How would you like to be better than you are? Suppose I said that, with just a few changes in your genes, you could get a better memory -- more precise, more accurate and quicker. Or maybe you'd like to be more fit, stronger, with more stamina. Would you like to be more attractive and self-confident? How about living longer with good health? Or perhaps you're one of those who's always yearned for more creativity. Which one would you like the most? Which would you like, if you could have just one? (Audience Member: Creativity.) Creativity. How many people would choose creativity? Raise your hands. Let me see. A few. Probably about as many as there are creative people here. (Laughter) That's very good. How many would opt for memory? Quite a few more. How about fitness? A few less. What about longevity? Ah, the majority. That makes me feel very good as a doctor. If you could have any one of these, it would be a very different world. Is it just imaginary? Or, is it, perhaps, possible?
你想要自己比現在的你更好嗎? 如果我說, 只需要在你的基因中做幾個改變, 你就可以擁有更好的記憶力 -- 更精準、 更精確、更迅速。 或者你想要更苗條、更強壯、 更有耐力。 你想變的更具吸引力、更有自信嗎? 活的更久、更健康呢? 又或者你是屬於那些 一直嚮往自己能更有創造力的人。 你最想要哪一種呢? 如果你只能選一種,你會想要哪一種? (聽眾: 創造力。) 創造力。 多少人會選擇創造力呢? 舉起你的手讓我看看。 有一些人。 大概就跟在坐有創造力的人一樣多吧。 很好。 有多少人會選擇記憶力呢? 比剛才多了一些人。 那健康呢? 人少了一些。 那更長壽呢? 喔,大多數的人。 這讓身為醫師的我覺得很好。 如果你能擁有任何一種, 這個世界都會非常不一樣。 這只是幻想嗎? 還是,這確實有可能呢?
Evolution has been a perennial topic here at the TED Conference, but I want to give you today one doctor's take on the subject. The great 20th-century geneticist, T.G. Dobzhansky, who was also a communicant in the Russian Orthodox Church, once wrote an essay that he titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Now if you are one of those who does not accept the evidence for biological evolution, this would be a very good time to turn off your hearing aid, take out your personal communications device -- I give you permission -- and perhaps take another look at Kathryn Schultz's book on being wrong, because nothing in the rest of this talk is going to make any sense whatsoever to you. (Laughter) But if you do accept biological evolution, consider this: is it just about the past, or is it about the future? Does it apply to others, or does it apply to us?
進化論在TED研討會上 一直是個常被討論的主題, 但是我今天是要以一個醫師的觀點 來討論這個主題。 20世紀一名偉大的遺傳學家 费奥多西·多布然斯基, 他同時是俄國東正教 的一名傳信者, 他曾寫了一篇文章, 標題是〈生物學中沒有什麼是有道理的 -- 除了按照進化論的那些〉。 現在,如果你是那些 不接受生物進化論的證據的人, 現在是關掉你的助聽器的好時機, 拿出你的個人通訊設備 -- 我准許你們這樣做 -- 或許你該再看一下凱瑟琳• 舒爾茨寫有關犯錯的那本書, 因為接下來要講的東西 對你來說都是沒有任何意義的。 (笑聲) 但是如果你是 接受生物進化論的, 仔細想想: 它只跟過去有關嗎, 還是它也跟未來有關? 它是適用於他人嗎, 還是也適用於我們?
This is another look at the tree of life. In this picture, I've put a bush with a center branching out in all directions, because if you look at the edges of the tree of life, every existing species at the tips of those branches has succeeded in evolutionary terms: it has survived; it has demonstrated a fitness to its environment. The human part of this branch, way out on one end, is, of course, the one that we are most interested in. We branch off of a common ancestor to modern chimpanzees about six or eight million years ago. In the interval, there have been perhaps 20 or 25 different species of hominids. Some have come and gone. We have been here for about 130,000 years. It may seem like we're quite remote from other parts of this tree of life, but actually, for the most part, the basic machinery of our cells is pretty much the same.
這是生命之樹,生物的樹狀圖。 在這分支圖當中可以看到, 我把它由一個中心點往各個方向分支出去, 因為如果你看到這個生命之樹 各個分支的末端, 以進化論的角度來說 每個分支末端的物種 都是成功的案例,因為: 它生存了下來、 它展現了其適合在它生長環境中 生存的條件。 在這個分支的末端 有關人類的部份, 理所當然是我們最關心的部份。 在6至8百萬年前, 我們從一個較低層級的祖先 分支出來成了現代的黑猩猩。 在這期間, 大概出現過20至25種 不同形式的人類祖先。 其中有一些已經不存在。 而我們已經生存了130,000年。 我們或許看似跟生命之樹中 其他的分支隔了很遠, 但實際情形是,大致上來說, 我們的細胞機構 幾乎是一模一樣的。
Do you realize that we can take advantage and commandeer the machinery of a common bacterium to produce the protein of human insulin used to treat diabetics? This is not like human insulin; this is the same protein that is chemically indistinguishable from what comes out of your pancreas. And speaking of bacteria, do you realize that each of us carries in our gut more bacteria than there are cells in the rest of our body? Maybe 10 times more. I mean think of it, when Antonio Damasio asks about your self-image, do you think about the bacteria? Our gut is a wonderfully hospitable environment for those bacteria. It's warm, it's dark, it's moist, it's very cozy. And you're going to provide all the nutrition that they could possibly want with no effort on their part. It's really like an Easy Street for bacteria, with the occasional interruption of the unintended forced rush to the exit. But otherwise, you are a wonderful environment for those bacteria, just as they are essential to your life. They help in the digestion of essential nutrients, and they protect you against certain diseases.
你知不知道我們可以藉由 一種低等細菌體的細胞機構 來製造人類胰島素的一種蛋白質 來治療糖尿病嗎? 它不是跟人類的胰島素類似而已, 它是跟你胰臟分泌出來的 胰島素裡面的一種蛋白質 完全一樣。 講到細菌, 你知道我們腸子裡的細菌數量 比我們身體所有細胞的數量 還要多嗎? 大概有10倍之多。 我說,想想看, 當安東尼奧• 達馬斯奧在問你對於自我的形象的時候, 你有想到這些細菌嗎? 我們的腸子是一個非常適合 這些細菌生長的環境。 它很溫暖、很陰暗、很潮濕, 非常的舒適。 而且那些細菌完全不需要任何工夫, 你就會為它們提供任何需要的營養。 這簡直是細菌的天堂, 除了偶爾會被 強迫性的推向出口。 除此之外, 你就是這些細菌最完美的生長環境, 而這些細菌對你也一樣重要。 它們幫助消化分解一些必要的營養素。 它們也保護你不受某些疾病的侵襲。
But what will come in the future? Are we at some kind of evolutionary equipoise as a species? Or, are we destined to become something different -- something, perhaps, even better adapted to the environment? Now let's take a step back in time to the Big Bang, 14 billion years ago -- the Earth, the solar system, about four and a half billion years -- the first signs of proto-life, maybe three to four billion years ago on Earth -- the first multi-celled organisms, perhaps as much as 800 or a billion years ago -- and then the human species, finally emerging in the last 130,000 years. In this vast unfinished symphony of the universe, life on Earth is like a brief measure; the animal kingdom, like a single measure; and human life, a small grace note. That was us. That also constitutes the entertainment portion of this talk, so I hope you enjoyed it.
但是未來會是怎麼樣呢? 身為一個物種,我們的演進 已經達到一種平衡了嗎? 又或者,我們就是註定 要變得不一樣 -- 要變得更加能夠適應 外在的環境? 現在我們回朔到140億年前, 宇宙大爆炸 -- 45億年前, 地球與太陽系的形成 -- 30~40億年前, 第一次出現原始生命的跡象 -- 大概8~10億年前, 第一個多細胞生物 誕生了 -- 最後,在這130,000年來 人類這個物種 終於出現了。 宇宙就像首未完成的交響樂, 地球上的生命就像其中幾個小節; 動物王國, 就像其中一個小節; 而人類, 就像其中一個音符而已。 這就是我們。 這也是這個研討會中較有娛樂性的部分, 希望你們有感受到。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Now when I was a freshman in college, I took my first biology class. I was fascinated by the elegance and beauty of biology. I became enamored of the power of evolution, and I realized something very fundamental: in most of the existence of life in single-celled organisms, each cell simply divides, and all of the genetic energy of that cell is carried on in both daughter cells. But at the time multi-celled organisms come online, things start to change. Sexual reproduction enters the picture. And very importantly, with the introduction of sexual reproduction that passes on the genome, the rest of the body becomes expendable. In fact, you could say that the inevitability of the death of our bodies enters in evolutionary time at the same moment as sexual reproduction.
我在大學一年級的時候 上了我人生中第一堂生物課。 生物學的高雅及美麗 深深的吸引了我。 我變得非常地著迷於進化的力量, 並且我了解到了一些很基本的事情: 在大部分現行存在的單細胞有機體 的生命當中, 每個細胞就這樣簡單的分裂, 然後該細胞中所有的基因能量 就被帶到了它的子細胞。 但是到了多細胞有機體的出現之後 就變的不一樣了。 有性生殖開始出現。 而且非常重要的是, 透過可以將基因傳遞給後代的 有性生殖, 身體的其他部位 變得可以被消耗的。 事實上,你可以說 在進化的時間線上, 我們身體最終會凋零死亡的必然性 跟有性生殖的開始 是同時出現的。
Now I have to confess, when I was a college undergraduate, I thought, okay, sex/death, sex/death, death for sex -- it seemed pretty reasonable at the time, but with each passing year, I've come to have increasing doubts. I've come to understand the sentiments of George Burns, who was performing still in Las Vegas well into his 90s. And one night, there's a knock at his hotel room door. He answers the door. Standing before him is a gorgeous, scantily clad showgirl. She looks at him and says, "I'm here for super sex." "That's fine," says George, "I'll take the soup."
現在我必須說, 當我還是大學生的時候, 我想,好吧,性/死亡,性/死亡,為了性而死亡-- 在當時似乎是非常有道理的, 但一年一年過去, 我開始有愈來愈多的懷疑。 我開始理解喬治• 伯恩斯的思想, 他當時還在拉斯維加斯表演, 直到他90多歲。 一天晚上,有人敲他下榻旅館的門。 他應了門。 站在門口的是個非常美麗又穿的很少的舞女。 他看著他說: 「我是來跟你消魂的做愛的。 」 「好吧」,喬治說,「我就喝湯吧」" ("super sex超級性交" 發音似 "soup or sex湯或是性交")
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
I came to realize, as a physician, that I was working toward a goal which was different from the goal of evolution -- not necessarily contradictory, just different. I was trying to preserve the body. I wanted to keep us healthy. I wanted to restore health from disease. I wanted us to live long and healthy lives. Evolution is all about passing on the genome to the next generation, adapting and surviving through generation after generation. From an evolutionary point of view, you and I are like the booster rockets designed to send the genetic payload into the next level of orbit and then drop off into the sea. I think we would all understand the sentiment that Woody Allen expressed when he said, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying."
我開始意識到 作為一個醫師, 一直以來我努力的目標與 進化論的目標是不一樣的-- 不見得互相違背,但就是不同。 我一直嘗試去保存身體。 我想要我們保持健康。 我想要使我們從疾病中恢復健康。 我想要我們活的又長久又健康。 而進化全是為了把基因 傳遞給下一代, 一代接著一代 適應並存活下去。 從進化的觀點來看, 我們就像是帶有推進器的火箭, 被設計來把"基因"載送到 下一層的軌道 然後落下掉進海裡。 我想我們都應該可以了解伍迪•艾倫所說的, 他說:「 我不想透過我的成就而不朽。」 「 我想透過不死而不朽。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Evolution does not necessarily favor the longest-lived. It doesn't necessarily favor the biggest or the strongest or the fastest, and not even the smartest. Evolution favors those creatures best adapted to their environment. That is the sole test of survival and success. At the bottom of the ocean, bacteria that are thermophilic and can survive at the steam vent heat that would otherwise produce, if fish were there, sous-vide cooked fish, nevertheless, have managed to make that a hospitable environment for them.
進化,不一定 是偏向活得最久的。 他不一定偏向最大的、 最強壯的或是最快速的, 甚至也不偏向最聰明的。 進化,偏向 那些最能夠適應 其環境的生物。 它完全是考驗著 成功存活下去的能力。 在海底, 耐高溫的細菌 可以存活在熱蒸汽的環境; 如果魚在那種環境, 就會慢慢的被煮熟 (sous-vide法式真空低溫(約60度C)煮法); 然而,它們卻可以 適應並接受那樣的環境。
So what does this mean, as we look back at what has happened in evolution, and as we think about the place again of humans in evolution, and particularly as we look ahead to the next phase, I would say that there are a number of possibilities. The first is that we will not evolve. We have reached a kind of equipoise. And the reasoning behind that would be, first, we have, through medicine, managed to preserve a lot of genes that would otherwise be selected out and be removed from the population. And secondly, we as a species have so configured our environment that we have managed to make it adapt to us as well as we adapt to it. And by the way, we immigrate and circulate and intermix so much that you can't any longer have the isolation that is necessary for evolution to take place.
這說明了什麼呢? 當我們回頭看看進化的過程發生了什麼事情, 當我們再次想想人類在進化中 扮演的角色, 尤其是向前看到 下一個階段, 我會跟你說 有許多的可能性。 第一種是我們停止進化。 我們已經達到 一種平衡。 這背後的原因是, 首先,我們透過醫學 保存下來很多本來 會被淘汰、從人口中消失 的那些基因。 再者,我們是一個能夠 配置環境的物種, 就跟我們適應環境一樣, 我們讓環境來適應我們。 另外,我們因為大量的 移民、流通以及混合, 我們已經不是相互隔離的, 而這又正是進化發生 的必要條件。
A second possibility is that there will be evolution of the traditional kind, natural, imposed by the forces of nature. And the argument here would be that the wheels of evolution grind slowly, but they are inexorable. And as far as isolation goes, when we as a species do colonize distant planets, there will be the isolation and the environmental changes that could produce evolution in the natural way.
第二種可能 就是傳統的進化方式, 自然的、由自然的力量推進的。 這個可能性的論點在於 進化雖然很緩慢, 但是是無法被阻擋或改變的。 就隔離性來說, 身為一個物種,當我們殖民到 其他遙遠的星球時, 就會有環境的變化並有其隔離性, 一種自然進化 必要的隔離性。
But there's a third possibility, an enticing, intriguing and frightening possibility. I call it neo-evolution -- the new evolution that is not simply natural, but guided and chosen by us as individuals in the choices that we will make. Now how could this come about? How could it be possible that we would do this? Consider, first, the reality that people today, in some cultures, are making choices about their offspring. They're, in some cultures, choosing to have more males than females. It's not necessarily good for the society, but it's what the individual and the family are choosing.
但是有第三種可能性, 一種吸引人、引人入勝卻也令人害怕的可能性。 我把它稱作新進化論-- 這種新的進化論 不只是單純自然的發展, 還會因為我們,做為單一個體, 所做的一些決定 而被引導、發展的。 要怎麼讓這個成真呢? 如何能做到這樣呢? 第一個考量的是 現在,有一其他些文化的人 對他們的後代做了一些選擇。 在一些文化中, 他們選擇生男性較多於生女性。 這樣對社會不見得是好的, 但卻是個體與家庭的選擇。
Think also, if it were possible ever for you to choose, not simply to choose the sex of your child, but for you in your body to make the genetic adjustments that would cure or prevent diseases. What if you could make the genetic changes to eliminate diabetes or Alzheimer's or reduce the risk of cancer or eliminate stroke? Wouldn't you want to make those changes in your genes? If we look ahead, these kind of changes are going to be increasingly possible.
再想想, 如果能夠選擇 不僅是選擇小孩的性別, 還可以選擇在你自己身體中 對那些基因進行一些的調整, 治癒疾病或是預防一些疾病的發生。 如果可以改變基因 來杜絕糖尿病或是阿茲海默症(老人癡呆) 或是降低罹患癌症的風險 或是杜絕中風的發生呢? 難道你不會想要 對你的基因 做那些改變嗎? 如果我們向前看, 這些改變 是愈來愈有可能達到的。
The Human Genome Project started in 1990, and it took 13 years. It cost 2.7 billion dollars. The year after it was finished in 2004, you could do the same job for 20 million dollars in three to four months. Today, you can have a complete sequence of the three billion base pairs in the human genome at a cost of about 20,000 dollars and in the space of about a week. It won't be very long before the reality will be the 1,000-dollar human genome, and it will be increasingly available for everyone. Just a week ago, the National Academy of Engineering awarded its Draper Prize to Francis Arnold and Willem Stemmer, two scientists who independently developed techniques to encourage the natural process of evolution to work faster and to lead to desirable proteins in a more efficient way -- what Frances Arnold calls "directed evolution." A couple of years ago, the Lasker Prize was awarded to the scientist Shinya Yamanaka for his research in which he took an adult skin cell, a fibroblast, and by manipulating just four genes, he induced that cell to revert to a pluripotential stem cell -- a cell potentially capable of becoming any cell in your body.
人類基因組計畫 1990年就開始了, 它花了13年的時間。 花了超過27億美元。 在2004年,該計畫結束一年後 你只需要花2000萬美元及3~4個月的時間 便可以做出一樣的成果。 今天,你只需要花費大約20000美元 以及大概一個禮拜的時間 就可以得到完整的基因序列 包含了人體30億個鹼基對的基因序列。 再過不了多久 應該就可以以1000美元 得到你的基因序列, 並且會愈來愈普及大眾。 就在一個禮拜前, 美國工程學院 頒發了它的查爾斯•斯塔克•德雷珀獎獎 給弗朗西斯•阿諾以及威廉•史丹摩, 兩位獨立發展出 使自然進化更加快速 並很有效率的 產生我們所想要的蛋白質-- 弗朗西斯•阿諾稱之為"引導進化"。 幾年前拉斯克奖 被頒發給科學家山中伸彌的研究, 在其研究中 它取出了一個成人的細胞, 一個神經膠原母細胞, 透過只改變了四個基因 他使這個細胞 還原到原始多能幹細胞-- 一個可以長成 你身體中任何一種細胞的細胞。
These changes are coming. The same technology that has produced the human insulin in bacteria can make viruses that will not only protect you against themselves, but induce immunity against other viruses. Believe it or not, there's an experimental trial going on with vaccine against influenza that has been grown in the cells of a tobacco plant. Can you imagine something good coming out of tobacco?
這些改變就要來臨。 使用讓細菌製造胰島素 一樣的技術就能 製造出病毒, 一種不只讓你能夠抵抗它們, 甚至讓你對其他的病毒也免疫的病毒。 你是否相信, 有個實驗正在研究 由菸草植物細胞培育出來的 一種流行性感冒的疫苗。 你可以想像菸草也能提供有益的東西嗎?
These are all reality today, and [in] the future, will be evermore possible. Imagine then just two other little changes. You can change the cells in your body, but what if you could change the cells in your offspring? What if you could change the sperm and the ova, or change the newly fertilized egg, and give your offspring a better chance at a healthier life -- eliminate the diabetes, eliminate the hemophilia, reduce the risk of cancer? Who doesn't want healthier children? And then, that same analytic technology, that same engine of science that can produce the changes to prevent disease, will also enable us to adopt super-attributes, hyper-capacities -- that better memory. Why not have the quick wit of a Ken Jennings, especially if you can augment it with the next generation of the Watson machine? Why not have the quick twitch muscle that will enable you to run faster and longer? Why not live longer? These will be irresistible.
這些都是現今可以實現的, 而在未來,有更多的可能性會被實現。 想像一下到時候 能夠改變的兩個小東西。 你可以改變你身體裡的細胞, 但如果你可以改變你下一代的細胞呢? 如果你可以對精子和卵子進行改變, 或是對剛受精的受精卵進行改變, 讓你的下一代 有更健康的生命-- 杜絕糖尿病、血友病, 降低罹患癌症的機率呢? 有誰不想要更健康的小孩呢? 到時候,這些能做出改變、 預防疾病的科學分析技術 同樣的科學技術 能讓我們 調整並取得一些 超級屬性, 超高的容量-- 更好的記憶力。 何不快速擁有像 肯•詹寧斯(美國〈危險邊緣〉機智問答節目冠軍) 的機智, 特別是如果你能夠把它再加上 下一代沃森機器的能力呢? (沃森機器為IBM推出的人工智慧電腦,在〈危險邊緣〉中挑戰肯•詹寧斯) 何不擁有快速收縮的肌肉, 讓你可以跑的更快、更遠? 何不活的更久? 這些變化都讓人無法拒絕。
And when we are at a position where we can pass it on to the next generation, and we can adopt the attributes we want, we will have converted old-style evolution into neo-evolution. We'll take a process that normally might require 100,000 years, and we can compress it down to a thousand years -- and maybe even in the next 100 years. These are choices that your grandchildren, or their grandchildren, are going to have before them. Will we use these choices to make a society that is better, that is more successful, that is kinder? Or, will we selectively choose different attributes that we want for some of us and not for others of us? Will we make a society that is more boring and more uniform, or more robust and more versatile? These are the kinds of questions that we will have to face.
當我們在一個可以傳給下一代、 選擇我們想要取得的屬性 的位置上時, 我們就把 傳統的進化論推進到 新的進化論。 我們將可以把一般 需要100,000年的進化過程 壓縮到1000年-- 甚至在接下來的100年就達成。 這些將是在你的孫子 或是他們的孫子 那個年代 就可以擁有的選擇。 我們會把這些選擇用來 讓這個社會更好、 更成功、更和藹嗎? 還是我們會選擇性的 選擇那些我們自己想擁有 卻不想給其他人擁有的那些屬性呢? 我們會把這個社會 變的更千編一律、更無聊, 還是變的更健全、更多元化呢? 這些是我們將來 必須面對的問題。
And most profoundly of all, will we ever be able to develop the wisdom, and to inherit the wisdom, that we'll need to make these choices wisely? For better or worse, and sooner than you may think, these choices will be up to us.
而更深層的問題是, 我們究竟能夠成長、發展, 及傳承下去, 並能夠明智地做出這些選擇嗎? 不論是好是壞, 而且比我們想像來得更快, 我們將會面臨這些選擇。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)