernstein:

Rocky visits his brother-in-law Paulie who works at a meat packing plant. Rocky sees the meat and finds an opportunity.

Scott Holstein:

What could be a better way for Rocky to train than to punch frozen slabs of beef?

Larry Bernstein:

Without gloves. That has got to hurt.

Scott Holstein:

There is nothing lower tech and grittier than punching frozen beef. That’s the message. “Punching a bag just doesn’t do it. What can I do to create something impactful to the viewer?”

Larry Bernstein:

Stallone watched the great heavyweight fights and tried to incorporate them into his choreography.

Scott Holstein:

I’d like to ask him. Why not protect your face? At least attempt to. He’s not even trying.

Larry Bernstein:

Going to round 14 of Rocky 1, Creed shows the good sense to protect his face. But if you put your gloves up to your face, you leave your ribs exposed. This was when Rocky applies his lessons from punching the beef ribs at the meat packing plant to pounding Creed’s ribs. As he stumbles at the bell, Creed tells his trainer.

Darren Schwartz:

He broke my ribs.

Larry Bernstein:

Rocky 4 is when music jumps the shark. It feels like it’s a series of music videos.

Darren Schwartz:

I had a hard time focusing on Rocky 4. With Russia, we boycotted the Olympics in ‘80. They boycotted us in LA in ‘84, when they were shooting this movie. The music was the worst in Rocky 4 because it had that Miami Vice feel. It was 1985 cinema. It was not good.

Larry Bernstein:

In the first three Rocky movies, music moved the storyline along. Here the music dominated and the story got lost.

Darren Schwartz:

It descended into an MTV music video with weird hair, 80s music.

Scott Holstein:

I found out the other day my son who’s 21 had not seen Rocky. I couldn’t believe it. I’ve failed as a father. And he’s not interested.

Larry Bernstein:

Ok, it is decision time. For someone who wants to understand Rocky—not just the movies, but the cultural phenomenon—what films and documentaries would you recommend they watch.

Darren Schwartz:

Rocky 1, 2, and 3 then both documentaries, then I would watch Rocky Balboa. Because there was a 16-year gap between 1990, which was Rocky 5 and Rocky Balboa. He comes out of retirement because there’s this video simulation that’s shows Rocky can beat Mason the Line Dixon, who’s Antonio Tarver, who was a real boxer. Rocky Balboa is worth seeing.

Larry Bernstein:

Here’s what I would say. You got to start with Rocky 1. It’s a masterpiece that won best picture. It remains fresh and different. Rocky 2 starts slow, but it’s successful. Rocky 3 is excellent. I think it is better than Rocky 2. Mr. T is incredible... Mr. Pain!

Scott Holstein:

Pity the fool.

Larry Bernstein:

Sly the documentary is a must see.

Darren Schwartz:

I agree. You get an insight into how his career went.

Larry Bernstein:

I end the podcast with optimism.

Scott Holstein:

That Stallone’s going to do one more.

Larry Bernstein:

Oh my God. I didn’t see that coming.

Darren Schwartz:

I am optimistic about pursuing your passion and against all odds making a career out of what you want to do. And learning about someone who you thought you knew and realizing, wait a second, this guy’s a creative genius. He’s not a blockhead. People should reintroduce themselves to Stallone.

Scott Holstein:

Stallone as Rocky has single-handedly inspired millions of people to work out. The music, there is no song like the Rocky theme to get pumped up. Chariots of Fire is not even close. Nothing’s like Rocky. Nothing. I go to the gym a lot. Nothing is better than that tune if you’re not feeling it. It’s inspirational.

I don’t think he even realized what he was doing. The underdog theme executed with the hero’s journey and bringing it to modern day boxing. It’s a gift.

Darren Schwartz:

Larry, what are you optimistic about the Rocky franchise?

Larry Bernstein:

Rocky 1 was made 50 years ago with only a one-million-dollar budget. Historically there were barriers to entry in the film business. Stallone could not do this on his own. He needed someone to put up that money. Today, the price of cameras, film, and lighting is much cheaper. For $100,000, a young person can write, direct, act, and make a high-quality production film. I’m optimistic that we’re going to see many young artists with small budgets make wonderful movies.

Thanks to Darren and Scott for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Improving Your Memory.

Our speaker was Michael Kahana who is one of the world’s leading experts on memory. He is a former Professor of Psychology at Penn, and is the founder of Nia Therapeutics that developed a medical device so patients can radically improve memory, especially for individuals with a brain injury, dementia, or Alzheimer’s.

Michael discussed how memory function works and how his medical device can improve human memory retrieval to improve cognitive abilities.

Previous episodes and transcripts are available on our website as well as at Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, A Breakthrough in Restoring Memory, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

129KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Michael Kahana

Subject: A Breakthrough in Restoring Memory
Bio: Former Professor of Psychology at Penn and Founder of Nia Therapeutics

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein.  What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is A Breakthrough in Restoring Memory.

Our speaker is Michael Kahana who is one of the world’s leading experts on memory. He is a former Professor of Psychology at Penn, and he is now the founder of Nia Therapeutics which is a company seeking to bring a medical device to patients that can radically improve memory for individuals with a brain injury, dementia, or Alzheimer’s.

I want to hear from Michael about how memory function works and how a medical device can improve human memory retrieval to improve cognitive abilities.

I met Michael 10 years ago at a previous Penn Days event, and I was incredibly impressed by his research. As a result, I became one of the founding investors in his business venture.

This podcast was taped at a conference of UPenn professors that I hosted so you will hear questions from me as well as my friends.

Micheal, please begin with 6 minutes of opening remarks.

Michael Kahana:

My talk is about human memory and my journey from professor at Penn to building a company that will hopefully change the world. After 22 years at the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Psychology, I’ll be dedicating my life to building Nia Therapeutics. A company that will be advancing therapeutics for memory loss.

Let me first start by telling you how I got into human memory. I started out studying physics in college. I was fascinated by mathematical descriptions of the physical world and by the human mind. I started reading up about neural network theory, the work that’s at the foundation of modern AI by John Hopfield, David Rumelhart and Jay McClellande.

I did my PhD working on mathematical models of how the brain stores and retrieves information. I was fortunate to have a wonderful academic career for over three decades studying memory, its mathematical description, and its neural basis.

The major focus of my early work was disproving the theory that says that memory involves two separate systems, short-term and long-term memory. That is a dated theory that has been disproven by extensive experimental data and theoretical work. I developed a new theory of memory that was an amalgam of ideas that is the basis of AI models, neural network theory and a concept called recursive retrieved context that endows a neural network with the ability to have memories that exist at a particular time and place in the system storing those memories.

I’m going to share with you two stories in my academic journey that changed my life. The first was in 1997, a young neurosurgeon Joseph Madsen at Children’s Hospital in Boston took me to the ninth floor North Wing and I saw a young man aged 16 sitting up in bed. He had a big ribbon cable going out of his brain into a port on the wall, and he was playing an Atari video game.

I asked, “who’s analyzing the data?” Joe said, “We don’t have enough memory storage to save the data. Once we see a seizure, we know what we’re going to do, and we delete the data at the end of the day.” That was the first time that I took a major risk in my academic career. I took my money and bought computers and hard drives. I set up a collaboration to harvest brain neural recordings from neurosurgery patients with intractable epilepsy who need to have electrodes implanted in their brain, record the signals, figure out where the seizures are coming from and then remove it if they can pinpoint it in the brain. That began a journey that lasted for two decades identifying the brain signals at a micro level within the brain that predict memory function.

The next major event happened in 2013, at the Society for Neuroscience meetings in New Orleans, we studied a patient where we had stimulated the brain and his memory got better. Now, usually, when you stimulate with electrical currents in the brain, memory get worse. This one patient his memory got better. Was that a one-off? How could we systematically investigate brain stimulation on a large scale? Because every hospital did it in a very ad hoc manner. There was no real science to it.

We got a big grant from Jeff Lang at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, who was a colonel in the US Army to help wounded warriors who had memory or cognitive loss due to IED blasts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We were given a $24.5 million-dollar four-year grant, which is about 10 times as big as a typical NIH grant and it allowed us to ramp up the study of electrical stimulation memory.

We invented a device here at Penn together with Medtronic, which hooks up to electrodes in the brain. For three years we mapped out the neural signals in the brain associated with memory and collected data from hundreds of neurosurgical patients. We gently stimulated the brain to learn how stimulation modulates neural circuits.

There were three major discoveries that came out of that project, but before I tell you, I want to tell you about an unsolved puzzle in memory research.

Memory is way more variable than any theory predicts. The theories predict some variation over time in the same individual but the data show massive variation. So, the same person one day their memory is pretty good, another day their memory is not so good and that range of memory function within each of us, especially people with a brain injury, neurological disease, dementia, that range is enormous. How large is it? It’s so large that if you take somebody in their bottom 50th percentile versus their top 50th percentile, there is a two-fold difference in memory function on every metric. So, when you’re not doing so well with your memory, you’re doing half as well as when you’re in your upper half of your own distribution. Huge variability and theories don’t explain it. I thought maybe the neural recordings could explain the variability.

Discovery one was we could use AI techniques to forecast when your memory was going to be good or bad. It’s a forecasting model, just like in financial time-series models. In this case, we can forecast memory very reliably.

Discovery two was if you looked at when brain stimulation pulses arrived, did it matter what the forecast said? It turned out it had a huge impact because if the forecast is that the brain is doing well, then stimulation made memory worse. But if the forecast said that the brain was doing poorly, then brain stimulation sometimes didn’t do anything and sometimes it made memory better.

So, the third question was, how do we learn when the stimulation does nothing, and when it makes memory better? That’s a simple engineering problem because it’s a search of the parameter space of stimulation, locations, amplitudes and frequencies in each person and you build a model. You take this massive data set on each human brain and you learn when I stimulate a bad state, what’s the probability that I jostle the brain into a better state or stay in the bad state? And we learned that.

How do we deploy this? $14 million of DARPA money went into inventing this gadget and we tested the therapy in human subjects who had electrodes implanted in their brains. In five published papers and four data sets, we showed that we could reliably improve memory consistently in human patients with this algorithmic stimulation.

How do I take this to market? Well, you can’t wear this device as a therapy. It’s too big. You can’t have electrodes coming out of your brain. You need a fully implantable system. The government is not going to fund that. So private investors, started a company, a spin out from Penn, and we developed a device similar to deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease, which is now a widely used therapy. This device is a cranial implant. It doesn’t go in the brain but goes in the skull under the skin. It has electrodes that go into the brain. It has a hundred times the capability of recording than any existing device, but notably it has a computer inside of it and it can record the signals, analyze and deliver stimulation just like this larger device connected to a computer did in our research studies, and it harvests all the data and it goes on to a wearable earpiece like a hearing aid.

The plan is to bring it to human trials in the next six months. The first study will be in patients with traumatic brain injury. There’s no treatment for traumatic brain injury memory loss. The FDA was excited for these younger, healthier patients in their 20s or 30s who have debilitating memory loss. This therapy should work for any memory loss due to any neurological disorder or neurodegenerative process.

We have a team assembled to do a study in early Alzheimer’s disease based at Rutgers Alzheimer’s Center and the University of Texas Alzheimer’s Center. Then the third big activity that my company is going to be doing is to make the device a lot smaller.

Larry Bernstein:

Tell us about how a robotic neurosurgeon will install wires inside the brain.

Michael Kahana:

The implantation of EEG electrodes is done with a ROSA robot by neurosurgeons. 20 years ago, this was a risky procedure. Now it has essentially zero serious risks associated with it. The biggest aspect of this surgically is the craniotomy, where you put in the device. They wires go inside the memory centers of the brain. One of the reasons why no existing therapy can do what this does is because this does a different therapy for every patient.

There are 64 contacts that are placed along the key axes that cut through the memory areas of the brain with these tiny wires. It learns to model the memory of every patient, which is going to be a different model for me, for Larry, and for each patient, which is why it has the capability of learning to get better and better over time.

Larry Bernstein:

All of us are in good and bad memory states all day long. Even in a good day, there are bad moments. Tell us about how an electric shock does a reset and why it takes us back to a good memory state.

Michael Kahana:

The memory system is a complex electrical network that has stable configurations. It can fall into different stable attractor states. Some of those attractor states are conducive to good function and some are conducive to bad function. If I’m in a bad state, I deliver a small pulse to white brain matter tracts that coax the brain from a state that’s poor into a state that’s better.

Larry Bernstein:

And how does that work exactly?

Michael Kahana:

A short quarter of a second wave of electrical activity. You have an anode and cathode, two contacts that are made out of platinum and you deliver biphasic electrical pulses between these two. You don’t feel or hear anything, but it makes a little electrical pulse. And what we do with the device is we see the state of the brain before and after the burst. We see whether the burst coaxes the brain in a good direction or not and that’s how we can learn and adapt the therapy.

Larry Bernstein:

When you go to bed, you would charge up your device and download all of your brainwaves.

Michael Kahana:

All your brain data goes to the cloud encrypted. When we download the data and then we can analyze and improve the models of your memory system. It knows when your brain is in a better or worse state and it recalibrates the model on the fly, meaning if the brain is shifting its context, it can recalibrate the AI model.

When you do memory tests, you can tune the therapies. The therapy will learn that when your memory test scores are better or worse, it will refine the AI model. And you can rebuild the model every night and get a better model based on the new data that you’ve downloaded.

Larry Bernstein:

The next question comes from Rory MacFarquhar.

Rory MacFarquhar:

Why do you encrypt the data?

Michael Kahana:

For confidentiality of your brain data.

Rory MacFarquhar:

If someone got your brain data, what could they extract from that information?

Michael Kahana:

We published a paper where we showed that when you had people look at letters, we could tell what letter they were thinking of. If you thought of a word, we could tell whether that word was one of 25 different categories. You could probably build models to predict what people were thinking about.

Rory MacFarquhar:

Have you tried to rebuild something from the data that you’ve collected on all your patients? Is that literally possible? Can you put it up on a screen and see what they’re thinking?

Michael Kahana:

We published a number of papers showing this. The idea that you can use brain data to read the mind. Speech recognition systems are 90 odd percent accurate. These systems are way less accurate, but they’re way better than chance. If the question is what exact word am I thinking of, they’re going to be very unreliable. If the question is, am I thinking of a living or a non-living thing, they’ll be very reliable. The whole basis of the neural prosthetics work in motor systems is that you can read out the motor activity of the brain and build a model of speech or motor activity and that’s been advancing very rapidly in the last three years.

Larry Bernstein:

What kind of improvement in memory are you expecting?

Michael Kahana:

I would expect an improvement of about one standard deviation, so it’s a pretty big improvement. A standard deviation improvement in terms of an SAT score would be 200 points out of 1600, or for IQ, it would be 15 points with a 100 mean.

Larry Bernstein:

What does a one standard deviation improvement in memory entail?

Michael Kahana:

To evaluate memory function in real life with implications for whether somebody goes back to work, goes back to school after a head injury, or whether they’re going to develop dementia, it’s context dependent recall tasks. If you give people a list of words and then you ask them after a brief delay, what were the words in the list? That’s the kind of test. And there are many varieties of those tests and they all load on the same underlying factor, which is the same factor that we’re decoding.

Larry Bernstein:

I gave you 10 words and the average is six. Would a standard deviation be something like two?

Michael Kahana:

Yeah, that’s about right.

Michael Kahana:

We’re talking about people who give them a list of 10 words and either they get zero or one or they get three. And so that’s when we’re talking about patients with memory loss. We’re saying three is not great, but you can function. It’s not embarrassing. Zero or one, you don’t even want to leave the house. You don’t want to go to work.

That’s the thing about memory loss. People have a bad memory. It’s not such a big deal. A colleague of mine in my department once commented at a faculty meeting that “my memory isn’t as good as it used to be. I had this legendary memory. I would walk into a class with a hundred students and it would take me a few weeks to learn everybody’s name. I can’t do that anymore.” That’s not a problem.

The problem is when you’re sitting in the meeting like this and you don’t realize why you’re here and what’s going on and what am I supposed to be talking about? And the problem is that people with impaired memory, they have days like that and then they have other days where they’re just a little bit forgetful. It’s not such a big problem.

The goal of this therapy is to keep people out of those situations where they’re going to not want to go to work, not want to show up in front of their colleagues. We have prominent lawyers who get into a car accident. They have a head injury and they say, “I’m embarrassed to show up in a meeting. I don’t remember what’s going on. I have notes and I’m reading them over and over again just to figure out, to get my bearing. And it’s impossible.” That’s the kind of memory that we’re trying to blunt that horrible situation that people face.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is Brande Stellings.

Brande Stellings:

For degenerative memory loss that’s going to worsen over time, does starting this therapy arrest the deterioration of memory? Does it have any impact on it getting worse?

Michael Kahana:

The one standard deviation increase is about five to six years of degeneration. The question that you’re asking is critical. Does the rate of degeneration change? We will only know that when we do the trial.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is David Wecker.

David Wecker:

I was just curious how big you think this market is in terms of revenue. Does the device ever have to be replaced and is there a recurring revenue stream from the cloud service?

Michael Kahana:

It has a sales price of about $35,000, Manufacturing price at scale would be less than $10,000, so you’re talking about a $25,000 margin. The total possible number of patients who could benefit is 27 million. My expectation is that over a period of years, it’ll ramp up from small numbers to 10%. You could imagine different curves based on different levels of effectiveness.

In terms of recurring revenue, the idea of putting this earpiece or eyeglass as an element that can be easily updated every year you could get a new version. People can pay for that privately. Some insurance will pay, some insurance won’t, same as hearing aids. Some insurance will not let you upgrade your hearing aids. Medicaid probably won’t, but private insurers sometimes will. You can have recurring revenue from that and from cloud services and from the updates to the memory model that would be done periodically.

Larry Bernstein:

Michael didn’t say you need to replace the thing that’s in the brain.

Michael Kahana:

No, that’s intended to be permanent. We got breakthrough device designation, which gives us a special priority reimbursement where they give you an upgraded reimbursement above the base Medicaid- Medicare reimbursement level, the whole issue is market penetration. The market is enormous and it’s just about how quickly you capture the market.

Larry Bernstein:

The market is enormous now, but even you, Wecker, years from now, you’re a great candidate.

David Wecker:

Hopefully many years. Do you plan on trying to commercialize this yourself with a sales force or do you expect to sell or team up with a larger organization that has those resources?

Michael Kahana:

I want it to be successful and to scale and if the best way for that to happen is through an IPO, then we’ll do that. If the best way is through strategic acquisition by a larger company, then whatever makes the thing grow.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is Rory MacFarquhar.

Rory MacFarquhar:

There were memory impaired human subjects that you were testing. I didn’t think that you could do that with human subjects. How does that work?

Michael Kahana:

There’s only one neurosurgical treatment that requires chronic implantation of electrodes for a period of one to four weeks where you can record all those data. That was when I gave that talk at Harvard and they invited me to the ninth floor of the children’s hospital where patients with epilepsy who failed all their medications were having debilitating seizures, those patients also often have cognitive impairment and they get electrodes implanted in their brains for three or four weeks to get seizure data for a treatment involving the resection of the seizure focus. I saw the opportunity, the patient is sitting there, they’re playing video games in the hospital, let me do my memory experiments, have them play memory video games and then build models of memory. They were doing stimulation clinically so that when they would suction out a part of the brain, they didn’t cause harm.

Larry Bernstein:

Can you give an example where when you had a portion of the skull open and you put a probe in, what response, if you shocked it, how they would have a memory release?

Michael Kahana:

The patients would be playing memory games or remember lists of words and the computer unbeknownst to the subject would apply therapy on some trials and not apply therapy on other trials. And sometimes there was one patient at the Mayo Clinic, they got the stimulation and they’re remembering almost the entire list of 12 items and on the other trials they were remembering three items. That was a pretty dramatic case. Every time the stimulation therapy was applied, this patient had phenomenal memory and the patient reported they didn’t feel anything. They were just like, “My brain was clear on those trials.”

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is Colin Teichholtz.

Colin Teichholtz:

There are other companies doing neural implants such as Neuralink. If each one of these types of devices is totally different and unrelated, are there additional applications to what you’re doing in addition to what you’re doing with memory?

Michael Kahana:

There are a number of competitors to Neuralink that are focusing on what I would call the input-output problem. They’re trying to solve the fact that some people have a damaged spinal cord or have a damaged input-output system. They’re recording the brain to read out motor signals. And they’re also trying to plan to do similar things for patients who have perceptual disabilities. A cochlear implant would be an example that’s very commonly used but now they’re developing therapies for people who are cortically blind to stimulate the cortical system to create sight. So those are input-output systems.

The other category of systems are central. They’re focused on the apex of the neural system neural processing tree. That’s like my device. There’s nothing else like it when I tried to do this. People said, “There’s no possible way you’re going to build a de novo medical device. You have to use an existing device.” I’m not Elon Musk, so I couldn’t just capitalize it on my own. But you could imagine a class of devices of which this is a version that treats central disorders that would include depression, PTSD, higher level language dysfunction. Memory is the big one. There’s a company that has an idea for treating severe PTSD, and they’ve recently approached me to see if we would license our technology to them because they didn’t imagine that they would want to try and build their own.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is Paul Orlin.

Paul Orlin:

In your paper you talk about random stimulation does not help memory but specific predictive pulses from the AI does. Can you explain why you think that is?

Michael Kahana:

Random stimulation is going to interrupt the brain during good states and bad states, whereas the AI predictive stimulation is going to be tailored to only perturb the brain when it’s in a bad state with parameters that are designed to coax it into a better state. So the random stimulation is not going to work. That makes sense because if random stimulation would work, this problem would have been solved a while ago with DBS type devices.

Paul Orlin:

What do you think’s happening to create the memory?

Michael Kahana:

You could imagine a version of this therapy that would create memories. We’re not doing that. I’ve thought about that. It’s science fiction. You could imagine the study that I proposed once, which I haven’t done, is you could barcode memories.

For example, if I wanted to, if I click my phone and I could say, “I want to remember that guy and his question and put a barcode in there and then later recapitulate that memory by triggering that barcode.” The therapy that we’ve developed is designed to take the brain and help it get to states that it knows how to facilitate the formation and the retrieval of memories. Naturally move the brain into a state that’s more conducive to creating and retrieving memories.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next question comes from Paul Rozin who is a Professor of Psychology at UPenn.

Paul Rozin:

Someone is in a bad memory state and you stimulate. When you get them in a better state, when you turn the stimulus off, did they go right back to a bad state or is there a residue?

Michael Kahana:

There’s a residue. We’ve shown that. There’s a residue of staying in the good state.

It will stop after a half or a quarter of a second and then it will wait for the brain to drift back into a bad state before it reapplies the therapy seconds or minutes later.

There was a conversation about kosher laws and rabbis before, so I just wanted to add a little fun note. I asked a famous old rabbi, “What do you think about this?” Is it kosher? Can you use it on the Sabbath? And he looked at me and he said, “Is this going to help me remember the whole Talmud?” And I said, “I think so. “ And he said, “You should do that.”

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is Ron Miller.

Ron Miller:

How long is it going to take to finish these trials and how much money is it going to take?

Michael Kahana:

Five years. After you develop the device, you do the animal testing, which we’re finishing now. Then you do in humans for five years altogether. Because we got this breakthrough device designation and there’s a special program called TAP, which is run by the director’s office at the FDA. They try to fast track devices. The whole project as like a 10-to-12-year project from start to finish and it costs altogether about a hundred million dollars, the whole business.

David Wecker:

Remembering can be an intentional act but it can also be a passive act because memories sometimes just parade through one’s consciousness. There’s also the issue of sleep where we seem to be incorporating memories. I’m curious about how this might affect our consciousness where memories are popping up.

Michael Kahana:

I believe and my research supports the claim that the same basic machinery of memory is used when you try to remember a memory, you pull back something from the past, you update memory when some cue from the environment or from inside of your head involuntarily triggers the memory. Now those two are not exactly the same, but they involve the same mathematical rules. They involve the same equations and related to that is the idea that when you do have a spontaneous thought, it is a memory and it operates as a memory that alters your future beliefs, which is a fascinating idea because it means that circumstances that make one set of memories more likely to pop up than another set of memories will shape your beliefs separate from the ground truth of what happened to you.

David Wecker:

When you do the human trials, are you going to be able to collect any data around those types of issues?

Michael Kahana:

Absolutely. From a clinical and a pragmatic point of view, the therapy helps people in their daily lives and the best we can do right now is we can do tests that evaluate memory in a way that’s predictive of memory in your daily life. What you’re saying is that maybe the person with memory loss is having fewer of these spontaneous memories. And so, if you restore some of those spontaneous memories, maybe that will give them the capability to alter their beliefs in both good and not good ways based on their experiences. There may be situations where not learning and remembering is good. I don’t think that’s generally the case, but yes, if you’re learning and remembering things that are painful that then recur, we know that among people who’ve experienced a traumatic event, about 15% go on to develop PTSD and that’s because of the machinery of the memory system going awry.

The Nia Therapeutic trial with this device, one patient undergoing the therapy for a year will generate more data by a factor of 10 than all the data we’ve collected in these 20 years of NIH and DARPA funded studies. That’s one patient in one year. You can imagine what you would learn from the first 5,000 patients.

Larry Bernstein:

Next speaker is Brande Stellings.

Brande Stellings:

For many companies their real business is data.

Michael Kahana:

The data will be enormously valuable for a given patient to improve their therapy. The company by pooling data in an encrypted, safe, anonymized way will be able to deliver far better therapy to the next patient in the study. Data are extremely valuable. The only thing I’ve been focused on is the therapeutic side.

Larry Bernstein:

Many of us might be reticent to install a wire system in their brain, but when we see Mitch finally being able to function, and we see incredible improvement in his cognitive skills and memory capabilities.

Michael Kahana:

In neurosurgery, things that were unimaginable two decades ago are becoming accepted today and once you know people who benefit from whether it’s a cochlear implant or DBS for Parkinson’s disease, I think this will be more effective than either of those therapies, then there’s no more stigma. Nowadays, people don’t worry about getting a cardiac pacemaker, but 25 years ago, very few patients who needed pacemakers got pacemakers. What you see is you see a course of adoption where a therapy that is clearly beneficial to people is adopted at 1% in the beginning and then later it’s adopted at 20%. It’s never adopted at 100%.

Larry Bernstein:

Do you want to end in a note of optimism?

Michael Kahana:

When I was teaching, students get to do one lecture where I just answer their questions. One student Kobe asked me, “How did the study of memory help you think about how you could be a better person, live a better life?” The answer I gave him is, “Every day try to make good memories for yourself because the memory system is going to think about those memories when you’re asleep, when you’re walking around and make good memories and that will benefit you in many ways.” That’s my note of optimism. And this is a good memory, so thank you.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Michael for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Predicting the Midterms.

Our speaker was Patrick Ruffini who is a pollster and a Substack writer for The Intersection that does analysis on topics like gerrymandering, realignment, and polling errors. He is also the author of a book Party of the People.

Patrick discussed who will win in the midterms in the House and Senate. Our discussion got into the weeds about campaign issues, the current state of play, and who will win the close races.

Previous episodes and transcripts are available on our website as well as at Apple Podcasts and Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Predicting the Midterms, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

111KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Patrick Ruffini

Subject: Predicting the Midterms
Bio: Pollster and Author of The Intersection

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Predicting the Midterms.

Our speaker is Patrick Ruffini is a pollster and the author of his own Substack entitled The Intersection that includes frequent analysis on topics like gerrymandering, realignment, and polling errors. He is also the author of a book Party of the People.

I want to learn from Patrick about who will win the midterms in the House and Senate. My plan is to get into the weeds and find out what the issues will be, what the state of play looks like now, and who will win the close races.

Patrick, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Patrick Ruffini:

In 2024, I wrote a book called Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP. That election had a realignment of working-class and non-white voters towards Trump and the GOP. Now it’s been about a year and a half of Trump. We are about four months away from the midterm election. You have the normal midterm backlash, particularly against someone like Trump who has been extremely assertive about the use of executive powers.

This has intensified Democratic energy to put a check on him. In some respects, the groups we saw swinging towards Trump on the basis of inflation are swinging back. Some of the gains that Trump made in 2024 are reversed, but some are durable. There’s a flip side to this Democratic energy, that side of the aisle seems unruly. You’ve seen a string of progressive primary victories in Colorado and New York where progressive candidates swept congressional primaries. You will have a healthy Democratic Socialist of America contingent in the next House.

Republicans were quite successful in redistricting this cycle. That doesn’t mean that they have protected themselves from losing the House, but they’ve protected themselves from getting wiped out and built in a lot of safe seats for Republicans. It means that at best, you’re talking about a Democratic majority maybe 220 or 225 seats, maybe up to 230, which is pretty narrow. That means this DSA caucus will have outsized influence. They will provide the margin and decide whether Hakeem Jeffries can become Speaker, and if we’ll see the same chaos and drama that we saw on the Republican side a few years ago.

Larry Bernstein:

The House has 435 seats and so a majority would be 218 seats or more, so if the Democrats were to win 220 seats that would be a 5-member majority. That would give enormous influence to the 5 marginal players from the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America caucus.)

Patrick Ruffini:

After the Biden debacle, Democrats were told to trust this older, steady-hand candidate that failed them badly. Now, they are not inclined to listen to what the party establishment is telling them. The party establishment was Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. You are seeing a Democratic Tea Party. There is energy behind the idea that Democrats need to regain the working-class voters that they lost in the Bernie and AOC faction.

It looks increasingly likely that the Michigan Senate race will go to Abdul El-Sayed in the primary. Democrats are nominating problematic candidates who could lose them seats in a reverse 2022 when it was Republican MAGA candidates who lost seats in very winnable races. It not only could have a significant impact on which way the Senate goes and what the House looks like after 2026, but we could see a Trump-like candidate of the left go far in the primary based on the mood of the Democratic primary electorate.

Larry Bernstein:

Historically in presidential primaries, the Democratic presidential candidates tack to the left and then in the general election, they tack back to the center to persuade independents to join their cause. What’s surprising here is that there are maybe two dozen congressional races in the House that are in play. And some of these candidates are very left-wing candidates. Do voters in these tight congressional races think of the national party? Do they consider that the candidate is particularly progressive? Will it affect the result of the election in such a tight toss-up race?

Patrick Ruffini:

It absolutely could have an impact. There’s been solid research that shows that the more far-left or far-right you are in your identification that those candidates tend to perform worse. There’s a penalty for perceived ideological extremism. Most of these Democratic candidates are in these deep blue districts where there’s no chance of the district going the other way. Voters there perceive why not get exactly who we want? And that is very telling about where the median Democratic primary voter is.

You haven’t seen as many progressive candidates in these swing districts win, but there have been examples of it. Notably in Maine 2 District, which is a Trump district held by a Democrat. The more progressive candidate won there. You had Colorado 8. A very tight seat. You had the candidate who was more progressive in that race win. This goes back to the Michigan Senate race where the more progressive candidate is likely to win in that primary, and that’s a swing seat where it’s pulling very tightly. Look at John Ossoff in Georgia. Look, he’s wondering who had him up by double digits. So that’s really kind of the model for Democrats of what a swing state race should be doing for them to cycle.

Larry Bernstein:

Primaries bring out a different voter than the regular election. That spells trouble for both the Republicans and the Democrats because they choose people who are much farther away from the median voter. Is there a real difference between the primary voter and the regular voter?

Patrick Ruffini:

The risk here that’s absolutely true. The primary voters tend to be more ideological. It’s been prevalent on the Republican side where you have more far right candidates win. There’s no real penalty for being more ideologically extreme. That’s going to mean more unruly House caucus on both sides. The other risk is that a progressive candidate in the Democratic primary starts at a disadvantage.

We did some polling, who’s the most electable Democrat? People are saying Gavin Newsom is the most electable Democrat, not somebody like Josh Shapiro with a track record of winning in a swing state.

They’re saying Gavin Newsom who publicly fights with Republicans and who’s adopting Trump’s social media strategy. There’s a hunger for somebody who acts like Trump, but isn’t Trump. I don’t think most people would say that the Governor of California is the right model for electability.

Larry Bernstein:

In the House, there are 15 to 20 seats in play. The redistricting ended up favoring the Republicans just by chance as Virginia lost in court. How many net seats do you think the Republicans were able to pick up because of redistricting?

Patrick Ruffini:

5 to 10. But if a normal midterm kind of wave happens, that’s a 15-seat difference between where Republicans would’ve been under the old maps and the new maps. It means at best you’re probably talking about a 225 to 210 House for Democrats. And that’s maybe being a little bullish for them. It’s a house where you have these more ideologically extreme members who hold a lot of sway because Jefferies needs to get 218 votes to be speaker. So how many concessions are they able to extract from him? We all remember what happened with Kevin McCarthy.

Even if Republicans lose the House this time, it makes it much easier for them to come back in 2028 because they don’t have as many seats they need to pick up. A lot of those seats are in friendlier terrain. This whole fight is going to largely decided by how the maps are drawn rather than the quality of the candidates.

Larry Bernstein:

You brought up this speaker issue. I’m not sure why we should care. They threw out the speaker on the Republican side. It seemed very dramatic. The Politicos were upset and how’s the House going to function? Everyone I know who’s not a politico was not paying any attention to this. And then one day Johnson was running the show. There’s technical stuff like the rules committee. But isn’t this inside baseball that away from Patrick, nobody else cares?

Patrick Ruffini:

That’s right. I don’t disagree with that analysis at all. You have an ungovernable House with these narrow majorities. If we have a third Trump impeachment, would that register politically? You would also have investigations of Trump, the Trump family, but also companies aligned with the administration.

Larry Bernstein:

A New York House Democrat, Goldman recently lost the primary. He ran the Trump impeachment trial and he’s thrown out for someone more progressive. It’s not like the more centrist Democrats were opposed to impeachment. The fact that it moves to the left won’t change that impeachment or investigation zeal. That’ll be going full throttle regardless.

Patrick Ruffini:

It probably intensifies the zeal. But you’re right that the median Democrat would be on board with that because they’re afraid to be primaried.

Larry Bernstein:

Political analysts evaluate each individual district to see if it leans more Democratic or Republican. One example is the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index or PVI. A District that is D+2 means that in a national election this district is expected to swing towards the Democrats by 2 more points than the rest of the country.

I want to look at two kinds of House races. Take a district that leans Republican by 2 percentage point like Zach Nunn’s seat in Iowa’s third congressional district. This is a district in previous presidential races, Trump tied Biden in 2020 and he beat Harris by 5 in 2024. This is a seat is one of 18 seats that the Cook Report calls a tossup.

The second seat is Colorado’s 5^th District. It is in central Colorado and includes Colorado Springs. Trump beat Biden and Harris by 9 points in the past presidential elections. The incumbent Jeff Crank is viewed to likely win by Charlie Cook. This is rated to be a R+5 district. If the Democrats improve their performance on a national basis by four points, the math suggests that the Democrats would win by 2 points in Iowa’s 3^rd district by 2 points and the Republicans would hold onto the Colorado 5^th district by one point as R+5- 4 equals R+1.

That said, national shifts don’t apply evenly. Each district is special in its own way.

There will be enormous fundraising in the most competitive seats so turnout will be high on both sides. For less competitive seats, the Democrats will be more energized to vote, and this will impact the national voting patterns. So, Democrats will improve their performance in districts that will be easy wins for either party and thus incremental Democratic votes are wasted.

Patrick Ruffini:

It’s a very astute point you’re making here, and that exact thing has happened a couple times before. First off, you mentioned a four-point shift. That’s not enough for Democrats. The median seat in a country that went Trump plus two is Trump plus four or five. Democrats need to, at a minimum, win Trump plus five districts. There are very few opportunities for them until you get to Trump plus nine based on redistricting. And that’s the foundation of why I’m saying it could be a very narrow majority for the Democrats. It’s very rare for a non-incumbent to pick up a seat that was won by Trump plus 10 or more. The math is very tough regardless of how good the candidates are.

Larry Bernstein:

The election is soon; you would think that the issues would be bombarding the airwaves already. Back to 2024, the key issues were immigration, tax policy; now we have Iran. What will be the important issues?

Patrick Ruffini:

It remains what it was in ‘24, which is inflation and the cost of living. Trump’s economic ratings decline significantly with the Iran war and the rise in gas prices. Remember 2018, everyone thought Trump was doing a great job on the economy; they still lost. Don’t think you can be going into a midterm with $4 gas and overperform.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s go do some Senate races. Georgia Ossoff polled up by double digits, but Trump won that state. So how is it possible? Is Collins a terrible candidate? What is going on in Georgia?

Patrick Ruffini:

I don’t think Collins is a terrible candidate, but I think Georgia is a very Metro Atlanta state. Statewide success is somebody like Brian Kemp who is well-liked and can overperform in the Atlanta Metro.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s move to Michigan. This is an Even state. Trump lost by 3 to Biden and beat Harris by 2. If there’s a national shift of four, this should be a D + 4 state right now. If El-Sayed wins the primary, he’s progressive, he’s anti-Israel, does that put Michigan in play for the Republicans?

Patrick Ruffini:

It could. And all the polling right now is tight within one or two points, but I think that’s very much the outlier. It’s tight against all the potential Democratic candidates. Now, that’s misleading because when you have a very contentious Democratic primary, you have Democrats who hold out in supporting the other candidates.

Mike Rogers, a strong candidate running against candidates who are in a divisive Democratic primary where the most left-wing candidate is likely to emerge from that primary. Ultimately that provides the opportunity. It’s still a lean D state in this environment. Historically Republicans have had a hard time in Michigan. It’s been a while since they’ve won statewide especially for the Senate. Even in good years, Democrats have tended to overperform there. This is turning into an exception to that historical pattern.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s go to Maine. This is a Democratic state. Susan Collins is the moderate centrist candidate. Meanwhile, Graham Platner has so much negative press on his behavior and his Nazi tattoo. It’s incredible to me that this is a serious candidate. Yet in the polling, it’s even. If the Democrats put out their worst candidate, can they lose?

Patrick Ruffini:

They absolutely could lose. You have the worst possible Democratic candidate going against the best possible and most overperforming Republican candidate by far compared to virtually any other state. Will it be enough? In 2020, it turned out not to be a pro - Democratic year. She was able to get by a decent margin.

It’s looking like a strong national environment for Democrats that probably pulls Platner over the line. The candidate matchup couldn’t have been worse for Democrats.

Larry Bernstein:

My friend David Brail placed all thousand What Happens Next interviews into Claude AI. He asked who made the most accurate predictions of all my interviews? Answer was --- Patrick Ruffini. So here we go, will the Democrats take the House?

Patrick Ruffini:

I think so. They’re looking at about 225 seats, which would be a pickup of around 10 seats, which is more of a function of what Republicans did with redistricting this cycle than anything else.

Larry Bernstein:

In the Senate, will the Republicans hold Texas?

Patrick Ruffini:

Yes.

Larry Bernstein:

Will the Democrats hold Georgia?

Patrick Ruffini:

Yes.

Larry Bernstein:

The senate race in Maine is in flux after rape allegations came out against Platner. We have no idea what is going to happen about the replacement. That said if the election were held today would Collins win in Maine?

Patrick Ruffini:

I’m going to say yes.

Larry Bernstein:

Who will win in Michigan?

Patrick Ruffini:

I would tilt it ever so slightly towards the Democrat in Michigan.

Larry Bernstein:

Really? El-Sayed wins. It’s fifty-fifty down to the wire, but there hasn’t been polling suggesting that Rogers would win in this cycle. It’s as close of a toss-up as you can get.

Larry Bernstein:

Who wins in North Carolina?

Patrick Ruffini:

Democrat - Cooper.

Larry Bernstein:

The Dems pick up one seat in that scenario. Am I missing one?

Patrick Ruffini:

You could make a case for Alaska, Ohio and Iowa. There’s a chance they pick up one.

Larry Bernstein:

Alaska is funny because it’s a rank order state.

Patrick Ruffini:

The issue with Alaska is that you have this other Dan Sullivan on the ballot. The Democrats put this other candidate named Dan Sullivan to split the vote. I still think Sullivan wins.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s go to Ohio.

Patrick Ruffini:

Ohio tilts Republican. It is Trump plus 13. The history in Ohio has been every cycle the polls are showing Democrats as they showed Brown ahead in ‘24. Ohio, Iowa are going to migrate in the same direction. It’s just going to be enough for Republicans to keep both those seats.

Larry Bernstein:

So based on that, it’s one seat pickup. 53-47 Senate. Any forecasts for any particular district in the House that you think is interesting?

Patrick Ruffini:

It’ll be interesting to see as a bellwether what happens with some of these districts that swung pretty heavily towards Trump in 2024, particularly these Hispanic districts. There was a poll out yesterday, Henry Cuellar, the very conservative Democrat under indictment, pardoned by Trump in the hope of him getting out of the race, and then he did not get out of the race showing the Republican is up 9 there, which would puncture this idea that Hispanics are moving back in a big way, at least in that part of the country. I was surprised to see a poll that saw him losing. I’m paying close attention to that as durability of this realignment.

Larry Bernstein:

In California 22, David Valadao is running to keep his House seat. This district had been a Trump plus 1 that during redistricting was gerrymandered to make this seat flip to the Democrats. Do you think Valadao can win because the Democrats chose a progressive in their primary?

Patrick Ruffini:

Normally Valadao always survived. The ultimate over-performer. That’s redrawn to be a Democratic pickup. But if anyone can survive, he can. The primary results have a Democratic progressive candidate in a general election.

Larry Bernstein:

Black male voters moved towards Trump.

Patrick Ruffini:

This is the group I’m a bullish on staying in the Republican Party because we’re moving to pure ideological sorting in the electorate. In the past, you had voting on racial identity lines that favored Democrats with Black male voters. Those ties are diminishing across the board.

Larry Bernstein:

You are a Republican pollster. How does that influence your judgment? We often see in these polls Democrats and, Republicans getting different answers. The people that pay you are Republicans does that influence your ability to forecast?

Patrick Ruffini:

When it comes to the polls we do for clients, our north star is accuracy. We are judged by Nate Silver on how close we were to the results of the election. We’ve had an A in the Nate Silver ratings over the years. In particular, the metric has almost no bias in our public polling projections. Oftentimes there is a trend towards Republican firms having a Republican bias or Democratic firms have a Democratic bias. We have no bias.

Larry Bernstein:

Is Israel an issue that will matter in the races?

Patrick Ruffini:

It’s the animating issue on the Democratic left deciding Democratic primaries. It’s provided the spark for these progressive candidates to prevail against the establishment. But in general elections absolutely not, it’s not anywhere near the top 20 issues.

Larry Bernstein:

I subscribe to your Substack, and it’s fabulous, and I encourage my listeners to check it out. One of the things that you mentioned in the New York races, specifically in the House primary races, is that the populists are winning, but the people voting for it in the Democratic Party are a college educated and not working-class voters. So normally we think of the populists garner working-class voters, but here it’s white college-educated. Comment on that.

Patrick Ruffini:

Working-class voters are moderate and not invested in day-to-day politics as your typical college educated voter. If they see somebody too far left or right, that’s a turnoff to them.

Labor has become fundamentally conservative rising into the middle class. They don’t want to overthrow the system. Maybe you have a bunch of downwardly mobile people in Brooklyn who are upset at the current economic system, but that’s not a reflection of the average voter. We need to distinguish between dissatisfied with how things are going in the performance of the system versus overthrowing the system itself.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Patrick for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was The End of Meat.

Our speaker was Paul Rozin who is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Paul argued that in the future meat consumption will decline significantly because of increasing cost as well as health and moral reasons even though most of our audience enjoys meat including me.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, The End of Meat, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

98.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Paul Rozin

Subject: The End of Meat
Bio: Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is The End of Meat.

Our speaker is Paul Rozin who is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

This discussion was held at a conference that I hosted in Philadelphia so the questions will be asked by me as well as my friends.

I want to learn from Paul about why our future may have substantially less meat because of cost, health and moral reasons despite the fact that many of us find it delicious.

Paul, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Paul Rozin:

The title is The Future of Meat. Let’s talk about the good side of meat. It’s a complete food. You can live on it alone because we’re made of the same stuff, so we get everything we need. It’s delicious. It’s the favorite food of humans around the world. It only accounts for 18% of all the calories eaten but that’s because it’s expensive. Most people in the world would eat more meat if they could afford it.

There’s a bad side of meat. High meat diets are associated with cardiovascular disease. It involves killing and maltreating animals, which is not nice. Some don’t think about it when we’re eating a steak, but it’s true.

Meat is much costlier to the world than plants. Beef especially is an extraordinarily extravagant food. You need 30 plant calories to get one calorie of beef. That’s wasteful of a lot of plant food. You have to wait a year and a half to get a cow big enough to kill. To get a quarter pound of beef, it’s 164 square meters. For chicken, it’s 7. Chicken is a lot better for the world. If you got rid of all the beef and lamb in the world you save an amount of land that’s roughly twice the size of the United States that’s now being used to either pasture the animals or to grow food for them. Over 70% of the agricultural land in the world is devoted to feeding animals, not humans.

Meat is the favorite and most taboo food in the world. Almost all food taboos are about animals. 500 million people won’t eat meat. They can afford to eat meat but who are voluntary vegetarians and their primarily motive is compassion. About half of vegetarians live in India and are Hindus.

I want to talk about three psychological things that affect our relation to meat. One is the idea of disgust, which is the strongest food rejection. You can feel how strong it is. If a cockroach or a rat touches your food, you won’t eat it, even if it’s your favorite food. Almost all food disgusts are animal products. It’s rare for people to say something like asparagus is disgusting. And if they do say that, you say, “Suppose your favorite food touched a piece of asparagus.” People say, “Oh, that’s fine.” So, they don’t mind.

Americans eat a lot of meat, but we don’t eat many different kinds of meat. There are 4,000 mammal’s species. We eat three: cows, pigs, and lambs. We only eat their muscle. Many don’t eat the liver. Some people do but very few. We don’t eat kidneys. We don’t eat eyeballs. We only eat them cooked. Of animals we only eat a little piece of them. Most animals are disgusting.

People in this country particularly and most of the West, love natural. They think that natural is healthier, but there is no evidence for that. It’s tastier, no evidence for that.

Some favorite foods are pizza, cheese, and chocolate. Pizza is the most popular American food. They’re not natural foods. You think you can find a pizza tree?

There are volcanoes, hurricanes, heat waves, and death. They’re all natural. If you look at what people think is natural it is not what’s in it as it’s how it got there. For example, if you take mineral water out of a spring, that’s good, that’s natural.

Now take out the minerals. That’s not natural anymore. Now you put the minerals back in. Now it’s like it was originally and people think that’s really unnatural. That’s much more unnatural than when you just took the minerals out. Putting it back means you poked in twice.

The context of the genetically engineered crop is almost the same, but it’s got a different history. The corn that we eat is so far from the corn that you find in Mexico, the original corn. It’s about one-tenth the size. The opposition to genetic engineering is moral. 50% of Americans say genetic engineering should be prohibited no matter the risks and benefits because it’s wrong. Technology is the only way out of this mess and yet people are opposed to it because they think it’s not natural.

The last point I want to make is sustainability. That’s a new moral issue. People are generally opposed to genetically engineered food, but it’s pro sustainable because it increases yield and pest resistance. They love organic food, but it’s actually not sustainable because it takes considerably more land to grow organic food. It costs more but people are willing to pay more.

Lots of people believe that natural things cause sustainability. That’s absolutely incorrect. Natural is not bad. It’s just neutral. Meat is not sustainable because it’s such an inefficient use of land and it produces toxic gases. The solutions are technology and behavior change. Due to technology, meat is not necessary anymore. We can replace meat with plant products and can supplement the plant products with things like vitamin B-12 that you can’t get from plants.

There are four potential ways we have of dealing with this problem, most of which involve technology. One is eating insects. Insects are eaten by two billion people. I’ve eaten quite a few of them. They’re pretty good. They don’t taste like meat, but they are tasty and natural. It’s disgusting and that stops people from eating it. They’re not cheap because they haven’t been scaled yet. No one’s tried.

The next thing is precision fermentation. This is a modern genetic transfer. You could get microorganisms by putting animal genes in them to make animal proteins. Insulin is made like that now. You can make heme, which is a blood protein, which makes meat taste like meat. You can grow that in plants. But it is not natural to poke it in there and change the genes. So, there’s opposition.

There’s plant-based imitation meat. The idea is to make plant products often from soy into meat texture and add heme to it, which has the taste of meat. It’s more expensive than meat and it’s not the same taste, but it’s moving quickly.

The last one I want to mention is cultivated meat. We take muscle cells out of a cow and grow them in a culture. Its taste is supposed to be quite good. For many people, it’s disgusting because almost all animal products are disgusting and this one is not natural.

We’re in a situation where the technology is moving rapidly and within 10 years, I think we’ll have cultivated meat that’s cheap enough and tastes good. It’s typically an S-shaped curve where a new technology develops very slowly, then some breakthrough occurs and it goes up quickly.

Let me give you examples. There were 8,000 cars in the United States in 1900. In the mid-1920s, America produced 20 million a year. Solar panels are now 10,000 times cheaper than in the 1950s.

What can we do to get people to eat less meat? We could take a little plant-based or cultivated meat and mix it in with real meat. So, it’s only 2% and then 5%, then 10%. We in psychology know that people get used to anything. People get used to losing a leg. They get used to getting old. Old people have as much quality of life as healthy young people.

If the person next to you breathes right into your mouth, you would find that disgusting, but you’re breathing their air if you’re sitting right next to them and you just get used to it. That’s the way the world is. Your body contains a pile of shit. You get used to it. You don’t think about it.

We’re going to get to the point where meat substitutes taste as good as meat. There’s the moral issue of poking into things and making them unnatural. The answer to this is to fight moral upset with counter morals to tell people that genetically engineered food has been poked in, but it’s saving people’s lives in Africa because they get more food. You got one moral against another and you work that through.

We know in psychology that people are more moved by individual events than by statistics. Joseph Stalin once said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” And he was right about that. If you think about the eco value of not eating meat, the fact that it saves the earth is abstract. If you do to not eat meat, it is not going to affect the climate much. But on the other hand, you’re participating in killing an animal when you eat meat. That’s much more immediate and it’s been the main reason people became vegetarians. We can use what we know about persuasion to get people to accept biotech because they can see the moral advantages of biotech.

Mitch Feinman:

I’m curious of the journey of your interest in meat. You were my Psychology 101 teacher in 1983. My only D in academia ever on your first midterm exam.

Paul Rozin:

My daughter got her only D at Penn in Psych one too. Not mine.

Mitch Feinman:

She was probably not studying like me. You talked about disgust and persuasion. Tell us about the journey studying psychology to meat.

Paul Rozin:

I have a joint PhD in biology and psychology. I started out working on how animals choose foods that are good for them. Rats can eat everything, but they eat what they need. I then decided to work with humans like how kids learned to read.

My wife wrote The Flavor-Principal Cookbook that said that most of the world’s cuisines have a set of flavors that they use on almost all food. Like with China, it’s soy sauce and ginger root. And I said, “That’s odd. Why do they do that?” I started working on how humans deal with food, which I’ve done for the rest of my life.

The first thing I studied was why people eat hot peppers because it tastes terrible. And then, I got interested in meat because it’s the favorite and most taboo food in the world. Much of my work now has been about how we’ve perverted the pleasure of eating in the United States. I do a lot of comparisons between French and Americans. The French enjoy eating as an experience and we think of eating primarily as affecting our arteries.

I recently got back into meat. I was working with a young postdoc who was a vegan and started thinking about how there are both health and moral reasons to not eat it. Some vegetarians are health vegetarians and some are moral. For example, if a newspaper article says, “Meat is great for you.” Health Vegetarians would stop being vegetarians and it would have no effect at all on moral vegetarians. They don’t care about that.

I’ve been studying sustainability and natural. Once I found that people think that natural is sustainable, which is wildly incorrect, I decided I better look into this because breaking this belief that natural is wonderful would be a major advance in dealing with a crisis of climate. So that’s how I got here.

Hugh Nickola:

Internationally does the view of meat and disgust differ dramatically.

Paul Rozin:

Most of our data comes from the Western world. I do a little work in India and Mexico where it’s quite different. India is different because they have half the world’s vegetarians for moral reasons at birth. They’ve never eaten meat. Most of the vegetarians we encounter in this country had an early experience of eating meat and turned away from it for health or moral reasons. We are the most obsessed with the health effects of food.

We have good food in this country and we enjoy it, but it’s tempered by this worry about weight. In the third world, which is 80% of the world, they’re much more worried about getting enough food. In Brazil and China, they’re increasing their meat intake because they’re getting wealthier and that’s what’s kept them from eating meat.

The French spend about twice as much time eating as we do it a day, but they eat less. They eat slowly, they savor their food and it’s why they have half the level of obesity that we do. It’s very ritualistic eating in France. You don’t watch the Dallas Cowboys or the French soccer team during dinner because that would intrude on the food experience. The proper way to eat, proper sitting at the table, not getting up at the middle of the meal while other people are still eating. All of this is deteriorating slowly because convenience food even affects the French. The world is getting more like America. People are getting more concerned about longevity. If you love food, it’s a disadvantage.

Larry Bernstein:

One of your core points was that meat’s too expensive in its use of land and plants. But our farms have become increasingly more productive. 99 percent of Americans used to work on the farm and now it’s less than 1%.

We’re seeing increases in productivity of 3 to 5% per year in use of pesticides, genetically modified crops, ability to minimize damage by insects. The tractor gets more productive every year. When you have massive increases in productivity, the cost of meat goes down.

My inclination to go for the cockroach seems low given that we are becoming rich. Why can’t we splurge and eat as much meat as we want?

Paul Rozin:

First, we’re plateauing on the efficiency of crops. I don’t think that we’re going to be able to continue to yield that much more from the land even with genetic engineering, but we are getting more. That’s true that it is getting cheaper, but we’re not going to have enough land. Arable land is half the land in the world. And of that, half is used for agriculture and of that over 70% is used to feed animals. Converting that pasture land to forests would be good for climate change.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to talk about imitation meat. In this audience we have Howard Shainker who can’t distinguish between a real and a fake diamond. Can you tell us about the transition in how humans think about manufactured versus natural diamonds?

Howard Shainker:

We used to own the largest online diamond vendor in the world called Blue Nile. When we bought the business, the lab grown diamond market was like 0.25% of the market. Over five years that we owned the business, which was a bad investment, the penetration of lab grown diamonds went from basically zero to now 50%.

Larry Bernstein:

Why did that change?

Howard Shainker:

You can’t tell the difference between one diamond and the other. At the very high end of the market, people cared and we had the belief wrongly that there would be nostalgia, why is a diamond forever? It takes thousands of years. It grows deep in the earth. And that’s the bond that means this marriage is forever. It turns out that women want the biggest ring you can buy within your budget. Women and men at 25 are optimizing for bling and the biggest you can get is the best. That is the consumer preference over everything else. Now, the majority of the market is lab grown and the price point has decreased even more.

Paul Rozin:

This raises the issue of authenticity. With art, for example, you would pay a lot more for an original Picasso than a really good imitation, not because you can tell them apart, though experts can, but because he really touched it.

For your grandmother’s ring, she touched it. That’s very valuable to you. You’re not going to trade that in for an imitation. Why did that not work for diamonds and why does it work for great art? Nobody cares about hearing the original performance of a great piece of music as opposed to the current one. So that’s like the diamonds. For some things authenticity matters and for other things it doesn’t and we don’t know the principle that explains why your diamonds were taken over.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is Steve Zoll who is the sausage king of Chicago.

Steve Zoll:

Say, we develop a meat duplicate by using vegetables or cultures. Will people want to eat it? Will the grossness be an obstacle to getting people to adopt this manmade meat?

Paul Rozin:

People get used to almost anything but not everything. When we have a perfect imitation meat and another piece of meat that’s real next to it, how are people going to react to that? Are they going to be willing to pay more for the real meat even though the experience is the same? But we do know that people care deeply about the history of things. If beef died out because of some plague, people would go without beef for a while and they might not go back as much when that got better.

Shani Raviv:

I advised for a company that farmed grasshoppers at scale. They chose this insect because you can use 100% of it. It’s kosher and halal.

The decision was to go with dog food because this is an easier access to the market. There wasn’t success in bringing insect-based protein into real food. They mostly hide it. There are energy bars that have 1% to 5%. Do you think the right strategy is to hide it as 1 or 2% in the ingredients or to define a new category?

Paul Rozin:

Insects are so disgusting to people that it’s probably better to make insect flour. I’ve tasted it. It’s pretty neutral. It’s a little nutty, but it’s good. The insect bars that you’re talking about, which are available now, are expensive. And the reason for that is no one scaled insect production.

It’s easy to farm insects. You don’t need a lot of space and the black soldier fly has to live for three weeks and then you can harvest the larvae and grind it. They eat non-human food. They eat melon rinds. They even eat feces.

Jeff Shell:

In 2025, more meat per person was consumed in the United States than any year in history. I would propose a theory that beef is part of the culture of eating in America. July 4th is flipping burgers on the grill. A burger is about as American as it gets. You do not see a lot of people on July 4th flipping impossible burgers.

Paul Rozin:

You’re absolutely right. It is a central part of American culture. So, there are two issues. One is to give up on the hamburger, which is a problematic thing to do and another is to make the hamburger an imitation roughly as good. And if you do the latter, how many people will still be upset because it isn’t a real hamburger. I can’t predict that.

Larry Bernstein:

Paul, end on a note of optimism as it relates to meat.

Paul Rozin:

I care about killing animals, which not all of you do. From my point of view, there’s going to be reduction in the amount of real meat. It’s going to be better for the earth, but how fast that’s going to happen I can’t say. There’s so much working against meat. What’s in favor of it is that it tastes great and it’s got prestige. In the third world, the more meat you eat, the more respected you are.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Paul for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Following the Terrorist’s Money.

Our two speakers were Eyal Azoulay and Ellie who are the founders of an Israeli Not-for-profit called ColEven. Terrorists move money from their Western supporters to the Middle East to fund their nefarious affairs. This happens despite the best efforts of American and European banks who spend billions of dollars trying to stop it.

Learn about how ColEven with its staff of former Israeli intelligence professionals work with the banks to impede bad actors.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Containing the New Axis Powers: China, Russia and Iran, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

119KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Seth Cropsey

Subject: Containing the New Axis Powers: China, Russia and Iran
Bio: President of the Yorktown Institute and Author of Breaking the New Axis: A US Grand Strategy for Eurasia

Transcript:

Containing the New Axis Powers: China, Russia and Iran

What Happens Next in 6 Minutes - 07.27.2026

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Containing the New Axis Powers: China, Russia and Iran.

Our speaker is Seth Cropsey is the President of the Yorktown Institute and the author of a new book entitled Breaking the New Axis: A US Grand Strategy for Eurasia.

I want to learn from Seth about why the Eurasian land mass is critical to American security. In addition, I want to hear about why the lack of ideological coherence of our adversaries is a weakness that we can exploit.

Seth, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Seth Cropsey:

American foreign policy has to deal with one superpower China, another near competitor Russia, and Iran. What is our strategy?

There are three schools: the most extreme is the isolationist approach, we can simply protect our borders and we’ll be safe. The second is China is the biggest threat so our resources should pivot toward China to prevent its global dominance.

The third school, which I would include myself in, is that our security, diplomacy, economic relationships, technology rest on understanding that the threats come from Eurasia, Europe and Asia, everything from the English Channel to the South China Sea. Europe, the West Pacific and the Middle East offer different economic opportunities, raw materials and finished goods and exclusion from any one of them would be like taking away the third leg from a stool.

Larry Bernstein:

What did we accomplish the Iran war, and is it part of an ongoing Eurasian conflict?

Seth Cropsey:

We destroyed a lot of Iranian military assets and hurt the Iranian economy significantly. The long-term consequences don’t look good because of the memorandum of understanding, there’s no effective compliance requirement to maintain the status quo in their search for nuclear weapons and the question of their increasing production of ballistic missiles is not addressed.

The ballistic missile production was harmed. It was not destroyed. It’s going to come back. And against their pledge of good performance, we’ve promised to provide economic relief in terms of sanctions and an ending of the blockade. The only assurance that that agreement has of Iranian compliance is the current administration’s threat to go to war again.

The history of the West complying with agreements with problematic states is bad. Going back to the Versailles Treaty, where Germany rearmed and no one did anything about it. The anti-ballistic missile treaty required the Soviet Union not to use radars. The Russians built a radar before and during the Reagan administration, but we did nothing in return. The Oslo agreement that Israel signed with the United States required certain behaviors of the Palestinians, which they quickly failed to observe.

Larry Bernstein:

We have enemies and Iran is one. What do we do about it? We can destroy their military forces. We can try to do a regime change which may require ground forces and we can apply economic sanctions.

Seth Cropsey:

And we can also arm their population that protests against the regime.

Larry Bernstein:

Trump and Netanyahu destroyed their existing nuclear supply, their existing ballistic missiles and destroyed their naval forces.

Seth Cropsey:

The ballistic missile production was harmed. It was not destroyed.

Larry Bernstein:

It’s a whack-a-mole situation.

Seth Cropsey:

It’s going to come back, yes.

Larry Bernstein:

Years ago, Ben Gurion made a statement that what distinguished Israel’s defense strategy was that it could not employ land forces to take over Arab capitals and subjugate them. What they could do is destroy their existing military equipment knowing that they would re-arm and attack Israel again. That’s the cards they’ve been dealt.

As we describe three foes of the United States (China, Russia, and Iran), we can’t use ground forces to destroy these enemies. We have economic sanctions that we’re currently employing against Iran maybe not for long, and also with Russia, but we’re limited of what we can do.

Seth Cropsey:

I’m concerned that the current memorandum of understanding tells me nothing more than to expect another war to take place at some time in the future.

Larry Bernstein:

For sure, because that’s our only option available to us unless there’s a regime change, or they decide that they do not want to destroy the United States or its allies.

Seth Cropsey:

Greater force could have destroyed Iran’s energy infrastructure.

Larry Bernstein:

There was fear that Iran would destroy our Gulf allies’ petrochemical infrastructure. It was a mutual assured destruction strategy for petrochemicals and that would create significant economic pain in the United States that weighed in the decision.

Seth Cropsey:

Which would be worse: their possession of a nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles in the near future, or the sort of damage that you described. I think the former would be worse.

Larry Bernstein:

Do you think we’re worse off than having not destroyed their existing military capacity?

Seth Cropsey:

We’re worse off now, yes. A famous Italian political philosopher observed that if you’re going to kill a king, make sure you don’t fail. We’ve stirred up the hornet’s nest and laid the way for them to recover financially by lifting sanctions against promises, which we should know they’re not going to observe.

If they out wait Trump, they know that they have a reasonable chance of facing an American president who is less likely than Trump to use force. And with the rift in his supporters that the war has caused, it’s a reasonable calculation that Trump would not use force again.

Larry Bernstein:

You learn in conflicts, both sides. The world learned that the Strait of Hormuz is more delicate than expected because of technological improvements with drones. The Saudis are now aware of it and they’re beginning construction of additional pipelines to take oil that would otherwise go through the strait. There’s also possibility of a canal.

Seth Cropsey:

A canal would make a lot of sense.

Larry Bernstein:

These aren’t expensive compared to a carrier group. I expect that these pipelines and canals will be built and be operational probably in two to three years. They don’t want to be paying this tax to the Iranians. How will this change the dynamic of future administration’s ability to be more aggressive?

Seth Cropsey:

If the oil did not have to flow through the Strait of Hormuz that’s a good thing, but that does not answer the question of ballistic missiles, which already can reach the Gulf States from Iran with no trouble. And if their production is ramped up even without a nuclear weapon that also presents a threat.

Larry Bernstein:

UAE and Saudis are aware that they have soft targets in their petrochemical infrastructure as well as their desalination plants. They could harden those assets.

Seth Cropsey:

They certainly could and we could help them.

Larry Bernstein:

Let’s move to the Russia-Ukraine situation. How should we think about this conflict in your paradigm of maximizing US security and emphasizing the importance of the Eurasian landmass as being critical to our security?

Seth Cropsey:

Putin looks at the expansion of Russia the way the Czars did in the 16th century. He understands that without productive military capabilities that Ukraine brings, Russia remains short of being an imperial power. I take Putin’s words seriously that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century and he means to reverse it.

Larry Bernstein:

How has this Ukraine war influenced Putin’s position?

Seth Cropsey:

It’s not clear that Putin has an accurate grasp of the casualties that the Russian military is taking or the amount of destruction.

Larry Bernstein:

I found surprising the ineffectiveness of the Russian Navy versus Ukrainian bomb-laden jet skis and drones. The Russians have abandoned the Black Sea. If they can’t even beat a country that doesn’t have a Navy, imagine what Americans would do to them.

Seth Cropsey:

It’s a significant setback for them and the Ukrainians accomplished it through imagination and determination. But as long as Putin is willing to accept the casualties for moving the front forward, kilometer by kilometer, the West faces the possibility that the war will be resolved in Russia’s favor. If he thinks that he is successful in Ukraine, the danger that exists there applies elsewhere in Europe.

Larry Bernstein:

Imagine that Ukraine had been a member of NATO during this attack. Would it have resulted in World War?

Seth Cropsey:

The entire point of NATO, which is a defensive alliance would have been proven correct. The threat of having to face the joint efforts of the United States and the European countries would deter him from attacking Ukraine in the first place.

Larry Bernstein:

And if it didn’t?

Seth Cropsey:

Then there’d be a fight.

Larry Bernstein:

It’s also possible that Trump would have said, “We’re not going to fulfill our treaty obligations.” Would that have been worse?

Seth Cropsey:

Yes, that’s true.

Larry Bernstein:

We should never have expanded the NATO alliance to include Ukraine. It’s always been Russian. You can see Trump making these arguments. I’m not sure that there would have been bipartisan support for a major war against Russia to fulfill these obligations.

Seth Cropsey:

That’s a separate question from what the consequences would be if Ukraine had been a member of NATO.

Larry Bernstein:

I understand that it could have deterred Russia, but there’s some probability it wouldn’t have.

Seth Cropsey:

That’s true.

Larry Bernstein:

Biden did say, “Don’t do it. I see you on the border, demanding that you respect the borders of Ukraine.”

Seth Cropsey:

But how likely was Putin to take Biden’s word seriously?

Larry Bernstein:

How seriously would Putin have taken the NATO obligation?

Seth Cropsey:

Given Europe’s desire not to have a major conflagration in Europe again for the third time in 110 years, pretty good.

Larry Bernstein:

You mentioned in the book that if Ukraine gets lost, that Poland is next, but Poland does incorporate the NATO deterrence. Do you think that the NATO deterrence will work in Poland?

Seth Cropsey:

It will work. NATO would be effective against Russia now. Putin has avoided mass mobilization since the beginning of the war. He won’t go to the families in Petersburg and Moscow to have their sons go into this war.

Larry Bernstein:

It’s probably just as true amongst the Western Europeans as well. I don’t know how effective a draft would be in Spain to defend Poland.

Seth Cropsey:

Well, a draft in Spain wouldn’t produce anything. But if you look at the steps that are being taken in Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Italy and England to increase the defense budget, those are already bearing fruit and Putin can see that.

Larry Bernstein:

Russia has been pretty bloodied by this Ukraine war. It’s lost a half a million men. More than a million people, mostly their brightest have emigrated out of Russia. They’ve lost a substantial amount of their munitions. They have to be very disappointed in their military capabilities, watching them against a third-rate armed force like Ukraine to be stalled for four years now. Is there any internal recognition in Russia that they’re very limited what they can accomplish to halt them from invading Poland as an example?

Seth Cropsey:

Russian oligarchs question whether this makes sense to continue losing money, enduring sanctions, losing men, and being an international pariah. People’s tolerance for being ostracized is limited to say nothing of having their national wealth expended on a project that in four years has produced gains that are not commensurate with the sacrifices that have been made.

Larry Bernstein:

Now having seen the Iranian memorandum of understanding, do you anticipate that the US will give up on Ukraine and they will be forced to give up their homeland to the aggressor?

Seth Cropsey:

I think a lot of that is up to us and our ability to work with allies and our strategy. If we are party to Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty, that will have effects around the world, Taiwan being the most obvious one.

Larry Bernstein:

Why are you focused on Eurasia as a single landmass as being important in the context of US strategy?

Seth Cropsey:

The question is whether we focus on China to the exclusion of everything else. That I think is a mistake because of the connections between the Middle East, the Far East and Europe. The productive capabilities of East Asia cannot be separated from the energy from the Middle East, and neither can be separated from the financial and technological advantages and the political, cultural, economic, historical connections that we have with Europe. The argument is to see Eurasia as a whole, rather than three parts, two of which can be regarded as lesser in favor of China.

Larry Bernstein:

How should we think about India as an ally as a member of the Quad, particularly regarding the defense of Taiwan and as a bulwark against Chinese aggression? What level of Indian support should we expect in a conflict with China in the Indian Ocean?

Seth Cropsey:

For the import of oil, ships have to pass through the Indian Ocean if they’re going to East Asia. And for the export of Chinese goods to Europe, the Indian Ocean is necessary transit. India is a place of significant strategic importance, and that’s why it’s not necessarily a good idea to have changed the name of what the Trump administration had originally called the Indo-Pac Command to its former name Pacific Command, PACOM.

Larry Bernstein:

I suspect that the Japanese would be brought into the war. I don’t imagine the Chinese would be able to export goods to Japan.

The Middle Eastern powers will have to choose a side and may be unwilling to export oil to China or alternatively the US Navy could prevent it.

What is the Chinese trade and export plan with a Taiwanese conflict?

Seth Cropsey:

It’s an uncertain situation because we don’t know their strategy, but when you frame it in those terms. If they went for a blockade, that’s an act of war, but nobody’s shooting things. What would our reaction be?

Larry Bernstein:

We’re going to blockade China.

Seth Cropsey:

The Chinese want to avoid counterblockades. They want to resolve a situation militarily by doing it quickly. Then it’s all over and that can be put aside while the West continues to import goods from China.

A large amphibious assault preceded by a tremendous missile barrage avoids the economic problem that you rightly point out.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to talk about demographics. The reason why the Eurasian landmass is so important is this is where most people live. Where is the world’s GDP away from the United States? It’s in the European Asian landmass.

Seth Cropsey:

The combined GDP of Eurasia is greater than that of the United States.

Larry Bernstein:

Europe and Asias populations are in incredible decline. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, as an alternative, in 1960, its population was 15 million. It’s now 115 million, expected to be 215 million by 2050 and 325 million by 2075 and by 2090 its population will be greater than the United States. GDP follows population to some extent and Africa will become a much more important part of the world. South Korea, its population is expected to fall 80% at current rates between now and 2100 and will not be a material economic power. How should we think about population driving economies and reducing the relative importance of the European Asian land mass as it depopulates?

Seth Cropsey:

I don’t see the West situation as being hopeless. I think it’s remediable, but that would take a considerable shift in the political, social, and cultural currents that run not only in Europe but increasingly here.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to go back to Taiwan. The Chinese violated the terms of their Hong Kong treaty during the first Trump administration. Trump called them out and asked for international support to push back against the Chinese and there was radio silence from our European and Asian allies. Trump said, “Nobody cares. What do you want from me? “ Is what we saw in Hong Kong a precursor of the international reaction for Taiwan?

Seth Cropsey:

I’d like to believe not, but a more vigorous reaction response requires an important nation to take the lead.

Larry Bernstein:

As an example, the United States took the lead on the Iran situation. The Europeans, the Indians, they didn’t care. They were, if anything, opposed to the US action. Could you imagine a situation where if the United States said we’re going to boycott China, that the Europeans would say that’s a violation of international law, we want our stuff?

Seth Cropsey:

If United States leadership is serious about its goals, willing to explain what they are and to back them up with the means necessary, the support of others is desirable; it’s not necessary.

Larry Bernstein:

It’s a big world and the United States has a number of foes and you’ve also mentioned that the only way to push back on that is through an alliance system. But if the allies neither arm nor are supportive with those arms during conflicts, it doesn’t allow for this interchange.

Seth Cropsey:

That’s why alliance management is so important.

Larry Bernstein:

Earlier I asked you about the Spanish if they were to tolerate a draft, you said they’re not going to show up and I believe you. Maybe the Poles will show up I could see the South Koreans showing up. Actually, maybe the South Koreans won’t show up.

Seth Cropsey:

The English, the French and the Italians deployed carrier strike groups to the Taiwan Strait within the past two years. They showed up. They understand what’s at risk there. I don’t count them out.

Larry Bernstein:

One of the aspects of your book is that countries end up doing what’s in their interests. Modi’s relationship with Trump is not critical to your prediction for Indian behavior.

Seth Cropsey:

Talk to 10 senior Indians and see what you think.

Larry Bernstein:

What I would find out is that they’re not aligned.

Seth Cropsey:

Their opinions are not held universally.

Larry Bernstein:

For sure. And that is true in the United States as well.

Seth Cropsey:

Yeah.

Larry Bernstein:

The progressive left and John Bolton don’t agree on first principles.

In each podcast, I end on a note of optimism. Seth, what are you optimistic about as it relates to the Eurasian landmass?

Seth Cropsey:

The profound ideological differences between the Iranians and the Russians and the Chinese are certain to produce fracturing in the future. There is no line through China, Russia, and Iran the way there was between Germany and the Soviet Union before the Ribbentrop deal came undone. There was a commonality of ideology, authoritarian-fascist, but the lack of an ideological connection spells trouble for the axis and we ought to take advantage of it.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Seth for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Following the Terrorist’s Money.

Our two speakers were Eyal Azoulay and Ellie who founded an Israeli Not-for-profit called ColEven. Terrorists move money from their Western supporters to the Middle East to fund their nefarious affairs despite the efforts of Western banks to stop it.

ColEven’s staff of former Israeli intelligence professionals follow the cash and then inform the banks to shut it down.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Following the Terrorist’s Money, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

102KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Eyal Azoulay and Ellie

Subject: Following the Terrorist’s Money
Bio: Founders of the Israeli Not-for-profit ColEven

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Following the Terrorist’s Money.

Our two speakers are Eyal Azoulay and Ellie who are the founders of an Israeli Not-for-profit called ColEven. Terrorists successfully move money from their Western supporters to the Middle East to fund their nefarious affairs. This happens despite the best efforts of American and European banks who spend billions of dollars trying to stop it.

ColEven uses the latest technologies in coordination with a staff of former Israeli intelligence professionals who inform the banks that bad actors are using their institutions.

I was introduced to Coleven at the Miami Beach Impact Forum. This organization has an annual Jewish charity shark tank event. At the dinner, four different charities explained what they do and then the audience picks charities to support. I was super impressed by Coleven’s mission and accomplishments and donated to them.

Ellie, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Ellie:

Coleven is a nonprofit intelligence organization. How do terror organizations move money through the global financial system despite the enormous compliance and regulatory infrastructure designed to stop them? Most people imagine terror financing as suitcases of cash or secret bank accounts. In reality, it is often hidden in plain sight. It can look like a charity fundraising campaign, a nonprofit organization, a small company registered in London, Hong Kong or Delaware, or an online crowdfunding page collecting donations from ordinary people who have no idea where the money is ultimately going.

Our mission at Coleven is to identify hidden financial networks and provide actionable intelligence to financial institutions, regulators, payment providers, and governments to take action.

We are not a government agency, think tank, or an advocacy organization. We are an operational intelligence organization using open-source intelligence, financial analysts, corporate records, and sanctioned data. We are mapping networks, identifying risks that can be used by decision makers.

Banks are consuming our digestible product because they are not equipped to map terrorism networks as opposed to anti-money laundering. They have a gap with the intelligence and Coleven can help.

The financial system is powerful. Military action can disrupt terrorist organizations. Law enforcement can persecute them, but if you remove access to funding, you reduce their ability to recruit, operate, travel, purchase equipment and expand. Money is the oxygen that allows these networks to survive. We focus on the financial layer because it is one of the most effective points of intervention. Eyal, do you want to share how it all started?

Eyal Azoulay:

What is financial crime enforcement? When we talk about a crime, enforcement is the local police, the state police, and the FBI to enforce the laws. In finance, the regulator within the government says, “Here are the rules and best practices.”

The enforcement arms are the financial institutions themselves. They build the operation and execute enforcement including judgment and penalties. An organization is the prosecutor, the judge and the executor. All three within a financial institution who can’t see the details from the noise. It’s not scalable. If they are not doing good work, the government will say, “Here’s a big penalty and here is where you failed.”

You don’t need to go to the regulator. If you want to be effective, you need to go to the enforcement arm within financial institutions.

Larry Bernstein:

Financial institutions often harass innocent bank customers by mistake.

Eyal Azoulay:

Innocent citizens can get penalized and it’s almost impossible to get back from it. There are huge amount of suspicious alerts activities and tools that handle that at scale are bad. Everything is static about one single point. If you don’t understand something within the context, how can you make a judgment?

Larry Bernstein:

We got two different concepts: alpha error and beta error. Alpha error is when you miss the terrorist. Beta error is when you misdiagnose an innocent. Missing the terrorist is worse, but damning an innocent is also problematic. The reality is it’s like finding a needle in a haystack. In a normal day’s work for a bank, there aren’t much terrorist activities. It’s predominantly innocent people who get snagged. I am both an individual and a partner in a financial institution. KYC – Know Your Customer is a total mess.

Eyal Azoulay:

Oh yeah.

Larry Bernstein:

Their collection of information about me seems ridiculous. If my passport were to expire that is a problem as if my US citizenship is now in doubt. They want me to swear that I’m not doing business in Sudan.

Are current KYC best practices effective in achieving its goals or is it simply a nuisance for most innocent customers?

Ellie:

This is something that we’re dealing with every day. How do you identify Hakohen, which is a common Israeli name with Kahane Chai, which is a group of extremists. Terrorism is a small niche within the KYC ecosystem. It is the hardest to find because it’s about putting a lot of dots together and mapping seemingly innocent names and entities to put them all together rather than to follow actual monies and things that raise red flags. And we need the human eye to be professional to sit and map.

Banks lack the human resource to do this. As we speak, number 24 in Hamas can register himself with any US bank because he’s not part of the US blacklist.

Now the very same person, number 24 in Hamas won’t dare walk into a bank in Israel. We were managing to map the cousin of the #1 in Hamas because her family name was familiar to our researchers, but I’m not sure that every top bank in the United States can be familiar with such a family name.

Larry Bernstein:

Eyal, you mentioned that the bank is a self-regulating organization.

Eyal Azoulay:

It is extremely regulated but not on the right things.

Larry Bernstein:

The banks have been read the Riot Act that if they screw up and allow a Mexican mob to bank with them. They will get a huge fine and heads are going to roll.

There’s a check the box mentality without a vision as to the real sense of what’s going on. I saw the TV show Ozark.

Eyal Azoulay:

Exactly.

Larry Bernstein:

Tell me about the bad guys working around the check the box.

Eyal Azoulay:

First of all, I 100% agree. The top five banks in the US have 9,000 people executing this work. They are spending $250 billion every year on a system that is over-featured to make sure that the regulator is happy and is not pissed at us.

Over featured, over engineered only to that metric, not can I find bad actors and wash them out of my system? Can I reduce the amount of friction that I bring on innocent people? These are not the goals. There is a single goal and the single metric is keeping the regulator happy. That’s it. $250 billion of operation in an industry that is focused only on one thing and that’s where the problem is. It’s only checking the boxes is making it look like we’re spending a lot of money. If you go to a risk organization, let’s say with Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citibank. You tell them, “You can do A, B, C and make it better and reduce people you’re going to say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa.”

I’m not going to go back to the regulator and telling I’m spending less money because then it will be piecemeal. That’s the problem. The concept of KYC, know your person you are interacting with. Larry, you and I can go into business together. We’re acting on good faith of what’s going to happen.

But when we shake hands, there’s mutual risk exposure. I bring exposure to you, you bring exposure to me and we need to understand it. That’s the essence of what they’re trying to do in a bank in a KYC. Who is that person in front of me and what is the exposure that that person, that entity can create for me as a bank? Now because everything is superficial, everything is about checking the box, they’re looking on data out of context. They don’t go deeper to understanding why because they have neither the tools nor the people with the right skills and don’t have the motivation to do it.

Larry Bernstein:

Tell us about not understanding money movement in context.

Eyal Azoulay:

First of all, it’s a business. We spoke about the motivation towards making sure that the regulator is not unhappy with us. The goal is to push as much business volume as we can.

You have stakeholder fiduciary rights. So how do you manage that balance? You check the boxes and then the regulator is not unhappy with you. The problem with the gray area. It’s a concept that says that I can deal with 80% and they will be fine. The rest of the 20% are great people like Larry and 10% of them are number 10 in Hezbollah. They don’t care. Simple as that.

Larry Bernstein:

Ellie, how does your organization figure out who the bad actors are, and why are you successful when big banks fail despite billion-dollar budgets?

Ellie:

We are focusing on providing financial institutions with clear maps about organizations and individuals, showing the connection between an individual to a certain NGO, another company that will lead to one hop from a sanctioned entity.

When you’re sitting with a compliance officer, you start at the end. And the end is a sanctioned person or entity. Second from the end is the other guy that has a business relationship with this sanctioned entity. We are focusing on that gray area for those gatekeepers and provide them with insightful intelligence.

Now we bring our findings only from the open source, from the social media, from tax registrations. We have our secret sauce - the mapping and provide evidence that is verified and trustable. However, it’s not a level that will be required by a court. Our map backed by reports that are clickable. We save gatekeepers time and prevent huge fines and even criminal charges for senior management of these banks.

What makes us a very unique NGO is that we bring actual intelligence to the desks of those who can act upon it. KYC is about checking the boxes, but it’s about a different behavior and typologies that represent the financing of terrorism as opposed to money laundering. We know it’s because we also conduct educational sessions with the compliance and fraud teams.

Larry Bernstein:

What is your interaction like with the banks?

Ellie:

Dealing with banking disclosure, they cannot share with us certain information. Once we can bring a bank our reports, they happily respond that it received with thanks, but they will never share with us a certain individual name that came through this net.

They’ll just thank us because we help them with their potential exposure. We do have some indications because we verify that our report was opened 400 times by the same compliance department at a certain bank. A high opening rate of our materials, we know for sure they have interest with that information.

Larry Bernstein:

Your job is a whack-a-mole.

Ellie:

You couldn’t define it better.

Larry Bernstein:

There’s the bad actor who needs the cash. Cash is the oxygen for every organization. They need to get cash from friends of the bad organization. You shut down one of their bank accounts and they will open a replacement. It’s like water. Water is insidious. If you have a leak in the roof, it will find its way through your ceiling. Cash is like water. Tell us about the whack-a-mole and how you deal with it.

Ellie:

The whack-mole is complicated. It’s not only about cash finding its way through the cracks, but also that certain individuals that managed to evade the sanction list. So only their organization was sanctioned, but senior management didn’t get onto the blacklist. They managed to open the new organization and are familiar with the student groups that funded antisemitism within the universities such as SJP and AMP. They’re all about the same people that are shutting down and opening up the organization. So, it’s not only about the money, it’s also about the way they’re structuring their organizations.

It is a never-ending whack-a-mole. I’m looking at my researchers sitting in the next room putting the dots together again and again and again and mapping these materials. How come they don’t give up?

Sometimes they already know their organizations and the individuals. They know him because they met him in another case and he pops up in another case and another organization and so on. The money goes with them. However, we have our indications that we disrupt them. It’s not only about freezing and shutting down certain accounts. It is also about raising the awareness of the gatekeepers to those phenomena and to the way they behave and to the regulator list.

The regulator managed to shut down an organization we provide with the name of the five senior management of that organization, which are no less important and have their contribution to the situation.

As a nonprofit organization with a very lean operation, we cannot solve the financing of terrorism problem. We know that billions of dollars are going through the Western financial institutions and we cannot solve it all. Money will always find its way to the malicious hands. But we’re trying to interfere with this cash movement and make it less easy to operate out in the open and more difficult for those networks to collaborate to transfer the money.

That is similar to how the US government is trying to deal with drugs. Drugs will not vanish from the world, but fighting the drugs within the United States making it difficult for them to operate and extend.

It’s about sealing the cracks to make it harder for those networks to work. We read their reactions in the social media. They don’t exactly know who but they are complaining about the difficulties they are facing recently in the places we are active like with fundraising platforms. When we tackle a certain URL that is fundraising monies to fund terror. When we manage to shut down such a campaign, this is a win that we can point at because it’s just shutting down the campaign and freezing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Larry Bernstein:

I’ve given a charitable donation to your organization and I encourage my listeners to consider it as part of their active giving because your mission and impact per dollar of contribution is substantial. Ellie, can you give our listeners a reason to give money to your organization to reduce terrorism?

Ellie:

Larry, thank you so much for your kind donation. Here is a link to our donation page. We’re a nonprofit organization providing information for free and banks cannot resist to receive it.

Larry Bernstein:

They’re stuck.

Ellie:

They’re stuck when they’re familiar with this information. So here is a lean team sitting in one room in Tel Aviv, you should see our office here. They’re not elegant, very modest, best analysts we have in the country coming from amazing units in the IDF.

Larry Bernstein:

Do you have Americans with banking experience who have moved to Israel to work for your organization?

Ellie:

We have some Olim Hadashim that are here that made Aliyah to Israel and coming from the banking system in the United States. We have here someone who was in charge of fraud in one of the big banks in the United States so he can provide us with the other angles.

Speaking of our impact, one of the top tier banks in the United States stopped correspondent banking thanks to accurate information we’ve managed to provide that bank. Billions of dollars were frozen.

Larry Bernstein:

For our listeners what that means, if ColEven were to flag a terrorist organization using a Lebanese bank several times. a US Bank will stop doing business with the corresponding bank in Lebanon.

Ellie:

It is as simple as that.

Larry Bernstein:

What are you optimistic about as it relates to undermining terrorist organizations ability to move cash?

Ellie:

To collaborate with like-minded organizations that are doing amazing work and we can share our insights and shorten investigation times as well as raising the awareness of the biggest institutions and with the regulators. We will interrupt in a massive way money and interfere organizations working with Western financial institutions.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Ellie and Eyal for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Encouraging Debate with College Students.

Our speaker was Daniel Diermeier who is the Chancelor of Vanderbilt. Daniel spoke about how the administration builds a culture of political neutrality on campus that encourages free speech and allows for debate without shaming.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Encouraging Competing Viewpoints Among College Students, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

122KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Daniel Diermeier

Subject: Encouraging Competing Viewpoints Among College Students
Bio: Chancelor of Vanderbilt University

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Encouraging Competing Viewpoints Among College Students.

Our speaker is Daniel Diermeier who is the Chancelor of Vanderbilt. I want to hear from Daniel about how the administration can build a culture of political neutrality on campus. I want to learn about creating a university culture that encourages free speech and allows for debate without shaming the opposing perspective.

Daniel, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Daniel Diermeier:

I’m the chancellor of Vanderbilt University. There are key institutions that are at the root of the success of our societies, whether that’s businesses or democracy, and rule of law. But, the trust in these institutions has plummeted dramatically. The main reason is that they’re complicated and often don’t operate in a way that’s easily for people to follow. So, if we are not able to explain clearly what the benefit of what the university is, we’re going to lose the trust of the American public.

The second important piece, is that these institutions have a particular purpose. The moment we deviate from that, then we lose the fundamental reason for why we exist and what the benefits are; we eroding trust as well. My concern is that universities have done both of these. They have not clearly stated what the purpose and benefit is for universities. And secondly, that they have drifted away from the purpose of creating and transmitting knowledge towards taking positions on a whole variety of political issues. University leaders need to address these challenges.

Larry Bernstein:

You’ve talked about keeping political ideology out of the classroom. Why is that problematic? Why does that create distrust? And how can the administration remove politics from the classroom, research, and tenure decisions if the faculty isn’t on board?

Daniel Diermeier:

Great research universities are about creating an environment for pathbreaking research and a transformative education. You want students to leave with knowledge in their particular area, whether it’s computer science or history. You want to prepare them for a meaningful career. And, you want to make sure that they can function as educated citizens in a free and democratic society. Now in most areas that works. The education is great in the sciences and the other areas. But what we’ve seen is that in some fields there are real problems where society reflects upon itself.

Those are the humanities, the qualitative social sciences, sociology, anthropology. You need to be exposed to the fundamental perspectives that are relevant. Let’s say you take a class on criminal justice and some people have argued persuasively or provocatively that the criminal justice system is biased or that it has the consequences of suppressing minority communities. You need to have both of the perspectives that are germane to the field and you then need to be discussed.

They need to be present in a syllabus. If that’s not the case, you’re only getting one side of the argument and then this particular class is not doing its job. To me, this is not about left/right balance so much than it is about the subordination of scholarly standards.

Larry Bernstein:

I did a podcast recently with John Shields who is a professor at Claremont. He looked at college course syllabi and found that there was faculty bias in the choice of what reading material was assigned. What did you think of John Shields’ analysis? See this link for my podcast with Shields.

Daniel Diermeier:

Their recent study looked at three issue areas that are domains that tend to be very controversial: criminal justice, the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and abortion. Now, in the case of the criminal justice class, they focused on a controversial but widely read book, The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, which is a complicated argument that argued that the mass incarceration related to the war on drugs had the consequence of suppressing African American communities.

Now there was a lot of criticism of that as there would be when you have a provocative book like that, that people took issue with the analysis and the data of the argument. What they found is that when they looked at syllabi on this particular topic, 94% would only assign the New Jim Crow. The students would never hear the other side of the argument. That’s problematic because now students have an impression that that’s the state of scholarship in this area even though it is not.

That point of view is not driven by scholarly concerns but by a political agenda. This is not a case about balancing left versus right. This is a case about teaching a particular area of study in a way that it should be taught.

Larry Bernstein:

John Shields argued that the politics of the professor shows up in the syllabus and whether it’s by design or not, the fact is that you have a leftist author in this example, Michelle Alexander, combined with a second author who’s even much further to the left and that there’s no book assigned from the center, center-right or the right.

Daniel Diermeier:

I’m a little worried about framing the entire issues a left versus right and take the example of Michelle Alexander’s book and you have a devastating critique written by somebody who is center-left.

So what matters is not so much that we balance left versus right, that we have the relevant perspectives in a particular class on a particular area that are represented. Now sometimes these people’s research will be motivated by their beliefs and that by itself, it’s just that’s who we are as humans. That’s the great German philosopher later taught in the United States, Hans Reichenbaum always made the following distinction. He called the context of discovery and the context of justification. Context of discovery, we have ideas for why we engage with research. Some are political, some are personal, some are theological, some are moral.

But once we enter the world of justification where we have to put our research and now it has to be criticized, to be open to criticisms no matter what people’s point of view. And in a teaching context, we need to faithfully represent the particular area of research that is relevant to this area. So you can have very intense debates on economics, on regulation or crime and people are like, it’s 80% on one side, but people are interested and committed to figuring things out. They’re not putting blinders and restrictions on themselves saying, “You can’t ask that question because it’s inconsistent with my political belief.

I want to emphasize the commitment to scholarly rules here. Universities tend to limit this debate., Many areas in the humanities, for example, like how we interpret pieces of art where we have the same problems, but they don’t naturally map onto a left/right ideological spectrum. And these fields are just as problematic, it’s just as important that we are committed to rigorous scholarship and the norms and standards that support that.

Larry Bernstein:

How did the university system become so partisan?

Daniel Diermeier:

I would say 85% of the faculty now just want to do their work. Your typical mechanical engineer want to be 14 hours in the lab and be left alone. They may tend to vote Democrat on average, but their politics is not central to their work or who they are, but they tend to vote Democrat. That’s the vast majority of faculty. That is not problematic that’s working well.

The sciences, engineering are working really well. Then there’s another smaller group. These are faculty members that fundamentally believe that the world is structured in an unjust fashion, that we understand this injustice as systemic and foundational, that our responsibility is to dismantle these structures of oppression and that this struggle and this commitment become central to who they are as scholars, as researchers, and as teachers. These faculty tend to be concentrated in certain fields: humanities, qualitative social sciences, sociology, anthropology, and adjacent fields. It’s important to the way they view their role and their purpose in the context of the university. They have a very clear idea what the university should do. It should be part of the struggle and they’re organized. As a consequence of that, they tend to dominate certain departments. They sometimes dominate issues of institutional self-governance.

You have a scattered group on the conservative or the traditional liberal John Stuart Mill’s free speech group and you have an organized group on the left and the radical left. I don’t mean moderate left, I mean radical. And so as a consequence of that, university presidents have to navigate that in an environment, which it’s difficult because you constantly get pushed from one side. Some presidents like my former boss at the University of Chicago, Bob Zimmer, was very clear about the principles the University of Chicago stands for, but many presidents don’t want to deal with any drama on campus.

Muddling through and then the ship drifts for 20 years and over time it drifts in a radical direction. That’s what we’re seeing in certain fields.

It manifested itself first in the free speech controversy. So, this was like when we had speech codes like this inviting a certain speaker. We had the Halloween controversy at Yale.

That’s better now because we have a clear set of Chicago principles and groups like FIRE played an important role to put some pressure on universities to improve the free speech environment. Chapter two was institutional neutrality. That of course was critical after October 7th. And again, we had principles and then we had pressure

from alumni, also like the Jewish community. And again, universities moved in a good direction by adopting standards of institutional neutrality.

The third chapter now is what happens in the classroom, in research, and in professional associations and that’s a much more complicated problem because it needs to be done consistent with academic freedom.

Fundamentally you need to look at what’s happening in these departments, who is hired, under what circumstances, what are the principles? You have to ask yourself, are we producing the next generation of scholars? And then you have to look at institutions of certification. These are professional associations, journals, prizes, all things that be prestige and recognition of faculty. There have been problems there as well. The whole system of research, teaching, how do we educate the next generation of scholars need to be looked at and presidents need to lean in one by one to get this set back to the original purpose of the university.

Larry Bernstein:

How do we depoliticize our universities?

Daniel Diermeier:

Well, there are formal principles and then there’s informal aspects and culture. The formal side is this commitment that leaders of universities will not take positions on policy or political issues unless they’re directly and material connected to the core purpose of the university.

I will take a position as a university president on things like research funding because it’s directly connected to the university, but will not take positions on foreign policy or the Dobbs decision. Why? Because we don’t want to create a chilling effect where certain things can’t be talked about or whether we have an institutional orthodoxy. And secondly, if we do a statement, particularly if we do it in haste over the weekend, we are supposed to be the places of expertise and careful work that looks at the complexity of the world in a methodologically rigorous fashion and making a statement over as complex an issue as the conflict in the Middle East is exactly the opposite of what university should do.

Now the important thing is it’s not just about the speech by presidents. It is also about divestment. The university endowment is there to support faculty and students. It’s not there to be an op-ed page. We’re not in the business of boycotting because they have a connection with Israel. Departments should not make statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the same reason that they create a chilling effect and an institutional orthodoxy and that is particularly pernicious for junior faculty that rely on their senior colleagues to get recommendations for promotion and tenure or for graduate students or even for undergraduates. So that should just be off limits.

That’s institutional neutrality, and the second part is the informal aspects that there’s certain things you just can’t talk about or you’re going to be ostracized. It is not appropriate to shun somebody that is a great scholar just because they have a political position that disagrees with the majority of the department. That is not acting as a scholar. The fundamental principle should be is that we are hiring scholars because of their scholarly competence not because of their political orientation.

The moment you hire people or promote them because they’re in line with particular political position, you have deviated from scholarly norms and that is not okay.

Larry Bernstein:

I did a podcast on the demise of small colleges in New England like Hampshire College. We’ve seen prospective students drift away from smaller colleges towards the major universities in the United States. Students are now at Vanderbilt, the University of Chicago, UPenn and the University of Texas. These schools have exploded.

Daniel Diermeier:

Our applications in early decision went up by 20% last year. We took like 2.8% of our regular decisions. This is off the charts.

Why are students and families looking for this environment? The reason is that we’re living in the age of technology. AI is front and center for everybody, but the same is there’s similar revolutions going on in biomedical and engineering, quantum and so forth. The knowledge base in these areas turns over extremely rapidly. So, if you want cutting edge AI research, I think the estimated knowledge base turns over in like three to six months, very similar in biomedical engineering and all the areas that are core to the innovation economy, which also means that’s where career opportunities are for students.

Students want to be exposed to that. Not all the students, but many want to do that. To teach this at the frontier of knowledge, you need to have it taught by active researchers. That is not true with the traditional areas like philosophy or history or English. Yes, there are advances, but the speed is not as profound and age and experience may make you an even better teacher of Plato. The problem for local arts colleges is that it is very difficult to teach these fields at a level that is at the frontier of knowledge because you need researchers for that, but to have researchers that you need a research infrastructure, which means you need labs and federal research grants and all of that.

A related point is that a rural location is not an innovation center. An urban environment is attractive to students because many of them want to get engaged sometimes in startups, in projects, in internships, all these types of things and that is easier if you are in a large research university in a thriving metropolitan area. Those are the reasons for why there’s success.

Larry Bernstein:

The price of education has gone up significantly in real terms, it grows faster than inflation and takes a greater percentage of our economy. It’s a combination of entertainment and education and that’s why kids want to be on campus but being on campus is expensive versus online.

Daniel Diermeier:

When you look at the net tuition that students pay after financial aid, in real dollars it has gone down at least at Vanderbilt over the last 15 years. And that’s because of the very substantial financial aid commitments that we make, particularly for low-income students, but it’s on a sliding scale. I think that’s not appreciated and it’s an important thing to keep in mind. That’s an important social mission that we engaged in as university is that for no student should the financial barriers to access prohibit them from going to Vanderbilt.

The second comment I think is, isn’t there a cheaper way of producing this type of education. Isn’t there a better way to do this?

I went to a German public university and that was much cheaper. It was funded by the state and I was first generation and I got a fellowship, but that was just for my living expense because the university was free. And the problem is that the quality is much worse. The classes are totally full. If you have a TA session, there were like 90 people around. There was no career support. There was no mental health support at all. There was no extracurricular activity at all. If you are first generation students and you have no support, the dropout rates are very high.

If you are admitted to Vanderbilt and you graduate and you come from a very wealthy background and you come from the toughest background in the country these two students graduate from Vanderbilt have the same lifetime expected income. They have the same life chances irrespective of their income, of the income of their parents. That is an astonishing accomplishment and that is what we do. But in order to support the students, there has to be a lot there.

For example, they have to meet each other. They have to be networks. Living together is really valuable for social capital. The system delivers on that, but it doesn’t come cheap.

Larry Bernstein:

When I was applying to college, Vanderbilt was a sleepy Southern school. Today it’s reputation and its educational offerings are world class. What happened? How did Vanderbilt rocket ship to become one of the top universities in the world?

Daniel Diermeier:

We’ve seen a tremendous increase in interest over the last few years. It is a place that values academic rigor, but combines this with a commitment that the students would grow as a person. It’s part of who we are. We set up the residential college model all the way down to the importance of extracurricular activities and the way we provide opportunities for students outside the classroom. The second piece, we’re a very collaborative place. We say students learn best, grow best if they’re members of a community that’s supportive and challenging.

It’s a sports analogy, it’s hard to make the team. When you make the team, we want you to be the best first baseman you can be and we want to be the best person you can be and your teammates are there to support and challenge you and your coaches are there to guide you. That’s the educational model. We sharpen it. We improved it. We did more in residential colleges. That’s pillar one.

The second thing that happened was really October 7th. We talked about in the last podcast together (about expelling students who misbehave), but we took a very principled stand on that. We were very clear that we would not tolerate harassment of Jewish students on campus. When we had problems with protestors, we acted according to our principles. And then when there were violations of rules, we took a properly disciplinary action. We did exactly what we said we would do and we lived up according to our values. Because we were an outlier on that among universities, there’s a lot of media interest in that.

That positioned us as a place that’s principled, that’s committed to creating an environment on civil discourse on campus where students can explore ideas, where they’re taught how to think, not what to think, and where we treat each other with respect, we don’t demonize each other just because we have different points of view.

It particularly resonated with the Jewish community because of the stark contrast for what they saw at other universities. I was honored by Chabad International, the Lamplighter Award, and from the White Rose Society in recognition for the environment that we created for Jewish students over the last two years.

Our last Passover Seder, we celebrated in the football stadium, 600 students were there. They had a great time. They brought their non-Jewish friends along. It was fantastic. That puts you on the map.

If you were like a family three or four years ago and you were saying, “Okay, where am I going to send my sons and daughter?” And you have a student that can go anywhere, let’s say, Penn, Harvard, Stanford.. Once you’re a viable alternative, now the differences matter. Se have seen a dramatic increase in interest from families from the Northeast, especially New York and California and especially from Jewish families that are saying, “This is a place where my son and daughter can thrive.” Something right about our culture. We invest a lot in the student culture of civil discourse. When students come on campus, they sign a pledge, we have a program which we call Dialogue Vanderbilt that is how we do things around here and where it becomes a habit for the students to engage with respect and by using arguments and not demonizing each other. And when people visit on campus, they see that and when they talk to the students, they see that. In the current environment that alternative is striking to people, that’s why we see the increase in interest.

Larry Bernstein:

What makes you optimistic about the university?

Daniel Diermeier:

I am optimistic that things are moving in the right direction. I’ve been on politicization of universities for about four years. We had the drama with October 7th and then the conflict with the federal government. Seeing things like the Yale report, the Harvard report, the principles that the AAU put out, these are all movements in the right direction. I think people recognize that these are great institutions, but certain things need to be fixed.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Daniel for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was How AI will Change Law Schools, Law Firms, and Users of Legal Services.

Our speaker was Polk Wagner who is the Deputy Dean of Penn Law School who has been charged with figuring out how to adapt the law school curriculum to the AI revolution. Polk discussed how law schools will adapt as their graduates’ jobs will no longer focus on document creation but will instead require complex legal analysis.

We also talked about how AI will change the structure of law firms since the by-the-hour billing practice will end and what will replace it.

In addition, we chatted about how consumers of legal services will use AI to negotiate contracts, to comprehend complex legal agreements, and to help draft documents that previously would have been delegated to their attorneys.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Curing the New Ebola Virus, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

110KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ari Ciment

Subject: Curing the New Ebola Virus
Bio: Pulmonologist and Former President of Medical Staff at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein.  What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Curing the New Ebola Virus.

Our speaker is Ari Ciment. Ari ran the Covid Ward at the Mount Sinai Hospital in Miami Beach and is the former president of the hospital’s medical staff. He is probably best known for being my doctor.

Let’s begin.

Ebola has reared its ugly head again in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Is this a mutation of the previous Ebola virus or is this something new that has come directly from a bat?

Ari Ciment:

This is a mutation of Ebola virus, but it does have a natural reservoir which is the bat.

Larry Bernstein:

Do the bats get sick and die or are they merely transmitting the virus?

Ari Ciment:

Bats pick up the Ebola virus. The Ebola virus is a filovirus, which is an RNA virus that are responsible for all the previous pandemics because an RNA virus mutates 10,000 times faster than DNA viruses. What does that mean when they mutate? They change their surface proteins. The Ebola Zaire virus from 2014 had specific surface proteins. This one is different than that virus, although it’s in the Ebola virus family. So. the same vaccines that were used for Ebola Zaire or the same monoclonal antibodies are not going to be effective with the current Ebola virus.

So as per your question about what happens with the bats, the bats are protected. The bats pick up this Ebola virus. Then comes along a hunter making bush meat, he’s killing rodents, he’s killing bats. They start eating the meat and they become infected with the Ebola, whereas the bats won’t suffer any symptoms.

Larry Bernstein:

A major difference between Ebola and COVID is that COVID is an airborne virus. I remember at the beginning of COVID that we were like, “Don’t touch this.” It turned out that was a bunch of nonsense and we knew it early on but we still kept using our cleaning fluids and not touching the box.

But over time we recognized that for an airborne virus, it was more important to keep our distance, have the windows open so we wouldn’t catch a substantial viral load.

Ebola is not an airborne virus. So how do you catch it?

Ari Ciment:

So this is purely by contact. I don’t know if you saw the show 24. At the end of the season, if you remember, she shook the hand of the man who had Ebola virus and the implication was that the Ebola virus went through the skin into the person. It doesn’t necessarily go through the skin, but it’s very catchy in the sense that if you have an open wound, if you touch your mucus membranes, that’s what is meant by contact precautions. So that’s why you see all the HAZMAT gear

COVID is airborne. It’s easier to get. However, the mortality is much less than the Ebola virus that is going to be 30 to 50%, whereas COVID was more like 1%.

Larry Bernstein:

Going back to transmission, fluid is the key thing. So, your excrement, blood, vomit, spit, semen, carries the virus and any of those liquids gets into your body, that is how it transmits. What’s interesting is that this illness in the human host results in diarrhea, vomiting, complete and utter bodily destruction. And in that destructive process, you are just disseminating this liquid virus every which way. And you’ve got a loved one in trouble, you go over to check on them to clean up the mess. And in that process, you catch it. You touch an open wound, you touch your mouth, you touch your eye, you touch your nose, and then lo and behold, you’ve got it. This is going to most likely result in transmission in the home.

Ari Ciment:

One bodily function you didn’t mention was sweat.

Larry Bernstein:

I didn’t realize that.

Ari Ciment:

60% of the cases are women and it points to household transmission, which is key here because women are usually the caregivers. They’re taking care of the sick person.

What’s also very interesting, Ebola virus replicates really fast in the cytoplasm as opposed to COVID. The Ebola virus ends up very fast with more dramatic symptoms. The key finding classically is hemorrhaging. Young kids that have bloody noses and just nonstop blood. That will become a cycle of constant transmission and infection. And when they end up dying, the people taking care of the dead bodies are also contracting the illness.

Larry Bernstein:

Let me ask an ethics question as it relates to funeral rights. People die every day and the state does not limit anything to do with what happens next. But I could see from a health consideration that the state could say, “This dead body we are going to burn it because the dead body can spread Ebola. Have your funeral without the body. Okay. That’s over. Now that violates Jewish traditions for sure. Tell us about the ethics of state actions to take the dead body for fear of Ebola spread.

Ari Ciment:

If you watch the videos, there was a video on CNN I saw it. It’s an actual coffin that’s being handled by a healthcare worker in HAZMAT and the family want to get to the coffin and he is protecting it. He is making sure nobody gets close to the coffin. But you could see the skepticism, which is so critical to this epidemic to be going out of control.

Larry Bernstein:

Americans and other doctors who work for Doctors without Borders are going to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the locals are very suspicious of their behavior because their loved ones are dying from their care given the 30-50% mortality rates from the Bundibugyo Ebola virus.

Ari Ciment:

In some cases, they burn down their housing because they don’t know why they can’t see their loved ones. First of all, they don’t understand.

Larry Bernstein:

It doesn’t help that there is ongoing violence in the area between the Hutu and the Tutsi people in the DRC. You may remember that there was a genocide in Rwanda and there is ongoing fighting now between these peoples in the very place where the Ebola is running wild. Is there a relationship between civil wars and epidemics.

Ari Ciment:

Because of the ongoing friction between the M23, the Hutu and the Tutsi that is rampaging from the DRC and Rwanda, that friction is causing a lot of skepticism.

Larry Bernstein:

The medical professionals in the DRC are taking the individual patients and separating them from their families, and the families are outraged. They want to see their sick kid, they want to see their father. The families get angry and then they burn down the medical facility.

Ari Ciment:

They’re burning down in frustration; they want to see their family members.

Larry Bernstein:

Pandemics success needs a host to propagate, and then the virus will jump to the next patient and so on. The last thing you want to do as a virus is to kill the host before it jumps to the next patient. Ironically, Ebola is very successful at killing its host and that usually burns out the disease.

Ari Ciment:

Yeah. It’s great in killing its host, but the key difference is there is no asymptomatic transmission as far as we know. So the people that are spreading Ebola are the people actively infected. A super spreader like the early COVID is spread because people are walking around, they’re totally fine, they’re laughing and they’re breathing in your face, you’re getting the infection, you don’t know it. And then one week later you’re sick and then you’re spreading it the same way. Ebola virus, there is also an incubation period. The incubation period is roughly 2 maximum 21 days, but it’s probably more like seven days. That’s incubating while you’re not symptomatic, you’re not transmitting the disease. This is the real hope. The truth is the Ebola virus will not spread crazily like COVID did because you know who is the person spreading the disease. So, if you get really good at cordoning them off, blocking that transmission, then you should be okay.

The other important part to this story is the rate of infection called R0 (R-Naught) that we used to talk about a lot with COVID. If you’re infected with a virus, how many people will that one sick person infect? The R0 for COVID was about two to three. The R0 for measles is 12 which is enormous because it’s such an easily propagated virus through the air, very catchy. R0 for Ebola is something like 1.5.

It’s high but it’s not as high as the airborne viruses.

Larry Bernstein:

Years ago, with the Zaire Ebola virus an infected person traveled on a 12-hour bus trip in West Africa and nobody else got infected from him. If that had been Covid, everyone would have gotten sick because it is an airborne infection in a closed bus. But Ebola can only spread through liquids so that is a big advantage for us all.

Next topic is antibodies. What is an antibody?

Ari Ciment:

An antibody is your immune response to the illness. You develop your B-cells create a response to the proteins in the virus and then you could combat it the next time you see it.

Larry Bernstein:

Doctors have been aware of antibodies for generations. With the Spanish flu in 1918, doctors knew that the surviving patients had produced antibodies that were successful in beating back the Spanish influenza. And physicians got samples from the now healthy survivors of the flu and they injected these antibodies into sick patients who just came down with or have been exposed to the Spanish flu and it works to a degree. Tell us about the history of this. Tell us about how we’ve improved upon it in the last century, whether we can make antibodies artificially. Tell us about antibodies as a response to viral attacks.

Ari Ciment:

The antibodies live in the plasma. The very first records of convalescent plasma are WW1 soldiers who survived and they took their blood and injected it into people that were currently infected. I enabled our hospital to use convalescent plasma for the treatment for COVID here in Miami Beach, but that is not as effective as the monoclonal antibodies, which were being developed by companies like Regeneron or in this specific Ebola crisis. It’s a company called Biopharmaceutical MAP. They’re the ones that made the monoclonal antibody against Ebola virus in the previous Zaire Ebola virus. Those companies make a more modified directed antibody versus the protein that’s on that virus.

Larry Bernstein:

So, one approach is to take surviving patients antibodies and give it to an infected patient. Another approach is to look at the actual virus and build and mass produce antibodies to kill it.

Ari Ciment:

I would say the biggest one on the market right now probably is this one called MBP134, which is by that company I mentioned MAP Biopharmaceuticals. It’s basically a pan Ebola virus. It should work against all the Ebola viruses.

Larry Bernstein:

The antibodies are like magic.

Ari Ciment:

For sure. That was the most miraculous medicine I ever witnessed. That was the Regeneron and the Eli Lilly. Those monoclonal antibodies, they stopped the virus in its tracks. It would hit it and boom, your disease process stopped. But if somebody already has hemorrhagic symptoms, they’re bleeding out, they have organ failure, those things are going to correct over time if the patient could survive, but they’re going to be significant organ dysfunction if they’re not caught in time. It’s going to be everything is about timely administration. With COVID, if you got the monoclonal antibodies within the first one to three days, you were golden, but if you got it five days late, it’s not so clear it was going to be beneficial.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to expand on Ari’s point. This MBP134 monoclonal antibody therapy is a cocktail to two antibodies designed to treat multiple strains of Ebola virus and it worked on both the Zaire Ebola virus from 2014 and it is working also with the Bundibugyo Ebola that is running wild right now in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So far in the DRC it reportedly decreased mortality by 30% but from a very high number. I suspect that if you got the monoclonal antibodies in a place like a top US hospital at the right time, you are going to survive.

Tell us about the previous Ebola Zaire virus.

Ari Ciment:

It’s named after the Zaire River, because that’s where it originated from. It caused 11,000 deaths in the Western part of Africa. It was Sierra Leone. It wasn’t in the DRC.

Larry Bernstein:

The Sierra Leone is far away from the DRC. It is 1800 miles apart which is like the distance from Denver to NYC.

Ari Ciment:

Most of the deaths from Ebola Zaire happened in the Western part of Africa. Whereas this Bundibugyo is in the Eastern DRC, which is near Uganda.

In 1994, the Hutus massacred 800,000 Tutsis, a real genocide over 100 days. The genocidal Hutus escaped to the Eastern DRC, the place right now, which is the epicenter of the Bundibugyo Ebola. And that was the Hutus’ stronghold till now. The M23 is a Tutsi group that is at war currently. They fight with the Hutus’ remnant in the Eastern DRC. That’s where they have gold mining. They have tons of metals, tungsten, and it’s a mineral haven.

Bernstein:

I want to give my audience some background information about the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is in the South and Central part of Africa. It is a geographically a large country that borders several African countries including Angola, Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania. The population is growing very quickly. In 1960, the DRC population was 15 million and today it is 115 million. It is expected to be 220 million in 2050 and 320 million in 2075.

If you compare the population of the DRC to Russia for example. Russia had 8x more people in 1960 but that gap shrank so now Russia is only 20% more populous today. By 2050 Russia will have half as many people as the DRC and by 2075 only a third of DRC’s population. This shows the power of exponential growth in the DRC as compared to zero growth in Russia.

Another metric is that the DRC will have the same population as the US in 2090.

Ari Ciment:

You also have to factor in that they lost six million people during the second Congo War, which was 1997 to 2003. So even with that their population is growing.

Larry Bernstein:

The DRC is an impoverished country that lacks suitable drinking water and a poor healthcare system. The infant mortality rate is 6% as compared to ½ of 1% in the USA. Each year 300,000 babies die in the DRC. We have been discussing the Ebola virus which as killed around 200 people this year in the DRC. But in comparison 1000 babies are dying every day in the DRC. I know Ebola is scary because it could jump the ocean and end up in our backyard. But isn’t the relevant health risk for the DRC its infant mortality?

Ari Ciment:

I think that’s a great point. 1300 Ebola cases so far, there’s 240 deaths and the fear is it going to rise above even the Zaire Ebola virus, which was 11,000 deaths.

Larry Bernstein:

What is definition of a pandemic?

Ari Ciment:

A pandemic is it’s not only crossing local boundaries; it’s crossing all over. Pandemic is all over the world, pan. Epidemic is a local out of control. You could think of it like a fire with the embers going from one room to the next, whereas the pandemic is a fire with smoke going all over all the rooms.

People who want to know about the epidemiology of the virus, it’s a filovirus, which is unique to the Ebola viruses. That’s the thread-like RNA virus that replicates really fast in the cytoplasm, causes hemorrhagic symptoms as opposed to the flavivirus, that’s Dengue fever and Zika that is spread by mosquitoes.

Larry Bernstein:

Can a mosquito transmit the Ebola virus from one human host to another?

Ari Ciment:

I don’t think so.

Larry Bernstein:

Would you take a Pfizer vaccine that’s been approved by the DRC, even though it’s not FDA approved.

Ari Ciment:

Yes. If the mortality was that high, for sure. I would.

Larry Bernstein:

I end my podcast on a note of optimism. What are you optimistic about as it relates to this new Ebola mutation?

Ari Ciment:

I think it’s a fascinating scary story. What makes it unique is this geopolitical situation and the fact that the DRC is in the World Cup for the first time after 52 years. Hopefully this Ebola will die down. I think this will be a stimulus for the DRC and for Rwanda to finally make amends.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Ari for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was How AI will Change Law Schools, Law Firms, and Users of Legal Services.

Our speaker was Polk Wagner who is the Deputy Dean of Penn Law School who has been charged with figuring out how to adapt the law school curriculum to the AI revolution. Polk discussed how law schools will adapt as their graduates’ jobs will no longer focus on document creation but will instead require complex legal analysis.

We also talked about how AI will change the structure of law firms since the by-the-hour billing practice will end and what will replace it.

In addition, we chatted about how consumers of legal services will use AI to negotiate contracts, to comprehend complex legal agreements, and to help draft documents that previously would have been delegated to their attorneys.

Upcoming on What Happens Next is Encouraging Competing Viewpoints Among College Students.

Our speaker will be Daniel Diermeier who is the Chancelor of Vanderbilt. I want to hear from Daniel about how the administration can achieve political neutrality on campus. I want to learn about how to create a university culture that encourages free speech and allows for debate without shaming the opposing perspective.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, How AI Will Change Law Schools, Law Firms, and Users of Legal Services, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

111KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Polk Wagner

Subject: How AI Will Change Law Schools, Law Firms, and Users of Legal Services
Bio: Deputy Dean of Penn Law School

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history, and today’s episode is how AI will change law schools, law firms, and users of legal services.

Our speaker is Polk Wagner, who’s the deputy dean of Penn Law School, who has been charged with figuring out how to adapt the law school curriculum to the AI revolution. I want to hear from Polk about how law schools will adapt as their graduate’s jobs will no longer focus on document creation, but instead more complex legal analysis.

This podcast was taped at a conference that I hosted so many of the questions will be asked by my friends. And in the audience was David Stellings, who’s the managing partner of law firm Leif Cabreze. I want to learn from David about how AI would change the structure of law firms as the work process will need to change and I want to find out if the by the hour billing practice will end and what will replace it.

I also want to hear from my friends who use legal services about how they plan to use AI to negotiate contracts, to understand complex legal agreements, and to draft documents that previously would have been delegated to their attorneys.

Polk, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks?

Polk Wagner:

This young transactional lawyer named Zach Shapiro had a small practice and he created a viral post called the Claude Native Law Firm where he described how he was able to replicate functions of a huge array of legal associates legal work, using mainly off-the- shelf Claude tools.

It does document review, it drafts, and it revises based on comments. He stays in the loop on the judgment calls, but really the work is being done by Claude. Artificial intelligence technologies are extremely good at text. Lawyers do a lot of interacting with documents and so it seemed only natural that this was going to be an area where there were significant disruption and change, but until I think this winter that was mainly theoretical. Now it’s coming more quickly than any of us thought. Giant law firms are probably 12 months behind. There’s a lot of friction involved in getting these tools to work in the real world. Scholarship by its nature takes years to get through the publication process.

And an even slower step than scholarship is the teaching. Law is by its nature a very conservative and slow profession. That is a virtue as well as a detriment, but that makes it even slower in law school. We teach people by making the students do things.

It’s the repetition, the writing of the briefs, the writing of exams, the papers is how we teach people to work through structured arguments, reasoning, judgment, assessing under conditions of ambiguity, all important lawyerly skills. We are seeing from these AI tools that the work piece is being mostly replaced. That raises a whole bunch of existential questions for a law school like mine and for law firms How should we be teaching students? We know that there are going to be a bunch of things that lawyers do that the AIs can’t, they’re not good at judgment, reasoning, analysis, people skills, all of these things that lawyers do that are important and probably going to become even more valuable in the future.

Traditionally, that’s not something we teach specifically. . Instead of producing entry-level lawyers, we need to be able to produce associates at a fifth-year level. People who can supervise the creation of work rather than doing the work themselves. They need to be able to supervise teams of AI agents and make judgment calls and choices almost from day one when they come into the firm. I’m doing a sort of a small-scale test with some of my colleagues where I have my AI bots write exams and I slip them into the pile of the exams that my faculty colleagues get and they grade them.

There have been four so far and the AIs have finished first in every single one and not by a small amount either. I’m doing it primarily as a wakeup call to my colleagues that we need to rethink how we’re assessing.

This particular study is offering AI its best possible advantages because it’s under high stress, tight time conditions, strict word limits. An unnatural situation where the AIs are going to be exceptional. It writes so much better than a law student under extreme time pressure. I don’t think that necessarily says that there will be no more lawyers. That’s interesting to think about as a pedagogical tool. Our toolkit has always been these exams and they’re not what we should be testing anymore.

Jay Greene:

Is this conversation among your colleagues about reducing the number of students you admit or perhaps eliminating your school or other schools like it? So even Education schools, there’s very little demand for new teachers relatively. I would try to convince my colleagues that we should shrink and they thought this was the most monstrous thing.

Polk Wagner:

That would not be a popular thing for sure, but you’re exactly right. There’s going to be significant displacement in the legal market. The question is timing. The roles of particular lawyers are going to become much more valuable. Those that can apply reasoning, judgment, handle ambiguity, all the things that AI can’t really do. Penn may be fortunate enough to be on the correct side of that curve, given the type of student profile we typically have. If I was predicting, I would say there are going to be fewer law schools for sure.

There are predictions about whether there’s going to be any more hiring of software coders anymore. On the other hand, there’s going to be a lot of demand for software because it becomes inexpensive and there’s going to be people who need to manage those systems. There might be more coders. We might see a similar phenomenon in law, the demand for legal services and access to the legal system is such that when the costs come down, you need more people to sort of manage that process.

Rory MacFarquhar:

Watching the guy discuss the two-person law firm, one version of it is these two people become incredibly valuable, but the other version says, fast forward 24 months and you have a zero- person law firm. The companies can do all the legal services that they need.

Polk Wagner:

One of the things that we are planning for is what we think of as legal work largely going to be done not at law firms in the future. It’s going to migrate into various places, maybe inside firms themselves where they can do versions of DIY legal work relatively straightforward. You can really harness these materials to allow a small group of in-house lawyers to run what used to require significant outside counsel. I still think there’s going to be roles for high-end lawyers at firms that are very specialized, but I do think that what we think of as legal practice is going to migrate into a whole bunch of different arenas.

We need to think about is how to teach our students to succeed in all these contexts. Whether they’re in-house or in the government where they’re not traditional lawyers, but they’re still doing legal work.

David Stellings:

My partners on the executive committee, there was a raging debate going on how we should change our AI policy. At the heart of that debate is the question of whether associates should be allowed to use AI to create a document and then check the document and improve the document or whether they should be required to draft the document themselves as lawyers have for hundreds of years. I think that they’re going to use AI regardless of whether we tell them they’re allowed to use AI. If they use AI, how are they ever going to become good writers?

As litigators our success is based largely on our ability to argue persuasively in writing and verbally and if they never develop that skill, how are they ever even going to be in a position to supervise the AI agents?

Polk Wagner:

We restructured the 1L curriculum this year for legal writing and they had no access to AI for the first two months and were taught the very beginning, how you write a brief,and then starting in the second semester they were given more and more access to use AI tools and then taught how to use them effectively. I mean, that’s where we are now, which is you got to learn how to do it.

David Stellings:

It takes so much longer than two semesters to learn how to write. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I’m still learning how to write better, more persuasively. My wife who’s also a lawyer, we were talking about this last night and she’s like, “Well, maybe lawyers won’t need to write anymore.” What do you think about that?

Polk Wagner:

I have a colleague who does contract law whose hypothesis is that we won’t have contracts anymore. You just have your AI agent talk to someone else’s AI agent and they’ll work it out amongst themselves given the parameters that they understand about the business.

Larry Bernstein:

I had a golf outing the other day and David Brail created an app which kept score, handicap adjusted, skins, everything you can imagine. David has no skills whatsoever, period. It was amazing. How did David pull this thing off? He said it was pretty easy. I just told it what to do. Someone who has no skills to be able to get an A+ result.

Polk Wagner:

You understood immediately whether what the AI was doing made any sense or not and you understood the structure of the thing enough to know, “Oh yeah, these are the things I need to look at. These are the things I don’t.” How do we create these experts in understanding where the minefields are?

Coding is different because coding is very clear whether it works or it doesn’t. You run it and the thing crashes or it doesn’t. That’s not quite the same as what we talk about in law, particularly with long running agreements between corporations where the answer may be 15 years down the road some edge case arises that nobody ever considered.

Larry Bernstein:

Example, I have a will and a trust and these things are complicated. You sit down with a lawyer, you lay out all the conditions, they hand you this very extensive legal agreement. I’m sophisticated, but I don’t understand what’s going on in this document. I tell my parents that they should sign the same thing. And my mother says, “Larry, do you have any idea what this is? “ And I said, “Well, just sign it.”

Lawyers in general are very poor at articulating complex documents. We must take this leap of faith that this document reflects the needs and desires of this family. What AI can do is unbelievable. It’ll explain in plain English exactly what this thing does.

Polk Wagner:

AI tools make it so much easier to become familiar with subject matter areas that you’re less familiar with and it can draft simple documents. One of the roles that lawyers have always played is trust. The reason that you just sign whatever they put in front of you is because you trust that the lawyer that you’ve hired. Lawyers can provide that advice and trust to guide you and that is something I think that AI can’t necessarily replace, at least not in the foreseeable term.

We need to train the lawyers who can take the summary that you bring to them and engage with you in a way that gets to the point quickly, and gives you trust and reassurance that what you’re doing is going to meet your needs. That’s where the legal education and the practice of law need to change because traditionally, we’ve favored lawyers who can do the thing not talk about the thing. You do get the occasions where the lawyers don’t communicate well, but I think that’s going to be part of what we need to be teaching lawyers.

Mitch Feinman:

My wife is a trust and estates partner at a big law firm and a third of her job is being a therapist. If you look at the most common use of AI right now, therapist is number one on the list

and growing. I observe how my wife and her firm do things in terms of hardware and equipment and processes and I’m astounded. Talk about laggards on the technology adoption cycle and big law firms. I know you’re taking the perspective of graduating law students, but you’ve got people running these law firms who will be running them for a long time who are so behind on technology adoption. Do you believe they’re just going to have to adapt despite not being well

equipped to do so?

Polk Wagner:

That would be my expectation. I do think there’s a long transition period here. There’s lots of scholarship on the way that technology diffuses through the economy. It takes a long time. There’s an enormous amount of friction. The bots can create simple legal documents, but it’s not legal for them to do so right now because of various bar association rules. The firms are set up to maximize the amount of work because that’s what they can bill and that’s going to change. The question is how quickly and Walmart sent out a list to all their outside counsel f with things that were no longer billable because we want you to do it with AI.

If you’re a big, slow law firm and that letter comes from your major client, that is a serious wakeup call that is going to force change much more than the firms arguing amongst themselves. Once the clients start saying, “I will not pay anymore for the stuff that AI can do well,” then the firms are going to have to change.

David Stellings:

Most of these lawyers are getting paid by the hour and it seems to me like this is going to impede their ability to bill as many hours as they’re used to billing.

Polk Wagner:

100%. And this is going to dramatically force many law firms to change the way that they are doing business. How do we make it so that the students that we graduate are going to be successful in these new models? We’re adding to the curriculum a lot of courses on how to think about new models of legal practice, whether it’s contingency fee firms or modified fees or flat fees or all the different ways that don’t rely on the hours of work because that’s going to be gone.

Penn Law primarily sends lawyers to large New York City law firms. At least those firms appear to have made no changes at all in their hiring approach.

David Stellings:

Anecdotally, some of the top law firms are considering applying in the litigation context, which is where billable hours have reigned, a similar paradigm that they apply in the deal context with PE where they get a percentage of the deal amount either in a flat fee arrangement or even some hybrid with a contingent element.

Polk Wagner:

If law firms are going to survive, they’re going to have to have different business models andI do think we’re going to be seeing law being done in a lot of different places.Our students are going to end up in jobs that are not at law firms, working inside companies or for regulatory organizations, rather than at a traditional law firm.

This dramatic reduction in cost is going to ripple throughout the way that law is done.

Polk Wagner:

I think there’s enormous opportunities for truly dramatic public benefits. You could imagine landlord-tenant law. The landlords take advantage of people who otherwise don’t have access to the legal system or lawyers. You could imagine a city like Philadelphia setting up an AI system that resolves these disputes at pennies on the dollar and dramatically shifts the balance of power between landlords and tenants to the benefit of people who probably need that access to the legal system who don’t get it right now. We can’t even see yet all the ways that this is going to change the way that we think about the legal system.

I have a project right now with about 25 federal judges and my team of RAs and I work with them to explore how AI can improve litigation, and they are seeing a dramatic increase in filings because it’s very cheap and easy to file. They’re seeing this among prisoners at this point because they have access to ChatGPT in the prison library and they make very compelling briefs that sometimes make good points at a pace and scale that the system is not designed to deal with.

David Kostin:

Is there a thought process of how the sentencing process may use AI?

Polk Wagner:

There’s an enormous literature around biases in AI. AI models represent all of us and because of that they have all the good and bad parts of us. It has been documented in many cases that without significant guardrails, these models can behave in ways that are socially detrimental because there’s a lot of socially detrimental information that they’ve been trained on. The ethics of using these tools for sentencing is a big open question. There are courses at the law school right now exploring that and nobody knows the answer. The opportunities are tremendous in terms of the pace and scale at which you could resolve disputes. People sit for months waiting for their sentencing, why could we not do that in a day?

There’s the opportunity for those systems to be much more accurate than a judge guessing what the right answer is, but there’s also concern that these systems are not judgment machines. They are at best knowledge machines. What they do may look like judgment, but they’re not exercising any human judgment and where you keep the human in that loop is an interesting question.

Bryan Verona:

I take exception to your characterization of landlord tenant power structures. It’s not that simple. Time is the more valuable against landlords and the system is horribly clogged, at least in New York. Which clearly doesn’t need to be the case. his idea that criminal cases, certainly civil and/or litigation can be argued by bots conceptually overseen by a judge bot. Why do we need people? Who gets to calibrate the judgment and the sentencing? Why are theatrics in court relevant? Why are biases of judges relevant? Doesn’t this streamline these processes and certainly speed them up?

Polk Wagner:

I think that there’s a lot of opportunities for streamlining at every place in the legal spectrum. One of my colleagues is finishing up a study where he created two pools of humans, each with different political affiliations and asked them to interpret the contract terms. They gave different answers for those pools and then he asked an AI to also interpret them. These were all known terms that had been decided over many years by courts, and the AIs were always better. AIs don’t have those sorts of biases in them and obviously can be much faster. What is the role for humans? I think for a long time we’re going to need humans as trust and accountability markers.

Would you trust the outcome of a dispute you had to just pure AI over a judge ultimately making a call?

Bryan Verona:

Probably.

Polk Wagner:

Because you think that the AIs have less bias? or- Humans are

Zachary Schur:

Humans are imperfect things.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next question comes from Moira McDermott who a Math Professor at Syracuse is.

Moira McDermott:

I wanted to go back to the question of how much training do you need before you can evaluate and be a supervisor? We must have a statement on our syllabus about AI use and it can be of no use in these limited situations or go hog wild. I’ve always picked that middle one and tried to lay out when I thought you’d be able to use it. You can use it to help you study, making practice quizzes, that sort of thing. I tried to use Claude, ChatGPT to make extra practice problems for exams for my students and it was hard.

I give it my old homework assignments or old exams, and it just doesn’t do a very good job because like if you just change the numbers, either it could be very messy computationally or it misses the point. There’s a particular purpose for a question that I ask and there’s something in the problem that must work a certain way to be a good measure of the thing I’m trying to get at.

Polk Wagner:

The AIs do not have any sense of what problems they should be resolving. That is where the real skill of an advanced knowledgeable person matters a ton.

Moira McDermott:

The real thing is being able to ask the right questions, not answer them.

Polk Wagner:

Exactly. That is going to be a very durable skill for humans in the legal context. How do we get students from zero to a point where they can ask the correct questions? As someone in charge of figuring this out at a law school that is the big existential question that I worry about.

Rory MacFarquhar:

What are the legal and institutional protections on the role of human lawyers that would require actual change to eliminate?

Polk Wagner:

Various bar associations have taken various positions on the use of AI. Most end up along the lines of if you use it, you’re entirely responsible for anything that happens. Various judges have created their own local rules that apply to trials either in their venue or in their courtroom. Those range from, I don’t want to see anything that has any AI content at all to, if you use it, just don’t screw up.

The weird case by having a client ask legal questions of an AI that was deemed to be violating or piercing the lawyer client privilege, that seems like a one-off case. There’s a lot of fear around how these cases could turn out because as lawyers, unless we see something decided by a court, we don’t know what the answer is yet. There’s certainly a lot of regulations about who can be a lawyer and what you need to be a lawyer. I do think more lawyers are embracing the fact that these can be powerful assistance at this point more so than making the final decisions.

Paul Yablon:

People lie and part of the judge’s job is to determine who he believes and what is the truth. When we use AI, we are careful about the data sets we use, and we scrub the data because that is imperative to get the right outcome. If we knew that the data going into the decision making process was true, I would feel more confident that AI would make the right call. How do you deal with that?

Polk Wagner:

The more confident you are that the facts are going into the decision are the source of truth, the more confident you are that the output decision is going to be correct. The whole point of our litigation system is to surface what is as close to the ground truth as possible. Cross examination tries to prevent the lying or at least address it.

The judges that I’m working with have a lot of concern about the data getting worse. Traditionally we believed photos are compelling, or a recording of somebody’s voice. This is no longer ground truth. None of these things can be determined to be truth in the way that they were even six months ago. Lawyers and judges are seeing a lot more evidentiary challenges and concerns and incredible ambiguity about what is real, what is not real, because we have not gotten our arms around yet how to distinguish between something that’s AI created and not AI created.

It’s going to be an enormous challenge to work through that we’re not yet equipped to do. :

All of the major AI platforms have various proposals for how to tag or otherwise identify AI created artifacts as such. The judges I talk to are seeing this daily.

Larry Bernstein:

Our next speaker is Steve Kuhn who is the founder of Sportspredict.com.

Steve Kuhn:

Shani and I started sportspredict.com, where we have people predict sports events and we give rewards and status to people who are good predictors. I want to propose a potential idea for the world of law. Let’s say you have a case in front of the Supreme Court, and we’ve got tons of data on how every Justice Supreme Court has ruled on various cases before. We put all that in and we create a bot for each one that tries to mimic how they would decide a case and best predict how they would decide a case. Then as the legal team, your job is to come up with the brief and the set of arguments that maximizes the odds that you win. It becomes like law predict. How would you know whether they’re good? You would know by their ability to judge in historical cases or current cases what the odds were. We would assess them by saying, “Here’s a case for all nine justices, give us your odds.

Polk Wagner:

There’s a lawyer who has a blog that is doing something very similar\ He has a set of AIs that will write Supreme Court opinions and they are shockingly close to the ones that actually get written because it’s given enough data, it is relatively predictable how these cases turn out and the writing styles are easy because you’ve got a huge corpus of writing. So you can say, “Oh, here’s what Justice Thomas is going to write on this case.” And it’s almost always shockingly correct or shockingly close to correct.

Larry Bernstein:

One of the reasons we love arbitration is because it’s so much faster than going through the courts. I was involved in arbitration, and it ended up taking a long time, costing a lot of money. It surprised me. I have a feeling that if this arbitrator was required to use AI that this could speed up things.

Polk Wagner:

There’s a market for arbitrators, right? There’s going to be a lot of incentives and pressures for the arbitration firms to get efficient. The reasons that they are a popular option is that they can do things much more quickly and cheaply than traditional litigation. That is an area where you’re going to see rapid development. I would view the arbitration industry as a leading-edge indicator of when more automation of the law starts to occur.

One of our alums who started an entire AI law firm has identified employment law as an area of low hanging fruit for AI because the terms of those contracts are relatively detailed, straightforward and well worn. The AIs can do a good job of assessing the quality of agreements and how they’re going to play out.

Larry Bernstein:

I’m interested in how contract relationships between firms and individuals will change. With AI, we can negotiate bespoke user agreements.

Polk Wagner:

I have a browser extension in Chrome that I use that lights up different colors depending on how egregious the user agreement is of the website that you’re on. We are halfway there in having the identification of these things. Whether that makes the market much more efficient for me than negotiating with the websites to get my own version of the agreement, I don’t know. The next step would be that my browser negotiates with the server at the other end and says, “Here’s the set of agreements or set of terms we can agree on, “ and then we go from there.

Extended warranties are a version of that. People get to choose the product with the various menus, and you might have a longer or shorter warranty and pay more or less. There’s a lot of friction because there’s a lot of incentives on the part of the current incumbents to maintain this structure for as long as they possibly can. And it’s about when the market pushes.

David Stellings:

Consumer contracts almost always are contracts of adhesion, meaning there’s no negotiation. You accept their terms and conditions. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Larry Bernstein:

Contractual relationships are going to be in flux. The reason we have lawyers is because the businesspeople don’t really understand what’s going on, what happens is lawyers fight, fight, fight, and then they come to the businesspeople and say, “We’re fighting about this. What do you want me to do? “ And we can skip a step and just say, “Here are the issues, businessperson, what do you want to do? “ And then you can lay it out instead of having these teams of lawyers negotiate back and forth for days and just get to cut to the chase.

David Stellings:

There is one way those terms and conditions and consumer contracts change, which is through litigation. For many years had in its terms and conditions a forced arbitration provision. Forced arbitration provisions essentially prevent groups of people from gathering and suing companies and if they can’t gather, there’s no economically feasible way to stand up for themselves. But so Amazon had this arbitration provision and a smart firm said, “Okay, well, you want to go through arbitration, I’m going to market.” They got like 15 million bucks from a funder. They gathered something like 80,000 Amazon customers, all of them filed notices of arbitration.

Amazon wound up having to pay arbitration fees. Forget about whether they won or lost. Amazon was on the hook for like a thousand bucks per person who was filing for arbitration. Amazon removed the arbitration provision from its contract. Complaining’s not going to do it, but maybe that way.

David Stellings:

I was a defense lawyer for about five years and I’ve been a plaintiff’s contingency lawyer for almost 30 years. It’s so much better. I’ve always thought that the billable hour model has perverse incentives for the lawyers. Most lawyers are ethical people and are not intentionally spending additional hours doing work so that they could bill a client. But I do think that lurking in the back of their heads is the idea that if my group doesn’t bill $5 million this year, then our bonuses are going to be slashed relative to these PE guys who are making $30 million a year. I do think that it influences behavior. It makes them less likely to approach the other side even when they know that they’re eventually going to have to settle because it’s contrary to their business model.

I think this AI revolution is likely to finally push the billable hour away from the center of gravity of the legal system in the US.

Polk Wagner:

I think this is terrific because being a lawyer on a billable hour model sucks and it is a terrible lifestyle for young lawyers who feel like they’ve got to bill more hours, and the focus becomes on how much you work as to whether you’re doing a good job. I think that has a few perverse incentives, not only economic, but on people’s personal health. I think one of the interesting things about that viral Zach Shapiro essay was about how much better his job was now that Claude was doing most of the work. Because he could make the big decisions, the calls, work with the clients, and someone else was dealing with the writeups of the documents that’s so tedious and makes your job less fun as a lawyer.

Using Claude on a constant basis has made my job just so much more fun. I can do more, I can do better, I can put together a mini course in the morning instead of spending weeks on it.\ It’s a different model and frankly, I think it is better.

Law firms are going to have to change the practice of law and what we think of as law is going to have to change. There are enormous benefits both in the joy of doing what you love as well as monetary and economic benefits. I’m optimistic, but not without some clear-eyed views of the challenges ahead.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Polk for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was fixing our healthcare system. Our speaker was Josh Gottlieb, who’s professor of economics at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Health.

I want to learn from Josh about what are the barriers to educating more doctors and what we can do to solve the seemingly intractable problems to increase quality and productivity of our healthcare system.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on a podcast or Spotify. I’m Larry Bernstein with the podcast, What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Fixing Our Healthcare System, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

111KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Josh Gottlieb

Subject: Fixing Our Healthcare System
Bio: Professor of Economics at University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Health and Co-Director of The Becker Friedman Institute’s Health Economics Initiative

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Fixing Our Healthcare System.

Our speaker is Josh Gottlieb who is a professor of Economics at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Health and Co-Director of the Becker Friedman Institute’s Health Economics Initiative.

I want to learn from Josh about what the barriers are to getting more doctors and what we can do to solve seemingly intractable problems to increase the quality and productivity of our healthcare.

Josh, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Josh Gottlieb:

As the U.S. population has gotten older and new technologies have expanded for what medicine can do, there’s increasing demand for doctors and for healthcare. From 1980 to 2025, the U.S. population above age 64 grew by 140% and above age 80 tripled and these are the groups that use the most healthcare. Over this period, the number of MD degrees awarded by US institutions grew by 34%. That leaves the U.S. with substantially fewer doctors relative to its population. As you might expect from a basic supply and demand, when you have an increase in demand and restrictions on supply, this leads to higher earnings for doctors.

If entry barriers were not a problem, we would see growth in the number of physicians being trained. We’d see increases in medical schools and residencies that would allow more people to become physicians in the U.S., but those have been restricted.

You can’t just say, “I want to open a new residency program.” Congress cut back on how much they fund these residencies in the late ‘90s and the specialty residency review committees have some control. The entry barriers are substantial and the pressure for healthcare has shown up with other professions.

There are not enough doctors to meet that demand and so we’ve seen mid-level or advanced nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists do work that doctors traditionally would have done. We’re seeing massive growth in these substitutes and that reflects the demand for care when physician entry is restricted.

Larry Bernstein:

My grandfather was a tenured professor in the medical school at the University of Vienna. In 1938 days after the Anschluss, all the Jews were fired from the University of Vienna.

My grandfather was both a psychoanalyst at the Freud Institute and an internist. He escaped to Paris, but the French limited foreign doctor’s ability to practice. Even though he had been a professor at one of the top medical schools in Europe, France would not let him practice medicine.

When my grandfather arrived in Chicago in 1943, he was allowed to work immediately and had to repeat some of his residency requirements.

In your paper, you show that doctors in America make double than their peers in the G-7 and four times doctors in Sweden. Should the US be more amenable to hiring doctors who are trained at accredited foreign hospitals in the most advanced countries?

Josh Gottlieb:

We don’t make it easy for international docs to come to the US. The inference you’re drawing from that international comparison is right that if you’re a doc and trained, you’re making a lot less than you could in the US, there’s probably a lot who would like to work in the US, but it’s not easy. So first you must repeat a lot of residency training. There are some exceptions for some Canadian residencies that can count in the US, but in general, international residencies don’t count. Imagine coming to the US after having had a career somewhere else and then being told you must be the lowest trainee and work very long hours.

This means that when people look at data on international medical school graduates and what we do in our paper is we have to distinguish between U.S. citizens who go abroad for medical school, usually because they couldn’t get into a medical school in the U.S. versus people who are not U.S. citizens who are coming from abroad and trying to get in. Remember residency is the real bottleneck for practicing.

Larry Bernstein:

We had Stan Goldfarb from the organization called Do No Harm speak on the podcast a week ago. Stan was the Dean of Curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School. There are 40,000 residency spots available to be filled each year and US medical schools only graduate 25,000, leaving a 15,000 gap. What’s happened is that there’s been increasing numbers of residents offered, but medical schools have not grown. Instead, they’re filling it with 15,000 international students. And the problem with that is that oftentimes they come from medical schools which haven’t been accredited, the ones in Pakistan and Ghana may not be as good as those in the United States.

It’s the exact opposite of the story we have for university education. In the university, we have an excess supply of educational institutions and as a result, we import large numbers of foreigners who attend these high-quality American institutions. And so, when it comes to medical school, there’s a shortage of education and a glut of students in the supply/demand balance. How do you explain the inability of medical schools to expand?

My economics training suggests that markets should respond when there is demand for medical schools. Why haven’t schools opened more spots?

Josh Gottlieb:

Central planning is hard. There have been efforts at the federal level back more than a quarter century, but there were efforts to reduce the number of trainees based on the theory that doctors are expensive. The logic in the ‘80s, healthcare costs are growing. You need doctors to provide healthcare. Doctors are the ones writing prescriptions and doing the surgeries and spending all this money so we can reduce our healthcare cost growth by avoiding an oversupply of doctors. It was a centrally planned effort to restrict the number of medical school slots. I would dispute your characterization that the market was failing to respond to price signals. In fact, what we’ve seen with the rise of mid-levels are precisely the market forces saying there is demand here. But the med schools were told not to expand.

Larry Bernstein:

Bright students are ready to pay for a medical school education, but the schools refuse to accept more students.

Josh, I don’t know what you’re doing for the rest of the day, but why don’t we open our own medical school and profit from this failure? Let’s apply for accreditation, let’s figure this thing out. Why can’t entrepreneurs solve this problem?

Josh Gottlieb:

You buried the punchline, which is the accreditation. I agree with you. We don’t need a federal subsidy to open our med school this afternoon. The big deal is who controls the accreditation? This is like the old guild system. The incumbents are represented on the residency review commissions, and they impose a ton of requirements all in the name of maintaining quality and preventing oversupply and controlling costs. They’re not going to make it easy.

Residency is the real bottleneck less in primary care and more in the specialties. There’s a huge demand for orthopedic surgery residencies that are not expanding. The hypothetical Bernstein-Gottlieb med school is not going to change the number of orthopedic surgeons.

Specialists we are training that’s being restricted by the residency review commission.

Larry Bernstein:

In your paper you showed that the compensation for dermatologists and ophthalmologists was nearly as high as the workhorse surgeons even though they have much better hours and rarely have emergency procedures.

Josh Gottlieb:

I agree with you that it seems like in dermatology you would expect these rents competed away. It’s got some attractive features and so the question is why it is not compensated. One is Medicare. We have a couple of big government purchasers of healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, and they have rules about how much they pay for different services, how much they pay hospitals, how much they pay doctors, how much they pay for each specific service, and those rules pass through into physician’s incomes in a sizeable way.

So, part of it is we’re trying to explain with market forces are also heavily influenced by payment policy, by public policy choices.

Dermatology is a special case because it’s got a sizable share that is outside of insurance. People are doing cosmetic stuff and paying privately and so that increases the dermatologists outside option whereas most other specialties Medicare plays a big role and then private insurance copies a lot of what Medicare does. So, you get a lot of comparable relative pricing driven by the public policy choices here. The other thing is we just must come back to the specialty level entry barriers, right? The dermatology association has no incentive to let people enter.

Larry Bernstein:

How do the medical schools ration dermatology residency programs?

Josh Gottlieb:

To get into dermatology requires a ton of pre-residency effort. If we’re not letting the market clear with prices, it’s going to clear with some other form of rationing. We’re seeing this with a ton of investment in research that people do when they’re med students so they can look good and get into the residency they want.

There are differences between the US and the international grads. The US grads want to go into dermatology and are much less eager to go into primary care and so we’re seeing sorting on proxies for quality that do reflect that dermatology is paid more than what you would expect based on the work hours and the training length.

Larry Bernstein:

Last week on the podcast with Stan Goldfarb, the topic was his desire to return science to the classroom. 25 years ago, there were two years of science required in medical school education and it’s been cut to one. Stan thinks that this is hugely problematic, that without a broad understanding of science and medicine, it’s going to limit the medical student to become a scientist. That doctor is trained as a technician and thus will be limited to best practices at the time they were taught in school. Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School is taught as a one-week program.

Josh, no one can read one of your economic papers with only a week of statistics that would be impossible.

How do you feel about the diminution of science in medical school education? And do you think that with rapidly changing medical science that the upcoming doctors need to be trained as scientists and not technicians.

Josh Gottlieb:

There’s lots of debates in the economic community about whether we’re using the right tools in PhD admissions. There’s a lot of debates over, are we asking for too much math? I don’t think economics has a unified answer on what we should be doing. I agree with you that a week of statistics would probably not prepare you to do a PhD with me.

The big question we haven’t touched on is what do we need in the AI era? What do we need the doctors to be able to do? Do they all need to be scientists or do we need a wider range of people who are good at using AI tools to figure out what the patient needs.

You probably need some basic training to critically evaluate what the AI is telling you, but I don’t know if it’s the same as what it was a generation ago. It’s currently under flux.

Larry Bernstein:

I did a podcast on applying AI to medical care with Dr. Ari Cement from Mount Sinai.

The case I gave him was that my daughter had a cough that wouldn’t go away for nine months and he said, “I’ve seen this a thousand times, here’s the top three things we should look at.”

I said, “Let’s ask AI.” And AI asked, “Has Hannah visited any nations in the last year where TB is common?” And he goes, “Wow, I hadn’t even thought of even asking that question.” Has she?

“No.”

Ari said, “That’s a less than 1% chance. It wouldn’t be on my top 20 questions, but I love the out of the box question.”

Another example, I said, “Do you think I should get another COVID vaccine?” AI said, “get the vaccine.”

This special purpose medical AI allows the user to review the medical journal articles for how AI came to its conclusion.

Ari said, “A lot of these papers are old from the beginning of COVID, and we’ve learned a lot as COVID has mutated and become less dangerous. We don’t see anybody in the ICU with COVID anymore. You were sick with COVID four times and taken four vaccine shots, COVID has mutated.”

I said, “Well, when do you change your mind?”

“Well, if you’re 85 with a history of pulmonology disease, but for you, forget it.”

AI is the best thing ever, but it can’t look in your ear. It’s making guesses based on the average and not considering the distribution. It’s a tool to be used in conjunction with a medical professional that is smart, educated, thoughtful, analytical, and emotive who can make judgments.

That said, if you’re going to read a medical journal having taken one week of biostatistics, you are not that helpful.

Josh Gottlieb:

Look, the statistics in medical journals are always mediocre. They are Crap.

I’m in favor of training doctors in statistics. I’m also in favor of training doctors in economics. You see so much bad statistics and bad public policy coming out of medical journals. There’s a lot that I would love to teach doctors. There’s a trade-off of the length of medical school. The larger we raise the entry barriers. We are back to the problem that we started with.

I find it natural to ask a question about the frictions, about are the barriers appropriate than to judge an equilibrium outcome. What economics teaches you is you don’t say, “Is the price too high?” We ask, is there some barrier that’s inhibiting entry? Is there some policy that we have that is making it harder to compete or raising the costs? It’s not that New York subways are too costly because they cost a billion dollars a mile. It’s because we know that they’re inflated by adding rules and prevailing wage union buyouts that drive the cost to be 10X European levels.

I’m not going to take a view on what is the right percentage of international grads. We should say, are these barriers useful? They’re saying, “the science in the first two years of medical schools would be a useful barrier.”

They require a certain number of English classes in undergrad before you can apply to medical school. That’s hard to believe that an extra undergraduate English literature class is making a difference for whether you’re going to be a good doctor. You would want to justify them or get rid of them.

On the technician thing, the question is what is the right level of general education that you need to let someone play with robots in your brain? In lots of examples, we send you to the generalist and then if something gets complicated, we have the specialist ready. That’s the normal approach that’s you can have a midwife supervise a birth and then if there’s a problem, they call in the obstetrician.

You can have an NP be the first line point of contact if your kid is sick and then if there’s a problem, you go to the pediatrician and if they can’t handle it, you go to the specialist. It relates to the AI point because maybe the first line of defense is someone with less training augmented with an AI and then they can call on someone more specialized.

Larry Bernstein:

Heart transplants used to be done in specialist hospitals in Houston. Should we move to a model where the best doctors in specific procedures are in a few select locations, and patients should travel to them so that our society can enjoy the benefits of scale?

Josh Gottlieb:

Having the ability to go see the right specialists wherever they are or see the person with more experience in that procedure seems valuable. In Medicare right now we allow people to go to a doctor anywhere in the country. The government doesn’t subsidize travel, but it will pay for medical care.

We have lots of subsidies to get doctors to locate in rural areas. Is that the most efficient way to take care of people, or should we just help them travel?

What we find is that you’d get a bigger bang for your buck by providing travel subsidies at least for people to the right doctor more effectively than trying to get the doctor to go locate in this smaller market.

Larry Bernstein:

I end each podcast on a note of optimism.

Josh Gottlieb:

US society is adaptable. People and organizations are entrepreneurial and not willing to accept the restrictions as they are, but it might be more efficient to relax the restrictions. We have a society that tries to work around things.

There’s so much bad healthcare out there. AI should make it easier for people to get the diagnosis and the treatment right.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Josh for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was entitled Can Anyone Predict What Happens Next?

Our speaker was Phil Tetlock who is a Professor at Wharton and the author of a book entitled Superforecasting. Often, we get our news and analysis from experts who make predictions that are terribly wrong. Phil analyzed methods of forecasting and found individuals and groups who are fantastic predictors of politics, war, and sports.

Phil discussed how AI and superforecasters work together that will revolutionize the prediction process.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Can Anyone Predict What Happens Next?, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

231KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Phil Tetlock

Subject: Can Anyone Predict What Happens Next?
Bio: Professor at Wharton and Author of Superforecasting

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein.  What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Can Anyone Predict What Happens Next?

This podcast was taped at a conference where I hosted several Penn Professors on a variety of topics. The audience included my friends who will join me in asking questions.

Our speaker is Phil Tetlock who is a Professor at Wharton and the author of a book entitled Superforecasting. Often, we get our news and analysis from experts who make predictions that are terribly wrong. Phil has analyzed methods of forecasting and has found individuals and groups who are fantastic predictors of politics, war, and sports.

I want to learn how AI and superforecasters working together will revolutionize the prediction process and why that is helpful to markets and mankind.

Phil, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Phil Tetlock:

How long are we going to need human forecasters? Will AI be able to perform all the intellectual functions that super forecasters were able to perform in assigning realistic probability estimates to a very wide range of real-world events over extended periods of time. The short answer is probably. I probably will be overtaking the top human performers. And my colleagues at the Forecasting Research Institute are estimating that’s going to happen in about eight months. I’m not sure I believe that projection.

I’ve been studying subjective probability forecasting for four decades plus. I was doing this in the middle of the 1980s during the Cold War. Reagan-Gorbachev was a big debate in the US whether Reagan was increasing or decreasing the risks of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. I collected some early probability estimates back then, and virtually nobody in 1984 predicted how radical a reformer Gorbachev would be.

Everybody could explain what happened after the fact. So, the conservatives believed that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian system and Jean Kirkpatrick and others argued that these totalitarian systems had perfected the art of self-perpetuation. They hadn’t. And liberals said, “The Reagan policies are going to increase the likelihood of war. We’re going to have Neo-Stalinist retrenchment in the Kremlin.” Those predictions were flat out wrong. The Soviet Union did substantially pivot toward liberalization. Nobody doubts that now and it ultimately led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I refer to the debate in the mid-80s as an outcome and relevant learning situation because no matter what happened, everybody was well positioned to explain it. They had no skin in the game because they had too many convenient fallback positions.

I covered that in my book Expert Political Judgment. that came out in 2005, 10 years before Superforecasting. Experts had a hard time outperforming educated readers in elite newspapers. Experts also had a hard time outperforming simple linear extrapolation. There seemed to be virtually no relationship between how prestigious you were and one’s predictive powers.

There were some experts who were pretty good and we characterized their cognitive style, cognitive ability profile, and it was a predictor. What is it that predicted good judgment? It was exactly what makes you unpopular as a topic as a guest in mass media. A good pundit is stepping on the gas, generating lots of reasons why he’s right and the other side is wrong. More balanced forecasters look at the trade-offs. One of the defining features of better forecasters is that they’re boring.

The intelligence community after 9/11, after WMD in Iraq was on the defensive. Congressional oversight demands more accountability for accuracy. The Director of National Intelligence created a research branch called IARPA whose primary mission was to improve forecasting accuracy. I got to know people at IARPA because I was one of the few people in geopolitical forecasting. I designed tournaments that ran from about 2010 to 2016. We won.

IARPA wanted to improve the accuracy of intelligence analysts. The people who missed WMD, the people who missed 9/11 were on the defense. They thought we would create forecasting tournaments, and we would give them some competition. I was running one of the research teams. There were four other research teams with different methodological approaches.

What the intelligence community cared about was their people getting better. When they compared how well their analysts were performing on the same questions that these outsiders were performing. We’re paying the amateurs $300 a year to answer a batch of 100 geopolitical questions that the IC considers to be of national security relevance. And the intelligence analysts lost.

Colin Teichholitz:

And they had access to the United States’ global intelligence efforts.

Phil Tetlock:

It’s their full-time job and they’re professionals. They have access to all this classified information. You would think that they should be completely dominating the amateurs. I don’t think the intelligence analysts are as bad as this comparison is making them out to be, but the results were sobering.

Larry Bernstein:

In the future, do you think there are questions that humans will have an advantage relative to AI and vice versa?

Phil Tetlock:

My colleagues at Forecasting Research Institute led by brilliant young economist Ezra Karger from the University of Chicago created the ForecastBench, which monitors the relative performance of top human performers and frontier AI models on thousands of questions that are posted in public prediction sites. A couple of years ago, the frontier models were well behind the top human performers. It was about a 40% gap and now it’s about a 10% gap. If you do a linear extrapolation, it’s about eight months.

Colin Teichholtz:

You said in the book that one of the big knocks on prediction markets is that it’s small money. People don’t really take them seriously. And so, beating these academic prediction markets is no big deal. Obviously, things have changed. Prediction markets have become a big deal and I’m curious how the forecasters today do?

Phil Tetlock:

15 years ago, low liquidity markets had trouble clearing. Robin Hanson created a market maker that solved some of that problem, but it’s a real limitation and it’s the old line for super forecasters. If you’re so great, why aren’t you rich? It should be monetizable, right?

Some of them are rich, but many of them aren’t. You look at the relationship between intelligence and wealth. Intelligence is certainly correlated with wealth, but to differentiate people in the top 99% versus the top 99.99%, not really.

At the end of the IARPA Forecasting tournaments, the prediction markets were running head-to-head. And the only way the forecasting tournaments could match even the illiquid prediction markets was by using some fancy statistical algorithms that did some of the same functions as markets like cleaning up scale forecasts. But the forecasting tournaments with reasonable algorithms, they could do as well as the prediction markets. Would that still be true with higher monetary stakes in prediction markets? The average prediction market accuracy is in the vicinity of the average top human performers and they’re both about 10% above the AIs that are catching up on them.

Colin Teichholtz:

What traits to look for you to assess that somebody will be a great forecaster?

Phil Tetlock:

The best predictor of whether someone’s a good forecaster is their past track record. The gold standard for accuracy is quadratic scoring. You take the gap between probabilities and realities, you square it, you do the deviations, the smaller the gap, the better forecaster you are. It incentivizes people to report their true beliefs and not to fudge. So, if you say, “ I don’t want to make this mistake because it’ll make climate change look less serious. I’m going to fudge on this.” You’re going to be degrading your score. If you want to minimize your Brier Score, maximize your accuracy, you should report your true beliefs.

There are many different proper scoring rules. I just described it as quadratic squared deviation rule, but it breaks down for some problems in finance and geopolitics elsewhere when you have tail risk. So, there you need logarithmic scoring rules. If you say there’s a 1% chance of something happening and it does, you’re going to get a bad Brier score. If you say there’s a 0% chance of something happening and it does, you’re going to get a slightly worse bad score. If you say 1% and you go with this 1% to 0% error on a logarithmic scale, it’s huge. It means you incur a negative infinity scoring penalty. It means I’ll never believe you again.

If you tell me something is impossible and it happens, I don’t ever want to hear you again. With the logarithmic score, you can never recover from it. From a Brier score, you can recover from it. Brier is much more forgiving. The logarithmic scoring rule says you make an error at the extremes you’re finished. And that produces a sensitivity to tail risk you probably want in finance. I’d recommend log scoring rules as opposed to the more popular Brier.

Colin Teichholtz:

Do you draw a distinction between the elites who acknowledge that they’re as vulnerable as anybody else or is it a broader brush than that?

Phil Tetlock:

I knew Danny Kahneman for a long time, and he felt that the judgmental biases he was studying ran deep into human nature and were very resistant to debiasing interventions. When we tried to train people to become better forecasters, he thought it couldn’t work. He thought if you’re going to make people better forecasters, you must institutionalize the process. Don’t count on them to remember it from their training. You must embed it in the institutional procedures for making judgments. You protocolize it rather than train it. And there’s a good case that Danny’s right about that, but training is possible.

Even though his Nobel Prize was in economics, his background was in perception. He thought that the judgmental biases like overconfidence that he studied were analogous to perceptual illusions that are resistant to training. You’ll simply slip back into the same error over and over again, no matter how much we train you. So, we have to teach you to pull out a ruler. That’s what I mean by protocolizing. And I think that’s sound advice.

David Wecker:

You present very well-defined questions for people to forecast at a certain date, but I find there’s huge value in knowing what the issues are going to be in the future that people care about but aren’t paying attention to today. Do you find that skill to be much different from what you researched and have you done any work on that?

Phil Tetlock:

I love your question. It captures one of the major directions the work has taken since super forecasting. Yes, I find huge value in that. Is there going to be a major war between the US and China before 2050? You ask experts in geopolitics this question and some of them will say very likely because wars tend to occur in hegemonic transitions. Nuclear weapons need to be factored and there’s a school of thought that believes that. There’s another school of thought that says, no, we think for various institutional, economic and political reasons, things are going to stabilize and they’ll work Taiwan out and it’s going to be tense, but it’s navigable.

Those are two big picture views of US-China relations That’s a big question if there’s going to be a war in the next few years.

How do you break down a big question like that into smaller units that are decomposable testable forecasts? That’s the methodology we’ve been pursuing in a number of studies. We call them Bayesian question clusters. What are the things you would expect to observe by 2030, for example, if you could expect a war by 2050? What would your expectations be?

What things would happen around Taiwan? What things would happen in the South China Sea, the Chinese nuclear arsenal, Chinese naval buildup, and Chinese rhetoric? If all of them break in the direction of increased likelihood of war, you would say, this is a collective early warning indicator, the bundle. One of these questions might not be all that diagnostic of the longer trend, but as a bundle, their cumulative diagnosticity can be quite substantial.

Larry Bernstein:

We have Steve Kuhn in the audience. Steve spoke on a previous podcast about his new business Sportspredict.com that applies Phil Tetlock’s Superforecasting to sports betting. Steve, can you please explain your new company’s business.

Steve Kuhn:

Sportspredict.com is free to play, not a gambling platform for people to show their predictive skill. Why sports? It’s the top of the funnel. Four billion people care about sports. It’s 90% of the revenue of Kalshi, so people care about it. There are multiple games every day, so there’s lots of ways to test. There’s not much of an Oracle problem.

Larry Bernstein:

An “Oracle problem” in a bet means that the hard part is not the wager itself but determining the objective truth of the outcome. In other words: who decides what actually happened?

Steve Kuhn:

The leagues decide who won and they publish it. Sports crosses cultures. We’re doing a big event around the World Cup.

In an age of AI, there’s not much difference between a teenager in Nairobi to compete against a PhD student at Stanford given the amount of data. You were asking, how could you find good ways to hire people? We would run a sports contest for your potential candidates. We use Brier scores as our way of measuring talent. Instead of asking somebody, “will Italy beat Spain?” We’ll ask, “What do you think the odds that Italy will beat Spain?” We get a lot more data and more precision following the professor’s work.

We’re working on a contest partnered with a hedge fund where the winner of that contest gets a fellowship to work at that hedge fund and perhaps gets to manage a $1 million dollar sports trading portfolio for them. So, we’re trying to use prizes to award status, but even in sports, people love to play free games. There’s a game called Fantasy Premier League, the English Soccer League. They have 11.5 million people that play it actively and people care very much about winning it. Famously, one year, Magnes Carlsen, who’s the best chess player in the world, got in the top 10 at the finals of that and he couldn’t stop talking about it.

Everyone tells him he’s a genius all the time. He gets to the top 10 in Fantasy Premier League and he puts it all over the place. So, I think there’s an insatiable demand for status and to prove you’re smart.

We can look at your track record. For the World Cup, we’ll have over a thousand predictions that we’ll be able to score. We will have a good sense of whether someone’s a good predictor or not.

We hope to announce this contest soon, which we hope to get large media attention. In addition to that, we’ve also partnered with a group called the John Locke Institute. It’s a summer institute for elite high school students. They have an essay contest every year that has over 100,000 entrants. We’re creating a six-week class on how to become a better predictor. We rolled out this class for 10 students as a trial and they loved it. In six weeks, these students got a lot better at this, and they also had a great time. We’re rolling that out to 300 students this week.

Being a good predictor is something that’s trainable and valuable to know. It’s crazy that we spend a year studying trigonometry, but we don’t study how use data to make good judgments. That’s something we need to fix.

Phil Tetlock:

I think there is an opportunity there. We just created Superforecasting as a label to get the top 2% engaged and stick with us through the IARPA tournaments. It was an invention of convenience because the government refused to pay for performance. So, we had to pay people for status. But if you take it much more seriously, you can create very rich status gradation. Every chess master knows what a Grandmaster is. There’s a very clear hierarchy that people work through and even within Grandmasters, there’s the elite club of over 2,800 and so forth.

In chess, AI’s are better than human chess players a long time ago. The best human players have an Elo rating of about 2850 and the best AI programs like Stockfish and AlphaGo are rated around 4,000, which means that they’re going to win 99.99% of the games against Magnus Carlsen. Magnus Carlsen isn’t going to have a chance. Do people lose interest in chess because there’s this dominant AI force? The interesting thing is they seem even more engaged by it. They use AIs to train themselves. If you were to look at the top players now today who are trained against AIs, compared to the top players 40, 50 years ago, the top players are better.

Rory MacFarquhar:

One of the major concerns about prediction markets is insider trading. Do you know whether your super forecasters are participating in these markets so that they are able to not just get status but cash in on their ability to be better at making these predictions

Phil Tetlock:

I haven’t had a lot to do with prediction markets until recently when I became affiliated with Forecast X. They have a concern about what’s happening with the prediction market, Kalshi in particular, which they think has gone crazy with sports betting and they’re expecting a severe regulatory backlash. You can create a prediction market on whether various legal cases against Kalshi or Polymarket are going to be successful? The Supreme Court is going to hear some of the state cases. The Trump administration is blocking everything at the federal level right now, but there’s a huge pent up demand for suing Kalshi and Polymarket at the state level and there’s a pretty good chance that the Supreme Court will uphold some of those state cases, which could be pretty serious.

Prediction markets are very useful public functions. The prices are very valuable signals, but on NFL games, I’m not so sure that a valuable social good is being served there.

David Stellings:

I’m Co-Lead counsel in the nationwide class action case against Kalshi pending in New York. We have the attorney generals attacking Kalshi for participating in sports betting because it endangers their tax dollars. It endangers their ability to enforce state laws that limit sports betting, for example, to people who are 21 or older. You have the federal regulatory agency, the CFTC, maintaining that all sports bets on Kalshi are swaps and therefore covered solely by the jurisdiction of the CFTC. If this administration is correct about that it could turn gambling in the United States on its head because going to a roulette table at Caesars in Las Vegas could be considered a swap under the definition that Kalshi is using and the CFTC is using for a swap.

There are about 20 different cases pending in various federal district courts around the country and 3 of them have already gone up to the court of appeals. The decisions are all over the place. This is definitely going to be decided by the Supreme Court. It’s not an issue that falls along traditional political lines the way that people can predict or often predict successfully what the Supreme Court’s going to decide. The attorneys general who are pursuing these cases are across the board on the political spectrum.

Phil Tetlock:

That’s fascinating. I thought it was mostly the left coming after the prediction markets.

You’re causing me to update my beliefs now. The likelihood of the Supreme Court upholding at least some of these state cases increases quite a bit if there’s support at the state level.

David Stellings:

Polymarket does not operate fully in the US on the sports betting front, and they’ve done that very intentionally because they see the legal flack that Kalshi is under. As of now, even though Polymarket is technically allowed to offer sports betting in the United States for the last several months, the only people who are allowed to participate in that are beta testers. And it’s a very tiny number of people. Other sports betting apps are being sued. We’ve sued a bunch of them; they just don’t get as much media.

Larry Bernstein:

I had a podcast with Peter Grace recently and the topic was the intellectual foundations of the CIA. Sherman Kent was a Yale history professor who built the research and analysis team at the CIA. I read Sherman Kent’s book called Strategies of Intelligence, where he laid out his process for CIA analysts to incorporate probabilities in evaluating risks. In preparation for today’s talk, I reread Superforecasting and it turned out that Sherman Kent was an important figure in Phil Tetlock’s book.

Phil, tell us about Sherman Kent, why he’s important to the development of the CIA.

Phil Tetlock:

He’s a fascinating character. He was way out front about urging his colleagues to quantify probabilities. He was very concerned about miscommunication. He was concerned that estimates for the Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia. He was worried that President Kennedy was misled during the Bay of Pigs because someone said there was a reasonable chance of success. The people who said reasonable chance meant one in three, Kennedy thought it was much higher. So, you have potential for miscommunication. He thought analysts should get in the habit of making explicit judgments and scoring their accuracy. He got a lot of push back from his more qualitative colleagues, very similar to the pushback that we got 30 years later in the IARPA tournament.

It’s a very same divide between quantitative and anti-quantitative people inside the CIA. And one person said, “Take it to Sherman Kent, you’re trying to turn me into a goddamn bookie.” Prediction markets. And he said, “I’d rather be a bookie than a Poet.”

Colin Teichholtz:

You tell the story of Obama and Osama Bin Laden and getting advice from his advisors around the table and that the reasonable aggregation of those advisors was 70% probability of success and yet Obama came away saying it was 50/50 and he still decided to go and do it. What can forecasters do to better convey this information to decision makers?

Phil Tetlock:

I think Obama may have been reluctant to take the 70% aggregate and pushed it down to 50 because he didn’t want to be overconfident. Trump probably would have made the reverse call. It’s a matter of what your political values are. The forecasting process itself is supposed to be value-neutral. Ideally, you want the president to have the best estimate of the odds, whether they’re 50 / 50 or 70 / 30 or whatever they may be. You want the president to have the best estimate of the odds and then the president can plug in his own utility function. It might be an Obama utility function. It might be a Trump utility function, but that’s the division of labor. There are the technocrats and then they’re the policymakers who plug their values in.

Colin Teichholtz:

Could there also be a division of labor between the people who tend to be experts in a field and spend their lives learning lots of information versus somebody else who hasn’t committed their life to studying that particular field but is very good at consuming that information and then making predictions from it.

Phil Tetlock:

We have a lot of experts on AI, we have a lot of economists, we have a lot of biosecurity experts, we have a ton of experts now and we’re able to compare their judgments to super forecasters across many, many issues and the pattern is the experts almost always have higher estimates of risk than the super forecasters do. I’m not saying they’re always wrong, but I’m saying if you spend your life studying something, you’re probably going to think it’s pretty important, correctly or incorrectly.

My sense is super forecasters are quick to become skeptical of a source. It’s easy to lose the trust of a super forecaster. You want to use an aggregate of super forecasters. The best super forecasters in my experience use the statistical base rate evidence and they look at case specific information.

You’re at a wedding and you say to the person next to you, “What do you think the likelihood of the couple staying married is? “ Most people see the couple and they look happy, but most people manage to look happy at their wedding. The accounting people are going to say, “the divorce rate for this sociodemographic category is 33% chance of that marriage ending in the next six years.” That doesn’t mean that you ignore everything about the couple. That’s not the end of the process. You use case specific evidence to update against the base rate

Jay Greene:

Are there super forecasters who are more effective given their identity at forecasting things that they have an affinity for because of their identity?

Phil Tetlock:

I think the performance engine underlying super forecasting is very fundamentally human. Human beings have a hard time with statistical reasoning. The super forecasters are unusually good at it for humans. AIs are way better, but the super forecasters are pretty good. And the super forecasters have good causal intuitions about human affairs. The AIs don’t have good causal intuitions. I don’t if they know if AIs even understand what causality is. At least right now, that’s not how they think. We typically don’t use individual superforecaster judgments. We almost always use aggregates. The aggregate of super forecasters is better than 90% of the individual super forecasters. The aggregates work better when they’re cognitively diverse. You can put more confidence in a prediction when people who normally disagree suddenly agree. The Obama-Osama Bin Laden is a good example. You have people inside the CIA offering estimates of whether Obama is in that compound in Abbottabad.

If you have people who have human intelligence versus people using cyber code breaking versus satellite pictures and they are coming from totally different angles and they haven’t talked to each other and they’re reaching a very similar conclusion, you have much more to make an extreme prediction. If the average is 70%, but people who normally disagree are agreeing, the IARPA extremizing algorithms would tell you to turn that 70% into 90% that power of viewpoint diversity at a group level not at an individual level. People who can take many perspectives in their head do a weighted average that puts you at an advantage too.

It’s as if you’re doing a crowd aggregation. If you’re a good perspective taker that’s one of the defining qualities of the super forecasters.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Phil for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Objects of Desire.

Our speaker was Karl Ulrich who is a Professor at Penn specializing in Industrial Design and has written a book entitled Product Design and Development.

Karl spoke about inventing a new ice cream scooper that is beautiful, sexy, and more useful.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Objects of Desire, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

122KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Karl Ulrich

Subject: Objects of Desire
Bio: Professor at Penn Specializing in Industrial Design and Author of Product Design and Development

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein.  What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Objects of Desire.

This podcast was taped at a conference where I hosted several Penn Professors on a variety of topics. The audience included my friends who will join me in asking questions.

Our speaker is Karl Ulrich who is a Professor at Penn specializing in Industrial Design and has written a book entitled Product Design and Development.

Karl will speak about designing an ice cream scooper that is beautiful, sexy, and more useful than any that had been manufactured before. Karl, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Karl Ulrich:

I taught one of the very first MOOCs, massively open online courses at Penn in 2012 and it was called Design Creation of Artifacts in Society. That entire course is now on my YouTube channel for free. So just search for me and you’ll find it there.

In the first week, I realized if I’m teaching a course on design, I better have an example that weaves through the course. I noticed my collection of antique ice cream scoops. And I said, “Everybody loves ice cream. Why don’t I use an ice cream scoop?” I picked an object that is highly evolved and very quickly around the beginning of week two, I realized if I don’t have a better scoop at the end of the course, what’s the point?

The first order of business was to define the job. It starts with the observation that scooping ice cream sucks. You all know that. You’ve got carpal tunnel. How might we create a better handheld tool for creating balls of ice cream from a bulk container? The next step in the design process was to do some observation of users. The only user I had at hand was my sullen teenage son named Nate.

At the time he begrudgingly scooped ice cream for me in front of a video camera. It is immediately evident that ergonomics are all wrong. You have this terrible wrist angle; you’re using the wrong muscle groups. It’s hard to see what you’re doing. As a product designer, I looked at this and I said, “The insight here is the ergonomics are terrible.”

I generated 10 solution concepts, but I fixated on the angle of the scoop head relative to the handle. So, if your wrist is at its natural angle, the scoop is now oriented in the direction of the container and that solves a lot of ergonomic challenges.

I worked out a rudimentary prototype of that concept, 3D printed it. The course ends after 12 weeks with the sullen teen taking dad’s 3D printed prototypes, scooping a scoop of ice cream, smiling and saying,” Nice job, dad.”

Shortly thereafter, I was having dinner with two of my friends. They happened to be the founders of one of the most famous design firms in the world called Lunar Design, now McKinsey Design. I told them that story and I showed them the early prototype and they said, “That’s nice, Karl. Would you mind if we did a little work on this?” I swallowed my pride, realized I was being asked by two of the best industrial designers of the world if they could work on my product. I said, “Of course.”

Now I need to make a slight digression and explain about industrial design. The solution was this angled scoop head relative to the handle and that core concept is patentable. We have a patent. It’s US Utility Patent 9173527.

The claim is more than a hundred words long. I’m going to read you the condensed version.

“An ergonomically designed ice cream scoop comprising a handle and a scoop head having an irregular bowl with a spade-shaped leading edge attached to the handle at an approximately 45- degree angle from a longitudinal access running the length of the handle.”

That’s the legal description of what’s functionally novel about the object. A 45-degree angle. And that functional description describes an object that very few of you in the room would buy. Function of an object is about 5% of what’s involved in creating a desirable and attractive product. In consumer goods and physical goods, the other 95% is industrial design.

What Jeff and Gerard and their team did was work out the awkward interface between the scoop and the handle. The result was the Bellevue ice cream scoop that you have in front of you.

We launched the resulting product on Kickstarter that met with some modest success. Our biggest customer is Jerry from Ben and Jerry. Our scoop is part of the portfolio that Lunar used to win the Cooper Hewitt National Design Award. It’s in the SFMOMA Gift Shop and we sell a few of them as well. We were able to create a little business.

Three lessons. First, no product category is so mature that you can’t innovate. The scoop most of you has been around since 1933. The first scoop patents are in the 1890s, and ice creams have been around almost a thousand years. This is a very mature product category and yet we were able to find a conceptual insight that led us to innovate. Second, a great product is often a combination of two things. It’s the combination of some conceptual insight in our case, simply angling that ice cream scooper relative to the handle plus some industrial design. Put together they can create a very desirable product. And then the third lesson is great product does not equal a great business.

We have tried so many things to make this a business. We have many other products. Today, my entire go-to-market strategy consists of giving talks like this, telling you, give one free, and then inform you that if you use the code Karl 25, you get 25% off. That’s the scoop. The question I want to ask is now you held that scoop, before you considered the 45-degree angle of the scoop head to the longitudinal axis, what explained your attraction of that object? And that’s the challenge of industrial design.

Zachary Schur:

I noticed right away the weight of it.

Karl Ulrich:

So, your theory is heavy products are attractive.

Larry Bernstein:

In this case.

Karl Ulrich:

Yeah, but in a camping cup, it might not be attractive. What about the heft of this product that makes it attractive?

Larry Bernstein:

Well, when you show that other ice cream scoop, which so many of us use and it always just feels like it’s not doing the job.

I read your essay. It surprised me that the surface of water is an important and attractive aspect to the design. You said it was because when we’re on the savanna and desperate for water to see it brings us great joy and this object, it’s like when Lawrence of Arabia first saw Aqaba.

There’s the water. It’s reflecting, just the way you wrote in the essay and there’s this sense of wonder.

Karl Ulrich:

The work that underscores that theory has toddlers playing with toys that are finished in matte and gloss finishes, the kids literally lick the gloss products. It’s pretty compelling. Gloss is deeply wired to have positive balance.

David Stellings:

I scoop a lot of ice cream. I don’t like to wait for the ice cream to get soft enough to easily scoop it. So, it’s always very hard. I noticed when I picked this up, it’s rounded on the back, which is the side that you would exert the most force against when you’re pressing against the cold ice cream. And the front side of the handle is flat, which is where you comfortably place your thumb to get better leverage. It provides the perfect leverage experience for scooping ice cream and I’m looking forward to using it.

Karl Ulrich:

They agonized over that because they wanted it flat for aesthetics. It’s not clear that’s what you want ergonomically.

David Brail:

In a fortuitous timing, our ice cream scoop of 30 years broke last week. What I like about this is its solid state. There are no moving parts. Our spring failed and it’s not that useful anyway. This is a single piece; no parts can fail. This will last longer than 30 years. I’m optimistic.

Zachary Schur:

It reminds me a lot of an Apple phone and it’s got the same shiny edges that that thing is made.

Karl Ulrich:

It’s funny you say that because the Apple industrial design comes out of Lunar. Steve Jobs was one of Lunar’s early clients and they did the first Powerbook 100 and the first laser printers. There’s an explicit design language, especially in that early Apple. And if you think about the first iPod you owned, do you remember it had that chrome back? It smudges and shows fingers. They did that very deliberately. Gloss is a cheap trick. Everybody loves gloss, but what we found was that people started polishing their device on their shirt, and that’s magic for a designer.

Ron Bernstein:

Why is it so weighted down? There’s very little weight in the scooper head. And why didn’t you make a thumb depression to help your thumb work the product?

Karl Ulrich:

This is made from three pieces. It’s then welded together. Originally, we made this out of aluminum because of its thermal conductivity. The problem was it was nearly impossible to get this gloss finish on aluminum without using nasty environmental processes, hexavalent chrome-plating. As a result, we went to stainless steel. The problem with that is it weighed like six pounds in stainless. And so, the reason it’s three parts is it’s hollow. It’s much lighter than it would be if it were solid and it’s about as light as it can be given the way it’s made. I have a little stash of the original aluminum ones because they perform and feel the best, but it was a practical concern that led us to stainless steel.

As to the thumb hole, we made at least 24 prototypes and quite a few of them had little thumb do hickeys. And the problem with that is it’s not as forgiving to hand size as a surface and we found it didn’t add that much, but that’s the stuff designers obsess over, iterate, look at variants, watch different size people use it and try to converge on something that works.

Julie Bernstein:

You’re skimming the surface part of the ice cream, which melts quicker. Traditional scoops are round and you must dig in deeper. So, this seems like it would skim more. I would think that you didn’t mention that, but I would think that would be like the primary focus of this design.

Karl Ulrich:

It’s more of a shaving action than a true scooping action. If you’re scooping professionally, you do need to keep this in warm water. That’s what an ice cream shop does.

The Maya principle, which if I get the acronym right, is the maximally advanced yet acceptable design. There’s fair bit of evidence that the ability to quickly process what the concept is important in aesthetics, but having this little bit of tension is also very attractive, but not too much and that’s why it’s called the Maya principle. You see it on the display and you’re like, “Well, I know what that is, but geez, that’s kind of weird. How does it work?” And it seems to hit Maya just about right.

It doesn’t work very well on Amazon where you see this thing.

Larry Bernstein:

It’s one thing to say that something sucks. It’s another thing to solve the physical engineering problem associated with extracting the ice cream from the container. Tell us about your process for fixing a thousand-year-old problem of an easy extraction of ice cream from a container.

Karl Ulrich:

I’ve built my whole career around the idea that you can apply process to get better outcomes in design. The process we teach is called the Triple Diamond Model because each diamond reflects a cycle of divergent and convergent thinking. The three diamonds are a jobs analysis, a needs analysis and concept generation.

What’s the job we’re trying to do here? Are we trying to improve the ergonomics of the scoop or are we trying to enhance access to ice cream or are we trying to provide family togetherness at home? You could frame ice cream scoops in all three of those ways. The first step is that job to be done statement. How might we design a better handheld tool for forming balls of ice cream from a bulk container? That’s diamond one.

Diamond two is understanding the user needs. First, try to exhaustively catalog what are the variables that explain preference for ice cream scoops and that’s things like it’s affordable, it forms an ice shaped ball, it doesn’t stick. It’s usually for most products, 30 to 50 of those variables. More important is the identification of what in design language are called insights. Insights are needs that are non-obvious, significant and authentic, rooted in the actual observations of users. The insight for the ice cream scoop was the ergonomics of scooping are terrible. There was an awkward wrist angle.

The third diamond is to use that insight to pull a variety of solution concepts.

So, once you recognize that ergonomics is an insight, what if I could use large muscle groups? Could I use my leg? Could I use a knife? There’s a nice technique where you cut ice cream. It’s the pyramid method. It’s easy to ideate once you have an insight because that pulls some obvious solution concepts. Those three diamonds are teachable. They’re reliable for a student facing an unstructured problem to know how to get at it. And in the end, they produce something. You look at it, you say, wow, that’s genius. But it’s the result of turning a crank on these three predictable processes.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to bring in some family lore. My wife Julie’s grandfather made a major invention. There’s a mop where you pull a handle, just a little switch, and it would squeeze all the water out of the sponge and dump it in the bucket. He came up with this contraption with a mop. In the old days, A mop had this piece of metal, and you mushed it. That was horrible design. This new mom contraption was great because it would squeeze out the water with a flick of a switch. I don’t mean to brag, but related, through marriage. Anyway, he too struggled in the marketing side of the business. Ron Propeil was one of these great marketers. You’ve probably seen advertisements when you were a kid with the Gizmo knife. Wait, don’t stop there. We’re going to throw something else in. So, he had this very active marketing campaign that went across products. By the time you were through, you were buying all sorts of goods and getting things thrown in for free. Now Julie’s grandfather could invent this mop, but he could not market on a grand scale. There are certain organizations like Oxo. I don’t know if you thought about selling your product to them because they have beautifully engineered items.

We use one for cleaning dishes. It scrubs and you can just push a button and out comes the dishwasher soap. Amazing, really. I bought one for my mom. How do you think about your next steps of taking advantage of a marketing genius with widespread distribution to take this product global?

Karl Ulrich:

Yeah, there’s so much to say there. Does anybody know the scrub daddy? Do you know what the sales of the scrub daddy are? It’s a billion dollars. It’s like the most trivial object imaginable. It was on Shark Tank. It has a smiley face on it. You can hear the bitterness in my voice. So, who knows? I have a little more respect for Oxo.

Oxo started out like the scoop. It was a marketing guy named Sam Farber, lives in New York. And Sam had an arthritic wife and he said, “I want to create some kitchen implements she can use.” His first product was called the Good Grips Peeler, and everyone told him that no one can sell a peeler for $9.99 because peelers are 99 cents at a hang tag in the grocery store. And he said, “Look, it’s only 10 bucks. It’s better. People will buy it.” He came to market with that one product he probably got to single digit millions. And then he was able to fill that product line with the idea of Good Grips, the Good Grips ergonomic angle to be several dozen.

He sold the business I think for $400 million, and Newell Rubbermaid has taken that Good Grips idea and spread it much more broadly. We were able to get meetings with Solatab, Williams Sonoma, those kinds of retailers, which is what you must do for a product because if the product costs 40 bucks, if you’re selling direct-to-consumer, your acquisition cost is 40 bucks. You just can’t make it work on a direct-to-consumer basis. So, it must go through retail. Every one of the buyers said, “We love this product. We need 12 products and we can give you a display.”

So, we designed 12 and we have a couple of others that we still sell. But when we got to three or four, we looked at the prospects of building a consumer housewares brand around these 12 boutique products and it just didn’t pencil out in terms of our effort.

Larry Bernstein:

Steve Zoll, you make chicken sausage and it’s a form of industrial design. You must make it beautiful. You need to make it look appetizing. Tell us about the industrial design of chicken sausage and the challenges that you face to make it appetizing for third parties.

Steve Zoll:

We have a process when we create new products, we’re very focused on what the consumer wants. Our products are designed around high quality, simple ingredients, and taste great. And from there we iterate with different ingredients. As far as looks go, we lean heavily into the package. So, we spend a lot of time thinking about how the package looks, what it communicates to the consumer. When I bought the company, the package conveyed nothing. It just had the name Amylu. She’s the founder of this brand. She was using great ingredients and the products tasted great. Package conveyed none of that. It had a picture of chicken on it. People want to eat products with simple high-quality ingredients and none of that was communicated on the package. We changed the package to white. We have pictures of a lot of the ingredients so you can say, “Hey, this is real food.”

Larry Bernstein:

It’s not every day that you can meet the Sausage King of Chicago. in the audience We also have an investor in sausage casings. Jeff Strong, tell me about the snap. What makes a great sausage casing?

Jeff Strong:

Well, it’s really the snap.

If you’ve seen the commercial with Rodney Savage, you snap into a Slim Jim. It’s the collagen casing that makes the snap and it’s a bit dated, but we had invested in a collagen casing company. It was listed in the UK. It fits our strategy for a high-quality company. It had 50% global market share, but it was mismanaged. They had bad incentives. The incentives were growth over value. We got involved and tried to modify management behavior to focus on value, not necessarily size and ultimately was acquired by a larger industrial food products company at a big premium.

Larry Bernstein:

Steve, we talked about the consumer side of industrial design. Tell us about the making of the sausages. How do you think about the design and the making of mass production of sausage?

Steve Zoll:

It is designed to make the product safe, consistent, eliminating risks, things like foreign objects in our products. Those are the things that we think about and efficiency, of course.

It seemed like aluminum would have been better, right? But because stainless steel was shiny, that’s form. And I’m wondering, form over function in general.

Karl Ulrich:

The aluminum had the same finish. You wouldn’t know the difference. The problem was that finish on aluminum requires three intermediate steps. You must copper plate, then nickel plate, and finally chrome plate it. You can only use trivalent chrome, not hexavalent chrome. And after about a hundred cycles in the dishwasher, we started to get some flaking of that. So, we said, “This isn’t going to work.” Now, we could have just used a bare aluminum scoop. That’s what a lot of a $2 scoop may just be bare aluminum. Problem is that is going to be ugly. By the time it gets put in the dishwasher a few times it’s going to have an ugly gray patina on it. So, if you want to call that form over function, okay, but we needed this thing to feel like an heirloom to have high perceived value and part of that is just pure aesthetic.

Larry Bernstein:

In March of 2020, we had our last Stanford day, which is exactly like this, but at Stanford. One of our guests was Bernard Roth. He created the Design School at Stanford.

This was a completely new school. There are no professors in the Design School. He just grabbed people who were interested and wanted to participate in these new phenomena, and it became a raging success. When I was at the Wharton School, there was no industrial design department. We had no attachment with anyone from mechanical engineering. And the fact that it currently exists is incredible. Design schools as a practical matter offer a completely different creative outlet and is normally unavailable in the Wharton School.

Tell us about design as a school, design as an interdisciplinary effort, what’s it doing in Wharton and engineering and how that has been created? What happened since I left Penn that this is available?

Karl Ulrich:

The Design School at Stanford, so-called D-School is a triumph of branding as there is no school there. It’s an executive education program. It had Bernie Roth, but more significantly David Kelly, who had been the founder of IDEO. For my taste, it was a little too touchy-feely in the sense it was anti-theoretical and anti-process. It was just do it, just iterate, build it, break it, and I think we can do better than that. When we set out at Penn, we started a program called Integrated Product Design and that does offer a degree and it’s a joint program with the School of Architecture, School of Engineering and the Wharton School.

We said, “The Penn way is more process oriented.” The Wharton way is to be more principal -oriented as well. That’s why we have a triple diamond model. We have various tools and methods that we try to teach our students. Having said that, that program has struggled in part because teaching a master’s degree program integrated interdisciplinary masters and to really do design education, it’s hard to scale that beyond maybe 40 students a year and 40 students a year is just rounding error for Wharton. Educational programs are viewed primarily as revenue generators, especially master’s programs at the School of Engineering. So, it’s struggled to get institutional support.

Larry Bernstein:

When I went to see your class in 2019, the auditorium was full. The enthusiasm was high.

Karl Ulrich:

As a master’s degree program, it’s struggled. As an elective that students at Penn take, it’s been fantastically successful. We have seven sections a year now of that course. 10% of all Penn undergraduates take that course. They all learn to use laser cutters and design three-dimensional objects and 3D printing and generally really, really like it. And then some small fraction of students who are exposed to those ideas become entrepreneurs or go to work in product related businesses. But mostly, people just do it because they’re curious and want to learn about design.

Larry Bernstein:

If you were going to design a school of design, how would you do that and how would it be different than what is currently done?

Karl Ulrich:

We have the Weitzman School of Design at Penn. But it’s a school that has landscape architecture, historic preservation and architecture in it. And they just one day decided we’re going to rename our school, the Weitzman School of Design. Design is a fundamental human activity. It is not confined to architecture. The other two domains aren’t even that “designy.” The biggest issue is that design has all these intellectual jurisdictional issues. And when you use that word, you could be talking to someone who designs the M1 VLSI chip at Apple or a fashion designer at Fashion Institute of Technology. They all could say they’re designers. It’s hard to say what would you do if you were to try to find the common thread around all domains of design?

At the end of the day, you must bring students in, give them a coherent professional program to survive as a school. And that probably must be more domain driven. And so maybe design should be more of an interdisciplinary, more of a row of matrices across all the schools.

Larry Bernstein:

Does Penn do too much? Why should physics be with your industrial design? When I was walking over here, there is the Curtis School of Music, and they’re very specialized in a very narrow way. They make music. Why does it make sense for these universities to do everything for everyone? What I found surprising is that almost none of the professors seem to know anybody else in any other department. They know people in their little area, but one of the speakers I invited for tomorrow said that I probably know more people in the various faculties than she does, and she’s been a professor here for 10 or 15 years. What Bernie Roth was doing so well is he was able to tap into faculty across multiple schools that had similar creative desires. Universities don’t seem to be doing that very well. Why is it failing and should it be smaller?

Karl Ulrich:

Bernie was also a polymath. He was interested in all kinds of crazy stuff. Terrific guy. I think you’re asking about organizations more generally. I get it in business because from a human resource standpoint, you need a certain amount of renewal. Growth is important and it’s the overarching logic of capitalism that creates shareholder value. Universities borrow a lot of that logic. We are thinking about getting bigger and richer and at the programmatic level about how can I get another hire in my department? Well, to do that, I need to grow my research program or whatever. I think universities share a lot of the same negative consequences of growth that other organizations share.

As to why the departmental boundaries are so calcified, I think it’s in a lot of domains, they become self-referential guilds without much external validation. I know that was true in my department within Wharton. I would say half the faculty work in domains that are entirely self-referential and they know the rules, they know the other players. It’s got a certain set of incentives and a certain set of performance metrics, and they love playing that game, but that game has no external validation, no external reference.

Jay Greene:

I would always joke that you were far more likely to have an intellectual exchange at Larry’s Book Club than at any academic conference that I had ever attended. I do think that it’s worth worrying a little bit about why universities have strayed from core missions, truth seeking intellectual inquiry. I’m not saying that no one does it. I’m just saying that it should be the lion’s share of everything. It should drive everything and it’s clear that it doesn’t.

Karl Ulrich:

I’m a little defensive about this. First, I totally agree with the academic conferences. I stopped going 20 years ago. With my immediate colleagues. We get along fine, but I’m not that interested in what they’re doing. I don’t feel like there needs to be some mechanism to force me to reach out to meet interesting people, because I feel like I do that a lot. There is a fundamental tension here between people who are more oriented towards real disciplinary and functional depth and people who are a little more eclectic in their interests.

I’m more eclectic, which means I’m not that good at my narrow focus, but I’m pretty good at bridging stuff and I think you need some of both in the university and to say you want everyone to be interested in interdisciplinary stuff, you probably give up the person who goes and invents a new state of matter.

Jeff Strong:

When reading your article about the five principles, I think the entire endeavor of translating a profound design program and answering it with a few principles seems a little hopeless to begin with. And sure enough, I think a lot of design principles over time have proven to be not comprehensive enough or interpreted incorrectly and failed in retrospect. How certain are you in the validity of these principles? How ready are you to tell your students to just throw it out of the window if they feel inspired by something else? It goes against the principles, but I’m going to do this.

Karl Ulrich:

I’m not sure I can really offer comprehensive theory of aesthetics, but these elements seem predictive of what works aesthetically and they provide some explanatory power. In the case of typicality, for example, you can always find counter examples, but that’s an empirical regularity where you look at a lot of people and how they respond to things and try to figure out why they like some things more than others. Typicality emerges out of marketing. Same with gloss. These mechanisms will get overridden for sure. So, if there’s a cultural norm to react against gloss, a trend or a fashion trend where all the youth are anti-gloss, that can override completely the more hardwired preference for gloss.

So, I’d say I’m not sure at all, but I think these are interesting and offer some explanatory value and until we have something better, that’s what we have.

Larry Bernstein:

What are you optimistic about as it relates to the future of design?

Karl Ulrich:

The AI tools are unbelievable in supporting design. I found myself being able to do much deeper technical design work than I’d done for years because of the tools. I just bought both my kids 3D printers for $300. The tools are unbelievable and they enable and democratize design.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Karl for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Using Peptides for Medical Breakthroughs.

Our speaker was Cesar de la Fuente who is the Director of Penn’s Machine Biology Group. His team uses AI with biology to create new antibiotics and improve the efficacy of other drugs that hopefully can save lives.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Using Peptides for Medical Breakthroughs, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

112KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Cesar de la Fuente

Subject: Using Peptides for Medical Breakthroughs
Bio: Director of Penn’s Machine Biology Group

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein.  What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Using Peptides for Medical Breakthroughs.

This podcast was taped at a conference where I hosted several Penn Professors on various topics. The audience included my friends who will join me in asking questions.

Our speaker is Cesar de la Fuente is the Director of Penn’s Machine Biology Group. His team uses AI with biology to create new antibiotics that hopefully can save millions of lives. Cesar, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Cesar de la Fuente:

We have biology driven by evolution that has given rise to our brain. For a long time, I thought that if we could learn how biology works from first principles and then extract that to build technologies and biotechnologies, then we would solve problems. Not only in medicine but sustainability, and other things that affect the future of humanity.

My lab has been applying it to the problem of bacterial infections that are becoming increasingly resistant. Bacterial infections are associated with five million deaths per year in the world. If we don’t come up with new therapies to treat these infections, by the year 2050, that number is projected to double to 10 million deaths per year, becoming the number one cause of death.

I see it as this huge existential threat to humanity. A lot of the work that we’ve been doing over the past decade plus has been incorporating concepts from computational biology to change how we discover new antimicrobial molecules that we can use to confront this crisis.

We’ve had antibiotics for less than 100 years. And yet, if we combine antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water, those three pillars have essentially doubled lifespan. If you go to hospitals all around the globe, we have patients with multi-drug-resistant infections that are completely untreatable, even if we combine the most potent cocktails of antibiotics.

Going back to our research, how we’ve decided to treat it like an information theory problem. If you think of biology, you have DNA and proteins. In its simplest terms, it’s a bunch of code. DNA is a four-letter code; proteins are a 20-letter code of amino acids. It’s not that different from the code that we use to communicate with each other through the alphabet. All this complexity, you reduce it to a bunch of code, then you can devise algorithms that can explore this code and identify potential drugs.

This is very different from the traditional paradigm of antibiotic discovery, which is this physical process where scientists go around nature in these expeditions and dig into soil to find antimicrobial drugs. That’s painstaking work that relies on trial and error. Oftentimes it can take more than the time that it takes to finish a PhD to find new molecules that are preclinically irrelevant. So, it’s not conducive in an academic setting, and it costs over $2 billion to discover and develop antimicrobial drugs.

We thought that with AI, we could completely change this landscape. We started by developing machine learning models that can explore entire genomes. We found thousands of new molecules encoded in our genetic code that had never been described in science by using this algorithm.

And the vast majority of those play a role in the immune system that was previously unanticipated. We then expanded that and looked at our genetic code, the genetic code of bacteria, and different microbes. We’ve looked at Archaea as well, which are esoteric organisms. And we’ve looked at ancestral biology as a source of dysfunctional antimicrobial molecules.

If you think about history, most of the life that has ever existed on our planet is now extinct. So how can we understand anything about biology or about evolution if we don’t have access to that information that existed previously? And so, we’ve developed AI systems that can mine biology at a large scale, and we’ve done a project where we’ve explored all ancient biological data with AI systems.

We’ve done this journey through evolutionary history and identified new preclinical candidate leads in the genetic data of ancient penguins that were extinct as recently as the 50s, Magnolia trees that disappear throughout evolution, ancient Zebras, Woolly Mammoths, ancient Elephants, giant Sloths, and many other creatures that used to roam around our planet.

Larry Bernstein:

What I think is interesting is the relationship between basic science and its later application. When my grade school and high school friend Joe Thornton was first extracting mammalian DNA as a Professor at the University of Chicago, AI hadn’t yet been developed. I can’t imagine he had considered using the ancient proteins that you are using it. How do you think about the codependency of basic science and its application as it relates to the work that you’re doing?

Cesar de la Fuente:

AI is portrayed as this magical thing that can do everything. And that’s not true. Our AI models have been trained using experimental data that we’ve generated in my lab through actual biochemistry experiments. One thing that is critical to highlight is that for an AI model to be reliable and accurate, you need to feed it to apply good and accurate data.

Larry Bernstein:

So, you have this mammoth DNA chain. How did your models know that that piece was valuable because the chain is almost infinitely long. How did it know that’s the one?

Cesar de la Fuente:

That model is called Apex. So, it’s a deep learning model that was trained on a lot of experimental data collected in my lab. So, it learns what makes a particular chain be successful at killing bacteria, even specific clinically relevant pathogens, and then it can essentially run through the whole code. And once you find something that is promising, it identifies that and then it comes up with a ranking. So, what the model gives us is a ranking one to sometimes a million molecules based on statistical prediction.

The model is saying, number one is the most likely to be a successful new drug to kill these infections, and then it goes down. And then what we do in my lab, we take the recommendations made by the algorithms and human scientists look at those recommendations and then we go over them and sometimes the algorithms miss things like maybe this molecule is not good when you’re trying to develop a drug. So, we ruled that one out.

The ramification of this ancient biological work is that some of these molecules that we’ve discovered when we sequence homology with present day proteins or molecules that exist in the world today, we don’t see any homology, meaning some of these are extinct. They’re not present anywhere in the world around us today. And so, from a bioethical perspective, is it okay for us to synthesize some of these molecules.

Larry Bernstein:

I’m fine with it.

Cesar de la Fuente:

But I’d like to think about the philosophical ramifications of the work that we do. And the other interesting aspect of this work is the patentability of this. Natural molecules are not patentable. That was determined so by this legal case that was called the Myriad case. So, everything that exists in nature belongs to humanity and therefore you cannot patent it. But what about molecules that no longer exist in nature, that used to exist hundreds of thousands of years ago, and we no longer find them in the world today, are those patentable?

The truth is that nobody knows. And this has created a new sub-area of patent law where they’re trying to figure out what to do with this research.

Larry Bernstein:

25 years ago, my biggest investment was in Monsanto, and the reason I invested in it was on the financial side, it was trading for less than the last four years of R&D. And my hope was that they had not wasted their money and that this would prove to be valuable.

When I met with the CTO at the time, I asked him what they are trying to achieve? And he said, “We’ve ranked the problems. Number one is weeds, and so we’re going to have a genetic aspect that makes the plant not die from certain pesticides. So, the pesticide will kill the weed, but not the plant.” And then we were going to add additional genetics over time to deal with certain problems.

And we can compare that with the old ways in which we used to let plants evolve. So, they say, “This is a hardy plant, and this is a big fast grower.” We’ll crossbreed the two in the hope that that would combine both traits, but this new way, we’ll just cut and paste it and put it on the genome.

I think if someone had asked me before reading your papers, “What are our prospects for antibiotic creation?” I would have said, “Oh, what we need to do is send teams into the Amazon to be clipping around, looking for stuff, and hoping that we find something out there in the wild.” That’s the old school technique, or you can go the Monsanto way, which is let’s look at the genetic code and cut and paste directly the code. Is that a good metaphor for genetics in how agriculture has recently developed and how we’re going to apply that to antibiotics?

Cesar de la Fuente:

The acceleration of the process is certainly true. With traditional methods, it can take seven years to find preclinical candidates. Now with these AI systems that we’ve developed in a few hours, we can discover hundreds of thousands. And so, we’ve entered this digital age of scientific discovery that is hugely exciting. For all the negative ramifications of AI in our society, this is a good one. Its application to accelerate the process to the preclinical stage. Things still need to go through clinical trials and that takes time. But I know there are people working on how to design better clinical trials that are faster, more efficient, and so on.

Moira McDermott:

We were having a discussion at dinner last night about AI use in math research, and recently they’ve been able to solve some of Hilbert’s problems. AI was able to solve these because it could go through thousands of problems and do lots of calculations and solve the low hanging fruit. To get at the harder problems, you’re still going to be able to have AI assist, but it’s not going to knock them off in the same way. It can make all these calculations and find some technique that showed up in a paper in the 50s that you’ve forgotten about, but it’s still going to take the human. It helps humans be more creative because it’s this very efficient assistant.

I’m curious if you’re using AI, is it predominantly that it’s able to do so much quickly, or is it helping you come up with new things? How much is it interacting that way?

Cesar de la Fuente:

Primarily it’s helping us process large amounts of information that would be impossible for the human brain to process and identify patterns within those data that would be impossible for the human brain to do.

Broadly, I would agree that AI systems can learn how to play chess at superhuman levels, but they cannot invent chess. They have a hard time going out of the distribution, meaning they have a hard time creating things that are not within the training set that we’ve taught them.

The only example of artificial general intelligence that we have in the universe is the human brain, and we don’t understand the human brain. So, then I think the whole argument collapses there.

Are we going to get to general intelligence just through ChatGPT like chatbots and things like that? No, I don’t think so.

Randy Kamien:

Is this work something that can be patented? Who’s going to own it?

Cesar de la Fuente:

The university. What patent lawyers tell me is that ... So, where they’re learning is a non-obvious discovery because we had to train and develop an AI model to find molecules in ancient biological data. And then we had to synthesize them through chemistry and then we had to do tests to validate that they indeed had antimicrobial properties. So, if you combine all these different steps, it’s considered a non-obvious discovery. And so, the current thinking is that we might be able to patent some things. My dream is that something that we do in the lab can help humanity.

Larry Bernstein:

When I worked at Salomon Brothers, I created a derivatives products entity, and it had formulas that were not obvious. And so, I applied for a patent on behalf of Salomon Brothers for it. The question was, you can’t patent a formula, but you can patent a process. And so, we put it in computer models and to say we were going to calculate these formulas, and it turned out the patent office rejected that. Going back to the genetically modified food, Monsanto takes some genetic code and staples it to some preexisting genetic code and says, look at this combination is unique and novel and that can be patented. I think that’s more akin to what you’re talking about.

Cesar de la Fuente:

We can take something from nature; you can modify one single letter on the molecule and then that’s synthetic and then it’s patentable. So, there are a lot of tricks that you can do.

Randy Kamien:

I’ve written patents and there’s always the list of all the people who contributed to it. I’m trying to understand who contributes to something that an AI discovered.

What about the people who got the data about Wolly Mammoth’s DNA?

Cesar de la Fuente:

No, because that’s in the public domain. It oftentimes happens in science. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There are a lot of people that develop sequencing methods for reading and amplifying ancient DNA, which is much degraded. The pinnacle of that field was a couple of years ago, Svante Pääbo was awarded the Nobel Prize for sequencing, which is hard because typically you take DNA from a Neanderthal bone and then you’re trying to read it and amplify it in a clean room. Otherwise, you’re contaminating it with your own skin, bacteria, microbes that are in the environment. And a lot of that genetic data is in different repositories and databases that we can access.

Shani Raviv:

You mentioned that there was a spin-off of a company already based on the findings. So, is this the goal now to spin off medicine? Because it sounds like with the pace that this is happening, you can generate a lot of successful medicine companies. So, is this the goal?

Cesar de la Fuente:

We spun out of a company. We’re in the process of raising a seed round now. We work with peptides, which are small proteins, and the goal will be to take peptide design into the new era. And to be able to program and design peptides for different applications, not only in infectious diseases, but also in immunology, oncology, and neuroscience. So, the whole goal of the company will be to serve as a translational vehicle for the findings in my lab and to take them to the world.

In the lab, we do more creative research. We publish our papers, open access, so everybody has access to what we do. The company will make medicines to cure people.

Ron Bernstein (my brother):

In the AI world today, in these large language models, everything is shared, but in biotech and pharma, it’s not because Sanofi doesn’t want to share all their peptides and all their super-secret work with Takeda, right? How is that going to affect the use of AI to solve all these medical problems? And is it going to be a lot slower because people don’t want to share?

Cesar de la Fuente:

I think it would be a lot better for the advancement of science if everybody just shared everything. Of course, in companies, it’s worth a lot of money, a lot of that data that some companies are not willing to share. There are some ways of sharing data without giving away all the details. So, through federated learning, for example. So, some companies have set up consortia where they can share data without knowing exactly what the molecule is, and you can train models that way. I know other companies have AI models that they’ve trained based on their in-house and they are willing to share the models already trained, so that way they don’t have to share those drugs and the IP associated with those drugs.

Ron Bernstein:

AI is going to remove the need for wet lab space, and you won’t need to go into the lab and do chemistry, or do you think you always need the labs?

Larry Bernstein:

My brother is on the board of directors of a company that owns pharmaceutical labs. So, he’s desperate to make sure that you continue to use this space.

Cesar de la Fuente:

In academic research, you see people spending a lot more time analyzing data than 20 years ago. The other thing I’ll say is that in my lab we do a lot of chemical synthesis and a lot of experiments because we generate data sets to train our AI models. And so, we need humans to do the work. Now, if you can automate all that data generation process, maybe we won’t need humans ... I don’t tell this to my team.

But I don’t fear that future. It will be a future where human scientists will be left to do a lot of the thinking and the creative aspect of research, coming up with new hypothesis, combining concepts from different fields to create new fields. A lot of fun stuff.

Larry Bernstein:

Can you please end on a note of optimism.

Cesar de la Fuente:

We live in an incredible era. Today in my lab we can discover new things in a few minutes. This digital era of discovery was unimaginable even five years ago. Coming in the morning I know by lunchtime, I’m going to have a lot more molecules to play around with my team. Pushing the boundaries of knowledge to come up with molecules that help the world.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Cesar for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Why We Crave Stories.

Fritz Breithaupt was the speaker, and he is a humanities scholar as well as a cognitive scientist at UPenn where he is studying the relationship between narratives and empathy. Fritz is the author of a new book entitled The Narrative Brain: The Stories Our Neurons Tell.

Fritz spoke about how we experience fictional stories in our daydreams to achieve personal growth.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Why We Crave Stories, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

119KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Fritz Breithaupt

Subject: Why We Crave Stories
Bio: Humanities Scholar and Cognitive Scientist at UPenn, Author of The Narrative Brain: The Stories Our Neurons Tell

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Why We Crave Stories.

This podcast was taped at a conference where I hosted several Penn Professors on various topics.

The audience included my friends who will join me in asking questions.

Fritz Breithaupt is the speaker, and he is a humanities scholar as well as a cognitive scientist at UPenn where he is studying the relationship between narratives and empathy. Fritz is the author of a new book entitled The Narrative Brain: The Stories Our Neurons Tell.

I want Fritz to talk about how we experience fictional stories in our daydreams to achieve personal growth.

Fritz, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Fritz Breithaupt:

While you are listening to me you might drift away and find yourself in a different world. That is normal. I’m a professor I know that 50% of the time you will be somewhere else, and that’s a good thing because that ability lifts us across space to have co-experiences with other people.

Our mobility of consciousness, this mind wandering, fantasizing, is good. We share experiences. When one of us suffers or goes through something amazing, we can tell it to other people. And then retrospectively, our brain goes through the similar experience that we can learn from. That is very good for us that by means of storytelling we share an experience. If one of us does something bad and we talk about it, then others will not do it.

How do we study storytelling? In my lab, we tried telephone games. When we tell a story in a telephone game, a lot of weird things happen. It’s fantastic for academics because we can study the different versions. In my lab, we’ve played this with 20,000 people in different groups to see on a large scale what remains the same and what changes. Until now, the standard of research was there’s one clear thing that stays the same. It’s causality. Why someone did something. But when we redid these studies we noticed other patterns.

One of my favorite stories is someone finding a spider in their office and walking the spider outside. In the original story, that person tells the delicate details; how they caught the spider and used a box, carried it, let it out in the yard, but then in the telephone game it disappears. It’s not in the box; it’s not on the ground. This was the original story. We sent that through some retelling chains, and after three rounds of retelling, the story was as follows. I found a spider in my office. At first, I didn’t like it, but now we’re friends. The spider stuck around.

That is the whole story. It became much shorter. The causality changed. It’s not completely illogical, but the rescue operation that was so complicated before became just a friendship story. And what this indicates is what matters in these stories is not necessarily how it went, what the problem is, but the good outcome. A happy ending that stayed the same. These retellings the anchor of the stories is emotion, typically at the end, the rewarding emotion. We believe that when people remember a story they encode it by this core emotion that ends the story, in this case, the happy ending with the spider.

When they tell it to someone else, they start with that happiness, that emotion, and weave a story that somehow connects with that, but also invents new elements. The overall theory of this narrative thinking that I propose is that we are excited to get into story because there’s this promise of the reward. We have evolved to like these things because they give us rewarding emotion. There’s the triumph of the superhero, but it’s also sometimes the comeuppance, the punishment of the bad guys that you will find in every German fairy tale.

Larry Bernstein:

I’m interested in the art of storytelling. I practice it and I work the story. And one thing that I’ve noticed in the craft is the desire for the audience to take on the role of the lead character in the story. When I tell my stories, often I am the lead character in the story.

Fritz Breithaupt:

You don’t choose the sidekicks?

Larry Bernstein:

Invariably, it’s always me. I noticed that the audience rarely wants the lead character to do well. I’m going down and my audience loves that. They root me the whole way down. And sometimes there’s a moral at the end of the story not like Seinfeld. Tell us about why the storyteller tries to make the listener be the main character, and then why incorporate a moral lesson?

Fritz Breithaupt:

We love this feeling of being in the middle of the story where we don’t yet know what’s coming. When we jump on a character, we can choose the bad guy and try it out. Stories invite us to follow a character and it’s one of the few places where we are allowed to take risks.

That’s different in the real world. You don’t want to jump in any Uber car that is driven by a big risk taker. But in the stories, that is different. William Flesch at Brandeis University said that more than 50% of stories end in punishment of bad guys.

Myths and religious tales, there’s a drive towards punishment. All of us do something bad. We’ve crossed the line, sometimes involuntarily, but we’ve done it. So, stories let us take that ride.

The comeuppance at the end is the relief point. The attraction of morality is that even if we jumped into the car with a bad Uber driver, maybe you had a car wreck, but you are out of it.

Larry Bernstein:

I noticed that if you tell a story and it’s not you that goes down but somebody else, there’s a sense of awkwardness with the listener. They don’t want to jump on someone who’s already downtrodden. But if it’s me that goes down, now they’re ready to laugh and enjoy that.

Fritz Breithaupt:

The first principle of stories here is the co-experience. We spend four to six hours a day involved in story thinking. Co-experience is key. So, if someone is going down and you don’t like that character, it’s in the story world, that’s boring, they get what they deserve, and you jump off the ship. But if it’s you going down, it’s much more exciting but also terrifying. The question then is, what can be your exit route? You mentioned one of them, which is laughter. Laughter is one of these rewarding emotions that lets you exit and jump off the ship, If you can laugh about it, you step outside of it. You can dissolve that terrible tension and can say, “I tried this out and it didn’t work.”

James White:

Many people believe that older men don’t read fiction. Why do you think that is?

Fritz Breithaupt:

Reading is down in America and the Western world. India is holding steady, maybe the biggest reading nation in the world. We have fewer male students in the colleges for the last 30 years. There’s lots of factors going into that. I wouldn’t blame the internet or cell phones. Young male students in high school and middle school can’t sit still, they have been selected out of the school, so they don’t develop good reading habits.

James White:

Most of my male friends read but almost exclusively nonfiction.

Fritz Breithaupt:

Maybe males don’t think it’s cool reading fiction. It doesn’t have this utilitarian dimension.

Hannah Bernstein:

Why is it so hard to tell a good story and how changeable are people’s innate storytelling abilities? We crave good stories. And even if males above 40 don’t read fiction, there’s still the Netflix movies. We want that story. We are good at selecting. Each of us has a bias of this is not a story for me. I don’t like that main character.

Fritz Breithaupt:

I advise Netflix on how to analyze their stories. I tell them for a story to work; you must see more than one path for how a story could go. This excitement of not knowing what’s happening, that suspense of being in between the versions, I call that multiversionality. That is key. And that is not well taught in writing schools because you don’t see that many manuscripts coming up.

Larry Bernstein:

in our audience today is Jeff Shell an old friend of mine who used to run movie studios, Universal, more recently Paramount. One of the tasks at the most senior levels is when to green light multimillion dollar projects. Tell us about the process of the story, how executives review them and the teamwork to develop a story, to incorporate emotion, moral standing, character development, et cetera.

Jeff Shell:

A famous Hollywood person was going to use AI to write the story. He had the concept. A month ago, he used six different AI LLMs, and he interacted with these chat bots over the course of a couple weeks and had them turn his concept into a script. At the end of it, he had six different scripts, and they were all crap. It’s very hard to write a professional story. It takes a lot of talent; that’s the key to any good movie or TV show is a good script.

You never had a good movie or TV show based on a bad script. You’ve had many bad movies based on good scripts, but it must start with a good script and a good story. And that’s why the storytelling is so critical. This is a very hard thing to do.

Larry, your skill at telling stories is a unique skill set, which is why we all like hearing stories. And we like seeing you go down because your stories are generally comedy and we know you and love you. So, we like seeing, just like Jerry Seinfeld goes through all of his problems. We know him now. So, we like seeing the comedy of it all. If it was a drama, we might not feel as good about your failing.

The process of a story becoming a movie is the most tedious, horrible rote process that you’ve ever seen. It’s not sexy. It’s not like a bunch of people sitting around a room saying, “Let’s green light this movie,” and then the person’s off to make the movie. There are many reasons to say no to making a movie. The only reason you say yes is because you must make a certain number of movies a year to get your return on capital.

The hardest part is the story. I only read nonfiction. And the reason why I would not read fiction is because I felt like I was wasting time. When I read nonfiction, I felt like I was learning something. And I don’t know if that’s somehow different between men and women.

I had no problem wasting time watching a show like Below Deck or The Lakers. But when I’m reading a novel, I’m just wasting my time. I had an epiphany a couple years ago which was that fiction is the only way to truly feel empathy. And as I was reading your book, the key word to storytelling is empathy because you can get sadness, the happy ending, which most people want. They want to see a bad guy get punished.

I started reading fiction again and I can’t believe I stopped for 20 years. The short answer at the end of this is it’s very, very hard to tell a good story, which is why good storytellers are so magical.

Fritz Breithaupt:

I know this from the people at Netflix also from my friends in the publishing industry, they cannot predict the success of a movie even when it’s already made. Even with their test audiences, they still fish in the dark. So, there is something very interesting there that the right moment for the right story, I agree about empathy. That’s how I got into the narrative brain. My books before that were on empathy.

Jeff Shell:

The original ending of Get Out had the main character going off to prison. At the end, the cop car comes up, he gets arrested goes to prison, and it was the lowest testing movie in the history of Blumhouse. And all they did was change the ending, his friend saves him and he gets home and then it became the highest testing. So, you never know with these movies what’s going to be a success. Nobody has any idea what’s going to be successful. You know what’s going to be bad, you just don’t know what’s going to be good.

David Wecker:

The worst literary theorists to me are reductionists. They’re Marxists. They’re structuralists. They take some structure and apply it to this incredible area of human creativity. I’d say most of the Bible tells you who you are and that’s discomforting. I find it hard, especially when you’re talking about a telephone game, it’s very limited.

Fritz Breithaupt:

I was trained as a humanity scholar. I studied with one of the most extreme reductionists. Then I retrained and became a professor in cognitive science. So now I’m between cognitive science, psychology and the humanities. These communities don’t talk to each other. So, in the moment I bring up the humanities’ ideas to the scientists, they feel like we can’t test this. And then when I bring the scientific data back to the humanities, they feel like you’ve sold out to the hard sciences.

My lab is 10 people from the sciences and 10 from the humanities. Every project, they must have people from both sides. People of humanities learn to ask question-driven research where they don’t philosophize or have someone super structure, and the scientists have to learn to listen and do some close readings and do not say, “We have to be a reductionist in the sciences. We have to want clear numbers on all things, but we have to look for evidence. I’m trying to negotiate exactly that.

Darren Schwartz:

I recently wrote a memoir, not published. It’s hard to get a memoir published if you’re nobody.

It took me five years. It was grueling, stuck to the facts.

I’m now almost done with a novel. Fiction feels completely free. It’s fast. I’m just making stuff up, which is amazing. How do you feel about the difference between writing, sticking to the facts, where you still want to put creativity into it versus being completely unleashed?

Fritz Breithaupt:

When people suddenly go into fiction writing from the nonfiction side, they often lap onto a story mode that we call the hero’s journey where you follow the life of a hero who has to overcome obstacles, who has self-doubt, wants to back out, but then usually finds a good mentor and then overcome the obstacle. That can be facing the dragon or a harsh work environment. That pattern psychologists have now measured has some therapeutic dimensions when people see themselves as a hero.

What I learned from my own research was, stories are emotion arcs. When you tell an academic story, a business story, for example, think about it as an episode that ends in some emotional outcome.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to go back to your opening remarks about the spider. You mentioned that in the initial story, there was a lot of detail. And then when you got to the final story with the telephone experience, the story narrowed dramatically. When you tell someone a joke and they try to repeat it to somebody else, what they most remember is the punchline.

Fritz Breithaupt:

Good storytellers know the punchline, and they hide it from the audience for a while, keep the suspense going so that the punchline can come as a surprise. Many people are not so good at that part. There’s one exception to this rule that stories get shorter, and that is when people tell meaningful episodes of their own life. We’ve done studies on that. We asked people to tell us a meaningful life episode. We asked them to come back and tell us the same story again. That was the one exception where they would not get shorter. The stories are approximately the same length, but the quality is better the second time, but they would reduce the emotions. The first time, there were raw emotions positive or negative, but in their second telling, it was often a better story woven together. People do cognitive editing. Meaningful memories are the exception. That’s where every normal person becomes a good storyteller, because these things matter to us.

Stan Goldfarb:

I’ve seen Death of a Salesman many times, Why do people go back to see plays, particularly tragedies like that? Why is it so popular? It sounded in the beginning like you were talking about the emotional satisfaction you get out of it.

Fritz Breithaupt:

Netflix has data that people go back to their favorite movie repeatedly. The best explanation that I have is that people like surprises and they already know what’s coming. It’s often called the paradox of surprise or paradox of suspense that we enjoy including sad outcomes, but also surprising outcomes the most when we already know what’s coming.

You’re in the moment, but you also know where this is going. That is the golden formula. They give you little hints about what’s coming. You could guess it, but you don’t. But then when you hear it a second time, you now pick up on what’s coming, but it’s not known yet on the ground there in the story itself. So that double play adds joy.

Larry Bernstein:

There are a lot of movies you never watch again. Jeff Shell when you’re buying a portfolio of movies are you able to evaluate if you think it has a future. Like the Sinking of the Bismarck, that one’s just not coming back?

Jeff Shell:

You’re not going to watch something that’s suspenseful 15 times. There’s nothing suspenseful about Death of a Salesman. You’re not on the edge of your seat each time you watch it trying to figure out what’s going to happen. There’s nothing that’s suspenseful about Friends either. Death of a Salesman is inspirational. It’s a journey that Willy Loman overcomes. I think you watch things that give you an emotion over again that you enjoy having. The movies that people watch over again tend to be comedies. I’ve seen Superbad 50 million times. You don’t tend to watch who done it mysteries again.

The TV shows that are watched are either comedies or soaps: Grey’s Anatomy, Friends or Seinfeld, something where you get to know and feel comfortable with those characters almost like they’re a member of your family and you like spending time with your family.

Now, on the popularity of Friends, people are talking about the death of Hollywood, how production’s going down, and there’s less and less TV shows being made, which is empirically true. The reason for this is the Netflix effect and this is what’s driving the popularity of Friends and other shows. When we grew up, there was no ability to go back and watch old shows unless you happen to be channel surfing, you came across a rerun or an old movie. These days if you’ve never seen Friends before and you’re 22 years old and you start watching Friends, it’s a new show.

It’s no different than a show that Netflix might have invested in this year So there is increasingly less need for so many new shows, partially because there’s a lot of international shows now, the quality of international shows has gone up.

Larry Bernstein:

I tried to persuade my 10-year-old son to watch the movie Rambo First Blood. He’s like, “Dad, is it black and white?” I said, “No, no, it’s not black and white.” He said, “Dad, I’ll give you five minutes and that’s it.” I’ll take the five-minute trial.

The movie starts and he’s completely engrossed not by dialogue but by action in First Blood. When the movie ended, I said, “What did you think? “ And he said, “If they had just let him buy a sandwich, people didn’t have to die.

Jeff Shell:

Good story. I love First Blood. Comedy is struggling for decades now. If you talk about the best comedies on TV that have multiple episodes, the only one from the last 10 years that has been successful is Schitt’s Creek, if you look at Friends, Seinfeld, Big Bang Theory, they’re all shows from more than 10 years ago. The reason for this is dramas are what Fritz describes in his book as suspense. You don’t know what happens next. You want to see the cliffhanger at the end of the Game of Thrones episode. With comedies you must live with the characters to find them funny. Seinfeld didn’t do well in its first year. The Office didn’t do well in its first year. And in the age of streaming, you can’t like a comedy after five minutes. You just don’t know the characters enough. So, one of the big things happening in entertainment is a crisis where there are no new comedies in TV that are working.

Jeff Strong:

Why is it that standup comedy seems to be so popular right now?

Jeff Shell:

Standup’s working great. TikTok is comedy. Instagram is comedy. People want to laugh. It’s just the shows that we grew up on, which are characters creating comedy. Maybe part of the reason is that you’re getting the comedy in standup on Instagram or TikTok. You don’t have to get it in shows anymore.

Bryan Verona:

In the telephone game, can you predict what the original story is?

Fritz Breithaupt:

You could do it with an AI story. If you have the reduced version, which is like 10% or 20% of the original story, you can go back to the original somewhat. With human stories, there’s no way of doing that, because each human re-teller brings so much of his or her personality into it. Perspective jumps. When we collect stories from people, everyday stories, fiction, whatever, makeup stories, they have three or four characters in it. and we often give, lots of re-tellers the same story, tend to focus on one perspective, but it can be a different one for each one.

We had a story of an old neighbor who is lonely because his wife cares for their grandchild elsewhere. He comes to his neighbors whenever they are doing yard work and wants to talk about politics. They don’t share his political opinion, so they need to push him away. Complicated story. We give that story to a couple of people, and it works as a story. Each re-teller focuses on a different person. Some of them blame the neighbors, “Oh, they should talk to their neighbor.” Some of them focus on the wife of the old man. “She should really be there.” And others say, “No, she’s right to have left.”

Everyone takes a different perspective; there’s no way to reconstruct it. You can have likelihood paradigms. Humans are very creative. Each of us brings a lot into our stories and individualizes them in wonderful ways. That’s part of the interest in it. If we know how the story goes and would focus on the same character, it would be boring. There’s no need to tell it.

There is an interesting difference here between old movies and old books. During the pandemic, I read War and Peace again, which is fabulous.

What we see in movies is that the cuts are way too slow. The scenes are too long. It’s overdrawn on many levels. What we see, however, is that old movie plot lines are refilmed for modern audiences with good effects. Once we force them to watch it, they can get over that and then they love it, but a company like Netflix can’t get anyone to force them to watch for more than five minutes.

Larry Bernstein:

Talk about skepticism, the narrator, is he trustworthy or not? And as I mentioned in my storytelling, I’m always the lead character in the story. A lot of listeners have enormous skepticism about the narrator in my story, and they don’t really believe that at all.

Fritz Breithaupt:

Well, you are a good storyteller because everyone knows there is a possible different take on this.

Hugh Nickola:

I want to talk about stories in business. Larry’s an inspiration here. Putting a story in a business meeting. It doesn’t even need to be relevant necessarily to the subject, to recapture people’s attention or to set people at ease. Particularly if it’s a self-effacing story, that’s particularly useful. People have picked their roles in the meeting. Then the meeting doesn’t get what you need. And it’s not necessarily group think, it may simply be that they attach themselves to some idea, they have their own role and they envision it. How do you defeat that to make that meeting more productive?

Fritz Breithaupt:

I was in the role of being a dean at one point. I chair my department. It’s hard to shake people out of it. The one good thing in the university environment is that I deal with the same people. I can bring them into different environments and try to throw them into a different role. And if I kick someone a little bit and say, “Hey, can you propose this idea here?” They become the positive person and someone else becomes the naysayer.

Playfulness always gets you out of it. If people start to become storytellers, they have agency and suddenly say, “Hey, why don’t you try a different role?” That often works.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Fritz for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was Returning Science Education to Medical Schools.

Our speaker was Stan Goldfarb who previously was the Dean at UPenn responsible for the medical school curriculum. Stan discussed how basic science like biostatistics has been stripped from medical education, and why we need to teach doctors to be scientists and not technicians.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, Returning Science Education to Medical Schools, here.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Listen on Spotify

Transcript PDF

110KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Stan Goldfarb

Subject: Returning Science Education to Medical Schools
Bio: Former Dean at UPenn Medical School

Transcript:

Larry Bernstein:

Welcome to What Happens Next. My name is Larry Bernstein. What Happens Next is a podcast that covers economics, politics, and history. Today’s episode is Returning Science Education to Medical Schools.

This podcast was taped at a conference where I hosted several Penn Professors on various topics.

The audience included my friends who will join me in asking questions. Our speaker is Stan Goldfarb who was previously the Dean at UPenn responsible for the medical school curriculum.

Stan, can you please begin with six minutes of opening remarks.

Stan Goldfarb:

Before COVID when a new Vice Dean for Education came to Penn suggested that our curriculum was way out of date and that we needed to focus on social justice. That led me to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled Take Two Aspirins and Call Me by My Pronouns that led to a tremendous reaction in the medical establishment. I wrote a book and then started this organization, Do No Harm, of which Jay Greene is the director of research. The idea is that medical education and medicine should be only dominated by a meritocracy and not by political ideology. Identity politics should be out the door. The problem has been not just the push for diversity but pushing for diversity to bring in more minority students.

The rationale for it in medicine has been two things. One is the reparations argument. People were denied something years ago and we need to make it up now. The other argument is that you need diversity to have better medical care for the public, particularly for the black community that they need more black physicians to have better health outcomes. There’s a great disparity in health outcomes for the black community, and this is the way to fix it.

What that’s led to is a dilution of the quality of medical education. The first thing you have to do is make sure that everybody gets through, because if you’re going to start taking people into medical schools and you then flunk them out, that’s not going to satisfy the diversity requirements.

In law school and nursing school, they tend to throw them out. Medical school, everybody graduates. The rate of graduation from medical school is like 98.5%. When I went to medical school, it was around a 9% attrition rate. Some schools had it as high as 15%. They used to give you a lecture on first day, look left and look right. One of them isn’t going to be here when you graduate. And that’s no longer the case.

Once you say, “everybody’s going to graduate,” now you have a problem because you have to create a curriculum that allows everybody to graduate. And the way that’s been done is twofold. One is to make it easier to pass exams. The other thing medical school education needs to be shortened and simplified.

What’s happened? If you went to Duke Medical School 40 years ago, you spent two years in the classroom, and then you were introduced to clinical medicine, and then the last year, you went on electives and maybe did some research.

Duke Medical School now has one year of classroom teaching, and then one year research, and then one year clinical medicine, and then the last year in all medical schools is a big waste of time, and have a good time, parties, and not much goes on there.

It’s led to a sense that we need not be serious about the scientific nature of medical education. Zeke Emanuel is at Penn made the statement that we shouldn’t be bothering to teach the Krebs cycle. The Krebs cycle for the non-biology people here is the basic way that energy is produced in cells. And when you understand the Krebs cycle, you understand something about energy metabolism.

It becomes really important in cancer research because cancer cells use the Krebs cycle in interesting and different ways, and that has become an important therapeutic point. Zeke who’s an oncologist thought nobody needs to understand the Krebs cycle. And it’s an analog of nobody needs to learn basic science in medical school. We’re going to train technicians.

Here’s the problem with just training technicians. When clinical research is done, the recommendations are for the average. So, if there’s a thousand people in a clinical trial, the results are going to be summarized as what’s the average response has been. The two edges of the distribution of the responses that patients are ignored for what will happen to the middle of the distribution.

A really good clinician is smart enough to understand the variation. Ralph Horowitz, who was a former Chairman of Medicine at Yale and at Stanford has written extensively on this, we need to understand not the average, but the distribution. A good clinical scientist who reads a medical research paper ought to understand the variation. They need to understand the statistical modeling that goes on here. Biostatistics in most medical schools now at Penn, it’s a one-week course.

Larry Bernstein:

Oh, come on.

Stan Goldfarb:

It’s a one-week course. I fought against it, but the students hated the course because they came to medical school to play doctor. They came to medical school to get into the clinic on day one. They’re going to have fun.

We’re going to give you an experiential education as opposed to ask you to read a textbook on cardiology. There are no textbooks in medical school. The Medical School had a bookstore at Penn. It closed. What you get is lecture notes. It’s little stuff at the bottom of each slide, and the exam is on that material. You’re told at the end of the course, “This is what we’re going to test you on, go home and study it and then they all pass the exam. And the exams are pass/fail, so it doesn’t matter how hard you study.

I was running the curriculum. I’m obviously guilty of some of this, but I fought like hell to keep us having grades. Grades were gone. In the clinical years, everybody gets honors. At Harvard Medical School, 92% of the students one year got honors in medicine. Well, obviously it doesn’t mean anything if 92% of the people get honors.

There are faculty that do research and do a little teaching. Medical faculty taking care of patients. They don’t pay that much attention to medical education. And then there’s the faculty that’s the administrative leaders of medical school. They’re the course director. They sit in every lecture for one or two months. They get a stipend for that. They’re not going to make noise, frankly, because it’s going to put their leadership at risk.

Larry Bernstein:

I have a question for Randy Kamien. Randy’s my high school friend who is a Professor of Physics at Penn. What are you doing in the classroom?

Randy Kamien:

One of the virtues of academic departments is that they’re always expanding the field they’re studying. It’s always growing. The curriculum that I had to learn when I was in graduate school doesn’t serve our students anymore because the field’s grown in the last 30 years.

We all are doing different things. Students want to learn computer science, pure mathematics, and neuroscience. We have a large group studying neuroscience in the physics department. Do those graduate students need to know of the Krebs cycle probably in neuroscience. Do the people studying astrophysics need to know the Krebs cycle? I don’t know. So over time, we’ve become much more generous about what we think the curriculum ought to be.

Larry Bernstein:

You didn’t move towards social justice discussions. You moved into more abstract concepts of science.

Randy Kamien:

Social justice discussions do not come up in graduate education in physics.

Larry Bernstein:

It does in medicine.

Stan Goldfarb:

It’s a fair criticism that medicine has grown rapidly. There’s so much new information available that you have to be flexible. This idea that you need to understand the basic science that underlies the therapies that have been developed. The lack of effort to teach students that information is going to lead to students that are going to focus on if I’m going to give someone this drug for leukemia that’s the latest thing. And understanding how that might interact with response to the drug and the disease.

Patients bring so much variability as opposed to the hard sciences where it’s a very different phenomenon. This is about the variability in human biology. Students need to be able to deal with the basic information to understand that variability. And that basic information is being reduced all the time.

The other part of it is their ability to read medical literature and understand the complexities of the studies has also been reduced because statistical modeling has gotten much more complicated. Many more studies based on analysis of databases as opposed to a single human experiment. And medical students are going to have to follow these guidelines without much understanding. And that’s where we’re really going to end up.

Will artificial intelligence and medical imaging make up for all this? Maybe, but there’s still going to be such variability in what patients bring to each individual encounter that a student that’s not strongly grounded in the sciences is not going to be able to be very effective. When you add on top of that, the willingness to bring in students that are not terribly talented, which is what’s really going on in most medical schools, you have the opportunity for this rather dim picture that I’ve tried to paint, which I think is really the case of what’s coming in medicine, particularly in this country.

In the Netherlands, if you want to go to medical school, it’s a lottery. You take an exam, and then there are too many people that still want to go to medical school, and there’s a lottery. I propose that for United States medicine as well that it be based on academic achievement and intellectual capability. Yes, you should be an ethical person, but that we should try to get the best and the brightest. There are 55,000 students that apply to medical school in the United States. 23,000 are accepted. There’s plenty of brain power to fill all the medical school classes, and yet that’s not what’s happening.

Moira McDermott:

You talked about wanting to return to a meritocracy, how do you think that should be done? Is the MCAT predictive of success in medical school?

Stan Goldfarb:

The data for the vast majority of studies show that MCATs predict performance in medical school. Now there are a couple of large studies, one of internal medicine trainees, one of emergency medicine trainees that show that minority groups, which tend to have MCAT scores a standard deviation lower than Asian students, for example, that when they get into residency programs, the faculty judges them as being less effective trainees.

There was a paper that came out in The Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, which looked at like seven good internal medicine training programs. The faculty judged the minority students substantially lower on preparation for practice, medical knowledge, even professionalism. The authors of the article said the reason for this was that the schools and the faculty were biased against them and the school didn’t make it a welcoming place for minority students. And finally, that the tools that they use were racist and that’s why they judged them poorly. And I wrote, maybe they weren’t so good at being residents, and then all hell broke loose over that.

So, you can show that they’re doing less well. And finally, there are data that show that those who do less well on their board certifying exams, their patient outcomes are less good in terms of mortality and readmissions to the hospital, which was tested in a group of hospitals. That’s the data we have. We also know that there’s a higher dropout rate by minority students when it comes to training programs. Something like a third of the male minority trainees drop out before they complete their surgical training, even though there’s a great desire to recruit these people into surgical training programs.

Larry Bernstein:

How will AI change medical education and the practice of medicine?

Stan Goldfarb:

Imaging has been a huge issue in medicine. That’s so profoundly changed diagnosis. One example is appendicitis, very common disease. People used to come in with abdominal pain and the question is, do they have appendicitis? And we’d go through this elaborate set of physical diagnostic tools. We’d do blood tests. We’d think about it hard. And even then, we’d miss patients. They would send them home thinking they were fine. They’d come in 12 hours later, sick as hell, fever and having perforated. Nowadays, you come into the emergency room, you have abdominal pain, you go right to get a CAT scan. CAT scans are extraordinarily effective at picking up appendicitis. A good emergency room will do that, and that’s the end of the problem. All that learning about the physical diagnosis goes out the window.

They’ve had an appendectomy but they’re still febrile. Now imaging is gone as the issue. Now we need a clinician that understands possibilities. What will AI do? I think it will make a great difference. It will give them possibilities. The question is this variability that I’m talking about. AI is going to read the literature. The literature talks about the middle of the study, the average patient in the study. It doesn’t talk about the extremes, and it doesn’t talk about the variability that now this patient with appendicitis is also 87 years old, has a history of multiple sclerosis, has been on corticosteroids for a long period of time for another condition. And all the variability that that patient brings, will AI be able to capture that?

At the end of the day, there needs to be someone to talk to the family and how it’s going to all play out. Now, maybe an AI printout will be used for that. In my foundation that I’m on, we’re getting proposals from medical schools all the time about training students in AI and we’re funding those because it’s important and we’ll see where it all goes.

I don’t know that this is a good rationale for taking in less qualified students to be physicians. Since our job is to take care of patients and not to make students happy and not to solve the world’s social problems and not to get rid of any inequality that may have existed a hundred years ago, our job is to make sure patients get the best outcomes. I still think that that’s where our organization needs to focus in making sure the best and the brightest get a chance to be physicians.

Larry Bernstein:

I want to follow up with the appendicitis example. I had some lower right quadrant pain. I went to visit my doctor, and he said you need to get a CAT scan and it turns out that the radiologist on call was Renee Yap who went to Penn and my high school, and she invited me in the back to look at my scans with her. The first thing she said is, “Do you eat vegetables at all? “ I said a little bit.

She said, “I don’t think you’re having an attack. It’s over and you can go home.” So, I went home and then the following Monday she called me and she said, “We had our weekly radiology conference, and I threw your appendix up on the screen and we took a vote on whether or not we should remove your appendix.” And it was even, it was eight / eight. I said, “What do you think I should do? She said, ”It’s really your call.”

I said, “Well, what basis do I have an opinion. I don’t know anything. I didn’t take a week of biostatistics. These are professionals.”

Stan Goldfarb:

I’m so opposed. This patient autonomy is fine, but my job as a doctor is to tell patients what my best opinion of what they should do. And my line was always, “Look, if you were my mother, this is what I would advise you to do.” And to me, physicians that say, “Look, here are the options you pick.” It’s insane. And it’s been taught as if that’s a valid thing. Patient autonomy means you can’t force people to do things. It doesn’t mean that you should let them without background decide what’s best for them. It’s truly insane.

Larry Bernstein:

To follow up on that. I later got a second appendicitis attack and they say, “You should get a second or third opinion.” So, you meet the second great guy, tremendous pedigree. And the first doctor says, A, the second doctor says B, the third doctor says C. And now you must decide where there’s inconsistent medical evaluations. How is that patient who’s the same idiot as before, supposed to decide between three excellent physicians how they’re supposed to make a life determining decision?

Randy Kamien:

You’re supposed to look at their grades.

Stan Goldfarb:

Well, actually, that’s not facetious.

Randy Kamien:

That’s ridiculous.

Stan Goldfarb:

But here’s what I tell patients. If you have a complex problem, you should go to an academic medical center. The people will talk about your problem. They’ll think about it. They’ve generally been picked because of their performance in the past to have opportunities to be at a place like Penn. They’re not out at a small community hospital. You should stick with their opinion. You should not go around shopping opinions because if the situation is that complex, there’s not going to be an absolute answer that somebody can give you a probability. At some point you have to bite the bullet, and make a judgment. And that’s to me the best advice because you’re talking about biological variation.

Fritz Breithaupt:

50% of patients do not take the medicine as prescribed. This is true also for life-threatening things like cancer medicine. We know that patients are more likely to comply if they sense that their doctor has empathy, cares for them. Is that something that should be part of the medical training?

Stan Goldfarb:

Yeah. Everybody agrees with that, that if you can’t convince your patient to take your medicine, then you’re not going to be effective. When you look at healthcare disparities, the issue of what the patient brings in terms of adherence is never measured. It’s never questioned. We have no idea when you see disparities, how much of it is due to patient factors as opposed to the healthcare system or the physician’s judgment.

At Penn, for years, there was a very effective and useful activity called doctoring, where we had actors who portrayed patients so students would learn how to convince them to take their meds, how to deliver bad news, how to deal with family issues that may arise. Patient/doctor communication is critical.

I don’t think that we need a separate curriculum on social justice issues. I thought that instead of having a one year of basic information, that it should be expanded back to the two years and included in the two years ought to be a course in psychology, because that’s what we’re talking about. I was taught in medical school why patients were making decisions, but I don’t see that as learning cultural competence. I see that as learning human psychology and understanding what patients are bringing to the encounter.

And that can be taught, that should be taught, but it’s quite different from teaching that’s going on the idea that patients that poor outcomes are due to medical racism and we need to teach you all about your biases. That’s not the issue. The issue is understanding human psychology so that you can be an effective practitioner and communicator to your patients.

Jeff Shell:

I did a little Claude research before this, so I’m sure I’m wrong, but medical outcomes are determined by a lot of studies to be worse for women, black people in the United States than white males and Asians. Seems to be widespread and there’s been a lot of studies on that. And so I’m not sure this movement towards more diversity in medical schools is for only the reason of reparations or justice, but it’s to try to make sure when you walk into a hospital or a doctor’s office, regardless of your gender or race, you have the same chance of a good outcome.

How do we get better outcomes for people who have different skin color, different genders, if it’s not provided more doctors that look like them?

Larry Bernstein:

Jay Greene you work with Stan as Director of Research at Do No Harm. Can you add to the conversation.

Jay Greene:

There’s a thing called social determinants of health, which is people have adverse health outcomes because society is constructed in a way that contributes to that. There’s truth to that. And I don’t think that that’s the issue here. The issue is to what extent do you want medical training to be reoriented towards addressing that? I think what we want is for doctors to be involved in individual treatment of individual patients, that that is a personal relationship, and that the doctor is not fixing society, they’re fixing a patient. And it’s a political problem for political actors to worry about these other social forces, and they should attend to that, and they probably don’t want your doctor to do that in large part because your doctor has no tools for fixing it.

We want doctors to do what they’re well equipped to do, which is to treat the individual patients who are in front of them rather than fix society.

The race or the sex of the applicant for medical school, these qualities are very unlikely to be related to the merit of that person as a doctor, unless you believe in this claim of racial concordance that the race of the doctor on its own has an effect on the outcomes of the patients, either because of an empathy effect or some other factor that’s related to similarity of race, similarity of culture alters the health outcome.

The research on this is really not good. I know there’s the claim, people point to studies, but all you have to do is start diving into the studies and quickly figure out how it’s distorted and accepted because there’s such strong political demand to have that result. So, the Florida baby study. This is Greenwood et al. This was cited in the Students for Fair Admissions Supreme Court decision. And this was an analysis of every birth in Florida over a couple decades. And they found that Black babies were more likely to die if they had a doctor who was not black.

I know we have an aversion to discrimination, but it saved babies’ lives. You want dead babies or your principles about not discriminating, we have got to save babies. Except it wasn’t hard to figure out where they hid the ball. They controlled various factors about the baby’s health, but one thing that was obvious that they didn’t control was whether the baby was very low weight. They controlled whether the baby was low weight but not very low weight. And the information was the ones that died and very low weight babies get treated by neonatologists more often than a regular obstetrician or regular pediatrician and the neonatologist is very likely to be white because there are very few black neonatologists. It’s not that white doctors were killing black babies, it was that black babies who were going to die because they were very low weight were assigned to white doctors.

And sure enough, a Harvard economist got hold of the data, reanalyzed, introduced this control and the result goes away.

David Brail:

Every time I go to a hospital, the doctors that I have are the right pedigree. My mother lives in Central Florida. She’s been hospitalized repeatedly. All the local hospitals, every doctor she meets with it’s always an island or a foreign medical school. The big city teaching schools get the pedigree doctors and the provinces get doctors trained elsewhere. If there’s a capacity issue, why can’t we expand the number of seats in medical school? And then how do you view the relative capabilities of foreign and island trained doctors versus US trained doctors?

Larry Bernstein:

Jay Greene, you want to speak about this?

Jay Greene:

It’s true that we bring in 25% of our doctors each year from abroad, and that’s because the number of residencies far exceeds the number of MD graduates from US schools, and the gap that has to be made up by bringing in the others. Now, in the 1980s, it was under 10%, so it’s tripled in the last half century when we were cream skimming the very best from abroad. It was advantageous to us that they were paying for the training of people that we were then bringing in their very best. But as we get to a quarter, we begin to dip deeper down into the pool, and because we are not involved in the accreditation or oversight of their training, we don’t know about the quality of their training.

We need to ramp up US med schools. It’s not obvious to me that we’re making a smart trade off of saying, “Well, our clinical training isn’t good enough, but the clinical training for the med school in Ghana is A- okay.

We have to reduce our dependence on having to import doctors where the training is suspect and we can be a little bit more selective in the importation of doctors so we can return to maybe 10% from abroad as opposed to 25%.

Larry Bernstein:

Thanks to Stan for joining us.

If you missed our previous podcast, it was How Academics Shaped the CIA.

Our speaker was Peter Grace who has a recent book entitled The Intelligence Intellectuals: Social Scientists and the Making of the CIA. Peter discussed how just after World War 2 and at the height of the Cold War, American academics worked inside the CIA’s research and analysis department to forecast enemy activity, and how they set up methods and processes that have been applied by the CIA ever since.

You can find our previous episodes and transcripts on our website. Please follow us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. 

I am Larry Bernstein with the podcast What Happens Next.

Check out our previous episode, How Academics Shaped the CIA, here.

Subscribe now