Brain Scientist On AI: You Aren’t Ready For What Happens Next

I'm someone trying to reconstruct the human brain in the lab.

>> But what does it actually mean to build a brain in a lab?

>> If I take your skin cells, I can reprogram the cells into the stem cells.

From there, you start recreating your brain >> and then you could predict for instance what neurological diseases I may be at risk of.

>> That's why I'm applying that to understanding for example autism or epilepsy. Can we interfere? Are they

epilepsy. Can we interfere? Are they

reversible?

The brain is wired to become conscious.

And if we start using them to power AI, >> is there a world in which your personal AI system is maybe also powered by your personal brain cells?

>> Yeah, I think so.

>> People sometimes say we can't disprove or prove that current AI systems are conscious. But an AI system powered on

conscious. But an AI system powered on human brain cells.

>> If we start using the algorithms coming from the organic cells, I think we're going to be inevitable. We are moving into a cyborg.

>> Welcome back to I've Got Questions. I'm

your host Chne Bouvel and you're joining me here in San Diego for a conversation with Dr. Alison Motri. Dr. Motri has one of those jobs where you never knew it

existed until you hear him describe it.

And this is going to be one of those conversations where you think, "Wow, I see how it's going to change the world."

Dr. Mochi, how would you describe the research and the work that you do?

That's a very provocative question. Um

I'm someone trying to reconstruct the human brain in the lab because we don't have really good treatments for neurological conditions. So if you ask

neurological conditions. So if you ask uh and I did that myself and I invite you in your um uh audience to do the same. If you ask like a neurossychiatric

same. If you ask like a neurossychiatric or a neurologist or a neuro pediatric, how many people did you cure? And most

likely the answer is zero. And that's

because of the inaccessibility of the human brain that starts in uterus. So we

don't have good um tools with the right resolution to actually understand how the brains formed cell by cell, synapsy by synapsy, neuron by neuron. So there

is no such a tool and then for the rest of your life it remains inside of your skull. And again I mean the tools that

skull. And again I mean the tools that we have doesn't have the right resolution to study. So we have no idea how the brains form. Um and that's why we don't understand how neurological conditions happens and we don't know how

to treat them. We can manage the symptoms. Um but no cure. Uh and this in contrast with for for example the heart where we can study the heart, your

lungs, your blood, everything is accessible but not the brain.

>> And I guess when people hear reconstructing the brain, how does one even do that? I mean, I'm sure people are picturing a scalpel in the brain and taking out a few cells, but what does it

actually mean to build a brain in a lab?

>> Yeah, that's a great question. So, the

raw material is what we call a purip potent stem cell. So, this is a kind of a stem cell that can differentiate or specialize in >> and what would be a stem cell for anyone who has missed that grade 10 lecture.

What is the stem cell?

>> A stem cell is a type of cell that self divides. So, it survives indefinitely

divides. So, it survives indefinitely because keeps dividing. but at the same time has the potential to specialize in a specific tissue um your skin your your

your hair cells your uh brain cells. So

these stem cells they have they are what we call undifferentiated they are not committed yet to any tissue. So we are learning and that's what my lab does. We

are learning ways to drive the cells to commit it to the neurolineage so they can start building the brain. So a stem cell is a cell that can become any cell.

And so you could take, for example, a skin cell from somebody, turn that into a stem cell, and then kind of coax that stem cell along to becoming a brain cell.

>> That's correct. Yeah.

>> And then how involved do you have to be to coax them along to starting to behave like the brain cells? Are you very involved? Is there serums you're adding

involved? Is there serums you're adding or do they just become brain cells on their own?

>> Yeah. So uh there are two steps. Uh the

first one is where you actively add factors into this tissue culture um formulation. Uh and these are the

formulation. Uh and these are the factors that will induce them to become brain cells and not uh a skin cell or lung cell, right? And um so we do that

at the same time that we use factors that avoid the specialization in other tissues. So we are favoring the brains.

tissues. So we are favoring the brains.

So that requires you to actively add the specific factors at a certain time points. But once you pass this phase,

points. But once you pass this phase, then the cells do by themselves. So it's

all genetically encoded. So the self assemble in a three-dimensional tissue.

Um and this self assemble it's again I mean it's all written in your DNA. The

cells know how to divide, where to migrate, which cells to make connections um with the neighbors and start forming neurosircuitries and it starts

everything a little bit randomly. Um

neurons at one point start firing and um they will making connections with other neurons nearby forming microcircuitries.

At one point that might take four or five month these microircuitries start to talk to each other inside this tissue and after that the complexity of the uh

circuitries just increase. You start

seeing different frequencies different intensities of signaling coming uh and again everything um spontaneously everything genetically encoded so we

don't have to do much. So the neurons are firing, synapses are forming. How

many neurons like we have billions of neurons, right? So how big are these

neurons, right? So how big are these brain cells or how big is this structure growing in the lab?

>> So right now the tissue that we make can grow up to.5 cm. So and contains about 2.5 million neurons in there. Uh usually

we have 5 million cells because there are other cells in the brain that are not um neurons. So the tissue will grow up to 0.5 cm in diameter. So it's a

small tissue compared to the brain orders of magnitude smaller and um the number of neurons is also reduced 2.5 million neurons versus billions of

neurons in the human brain. Um and the reason why we cannot scale it up is because these tissues are not vascularized yet. We haven't figured out

vascularized yet. We haven't figured out how to induce the vascularization as the brains form. Vascularization is getting

brains form. Vascularization is getting blood flow and nutrients and oxygen to these cells.

>> Yeah. Yeah. And because it's a threedimensional tissue, uh all the surrounding cells are getting the their nutrition by diffusion of the mill the

the formula that they are in there. Um

but the center of these spheres, it's a sphere form. Um we end up becoming

sphere form. Um we end up becoming necrotic because the nutrients are not getting there. So we are still learning

getting there. So we are still learning how to vascularize. Once we learn how to vascularize, then yes, then uh we can have like even like a blood flow and nutrients can get to the inside of the

tissue and they will eventually grow bigger.

>> And so how long would brain organoids last for? Could they live the lifespan

last for? Could they live the lifespan of a human in the lab or how long could they be alive?

>> Yeah, most likely. Uh we have kept them just to answer those questions for several years. Um and we just stopped

several years. Um and we just stopped the experiments because someone dropped the plate. Um, so it was an accident,

the plate. Um, so it was an accident, but we were able to keep them for three to five years.

>> And how functionally similar are the brain cells in the lab to the brain cells in uterero? For instance, if you're if the brain cells are three months old, would they behave almost nearly identical to 3-month-old brain

cells in uterero?

>> Yeah. So that's another important point because there's different ways to answer that question by looking into the electrophysiological circuitries. It's

electrophysiological circuitries. It's something that we can compare with pre-term babies. These are babies born

pre-term babies. These are babies born prematurely and we can measure their brain waves with lateral EEGs. Um and

when we compare those brain waves from these premature babies to the tissue that we made, they are virtually identical. So in the early stages of

identical. So in the early stages of brain formation, we can recapulate the formation of the circuitries really well. So they do that but then they

well. So they do that but then they reach after like a year or so they kind of reach a plateau and I think this is because first I mean we are limited on

the number of neurons uh and second um we for now are lacking input and output.

So these brain cells are not receiving any stimulation from the environment. Um

we can do that um but when we measure that there was no stimulation added. So

right now, for the most part, an algorithm wouldn't be able to differentiate between three-month-old brain cells grown in the lab and three-month-old brain cells in uterero.

Theoretically, >> that's correct.

>> And the reason why it plateaus after one year is because they're not yet vascularized. They're not getting the

vascularized. They're not getting the blood flow, the nutrients, but that's still that's not impossible, right? So

eventually you could have cells that are older than 1 2 3 4 and they continue to evolve similar to a human, >> right? Then that's our our goal is to

>> right? Then that's our our goal is to create something that will continue to develop as the human brain does. And I

think it's inevitable that we will reach a level um uh of complexity of these tissues that would be very similar to the human brain. That's the ultimate

goal is to fully reconstruct the human brain.

>> So these cells are alive. Are they

aware? I mean are they conscious? Do

they are they responsive? Yeah. So, we

ask ourselves this all the time and it's hard because um it's always hard to measure consciousness into something that is not similar to you, right? I

mean, I can tell you are conscious because you look like me and we I can ask you, are you conscious? And you can say yes. Um I can feel my dog or my cat

say yes. Um I can feel my dog or my cat that they're conscious. But as you get something that is not as similar to us becomes hard. So the organoid has no way

becomes hard. So the organoid has no way to express themselves. So I have no idea if they're conscious or not. But we did one experiment to start probing into

that. Um which is if we treat the

that. Um which is if we treat the organoids with anesthetics, the brain waves that they form should go away momentarily. And that's what happens in

momentarily. And that's what happens in our brains when we are under anesthesia.

Our brain waves stop uh function. the

brain really calms down and go into a cayencent state until the effect of the anesthesia is um wash out. Um so we repeat this experiments with the brain

organiz and they reproduce they mimic exactly what happens in the human brain.

So it's not a definitive proof that they have consciousness but is a is an evidence that they are behaving in the same way as the human brain >> and and so is the science community kind

of drawing the moral ethical lines of how far the research goes with respect to consciousness or it's because we can't yet prove consciousness and we don't know how to relate it to matter.

>> Yeah.

>> So at this point in time the jury is still out.

>> Yes we are living in a gray zone. Uh

there are some people that believes that they might already have like some level of consciousness. Um and so we should

of consciousness. Um and so we should put a limit on the research or at least provide guidelines. Uh and there are

provide guidelines. Uh and there are other people that think that these structures are so reduced that we shouldn't worry about them and there is no ethical concern. Um so that that's

the duality and there is like again a gray zone in between where most of the researchers are as we develop more and more experiments with these organoids I

think we might get to a point where we might conclude that they have some level of consciousness consciousness which would never be the same consciousness

that you and I have is something else.

um we call it a consciousness of an organoid and we have to decide what what that means. Um I don't think it will

that means. Um I don't think it will block the research. We work with animal models that are conscious um and we just provide guidelines to do it in a more

humane way. So if the organoids might be

humane way. So if the organoids might be something similar >> and arguably if we can get all of this right, we don't need to work with animal models that we know and can verify feel pain and are awake and all of that. So

this is a a potentially more ethical path and a more accurate one. And I

remember you stated in a talk, what we can't build, we can't truly understand.

And so if we can actually build the brain, we can hopefully understand it a lot more.

>> And you use a word uh you call it an avatar.

>> So we're building living a living brain avatar of somebody >> in the lab theoretically. Yeah. So you

could remodel somebody's neurological development >> and kind of rewind the clock and see how they their brain evolved and maybe where things went wrong if it is malfunctioning.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So I use the word avatar because we can uh create these structures from live people. Um so if I take your skin cells I can go to the lab

reprogram the cells into these pretty potent stem cells and from from there it started recreating your brain. So it

would be the equivalent of your brain at the embionic stage that will evolve in parallel as your brain. Now uh it captures your all the genetic structure

all the genome from you from the person.

So if there is like a genetic mutation in there it will capture as well and if that genetic mutation is affecting how your brain develops we will see it as as

we grow. And that's why I'm applying

we grow. And that's why I'm applying that to um understanding for example autism or epilepsy or conditions that happens when um you are born um and

developed throughout life. I mean when when that happens can we interfere? Are

they reversible? So these are the kind of questions that we are having.

>> So what could your research tell me or tell a patient that's been diagnosed with um a psychiatric disorder or brain based illness that a psychiatrist couldn't?

>> Yeah. So we could inform for example uh what are the uh structure or the molecular pathway that was affected.

This would be virtually impossible for a psychiatry to do. Uh and then once we know these molecular pathways we can find either drugs or a gene therapy or

any other um therapeutic alternative that might interfere with that pathway um bring it back to a more neurotypical pathway. So that's what we can do. So we

pathway. So that's what we can do. So we

have an information that um a neurologist would be impossible to get.

Um so we can review that by doing these experiments.

>> So theoretically you could take my skin cells, you could revert them into stem cells, grow them into my examples of my own brain organ, my brain cells, and then you could predict, for instance,

what neurological diseases I may be at risk of or if I'm already suffering from one, how that happened. and then

theoretically test solutions. Could you

also test toxins on my brain? So this is how my cells respond to alcohol or to forever chemicals. Can you see that?

forever chemicals. Can you see that?

>> All the above, right? I mean we we most of the research is focusing on people who already have the disease. Um so I'll give the example of my son who is part

of my research. Um he has like profound autism and epilepsy. um and since he was born. Uh so we recreate his brains uh

born. Uh so we recreate his brains uh brain cells and brain uh structure in the lab and we are understanding exactly what happens during embryogenesis that

causes his brain to fire in a different way that is actually now detrimental to him. Um and we are finding ways to treat

him. Um and we are finding ways to treat him uh using this information. So that's

one thing you also mention about um predicting future diseases. We can do that. But remember the model that we

that. But remember the model that we have is so good that for me to predict how your brain would behave when you are 70 uh 80 years old, I'll have to mature

that brain for 70 80 years old and then you are gone. Um so right now there is only one way to speed up the maturation

of this tissue um in the lab which is by growing them in space which is another another thing that we do. Um and

>> I think I have to stop it. So you could take my brain cells to space and under that stress they're going to age they're going to age much more quickly and therefore you could see theoretically me 10 years into the future.

>> Yeah.

>> And age cells that way. that that's

exactly what we did. So, because we want to use that as a diagnostic tool, um we were looking for ways to mature these brain cells in a short period of time so

we don't have to wait. Um so, if we take your brains and age them up to like 80 years old and if we see signs of Alzheimer's disease, um we might tell

that yes, you might be susceptible to Alzheimer's. So, that's exactly what we

Alzheimer's. So, that's exactly what we are doing right now. And so does that also mean going to space has a quite negative impact like microgravity has a negative impact on the human brain and

it stresses it and ages it much more quickly than living on earth.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So that's the conclusion of our research that um uh is space the space environment and that includes microgravity, cosmic radiation uh uh

magnetic fields. We don't know the

magnetic fields. We don't know the factor but a space environment do age or sess your cells make them age faster um even for the astronauts. So the

astronauts are more susceptible as well.

So this happens not only with brain cells but all the cells in your body but most of the tissue can regenerate. Um so

your skin cells after a time in space will age as well but as you get back your skin cells will regenerate so you look young again right your blood cells

the same thing will regenerate but your brain does not regenerate so the damage um that happens in the astronaut brains is likely forever

>> fascinating my goodness okay so theoretically then if if you look at a brainbased cancer for instance or a virus like Zika.

>> What can brain organoids then show us or teach us or how can we treat them to understand those diseases better? Could

you reverse or treat some of those viruses and illnesses using brain organoids?

>> Yeah. And uh I'll give you two examples.

One was with the Zika virus. And I was uh uh fortunate uh to have a sample of the Zika virus very early on during the outbreak in Brazil because I'm from

Brazil. So I have my connections over

Brazil. So I have my connections over there and we expose the Zika virus to the organoids and we could see that it kills some of the cells that makes the

brain creating the micropholic um phenotype that we see in the kids and by having this uh assay in the lab we could test the eventual other retrovirus that

is already available that could be repurposed for the Zika virus and that's exactly what we did. So in two years, which is a record for science, we were

able to find uh the uh to confirm that the Zika virus was causitive to the outbreak in Brazil because it wasn't sure if it was the virus. Um and second

to find a treatment. So if there's a new outbreak, we already know how to treat the patients. Um so that's one thing.

the patients. Um so that's one thing.

The other thing is for example when we apply the same idea uh to the COVID 19.

So we got the corona virus and we exposed to the brain organoids and we see um instead of killing the cells we saw a reduction in the number of

glutamatic these are excitatory synapses in the cortex. So the interesting point here is that we did that very early on during the pandemic um that nobody

believed. So when people describe having

believed. So when people describe having brain fog and feeling uh mentally slower after COVID, you can see that on the brain cells in the lab, it is no longer

a question or something theoretical. You

can model it on the brain and and definitively say yes, the brain cells are or the neurons are firing more slowly or not the same way they did pre-COVID, right? Or pre- any virus.

pre-COVID, right? Or pre- any virus.

>> Yeah. So we predicted the neurological symptoms of COVID because it was so early on and people were still thinking, "Oh, this is a pulmonary condition, right? It should just affect your um

right? It should just affect your um your your lungs." Um but you're saying, "No, it actually affects the brain." and

everybody because we didn't have enough information about these patients um to show that they have um a brain fog or or or or psychiatric um like disorder,

psychosis, things like that. Uh then

nobody believed. So we we were able to predict what was coming which is amazing. So we can do that for any

amazing. So we can do that for any emergent viruses in the future.

>> And that brings me to my next question.

There was a study done by CAMH, which is one of the leading mental health and addiction research hospitals, and they're based in Canada. And they

collected data from 11,000 teens, >> and they found that teens who used cannabis >> were 11 times more likely to develop a psychiatric disorder than teens who

don't.

>> So, what has exposing neurons in the lab, has that been done to show the impact of smoking weed on the brain? Can

we definitively now say that it does have an impact on psychiatric disorders?

>> Yeah, we could eventually do that.

Actually, we uh we expose the human brain to canabidial CBD. Um we never tested uh uh all the different canaminoids that uh is in weed. So we

are isolating all the different ones and in CBD even a single dose during development meaning that when you are so young uh it might affects your brain

your networks even month after the exposure. Um so yeah the embryionic

exposure. Um so yeah the embryionic exposure I mean pregnant woman um is smoking weed might have detrimental consequences to the fetus

>> and then even if they're it's a young brain so somebody is in their teens it they are more susceptible to if they have it genetically because I think that you could be predisposed based on your genes >> right

>> to certain psychiatric disorders. I

think one was the CNR1 gene which modulates your risk factor.

>> Yeah. So could there be a future world where a parent or somebody could predict ahead of time your child may be more at risk of developing a psychiatric disorder if they are exposed to

marijuana or other toxins. We would

recommend that they avoid that and specifically this child versus the one to the left.

>> Yeah. So that that's perfect. You are

combining the genetic information uh we call pharmaccogenetics right with the modeling because the pharmaccogenetics will give you like a percentage. Yeah.

you have like a specific variant that might make you process weed in a different way and that's why I mean people experience weed in different ways

um but but this gives you like just a a percentage we think it's about 30%. But

we don't know. But if you use the brain model, we can give you certainty. Yeah,

this person actually process in a very different way. And um we actually

different way. And um we actually performed this experiment in a clinical trial for autism using cannabis jaw. Um

and uh we can tell that uh different kids responded in different way and it's a combination of their genetics as well as how they process weed in their

brains. Yeah. So that's um that's

brains. Yeah. So that's um that's exactly where the science is going.

>> So I'm making so many questions from here. So with your lab being one of the

here. So with your lab being one of the first in the world to be able to grow brain cells that nearly behave identically to the brain cells in a fetus.

>> This gives us a rare window into how a baby's brain wires before birth. So what

has your research shown about the impact of toxins such as alcohol or different forever chemicals on the developing baby brain?

>> Yeah. So this is like one of the works on alcohol um where again we expose um a single time only once the organoids to

alcohol and we saw like several alterations molecular pathways that um were completely damaged. uh even the identity of the cells. Some of the cells

should make what we call astroytes.

These are type of the cells that helps the brain to wire and they are completely affected in the presence of alcohol. Um so we confirm that alcohol

alcohol. Um so we confirm that alcohol during pregnancy is bad but now we know exactly why. So that's the kind of a

exactly why. So that's the kind of a research that we can do and there are other environmental factors that we are exposed um that we don't know yet if they are good or bad. For example, we

think they're neutral. Um, but they might not be neutral. I'll give you examples. We are studying now the impact

examples. We are studying now the impact of it's a molecule called Pas and Possever chemicals.

>> Forever chemicals. And these are in the Teflon. These are like hydrophobic

Teflon. These are like hydrophobic molecules everywhere in your carpet in your your life.

>> It's a pandemic truly of microplastics and forever chemicals.

>> We are all contaminated with that, right? And so what is the consequence of

right? And so what is the consequence of that? Well, maybe for normal people

that? Well, maybe for normal people there is nothing but maybe there is a subset of people that are more susceptible. So here it comes. I mean if

susceptible. So here it comes. I mean if you have a genetic susceptibility to a neuroscychiatric condition and now you have what we call a second hit you

are exposed to these forever chemicals that might change the trajectory of how your brain is wired and um and and these are the kind of experiments that we can perform in the lab.

>> This is absolutely astounding. And so

you could somebody could be genetically more at risk for a certain brainbased disorder or brain based illness and exposure environmental exposure to something like a forever chemical could

impact their brain uniquely. And now you could see exactly who that could be, who that candidate is and how a forever chemical or an environmental toxin impacts their development. So we may one

day be able to connect somebody's development of a neurological condition to the items that they wore or the things that they were exposed to and that becomes definitive.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So my goal in life if I can predict the future it is uh for every baby that is born we should have their

full genome sequence all the genetic information but as well as their mini brains and maybe we can do like a mini lung. We can do like a a mini every

lung. We can do like a a mini every tissue so we can visualize anticipate what are the conditions that that person might be susceptible in better inform

them on their lifestyle. Oh, you should should not smoke, you should not have alcohol, you should not expose yourself to certain environmental factors. So

that would be the ultimate personalized test.

>> To be able to have that predictive capability is life-changing. And even if it just means simple life decisions, I guess for most parents and even for me it's the genetic data and privacy that

makes me a little bit nervous about the genome sequencing. I think on the one

genome sequencing. I think on the one hand if we can get it right and we secure the data, >> how much our world and our health would change as a result of it. But right now we have all of these conflicts of

interest with insurance and data theft and just knowing that it's secure. But I

agree that being the goal and nothing in in health and science becoming a mystery with the human body. Yeah.

>> And especially with the brain.

>> So your research puts you at the very forefront of understanding how neurological diseases >> may form and you are a parent uh of a child who you describe as having

profound autism.

>> Right. So what has your work shown or enhanced or help us clarify when it comes to the evolution of autism in a developing brain?

>> Yeah. Um so what we are figuring out is that um something similar to what the genetic has predicted there are different subtypes of autism. Um that's

why we call like a spectrum uh because I mean every uh individual is is very different and they express autism in different ways. Um and that's a good

different ways. Um and that's a good point. Um just to clarify uh autism now

point. Um just to clarify uh autism now more more in a medical terms we divide in level one two and three and this is the level of independence that you have or

the level of support that you need. Uh

the level three is the one that you need support all the time. That's my son. But

people with level one um might not be seeking a treatment or or or even a cure or or anything like that. They are more looking for acceptance and inclusion. Um

and these are not the people that we are focusing. We're focusing more on the

focusing. We're focusing more on the level three. So these are people that if

level three. So these are people that if they left unattended, they will eventually die, right? So we need like full attention to these kids and they need the magical treatment. Um, and what

we are learning is that there are molecular pathways that are common among different subtypes of autism. And that's

good news because it means that if we find a medicine that can help one of them, it might be able to help many of them.

>> And when you say molecular patterns and what does that mean physiologically or what does that look like? What's a

molecular?

>> Yeah. So it means for example uh there are certain metabolism that uh they process in a different way than uh neurotypical normal people would do it.

Uh and this could be like um too much of a certain thing or too little of certain thing. And if we can adjust uh these

thing. And if we can adjust uh these molecules in their brains they might be able to uh recover whatever intellectual disability or or or or epilepsy that

they might have. It's what we call the balance. Uh the brain needs to be in a

balance. Uh the brain needs to be in a homeostasis level to work properly and autistic individuals might have unbalance on on on certain metabolites.

Um and that's that's the things that we are discovering.

>> And so according to the CDC now about one in 31 children are diagnosed with autism. Uh but the data show most kids

autism. Uh but the data show most kids are diagnosed after the age of two.

>> Mhm. So, is your research able to show earlier signs of autism in development?

Uh, or I mean what are you seeing in the lab that doctors don't see until the age of two?

>> Yeah. Yeah, that's a great point because uh why we need to wait for two years of age to finish the diagnostic or or or at

least to have like a better certain about the diagnostic is because in the first two years the person is developing and there is variability in in people.

Some people I mean start walking and and talking very early on other people takes a little bit more time. Um so autism sometimes um might be in that mix. Um

and if the person doesn't talk in two years, well they might talk u six months after that and that will not be like a sign of autism.

But the tools that we have might help doctors to claim that diagnostic very early on as early as several months of age. Um again I mean we need to prove

age. Um again I mean we need to prove that this is the case and and the only way to prove it is a prospective science. So we need to create brain

science. So we need to create brain organoids from let's say a thousand people and if the ratio of autism is like 1% we should have like a hund of

these organoids created from people behaving in a very different way. So

that will give us the power to actually conclude that the tool as a diagnostic is real. We haven't done that experiment

is real. We haven't done that experiment because it's very hard to find funds for this type of predicted u medicine.

>> But theoretically, I guess the earlier that you could put that diagnosis on the better. So there could be a world where

better. So there could be a world where maybe close to birth you're able to see that if you're able to do those experiments and model it out.

>> Yeah, that's why I think as soon as you are born, we should be collecting cells and doing again the genetic testing as well as the modeling, the brain modeling

test. Yeah. And at the talk, your talk I

test. Yeah. And at the talk, your talk I attended in Austin, you stated that we used to think autism couldn't be reversed, >> but the science is now showing that's

not true.

>> So, have you been able to reverse autism in your lab in the brain cells?

>> Yes. Yes. Actually, for all the different subtypes that we tested so far, they're all reversible. So all

these alterations that I mentioned to you either on the metabolism level or the number of synapses or the circuitry uh if we understand what's causing could

be like a genetic mutation and if we fix that it's all gone. So

>> so the autism it could literally be reversible.

>> That's correct. Yeah.

>> And so where does the research need to go? I mean I'm sure that anybody

go? I mean I'm sure that anybody listening to this that hears this is wondering why doesn't this research have more funding? Why isn't this the

more funding? Why isn't this the priority?

>> Exactly. That's my question too. I mean

I think we should um add more funds to that. Um there is one thing in academia

that. Um there is one thing in academia that we call the valley of death and it is in between the scientific discovery

and the translation of that discover to people. So because you need to to run

people. So because you need to to run clinical trials. So we find um

clinical trials. So we find um pharmacological interventions, gene therapy ideas that can reverse autism in the lab, but then I mean we need to do

the clinical trials in people to see if they will actually work and there are reasons for them not to work and then we go back again and try something else but we need to start testing them. So we

have lots of ideas to be tested but clinical trials takes time and costs a lot and usually

uh the NIH or the most funding agents here in US doesn't support that that part. So we depend on um pharmaceutics

part. So we depend on um pharmaceutics or or industry to kind of a jump in that and start supporting these clinical trials again because the cost is super

high. So that's what we call the valley

high. So that's what we call the valley of death is is usually where the discovery could not be translated back into people >> all funding issue. No.

>> And is so is it a gene therapy that you work with the brain cells on to reverse autism? Is that what you're actually

autism? Is that what you're actually doing or is it um almost like a genetic surgery?

>> Yeah. So we have all all we are agnostic about the treatment. Right. Sometime is

just a chemical. It's a medicine. It's a

pill that we would take and and revert that. Um it sometimes is it's it's a

that. Um it sometimes is it's it's a gene therapy. So you know exactly the

gene therapy. So you know exactly the genetic causes and you go there and you do either you fix the mutation or you just replace the gene uh by the correct

version. The mutated gene you just

version. The mutated gene you just replace by the correct version. All the

tests that we perform in the lab shows that this is enough for the neurons to start firing in a neurotypical way.

>> And and do you know where the mutation comes from at this point? So it's some you're probably born with it. So it's

something that could maybe be tested.

>> Yeah. Uh most of the autistic individuals are born with those mutations. So it happens during the

mutations. So it happens during the embryogenesis or before >> and embryogenesis is the formation of the embryo.

>> Right. Right. Or it come and and and remember that I mean each person carries the DNA from mom and dad. Right. And

sometimes these mutations might not do anything for mom but in a combination with the genome from the dad or vice versa uh it creates the problem right.

it affects how the cells um behave. We

can figure this out by sequencing the genome of the person. And in some cases, we do find the mutation. We know, oh, that's the gene that's mutated. Let's

fix it. And in some cases, we don't either because we don't fully understand the genetics of autism or because it's what we call a multiffactorial. There

are different genetic variants and we cannot pinpoint just one.

>> What about with Alzheimer's? Because if

you're so you're taking brain cells for example to the international space station >> you're able to accelerate aging. Uh what

does it does the research show about being able to reverse some of those states if that's possible? So the uh the research is now in a point where we are

convincing ourselves that we can model Alzheimer's with these tool and by sending the organoids to the international space station and bring

them back we are seeing signs of deterioration signs that are normally seen in dementia um and these includes like inflammation neurodeeneration

so all those factors that are associated with Alzheimer's dimension late onset uh diseases. We are seeing the organoids

diseases. We are seeing the organoids returning from the space station. The

next step it is either a neurop protection. Can we protect those brain

protection. Can we protect those brain cells before they go there or can we treat them after they come back? And

that's my Amazon project. So, I'm I'm testing molecules from the plants of the Amazonian biodiversity um to see if one of these molecules can

do one of those or or or both can be a neuroprotector or can be curative.

>> And what um and I know you're from Brazil, but what was the instinct that the Amazon may have a potential cure for Alzheimer's?

>> Yeah, so I start interacting uh with different tribes in the Amazon.

These are regional tribes that have very few contact with the external world.

They live in there. They have their lifestyle in there and they are now I mean having more and more contact with uh uh people from outside. And one of my

colleagues who are from the University of Manau who is in the middle of the Amazon um introduced me to some of these shamans. And these are the old people

shamans. And these are the old people over there who who has the knowledge of the medicine of the forest. And during

my interactions I always ask so what do you do when people I mean have a seizure or what do you do when people start forgetting things? And um it's

forgetting things? And um it's incredible that they have an answer for every single of these questions. And

when I ask about Alzheimer's, of course, they have no idea what is Alzheimer's.

Uh because most of their population lives up to a hundred and they don't show any signs of dementia. And I found that amazing. How come? And they said,

that amazing. How come? And they said, "Yeah, if people start showing like they don't they are forgetting things. Um

there is this plant that we combine with this other one and we create like a a tea or a brew and they start incorporating that into the diet and then I start asking what are those

plants? Can you point it to me? And they

plants? Can you point it to me? And they

point oh is this one and that one and um I start realizing that we never study them. So the modern science completely

them. So the modern science completely ignore this ancient knowledge. Um and I said no this cannot be true. I mean,

people must have studied those plants, but no, there's no track record. And in

the Amazon, we have about 200,000 species in there, and we probably are aware of 1%. All the rest is completely ignored. But those tribes understand

ignored. But those tribes understand them. So, I start curating those plans

them. So, I start curating those plans and trying to understand what are the molecules that might be neuroprotectant.

And we have like a few of them that are good candidates that we want to test into the international space station either again as a neuroprotectant or uh

a treatment for Alzheimer's and dementias and perhaps any other neuro degeneration.

>> So not only could we potentially build a a Alzheimer proof society but we could maybe reverse it and this cure might already just be grown in a plant in nature.

>> It is fascinating. Yes. And and it's here the whole time just to the left of us. And so I imagine you're you're not

us. And so I imagine you're you're not going to the Amazon to take all the plants. You're going to recreate those

plants. You're going to recreate those molecules in the lab. So the plants stay preserved in the Amazon. And then what happens to the tribe? Do they kind of share in the research? Do they share in the

>> Yeah. And the wind?

>> Yeah. And the wind?

>> We reach an an agreement uh where uh all eventual royalties of a future product.

If there is a future product because science has a risk, it might be that we could not reproduce any of those, right?

But let's suppose that yeah, we do find something that is neuroprotective. Um,

and if these ever become like a commercial product, royals of those will go back to the uh protection of those tribes. Um so we there is a percentage

tribes. Um so we there is a percentage of the royalties that belongs to them >> and maybe it's incentive for people to not keep burning and attacking the Amazon.

>> Yeah.

>> Because all of the cures in the future could be right within within those trees >> and they understand that very clearly.

It it is us on these that that are not aware of that.

>> Yeah.

And so I must ask with the human brain, I mean we are an incredibly complex species compared to others. Not

superior, just different and more complex. And that's why I think we play

complex. And that's why I think we play piano, we go to space, we contemplate the origins of the universe. But is

there an evolutionary downside to the complexities of our human brain? Are we

paying some evolutionary cost to be this cognitively superior in some ways?

>> Yeah. So that's uh another question of the lab. That's actually how I started

the lab. That's actually how I started my lab asking those questions. So I was way more interested on the evolution of the human brain than on treating

diseases. And it was my son who actually

diseases. And it was my son who actually changed my directions. But part of my lab continues to study evolution. And we

have those questions. I mean what makes the human brain so unique? Why we as an species are so different from the other ones? why we change uh the environment

ones? why we change uh the environment while I mean other species just enjoy them. And um and I start initially start

them. And um and I start initially start comparing the human brain with a chimpanzeee because the chimpanzeee is the closest evolutionary relative that

is alive compared to us. Uh but soon I realized that we are so different from a chimpanzeee that is not worth it. uh

because any of these discovery cannot really tell me um exactly how the human brain evolved. And then I thought okay I

brain evolved. And then I thought okay I need to compare the modern human brain with um extinct humans that are no longer here.

>> Neanderthalss >> such as the Neandertos and so we start looking at the genome of the Neandertos because we cannot have cells from the

Neandertos to reprogram and create their um mini brains. They're organoid.

There's no way to do that. But we have the genomic information and then I mean we did like a very simple experiment. So

we try to contrast the the the genetic information the genome sequence from the neandertos with the human population the modern human population and we try to

incorporate as much diversity as possible and then we align them and they are incredibly similar right very similar. Um, but then we ask the

similar. Um, but then we ask the question, is there any genes in there that are different between them and us?

And what is unique about us that they don't have? And by the way, no other

don't have? And by the way, no other spee species will have, just just us.

And we end up with a list of 61 genes.

These are genes that we all have. The

Neanderthalss have, all the other species have, but there are sequences that are unique to modern humans. And

one of them calls my attention because it's a master regulator of neurode development. And again looking into the

development. And again looking into the brain as uh as a tool to understand the complexity of cognition um I decided to

swap the neanderal version of the gene for the modern human in one of our brain organoids. And what happens was amazing

organoids. And what happens was amazing because I thought that well I might not see anything because it might be multiffactorial.

Um but that single mutation in that gene just the neanderal version in that gene make the brain organoid mature 10 times

faster than normal. So it will take let me explain that it will take a couple of weeks for the neurons to mature and start firing as I pointed out in the

early stages of neuro development. Now,

if I have like identical neurons except for the neanderal version, those neurons will mature way faster >> because they're more simple or not as complex.

>> No, because that gene the master regulator changes how the maturation of the brain behaves.

So, is it's not regarding the complexity but is the timing. And initially when we had that data it sounds like counterintuitive

um but uh thinking more um what we are figuring out is that the Neanderto brain develops much more closer to a chimpanzeee than

us because the chimpanzeee also develop faster. That was one of the problem that

faster. That was one of the problem that I had. I could never match uh the

I had. I could never match uh the development of neurons from the chimpanzeee in modern humans. And then

Neandertos are clustering with the chimpanzeee. So they're developing

chimpanzeee. So they're developing faster. And actually if you observe a

faster. And actually if you observe a baby chimp, it's way smarter than a human being.

>> To say, does that mean that if the brain develops faster for a Neanderthal or chimpanzeee, they're smarter earlier?

>> Yeah.

>> But uh so why didn't they go off to then build the Eiffel Tower?

>> Right. Right. Because it plateaus. So

they develop early because the brain is wired for survival. Um so they have to go into the wild and figure out how to survive, right? Uh so they develop quite

survive, right? Uh so they develop quite early but then they plateau in terms of complexity. But the modern human brain

complexity. But the modern human brain it takes a while to develop. So look at that. I mean we are born after 9 months

that. I mean we are born after 9 months of incubation and even after that we cannot leave our babies in the wild. So we still need to

feed them for like several years until they become independent. So the

developmental time is much slower in humans and that single mutation is helping us to develop is lower to achieve a higher complexity later in

life. But that higher complexity

life. But that higher complexity um there's a cost and that's the evolutionary tradeoff. We don't see

evolutionary tradeoff. We don't see autism in chimpanzeee. We don't see Alzheimer's in chimpanzeee. So the slow development and the complexity of the

human brain make us susceptible to these neurological conditions that are human specific.

>> And what if the brain was bigger? So if

we could have bigger brains, would we not have to trade as much complexity for size? Could we have more complex brains but maybe not as many downsides with neurological disorders?

Is it because that everything's so dense?

It could be. We don't know. That's a

interesting hypothesis. We have to to test that. Um but uh remember that

test that. Um but uh remember that sometimes is not linear. Sometimes

bigger brains, I mean whales have bigger brains than us, right?

>> So it doesn't translate exactly into behavior complexity.

>> Okay. Um, and then my final question before we jump fully to the future, to my world of foresight, regenerative medicine, it does point to a future where we'll be able to potentially regrow organs or parts of damaged organs

in the lab and maybe even uh in the body eventually. So for somebody who is

eventually. So for somebody who is diagnosed with something like ALS or a spinal cord injury, is there a future where we could regrow and repair their

own cells in the lab or maybe even in their own bodies and perhaps reverse some of those conditions or cure them entirely?

>> Yeah, I think the answer is yes. And

I'll give you like a an example that um it's a research that we published a couple years ago. We did the experiment in mice because we we cannot do it in

humans, right? So we remove in a surgery

humans, right? So we remove in a surgery the visual cortex of the animal. So for

you to see something your eyes your retina with all the photo receptors need to capture the information through light passes through the talamus which is a

region that connects the brain to the eye and goes to the cortex where you store your memories. Right? So that's

how we see things. So if you remove the visual cortex from your brain, you stop seeing even though your eyes are normal, right? It's just you don't you don't

right? It's just you don't you don't finish the circuitry because you don't have a visual cortex to process that information. So we remove the visual

information. So we remove the visual cortex from the animal from the mice and the mice stop seeing and then we replace that with a brain organoid. After a

while, we put the brain organoid from humans in there and we let the organoids to kind of accommodate into the brain and surprisingly enough they start

making connections with the circuitry of the animal and they become the visual cortex of the mice. So those animals now start seeing again but they are using

the human neurons to visualize things.

So it's a chimera a mouse with some human brain cells that allow them to see again.

>> Yes. Yes. So this idea of regenerative medicine, you could extrapolate that.

For example, take Parkinson disease where you have like a region deep in your brain called estriatum that produces dopamineergic neurons. So these

neurons respond to dopamine and in Parkinson these neurons degenerate. So

you could eventually recreate from that same person um uh the estriaton in the lab and transplant it back and restore the movement of the person with

Parkinson's. you could cure Parkinson by

Parkinson's. you could cure Parkinson by doing this kind of a transplantation >> and how far away I know it's impossible to predict the future in terms of timelines but curing something like

Parkinson's and that the model exists the theory is there how far away do you think we could go from lab to human trials >> yeah so unfortunately science goes very

slow and as I mentioned to you the valley of that so this funding so someone a company or or industry or a hospital must be interested on that to

perform the clinical trials. There are

clinical trials for Parkinson just transplanting dopamineergic neurons. Um

but this was before we had the technology to create two dimensional tissues. So now we have to redo these

tissues. So now we have to redo these experiments with a more powerful technology. But uh but it's coming once

technology. But uh but it's coming once we have proof of principle and that's why we still use animals for research.

We have to show proof of principle in an animal and then we can reproduce that in humans. Yeah, it's a slow transition

humans. Yeah, it's a slow transition between the preclinical through the clinical side.

>> And so in some ways we're moving out of the chemical era where we would treat or cure or at least maintain and stabilize conditions using chemicals, pharmaceuticals and into the biological

era where we go back to what evolution gave us, tinker it a little bit and cure with the body's own tools.

>> That's correct. Yeah. If we can do that um would usually is better because for us to fully understand how again the disease works the process and to find

the right chemical the right pharmaceutic to actually um correct the the the defect or the molecular pathway that it's affected. It takes time but

the cells knows how to do that. So if

you can just transplant the cells back let them do the magic. Yeah.

>> Okay. Okay. So, now I want to jump a little bit into the world of foresight >> and to see where things could potentially be going. Uh, when we look at the field of artificial intelligence >> and the AI systems we have today,

they're really impressive, but they still aren't as flexible or as reliable even as the brain of a of a cat or a dog, right? And and that's because

evolution has billions of years on AI.

>> Yeah. uh but scientists are exploring what happens if we do merge evolution with artificial intelligence and even if you look at AI I mean the amount of power and water that it uses

>> and so what happens if we power AI systems with brain cells >> so you get the benefits of biology and we're super efficient with the superpowers of AI so the field is organoid intelligence and your work

places you at the forefront >> where is the science today and where is it going >> yeah so We are on the initial phases of

that trying to understand what is for example the computational power of an organoid and we start by asking very simple questions. Can an organoid learn

simple questions. Can an organoid learn something? Can an organoid memorize

something? Can an organoid memorize something? Can it retrieves the memory?

something? Can it retrieves the memory?

Basically we're asking can it have the cognition of a human even if it's not as complex. Um, and we do that by

complex. Um, and we do that by stimulating the organoids with electrical impulses, for example, and we give them different impulses and see if they remember one of them. And

>> and how would you show that a brain cell in a lab remembered something?

>> Yeah. So that's uh the experiment is like that. So you choose a specific uh

like that. So you choose a specific uh impulse, let's say um certain frequency and certain intensity and and then you train the organoids to respond to that.

So you give that every minute and you see what kind of a responses it has and we can map that. We can map these networks right and then you start giving

like random sequence um to see if they would uh respond in the same way and guess what they do not. So they have specific response for a specific

impulses which is how we responds to impulses as well. Um the way I hold like a rose and a hammer is very different because I I treat them in different ways

and the organoid does the same different impulses they respond in different ways.

Uh so then we let the organoid rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest rest for 24 hours and then we start giving random impulses again and they will have like their noise in there and then in the

middle of that we add the right impulses that we know how they responded and guess what they remember and you don't need to even give all the complete

impulses just you just started they are ah I know it's coming yeah and they responded in the same way so that's how we prove that they have memor memory.

>> So we can prove that they have memory.

So does that mean that they can remember the same way you could train an AI system? So how are you training AI and

system? So how are you training AI and powering it on these brain cells? What

does that even entail?

>> Yeah. So that's another thing that um we are beginning to explore uh which is this concept of generalization, right? I

mean to train an AI you need lots of training. Um but the human brain doesn't

training. Um but the human brain doesn't need lots of training, right? um a human baby will figure out that this is a wall and all the time when it sees a wall never would would would be the wall

again because you already figured out um so it generalizes. So how the human brain does that it's a mystery we don't know and we are asking if the organoids can do the same and the way we are doing

is by creating like an interface with a robotic machine. This is a robot that

robotic machine. This is a robot that has like four legs and we are using the electrical activity of that organoid to make the robot move.

>> And when you say the electrical activity, that's when a brain cell is wiring and firing it produces some activity. That's correct. And that is

activity. That's correct. And that is going to power the robot.

>> That's correct. Yes. Yes. And then we did one step further which is to add the sensor information into the robot. So

the sensor in the robot that we have is a kind of an infrared that will detect when is getting closer to a wall. And by

getting closer to a wall when it's about 10 cm before it hits the wall, it stimulates the organoid with that impulses specific frequencies that we

determine predetermined and the organoid responded to that because I mean it it's already know that they have to respond to that. Then we use that response to

to that. Then we use that response to turn the robot to left or right. Okay,

so that's the training. And now we are exposing this robotic platform to a maze and seeing if the organoid is able to make the robot navigate that maze with

different configurations just with one training.

>> And apparently it does. So the so a robot powered by human brain cells is able to navigate a maze even though the cells are aren't actually >> seeing it.

>> Yes.

>> So there is a potential future where AI is powered by human brain cells.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> And that means that the water crisis, the energy crisis that AI currently occupies >> are dissolved in an instant.

>> That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. we could

solve the major AI problems by getting inspiration from uh the organic intelligence that already exist that again evolution took like millions of

years to build that um compared to an organoid any artificial intelligence algorithm any artificial network is an

insult right I mean we're not even close to what nature can do um and that's what the kind of power that we to leverage and most likely this will happen in two

waves. The first wave would be using the

waves. The first wave would be using the organoid as a black box. We don't

understand but we know it has the power to compute. That's what we are doing

to compute. That's what we are doing right now. But the next step is when we

right now. But the next step is when we learn exactly how to recreate reconstruct the circuitries that do that something that we don't know and once we

were able to do that maybe we can create novel algorithms that mimics that. So we don't longer need the organoids. We can just use organic inspire algorithms.

>> Right? Because I was going to ask I mean

>> Right? Because I was going to ask I mean I don't I know we don't understand consciousness enough to prove disprove it. So people sometimes say we can't

it. So people sometimes say we can't disprove or prove that current AI systems are conscious.

>> I don't really entertain that as much.

I'm not as concerned about a silicone chip being conscious. But an AI system powered on human brain cells that's slightly different. Yeah. uh and we're

slightly different. Yeah. uh and we're potentially giving it memories, giving it all of this data and that is a conversation I do have. So is there a future where these cells could become

very sophisticated because they are trained on the same data that AI is and we see some awareness in AI because it is powered on biology.

>> Mhm. I share with you I'm not worried about current AI reaching a consciousness level. But if we start

consciousness level. But if we start using the algorithms coming from the organic cells, I think it's going to be inevitable because the brain >> Wait, so you just said it will be inevitable that these AI systems will be

conscious.

>> That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. That's what

the brain's wire for. The brain's wired to become conscious. And if we start using them to power AI, they will inevitably become conscious.

>> Okay.

Um and should we cut?

>> Um, okay. If the brain evolved to regulate the body >> and we're going to be building these potentially complex conscious AI systems

>> and then we would give them >> or embody them in robotics, then we technically have walking, talking, conscious robots.

>> Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, we we we are moving into um a cyborg or a replicant like just to quote a Blade Runner, right? Yeah. So, we are we're

Runner, right? Yeah. So, we are we're getting to that stage. Yeah.

>> And what are the ethical and moral lines the science community has kind of drawn because I feel like there's the tech community that thinks maybe we're building building consciousness in these silicone chips and then there's the

science community that's like, "Haha, jokes on you. we are actually potentially building conscious could build conscious AI systems in the lab.

Yeah.

>> So what is kind of the self-p policing if any or is it kind of just mutually understood let's maybe not do this yet until we understand it a bit better.

>> Um that's uh usually that's a good idea.

>> Yeah. Uh and remember that I mentioned that there is two phases. Yes. The first

phase is really the biology. Uh and I'm not too worried about that phase creating like an organoid that's conscious. I don't care because I mean

conscious. I don't care because I mean we are conscious and you can always build like a way to destroy the system >> but once we pass to the next phase which

is the algorithm so then um there is no way back so we have to decide that if we are moving to the next stage and um yeah we have to as humanity to think if

that's what we want to do >> building actual things that feel and think >> uh and experience.

>> Yes. Yeah. Um, but then the question is how do we do it safely and how do we do it ethically because the precedent also is I mean even IVF we were so close to not having it >> right >> because of all of the the moral panic

that it caused >> and now millions and millions of babies have been born via IVF. A lot of people go through the egg freezing process. Uh

and that was something that almost didn't happen because we didn't understand the ethical lines and we didn't understand you know the idea of creating and tampering with life in new places

>> is something that we immediately jump to um as out of our hands.

>> Yeah.

>> But I guess technology it does change our ethics over time >> and for the most part it's been a good thing.

>> Mhm. And so I guess the question becomes how do we see some of these potentially great areas um creating conscious sentient systems being a huge one.

>> Yeah.

>> And how do we bound that? What decisions

do we want to make about it? And I think what's also fascinating about this research and knowing that we are probably going here is we have time, right? And that's why a lot of people we

right? And that's why a lot of people we end up panicking about the future. But

the reality is the future doesn't happen suddenly, >> right?

>> We see it in the labs. Uh we know we can see it in the data. And so the question is how do we do things ahead of time properly with more voices weighing in so it doesn't feel like we suddenly wake up

to the future and have to panic about it. And I think that this is one of

it. And I think that this is one of those moments where if the scientists are saying potentially building conscious machines is going to be

possible. Um then this is where the

possible. Um then this is where the humanity steps in and says what boundaries do we want to put around that? And I think it's the combination

that? And I think it's the combination of the two that allows us to get it get it right. And we've done that

it right. And we've done that historically from IVF to editing to gene therapy treatments came from historically more controversial science experiments. So

experiments. So >> yeah, >> perhaps this is one of those moments >> and and even even uh simple things like blood transfusion which was uh weird in the beginning but now I mean yeah normal

most people would would accept that organ transplantation was another one um seems like controversial in the beginning oh I'm going to have like a heart from somebody else um but now yes

if you don't do that you die um so maybe this if you don't do that you die might be the answer but I like your point that um we have time. Um I don't know how

much um but we do have some time to start raising awareness that this new technology might come. Yeah.

>> And it might take like up to I don't know 30 50 years but will eventually come.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Tools have always been extensions of us, right? So fire changed how the brain developed. And wasn't fire

brain developed. And wasn't fire responsible for us becoming much more sophisticated as a species because we could process our nutrients better >> and we could move energy to the brain

versus digestion. And so our smartphones

versus digestion. And so our smartphones in some ways are also an extension of us, right? I think Google maps is kind

us, right? I think Google maps is kind of your hippocampus and it's doing the navigation and then you have your visual memories. And then the next step is AI.

memories. And then the next step is AI.

So you'll have your personal AI assistant >> that has a fiduciary duty to you and it works on your behalf and it doesn't just write your emails for you, but it's maybe solving scientific problems in a

startup that you want to bring to life.

Is there a world in which your personal AI system is maybe also powered by your personal brain cells and so it's really a second brain?

>> Yeah. Yeah. I think so. That's uh this idea that uh uh you can I mean first of all you can create an organoid from a person and we discuss a lot about disease right? Try to figure out

disease right? Try to figure out disease. Um but it might become yeah

disease. Um but it might become yeah your your your new person your new brain. Um and the part that I like the

brain. Um and the part that I like the most is that these organoid these brain cells will will be created in wire dictated by your

genetics. True. But the input to create

genetics. True. But the input to create memories experiences. It's all about

memories experiences. It's all about you. So it's not like a a clone of you,

you. So it's not like a a clone of you, a clone of your brain, but it's something that has your genetics might respond in a different way.

>> So yeah, I think it's a it's a nice use of the technology. Okay. So, that one's possible.

>> Yeah. And I'm optimistic. I think it might be like a good thing.

>> Yeah. Yeah. And so, my final question for you uh is your research doesn't just explore how the brain is built and to try to understand it and to reconstruct

it. But what would a world look like if

it. But what would a world look like if we could build better brains?

>> Mhm.

>> So, what does that mean? More senses,

better memory. How could we build a better brain?

>> I avoid using the term better. Okay.

>> Right. So, we are already there. We are

creating different brains.

>> Different brains.

>> Yeah. Uh and I'll give you an example of one of the projects that we have. Um uh

the human brain cannot sense magnetism.

>> But we used to >> we used to we lost that during evolution.

>> And by magnetism you mean how whales and sharks >> exactly >> steer your magnet. They understand the magnetic waves of the of the world. If

you look back into our genome, the genes that gives the whale the ability to sense magnetism is in our genome. But

because we never used um or whatever reason evolution u mutated that so it's no longer functional.

Okay. So we are going back and reconstructing those genes make those genes work back again. Um, so then we're going to have like an organoid that's able to sense magnetism.

>> And what benefit would that give us if we were humans that could then also sense magnetism? We don't need Google

sense magnetism? We don't need Google maps. We can just

maps. We can just >> That's correct. Yes. Yes. So, and that experiment was done with blind people.

So, they put like blind people in a forest to see if they will figure out a way to to get out. They couldn't again because we don't have magnetism. uh but

if our brain now has the sense of magnetism yes I was more thinking I mean the the reason for this work is to better create sonars right I was not thinking about agumentation of the human

brain but that's definitely a possibility I'll give you like another example this is our work with NAZA um since we figured out that uh the

astronaut brains are susceptible to the damage coming from the space environment um we are wondering If this is caused by cosmic radiation and most likely there

is a contribution for cosmic radiation, can we create a human brain that is protected by cosmic radiation? So what

we did was to clone a gene that's coming from the tardigrade. I don't know if you >> the kind of the organism to tardigrade.

Okay. So for somebody again who missed that biology class, >> if you missed the biology class, tardigrade are microscopic uh bears or or entities that is everywhere. Um and

they are incredibly resistant uh resistant to fire to cold. So that's why they dominate the planet. They are

everywhere and we end up contaminating even the space station and even the moon. So there are now tar degrades in

moon. So there are now tar degrades in the moon because we took them there, right? So we are actually responsible

right? So we are actually responsible for the all the alien conspiracy theories. We are actually sending them

theories. We are actually sending them outward.

>> We are already contaminating the the universe. Yes. Yeah. So in the outside

universe. Yes. Yeah. So in the outside of the space station there are tardig great. So the question is how they

great. So the question is how they survive the cosmic radiation. So we now know uh there is a gene in their genome called d soup uh that suppresses the

mutation causes by cosmic radiation. So

what we did was to clone that gene inside the genome of a human and create an organoid um that now is resistant to

radiation. So we are doing tests at the

radiation. So we are doing tests at the space station um to see if that organoid will work in the same way as the tardigrade would be resistant to to

cosmic radiation. So if if it's

cosmic radiation. So if if it's positive, well, we might think about uh engineer the human genome uh for future

astronauts that will go in uh missions, interplanetary missions. So that might

interplanetary missions. So that might be like something to consider.

>> Especially as space becomes the next frontier, we need to make sure we're resilient to some of the adversarial effects of it.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. Yeah. The

combination of genetics and stem cells are really powerful. Makes you dream.

makes you dream and brings it to life.

Well, it has been an absolute pleasure.

This has been so fascinating. Uh, and I can't wait to do it again.

>> Super. Thank you so much.

>> Thanks for coming. Thanks for joining us for this episode of I've Got Questions.

If you've got questions about AI and emerging technologies, send us a message or a voice note on our website. And if

you enjoyed this episode, please like and subscribe and share with someone you think might be interested. We'll see you next time. By 2030, every single cellled

next time. By 2030, every single cellled organism, every virus, every protein, every cellular component now becomes engineerable.

>> We could be on the cusp of a new technology that could change the idea of infertility entirely. In vitro

infertility entirely. In vitro gimtogenesis, which is a really fancy way of saying making eggs and sperm from stem cells.