Dwarkesh Patel: belief

Transcript context

…Absolutely, I've actually counseled my gene therapy companies that they should be investing in very common diseases because rare diseases have this genetic counseling solution, with the exception of spontaneous mutations and dominance, which probably are IVF clinic type solutions rather than… But the rare recessives can be handled at matchmaking and at every level. Anyway, I counseled my genetic therapy companies that they should invest in common diseases like age-related diseases and infectious diseases. In fact the COVID vaccine was formulated as a gene therapy and the cost was in the $20 per dose range. 6 billion people benefited from it, or 6 billion people took it and it was proven over the whole population. So I think that's the more appropriate usage of gene therapy. For practical reasons, getting FDA approval and so forth, you might go for the rare diseases and that's perfectly fine. But I think the cost effectiveness… The sweet spot for gene therapy is for age-related diseases and the sweet spot for rare diseases is genetic counseling. Alright, some final questions to close us off. 20 years from now, if there's some scenario in which we all look back and say, “You know what? I think on net it was a good thing that the NSF and the NIH and all these budgets were blown up and got DOGE’d and so forth…” I'm not saying you think this is likely, but suppose there ends up being a positive story told in retrospect. What might it be? Would it have to maybe come up with a different funding structure? Basically, what is the best case scenario if this post-war system of basic research is upended? I have to preface this. When scientists answer a question and explore possibilities, it doesn't mean they're advocating it. In the past people have asked me off-the-wall questions about Neanderthals for example, and then it was described as if I was enthusiastic about it. I’m not enthusiastic about NIH and NSF budgets being cut. You could say that it forces us to think more seriously about philanthropy and industrial sponsored research. That could be a positive thing. It could be that that makes us listen more carefully to what society actually needs rather than doing basic research. I'm a big proponent of basic research, but also maybe I'm more than average at connecting the basic research to societal needs from the get go. I don't think it actually interferes with basic research to think and act on societal needs at the same time. That could be a positive. It could be that it creates another nation-state that now is the dominant force. Like China could now become the next empire after the US.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.